jon and michie
Well-Known Member
You could in theory leave the marina on day 1 say 23:50 go for drive and come back at 00:10 which is another day.
TwoHooter
Well-Known Member
I have noticed an increasing tendency for people to make the law up. Very few people take the trouble to read the actual law.
Law is important because it is the only defence against infringement of personal liberty and the confiscation of private property.
The principal law relevant to this discussion is the Coronavirus Act 2020 ("the Act") and (in England) the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, as amended by SI 447 and 500 ("the Regulations"). This is up to date as of this morning. Everything else is either guidance or opinion.
There is no legal basis for such quarantine. The Act provides that a public health official can order the detention of a person if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that person in England is potentially infectious. I do not see how any public health official could be acting lawfully if they regarded a person as potentially infections merely because they had spent the night on a boat. And there is no quarantine for persons entering the UK from abroad so even if the boat had gone abroad (or to Wales!) overnight there would need to be evidence of potential infection to justify detention. I think the person who wrote that statement on behalf of Lymington Yacht Haven is misguided to say the least. I hope someone will correct them. The Yacht Haven Group should not be making unfounded statements like this. It is unprofessional of them to do so.
Concerning overnight stays generally, parts of the government's guidance are not in accordance with the law. Guidance on accessing green spaces safely states 'There are no restrictions on how far you can travel to get to the countryside. However you should not stay overnight. Campsites and caravan parks are closed and you cannot visit a holiday or second home'. And Essential Travel Guidance states 'Essential travel does not include visits to second homes, camp sites, caravan parks or similar, whether for isolation purposes or holidays. People must remain in their primary residence.' The relevant law is in Regulation 6(1) and 6(2)(ba). Regulation 6(1) restricts leaving the place where a person is living but permits this if there is a reasonable excuse specified in 6(2). Regulation 6 nowhere prohibits staying away if one has a reasonable excuse for leaving in the first place. Regulation 5(3) specifically closes businesses which provide holiday accommodation including caravan parks and holiday homes but it does not prohibit the use of boats, private caravans not on a caravan park, or private holiday homes.
I have also looked at the law concerning closure of marinas. I think the closure of marinas was a policy decision by owners. There was never a legal obligation to close marinas because marinas are not mentioned anywhere in the Regulations, particularly in 4, 5, or Schedule 2 Parts 1 and 2. The only restriction affecting marinas was the prevention of access by boat owners who could not justify visiting them for exercise in the original Regulations before they were amended.
But what is sauce for the goose should also be sauce for the gander. The Guidance on accessing green spaces safely allows 'all forms of water sports practiced (sic) on open waterways, including sailing, windsurfing, canoeing, rowing, kayaking, surfing, paddle-boarding and the use of privately-owned motorised craft (in line with the guidance issued by the relevant navigation authority).. But this is guidance, not law, and the inclusion of water-based activities probably has no basis in law because the definition of public open spaces inserted in Regulaton 6(2)(ba) yesterday does not include water!
I'm happy to consider any criticism of the above - this is a moving target.
Lucky Duck
Well-Known Member
Bearing in mind that the guidance accompanying the first two editions of the regulations was misleading at best then I suspect you are right that there isn't currently anything in the regulations preventing staying overnight.
Unfortunately there have been plenty of examples of the authorities not letting such details get in the way of their actions such as people being turned away from railway stations and having the barbecues kicked over (not at the same time!) before the regulations even came into law.
Unfortunately there have been plenty of examples of the authorities not letting such details get in the way of their actions such as people being turned away from railway stations and having the barbecues kicked over (not at the same time!) before the regulations even came into law.
willbank
Active Member
I wholeheartedly agree here - having read the law in detail there is no mention of "overnight" or any other definition of the amount of time that you are allowed to "leave or be outside of" the place where you are living in 6(1) if you have a "reasonable excuse".
And as we know a reasonable excuse "includes the need... to visit a public open space for the purpose of open-air recreation to promote their physical or mental health or emotional wellbeing" in 6(2)(ba).
As an aside 6(2) reads: "For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—" but I think you could interpret that as not being a definitive list of the only reasonable needs, but simply a list of some reasonable needs.
Furthermore, there is absolutely no reference to second homes, holiday homes or similar in any of the legislation (Regulations or the Coronavirus Act 2020) save for the need for "a person responsible for carrying on a business consisting of the provision of holiday accommodation... to cease to carry on that business during the emergency period". There is absolutely no legal direction for private citizens using private property beyond the reference to "where they are living". And as we have discussed you can have a "reasonable excuse" for leaving there for an unspecified amount of time for, amongst other things, "essential upkeep, maintenance and functioning of the household" which could arguably include property owned by the household and forming a critical asset of the household
(And, being really facetious it is also a reasonable excuse to travel to your second home "to undertake any activities required for the rental or sale of that property" - because this whole thing made you feel like you needed to put it on the market to make up for lost income or some other C19-related economic harm.)
Given that property law and one's rights to use one's property are central to English law I am not surprised that they are not attempting to restrict this.
The whole matter of guidance and the suggestion that we must follow this or else we are acting illegally is a dangerous interpretation/extension of what the government has specifically enacted and we should take it for what it is: guidance, perhaps sensible, but not binding.
TwoHooter
Well-Known Member
Two things are on my mind about all this. First, the difference between law and guidance. Second, what we should do as individuals to be socially responsible during this disaster (I've decided it's time to stop calling it a crisis).
Law in our country consists of statute, common, and case law. For present purposes statute law is the most important. Statute law consists principally of (a) primary legislation which is 'enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same', and is signed by the Queen, and (b) secondary or delegated legislation which is signed by a minister (let's not get into the distinction between ministers and secretaries of state) and must be laid before parliament. The government as a whole is accountable to the people for their Acts. The individual who signs secondary legislation is accountable to some extent for it, even if the accountability extends no further than the public having a named individual to blame. The whole point is that there is accountability and for that reason considerable care is taken with the wording, because legislation is supposed to say what it means and mean what it says. But guidance is not like that. It is published annonymously (only a government department is named, not an individual) and written by civil servants who are pretty much immune from accountability. In extremis a civil servant who has made a mistake will divert criticism to their principal, the government minister who is responsible for their department. The reason there is a distinction between law and guidance is that someone is accountable for the former and in reality nobody is accountable for the latter, which means it should be treated with caution and always be challenged if it is not accordance with and subservient to the law.
So far as social responsibility goes, if I have symptoms of the virus I ought not to go near you and I certainly shouldn't cough in your presence. Why? Because if I do there is a significant risk that I will infect you and I have done nothing to mitigate that risk. But am I being socially irresponsible if I have no symptoms, and know that I have not been near anyone who has developed symptoms, and drive my car to the marina, and walk to my boat taking care not to go near others, and go out in my boat in fair weather with a forecast of more to come, and anchor somewhere, and stay overnight? I suppose there is a risk that I might get into trouble and the RNLI might be called out, but is that risk sufficient to mean that staying on the pontoon is the right action? And how, exactly, is staying on my boat overnight, on the pontoon or at anchor, more risky than going backwards and forwards from my home frquently - especially if I live 150 miles from my boat (as I do)?
Law in our country consists of statute, common, and case law. For present purposes statute law is the most important. Statute law consists principally of (a) primary legislation which is 'enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same', and is signed by the Queen, and (b) secondary or delegated legislation which is signed by a minister (let's not get into the distinction between ministers and secretaries of state) and must be laid before parliament. The government as a whole is accountable to the people for their Acts. The individual who signs secondary legislation is accountable to some extent for it, even if the accountability extends no further than the public having a named individual to blame. The whole point is that there is accountability and for that reason considerable care is taken with the wording, because legislation is supposed to say what it means and mean what it says. But guidance is not like that. It is published annonymously (only a government department is named, not an individual) and written by civil servants who are pretty much immune from accountability. In extremis a civil servant who has made a mistake will divert criticism to their principal, the government minister who is responsible for their department. The reason there is a distinction between law and guidance is that someone is accountable for the former and in reality nobody is accountable for the latter, which means it should be treated with caution and always be challenged if it is not accordance with and subservient to the law.
So far as social responsibility goes, if I have symptoms of the virus I ought not to go near you and I certainly shouldn't cough in your presence. Why? Because if I do there is a significant risk that I will infect you and I have done nothing to mitigate that risk. But am I being socially irresponsible if I have no symptoms, and know that I have not been near anyone who has developed symptoms, and drive my car to the marina, and walk to my boat taking care not to go near others, and go out in my boat in fair weather with a forecast of more to come, and anchor somewhere, and stay overnight? I suppose there is a risk that I might get into trouble and the RNLI might be called out, but is that risk sufficient to mean that staying on the pontoon is the right action? And how, exactly, is staying on my boat overnight, on the pontoon or at anchor, more risky than going backwards and forwards from my home frquently - especially if I live 150 miles from my boat (as I do)?
Blue Sunray
Well-Known Member
All entirely logical and sensible apart from my italicised section as asymptomatic carriers do seem to be very much a issue with this.
longjohnsilver
Well-Known Member
That’s almost hilarious. I do hope someone has a word in their ear.
TwoHooter
Well-Known Member
I don't disagree with you but I still do not understand how staying on a boat overnight is more risky than going out for the day only.
longjohnsilver
Well-Known Member
It’s not. I believe a lot of minor officials are enjoying the perceived extra powers they think have been granted to them.
Theres little logic involved, unfortunately.
Assassin
Well-Known Member
Wrong quote, should read:
It’s not. I believe a lot of minor officials are ABUSING the perceived extra powers they think have been granted to them.
I say this for a simple reason, interpretation; everyone seems to be putting their interpretation on the legislation and there is no continuity.
Throw a spanner in the works and claim "squatters rights" and see what happens.
jon and michie
Well-Known Member
Hopefully we will be able to stay aboard from June when the next reduction measures are announced
Lucky Duck
Well-Known Member
Hopefully, however I noticed many camp sites were giving early July as an anticipated opening date.
All this assumes that there isn't some kind of reaction if everyone else heads off to the Lake District or the Cornish beaches this weekend
All this assumes that there isn't some kind of reaction if everyone else heads off to the Lake District or the Cornish beaches this weekend
ashtead
Well-Known Member
Next we will be hearing the waters of the Solent are over crowded stopping further relaxation. Has anyone visited Newtown creek recently for a day sail of course?
colhel
Well-Known Member
I think what they're trying to do with the staying overnight thing is to keep it fair on everybody. On the press conference the other night they talked about why you could only meet one person from outside your household, the answer being, if they put a number on it would be unfair to larger families. Wether the rules specifically say you can't stay onboard, I don't know, but being the marina staff are following instructions from higher up, I think it would be too unfair on them to breach that request.
ashtead
Well-Known Member
I fully get not using marina facilities given risks posed to staff but if you wish to anchor in a quiet bay or pick up a buoy I rather think your vessel ceases to be a second home to extent if ever was. I wonder if they will be moving on caravans parked up on the downs which might a similar scenario to watch out for as the Derby approaches.
Blue Sunray
Well-Known Member
Derby is going to be very odd this year and there is no sign of the usual (authorised) encampment being prepared. I expect that as usual the problems will be in surrounding areas rather than the Downs themselves. That said there were a few 'vans and police in the Holiday Inn car park the other day.
2020 Derby set to stay at Epsom
Seastoke
Well-Known Member
On a building site to day we had to have hi vis with covid supervisor on and the two toilets had a man on each one and they cleaned after each visit.
TwoHooter
Well-Known Member
It depends what you mean by rules.
The law is very simple. Regulation 6 does NOT prohibit staying away from home if one has a reasonable excuse for leaving in the first place.
IDAMAY
Well-Known Member
However IIRC DEFRA Q and A say that you must return to your home. Agreed that does not appear to be the law but it`s not a point I would want to test.
Assassin
Well-Known Member
Sounds like you need a change of diet?
