stranded
Well-known member
Errr... yes it does!
6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave [or be outside of] the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.
Last edited:
Errr... yes it does!
6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave [or be outside of] the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.
Cathy*
Active member
Deleted. Quote not included so doesn't make sense.
TwoHooter
Well-known member
I stand by that.
Sorry, I don't agree.
Regulation 6 states more fully:
6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave or be outside of the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—
...[there is then a list which DEFRA have stated include watersports, which they say includes motorboating]
My interpretation is that you can both leave and be outside of your home if you have a reasonable excuse which is within the list in 6-(2), and if that excuse applies at the time you leave home and continues to apply while you are outside I see nothing which says that you have to return before nightfall - or any other time. Putting the same thing another way, if I have left home and am outside my home and I have a reasonable excuse, where in the regulation is the time limit?
I know what the guidance is saying, both published and verbal, but I criticise this approach just as I did when I was pointing out that there was never a legal limit of one exercise per day. As I have already stated I think it's important that the rule of law should govern us, not the government press conferences or media statements by government ministers. If I am arrested or prosecuted for an offence I want to know what the law is, not what somebody's personal opinion is.
Before anyone throws a marlin spike at me I should say that I understand the government's motive for continuing to state that one can't stay overnight away from home. But I also think that if one does a risk assessment for staying overnight on a boat it is very hard to see where the additional risk arises, and everything we are doing is supposed to be guided by risk assessments, see the Covid-safe guidelines.
willbank
Member
This. I 100% agree.
And with the logic re time - if the government really wants us to be further restricted then it needs to put this into law and have the amendment properly debated.
stranded
Well-known member
I agree with everything you say except the point in contention. If you were sailing overnight, fair enough, but I don’t see how sleeping on the boat after a day of legal water sports would be significantly different from sleeping on the beach after a day of legal sunbathing. I presume your point would be that sleeping on board is inherent in the water sport of cruising sailing/motor boating? It would be interesting to see if you are are right. But I doubt we will ever find out because only a really stubborn old bugger would go to court to challenge a piffling fine, and where would you find someone like that in the sailing community...
TwoHooter
Well-known member
Sleeping (staying overnight) on the boat is indeed no different to sleeping on the beach.
What I am saying, wrongly or rightly, is that the regulations don't prohibit either, and if they wanted to make staying out of one's own home overnight illegal they should have used different words. If one's reasonable excuse for leaving one's home is valid then the regulations say nothing about imposing a time limit by which one must return.
stranded
Well-known member
Whereas my reading is that the regulation prohibits everything, then carves out exceptions - everything else remains unlawful. So sleeping on beach or boat is unlawful because it doesn’t, I would argue, constitute a reasonable excuse. Equally, no specific time limit is needed because that will be integral to the question whether an excuse is reasonable - they might find that an 8 hour bike ride is reasonable recreation/ exercise for an avid cyclist, but that doing Land’s End to John O’Groats is stretching the point. But maybe you are right - there is a rich history of crap rushed legislation and this will I am sure be found to be flawed in lots of ways. For my part I wouldn’t judge anyone who tested the point, but if I did I think I would just stump up the fine.
Solent Sailor
Active member
Let me throw another suggestion into the mix - anglers have been told (by DEFRA) that they may fish overnight. This is in the full knowledge (or reasonable expectation of knowledge) that many night fishermen (carp anglers in particular) do little more than sleep inside their bivvies with their rods out.
So, assuming I keep a line over the side, I am an angler as well as a boater and therefore within DEFRA's direct guidance once more.
So, assuming I keep a line over the side, I am an angler as well as a boater and therefore within DEFRA's direct guidance once more.
TwoHooter
Well-known member
Legal advice here. Downloadable defence document here. No need for a rod licence at sea.
But this is getting silly, amusing, and dangerous, all at the same time.
Different departments of central government are issuing conflicting guidance. The Health Secretary says go home at night but it seems that doesn't apply if you're an angler, and nobody has published a risk assessment to explain the guidance. Who is making the right call here?
We are subjected to conflicting advice from central and local government. Central government says it's OK to go to public open spaces but many local authorities are erecting signs telling us to p**s off. Which is right?
England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all going their own way. I drove through Wales last week en route to our boat and I wondered if I would get stopped at the border. I therefore carried my passport, evidence of my home address, and evidence of the reason for my journey. Overkill? Who knows?
Credit: Daily Telegraph
The regulations on which the guidance should be based are badly drafted (I accept they were drafted in a very short space of time) and are subject to the "Made Negative" procedure which means they have not yet been laid before parliament for debate. Will they ever be debated given how supine and remote our parliamentarians are becoming?
One of the most important tenets of English Common Law is 'Everything which is not forbidden is allowed'. We now have Cooronavirus laws and guidance which seem to work the other way round - everything is forbidden unless it is allowed. Who promoted this subtle but devastating change to a foundation stone of our ancient laws? Why did they do it?
Meanwhile we are careering towards either loss of purchasing power of the currency, or penal taxation, or both. Will a wealth tax be part of the recovery plan - say 1% on net assets over £1mm? Kids and students are having their education wrecked. How will they catch up? Pension funds are losing huge chunks of their income through dividend cuts and loss of commercial rents. How will this money be replaced? Unemployment has soared past the peak of the Great Financial Crisis and we haven't seen the peak yet. What is the world going to look like for job seekers when they emerge, blinking and confused, from their lockdown-induced, furlough-financed stupour?
I dare say I'll be accused of either thread drift or politicising a public health crisis, but if we carry on like this too long I very much doubt we'll all still have our boats at the end of it. Whilst that is a very small issue in the overall scheme of things, and while I accept many will not agree with my point of view, I hope that this possibility does at least make my comments and questions relevant to this forum.
Solent Sailor
Active member
Couldn't agree more.
Your name isn't Sumption by any chance is it? If so, I feel honoured to have such illuminati of my profession on here!
IDAMAY
Active member
No, Two Hooter isn`t the learned judge but I venture to say he is in the same league in terms of erudition and perceptiveness. I think he hits several nails on the head, particularly the risks to our liberty. Government is not known for readily reversing legislation, however perverse it may seem. This creates a very dangerous long term possibility.
Cotillion
Member
So do we think a at night at anchor (whatever the reason, sleeping, fishing, mistress) is within the law?
Yes or No?
Yes or No?
BabySharkDooDooDooDooDoo
Well-known member
Came across this report referring to camper vans Police wake up visitors in campervans for breaching Covid-19 lockdown
However D&C police have a parochial approach to policing which sometimes is a distant relative of the requirements of the regulations.
However D&C police have a parochial approach to policing which sometimes is a distant relative of the requirements of the regulations.
Last edited:
stranded
Well-known member
No.
Greg2
Well-known member
All too easy to criticise the Police and join the red tops in highlighting what are isolated examples in reality.
The Police don’t make the law but they have the sometimes invidious task of taking what the Govt hand down and trying to make sense of it. In the current circumstances they are dealing with an unprecedented piece of legislation and are dealing with it in a very pragmatic way - Engage, Explain and Encourage are all entirely in keeping with our model of policing by consent in a liberal democracy and with Enforce being the last resort people have plenty of opportunity to avoid getting to this stage.
Whilst the blanket ‘ban’ on staying overnight is frustrating for us, because we live in the same area that our boat is located, I get that a simple rule for all is a better option in terms of likelihood of compliance. It isn’t about risk of infection, it is about movement of people and staying in areas where they are not ‘counted’ for public services (GP, hospitals etc), which kind of makes sense.
On the point about being ruled by law, our laws are often not absolute and can change as cases are determined by binding courts. Add to that the discretion that Police Officers have in deciding whether to make action or not, there is not always the precision that the letter of the law appears to provide.
In the current unprecedented circumstances the law is supported by Govt guidance, which will influence what is regarded as a ‘reasonable excuse’ for being away from one’s home. Whilst I understand the academic legal debate on the legitimacy of this an alternative view is that our democratically elected Govt are providing guidance on their intent when making the law to which it relates in dealing with a very difficult situation. Perhaps the could be seen as helpful? Just an alternative take on things ?
The Police don’t make the law but they have the sometimes invidious task of taking what the Govt hand down and trying to make sense of it. In the current circumstances they are dealing with an unprecedented piece of legislation and are dealing with it in a very pragmatic way - Engage, Explain and Encourage are all entirely in keeping with our model of policing by consent in a liberal democracy and with Enforce being the last resort people have plenty of opportunity to avoid getting to this stage.
Whilst the blanket ‘ban’ on staying overnight is frustrating for us, because we live in the same area that our boat is located, I get that a simple rule for all is a better option in terms of likelihood of compliance. It isn’t about risk of infection, it is about movement of people and staying in areas where they are not ‘counted’ for public services (GP, hospitals etc), which kind of makes sense.
On the point about being ruled by law, our laws are often not absolute and can change as cases are determined by binding courts. Add to that the discretion that Police Officers have in deciding whether to make action or not, there is not always the precision that the letter of the law appears to provide.
In the current unprecedented circumstances the law is supported by Govt guidance, which will influence what is regarded as a ‘reasonable excuse’ for being away from one’s home. Whilst I understand the academic legal debate on the legitimacy of this an alternative view is that our democratically elected Govt are providing guidance on their intent when making the law to which it relates in dealing with a very difficult situation. Perhaps the could be seen as helpful? Just an alternative take on things ?
Blue Sunray
Well-known member
There has been refreshingly is little criticism of the the Police on here rather more, including me, take issue with other organisations and people who seem to think that they suddenly possess police powers, or even the power to invent random rules for water users.
However in view of your final paragraph it is worth re-iterating that government press conference statements have no weight in law.
Last edited:
Hooligan
Well-known member
It's a pretty big dilemna I suspect. After all there is probably little difference between going on your boat and overnighting and going to your second home and overnighting there. Right now one can drive 5 hours to one's second home, walk around the garden, go buy some lunch in the local supermarket to eat while you parambulate but then have to drive home. 10 hours, a nice walk and a bite to eat. I think that in essence, at least for now, the view is that if one starts making exceptions to the guidance ie ok to overnight on a boat but not overnight at your second home, then it all becomes chaotic - more chaotic probably a better way of putting it. I also suspect that things will change pretty soon. After all the summer is coming and if the government cancels the whole summer holiday for the nation - it is already trying to cancel holidays abroad even though EU countries are opening up - then I believe they really will have a problem enforcing anything, and one thing we also know about this government is how closely they look at polls. And nothing gets in the way of an Englishman and his summer holiday!! So come July and August I would bet that holiday lets/homes, boats, caravan parks etc will all be open and available. Hotels I suspect not.
Greg2
Well-known member
But they (formal guidance) would be taken into account by a court when considering the issue of ‘reasonable excuse’ in the unlikely event that such a case ever makes it that far. So of some relevance but not law in themselves of course
(There was a mild dig at the police in an earlier comment)
Blue Sunray
Well-known member
Deleted
rickwales
Member
In Wales I yesterday had a email from my Yacht Club saying that there had been complaints about members working on their boats and to stay away from the club as the regulations still forbid it
