magpie patrick

Whilst I get the sentiment the narrow boat has become a global brand - aside from it's historic wanderings to France and Vienna (as cited by @Pluto) I've travelled much of the world and there are two things people world wide seem to know about us - Premiership football and narrow boats. They've spread to Ireland and France in common use, and I've seen a very endearing caricature of a narrow boat on the Erie Canal and an awful pastiche of one on the Gota Canal. I met a guy in Alice Springs who claimed never to have left the outback but he spoke in wonder of our narrow boats cos he'd seen them in National Geographic, and on the same trip I met a guy how seemed quite serious suggesting one for a trip boat on the big artificial lake in Canberra No one has yet asked me about taking one to the Irrawady or the Zambezi, but given they're made in China one on the Yangtze is surely only a matter of time...

The K&A presents particular problem due to the number of boats, the numbers of towpath users, and it being a right of way I have several times been relieved to get to the sanctuary of the coal canal after going for a walk along the K&A, especially towards Bath I'm not saying the boaters are right or within their rights, just that any issues are intensified by the numbers on both bank and water

That's deeper than a lot of our narrow canals! Length is often more of an issue, even on the Thames above Oxford, one of our bigger rivers, a 70 foot narrow boat can be a bit of a handful - I'll have to look up the Kiski River

With regards to travel - it's the act of moving outside one's immediate circle - if one lives in Marple then it doesn't matter whether one travels to Romiley or Lands End, one could carry it. The problem with travel the weekend of 21st/22nd March was that everybody had the same bright idea and went to a limited number of hotspots, I suspect anyone travelling 80 miles to walk abandoned bits of the Ashby Canal probably had it to themselves The really big change that came about on the 23rd was the regulations - they are law whereas up until then the pronouncements were only guidance - if you like its similar to the difference between driving too fast for the conditions and breaking the speed limit.

I'm still alive, you're still alive Cheese has already gone off once anyway, that's how it's made...

Not sure about Scotland, but that's exactly how the regs in this instance work in England and Wales - in England the Health Secretary can make the regulations, in Wales the First Minister, but in both cases those powers come from the same act, both regs quote "in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 45C(1) and (3)(c), 45F(2) and 45P of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984(1)."

How would that work though? Someone working at DIRFT might pass it every day... It's the big problem isn't it - some trips are legitimate, even, perhaps especially, some regular trips - they'd look right daft if the send a penalty notice to a nurse on a ward dealing with coronavirus

I've pondered that - it's quite clearly not readily practical to do the shopping on a run (well for most people - I could given the supermarket would be very near the end of the circuit so I cold either run with an empty rucsac or buy bags at the shops - this assumes the running kit has a pocket for my debit card of course!) It's virtually impossible to make regulations that have no grey areas - I suppose it could be "one trip out per day - up to you what you use it for" - which is what I've done albeit the walk to the shops has been rather circuitous on occasion (see above note re: running - I don't run!) - If I have no other reason to go out I go for a walk

The Welsh version (of the regulations - for the avoidance of doubt I mean the regulations in Wales not in the Welsh Language!) are here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2020/353/regulation/8/made The most obvious difference of substance is that exercise is specifically permitted once a day - in other instances the wording is certainly tighter than the version in force in England, but I'm not convinced the restrictions in section 8 of the Regulations (Wales) are substantively different to section 6 (England) other than the reference to exercise, that said I haven't used a fine toothcomb

The SI does specifically say it applies to England, presumably leaving the First Minister for Wales to present regulations for Wales

I can't find the press release from the NPCC but several sources are quoting this bit - you CAN drive a reasonable distance to exercise https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/people-can-drive-reasonable-distance-4006925?fbclid=IwAR1OaoINrGYBxnv_6B1nCIFGm1AA10_OWV360lRLi2NBNGT2nC7ORX4LdQU Like others, I'm not looking for loopholes - although I'm blessed with plenty of local walks from the door anyway

Salad if poorly...

To me (and it's not me who's the judge) I'd say that's all very reasonable, not least because you must call on your parents (vulnerable) and you can only do that where they live! Overall, knowing the geography of the area, it's difficult to see that journey in anyway as non-essential - you need to do these things and you need to do them at the locations. That's why the legislation is worded as it is - there is no such thing as "one size fits all"

True, but (and this is only my opinion) the term "essential travel" includes two elements - do you need to go and do you need to go there? I would concede they have only thought in terms of limiting movement per se rather than containing movement, but the latter is much more complicated as local journeys overlap - for example, someone in New Mills might reasonably go to Whaley Bridge Tesco, Marple Asda or Hazel Grove Sainsbury to shop, and each of those stores have an extended catchment to other towns It's much easier in Frome and surrounds where each town has it's own large supermarket and travel between towns is almost totally unnecessary for day to day needs - the main difference is people are shopping in the town they live in rather than the town they work in

A category that includes you by the looks of it We've been here before, on planning matters - apparently your opinion is superior that of others, they are wrong, you are right. If you were discussing you would be able to give examples such as legal precedent to back your arguments. You are not discussing, you are simply restating your position. On the planning one I decided that the opinion of my clients and the planning officers I work with mattered more than your opinion did, so I just stopped participating. Probably no-one needs daily exercise to survive, say, 6 weeks, at least not from the point of view of their physical health, if most of us stayed at home and only left once a week to drive to the shops for that long we'd be a little fatter and a little shorter of breath, but the situation would be recoverable. Indeed it must be assumed to be recoverable for those in the vulnerable category as they are apparently (under guidance) asked to stay at home full stop and the rest of us have an exception in the regulations if we are helping them. However, many people, used to going out every day just to go about our daily business would go up the wall (well known psychotherapy term ) if confined to barracks, and the smaller the barracks the more this would be the case - it's difficult not to conclude the government was considering mental health as well as physical. Driving s short distance to an open space may be beneficial because (a) the person in the car can't walk far and would benefit from using their limited capacity to walk in an open space or (b ) because they would have to walk on a crowded street whereas a short drive takes them to an open space. In other words the exercise would be better for them if they drove a little way If the government wanted a blanket ban on driving to a place for exercise they could have had one - it wouldn't have been difficult. They chose not to do it, just as they chose to leave the door open for couples to meet up when they don't live together (and in doing so, left the door open for other pairs too)