Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Lily Rose

Busy towpaths and CRT's response

Featured Posts

5 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

There are several ways in which behaviour in society is regulated, statutory law is but one way. In addition there are factors such as social/peer pressure, Natural and Moral Law, ethics and, not least, plain common sense. I don't think anyone significant has suggested that the scenes of mass weekend walking was illegal (in any case it was before the law was passed) but the 'Guidance' clearly indicates that it is counter productive to the reduction in the transmission of Covid-19. ("Please do this so that I don't have to force you to do it") There are lots of things in all parts of life that are not explicitly barred by law but which are clearly anti-social.

The problem is that each individual silently justifies their actions, and it adds up to a disaster.

 

From the film Men In Black: 

 

J: "Why the big secret? People are smart. They can handle it."

K: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."

Edited by doratheexplorer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

There are several ways in which behaviour in society is regulated, statutory law is but one way. In addition there are factors such as social/peer pressure, Natural and Moral Law, ethics and, not least, plain common sense. I don't think anyone significant has suggested that the scenes of mass weekend walking was illegal (in any case it was before the law was passed) but the 'Guidance' clearly indicates that it is counter productive to the reduction in the transmission of Covid-19. ("Please do this so that I don't have to force you to do it") There are lots of things in all parts of life that are not explicitly barred by law but which are clearly anti-social.

Indeed. Equally there may be circumstances where guidance exists which can be ignored because doing so isn't counter productive to the reduction in the transmission of the virus, nor is it anti social. Some may not like it because they feel those doing so are gaining an unfair advantage but if they considered the bigger picture, it could well be that they themselves are enjoying privileges that others don't.  

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

 

As always, the law is open to a certain amount of interpretation until it's been fully tested.  With regard to exercise, it says:

 

"Restrictions on movement

6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—

 

(b)to take exercise either alone or with other members of their household;"

 

Now you could interpret that to mean that any travelling done with a view to conducting exercise is therefore ok.  So by extension I could get up early tomorrow, drive to Wastdale Head, and climb Scafell Pike.  I think most people, and most courts would agree that is not a reasonable interpretation of the law.  So what travelling to a place of exercise would be reasonable?  Welll it depends on individual circumstances, but I would say that if a person could not reasonably conduct exercise from their own front door, then a short drive would be permitted.  The trouble is, I can't think of a scenario where that holds.  So the reasonable thing to do in the circumstances would be to only exercise from your own place unless you have a good reason not to. 

 

Remember it says:  "(b)to take exercise either alone or with other members of their household;"

 

It doesn't say "(b) to travel to take exercise either alone or with other members of their household;"

 

But you are falling into the trap which a lot of people do, by gold plating the rules beyond which is required. In the last two lines above you have added your own bit with two words ‘to travel’. The law does not include these words, so why have you. It is the case in this country that individuals can do anything they wish, unless the law says you can’t. If you wish to place further restrictions on yourself, beyond those the law requires is your choice, but it is also the choice of others not to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Phil. said:

But you are falling into the trap which a lot of people do, by gold plating the rules beyond which is required. In the last two lines above you have added your own bit with two words ‘to travel’. The law does not include these words, so why have you. It is the case in this country that individuals can do anything they wish, unless the law says you can’t. If you wish to place further restrictions on yourself, beyond those the law requires is your choice, but it is also the choice of others not to do so.

I added them to demonstrate that the law does NOT say that.  The first line of the relevant bit says:

 

"6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse."

 

Thereafter, everything listed is an exception.  The law is commonly written this way.  The presumption is that all movement outside the property is forbidden - except where it is expressly allowed for in the following clauses.

 

It does not have it the other way round, like to seem to wish it were - that every reason to go out is allowed, except a load of reasons which are not allowed.  That would be ridiculous.

 

You say:  "It is the case in this country that individuals can do anything they wish, unless the law says you can’t." 

 

This law says you can't.

 

Maybe you need to read what it actually says, not what you wish it says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Graham Davis said:

A boat moored on the tow path is no different to the millions of terraced houses whose front doors open straight into the pavement. Are some people suggesting that no one should be walking along those pavements? Utterly ridiculous!!

If a person is inside their boat then they are perfectly safe.

A bloody site better than in a block of flats

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

I added them to demonstrate that the law does NOT say that.  The first line of the relevant bit says:

 

"6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse."

 

Thereafter, everything listed is an exception.  The law is commonly written this way.  The presumption is that all movement outside the property is forbidden - except where it is expressly allowed for in the following clauses.

 

It does not have it the other way round, like to seem to wish it were - that every reason to go out is allowed, except a load of reasons which are not allowed.  That would be ridiculous.

 

You say:  "It is the case in this country that individuals can do anything they wish, unless the law says you can’t." 

 

This law says you can't.

 

Maybe you need to read what it actually says, not what you wish it says.

I think it is you are getting mixed up. I quite accept the basic position in law currently, is that people must remain indoors, save for the exceptions that the law allows. One of these is the right to leave the premises in order to exercise. The law does not dictate how, where, or when this must be done, you are simply granted an exception in order to do it. I’m afraid it is yourself who needs to read what the law actually says, and not to over interpret it. You don’t need to take my word for it either, yesterday a retired Supreme Court judge stated the same. In going beyond the wording of the law, the police are acting unlawfully. You may not like that, but it is still a fact.

My statement that in this country and individual can do anything they wish unless the law says they can’t, still holds true.

Edited by Phil.
  • Greenie 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Phil. said:

I think it is you are getting mixed up. I quite accept the basic position in law currently, is that people must remain indoors, save for the exceptions that the law allows.

No, I don't think it says that. "The place where you are living" surely means your home, which would include, for example, your garden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Athy said:

No, I don't think it says that. "The place where you are living" surely means your home, which would include, for example, your garden.

Yes you are correct, I used an informal term when debating law, a fatal mistake. The law says where you are living, it could mean your home, but it could also mean somewhere else, provided it is, where you are living.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Phil. said:

Yes you are correct, I used an informal term when debating law, a fatal mistake. 

Not an informal term, but a quite specific one: "indoors" means "within a building".

Though earlier I was in our greenhouse and our garden shed, and I would not consider those as "indoors". Perhaps those are structures rather than buildings. It does get complicated....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Athy said:

Not an informal term, but a quite specific one: "indoors" means "within a building".

Though earlier I was in our greenhouse and our garden shed, and I would not consider those as "indoors". Perhaps those are structures rather than buildings. It does get complicated....

I disagree about it being complicated, if, and I include myself in this, the correct terms are used, and bits are not added. Where you are living, means exactly that, irrespective of whether it is a house, boat, car, van, or even a tent in the woods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Athy said:

No, I don't think it says that. "The place where you are living" surely means your home, which would include, for example, your garden.

It actually says: -

(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1), the place where a person is living includes the premises where they live together with any garden, yard, passage, stair, garage, outhouse or other appurtenance of such premises

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Phil. said:

I disagree about it being complicated, if, and I include myself in this, the correct terms are used, and bits are not added. Where you are living, means exactly that, irrespective of whether it is a house, boat, car, van, or even a tent in the woods.

Do you disagree about my having a sense of humour too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Athy said:

Do you disagree about my having a sense of humour too?

Not at all, but neither would I want some to feel they are more constrained than the law actually requires, especially if they receive unwarranted fines, as was the case the other day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Phil. said:

Not at all, but neither would I want some to feel they are more constrained than the law actually requires, especially if they receive unwarranted fines, as was the case the other day. 

...and nor would I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Phil. said:

I think it is you are getting mixed up. I quite accept the basic position in law currently, is that people must remain indoors, save for the exceptions that the law allows. One of these is the right to leave the premises in order to exercise. The law does not dictate how, where, or when this must be done, you are simply granted an exception in order to do it. I’m afraid it is yourself who needs to read what the law actually says, and not to over interpret it. You don’t need to take my word for it either, yesterday a retired Supreme Court judge stated the same. In going beyond the wording of the law, the police are acting unlawfully. You may not like that, but it is still a fact.

My statement that in this country and individual can do anything they wish unless the law says they can’t, still holds true.

And other lawyers have said the opposite. 

 

What you are asserting as a fact, is actually an opinion. 

 

It hasn't yet been tested in court.

 

While driving in your car you are clearly not exercising. 

 

Your final statement I agree with.  What is at best unclear is whether traveling to a place of exercise is lawful at the moment.  I think it isn't.  You think it is.

 

What is definitely true is that our elected government doesn't want us to.  The reasons for this have been much discussed.

23 minutes ago, Phil. said:

I disagree about it being complicated, if, and I include myself in this, the correct terms are used, and bits are not added. Where you are living, means exactly that, irrespective of whether it is a house, boat, car, van, or even a tent in the woods.

Where you are living could mean the town you are in.  Some may be trying to interpret it that way, which is why I tried to explain about reasonableness in law earlier.  I'll drag out the man in the Clapham Omnibus if I have to!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, doratheexplorer said:

And other lawyers have said the opposite. 

 

What you are asserting as a fact, is actually an opinion. 

 

It hasn't yet been tested in court.

 

While driving in your car you are clearly not exercising. 

 

Your final statement I agree with.  What is at best unclear is whether traveling to a place of exercise is lawful at the moment.  I think it isn't.  You think it is.

 

What is definitely true is that our elected government doesn't want us to.  The reasons for this have been much discussed.

I have not seen any other legal opinions, but it should be pointed out that a Supreme Court justice would have been a final arbiter in respect of interpretations on a point of law, and therefore his opinion carries significant weight.

 

The fact I am asserting is that the law does not specifically prohibit driving to a place of exercise. It still doesn’t.

 

Agreed, it has not been tested in court, but if the law does not prohibit it, it would be unlikely a court would find against you if you did it.

 

I agree the government don’t want people to drive all over the countryside, and I’m not suggesting people should. But, in certain circumstances it may be appropriate to do so, and importantly, the law does not prohibit it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

  I'll drag out the man in the Clapham Omnibus if I have to!

Sorry, you won't find him on it - he's working from home at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just been yelled at to get out of the way by a jogger who came up behind us on a narrow bit of towpath when walking the dogs. We can only hope he had tested negative just before. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 1st ade said:

It actually says: -

(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1), the place where a person is living includes the premises where they live together with any garden, yard, passage, stair, garage, outhouse or other appurtenance of such premises

Which means that the argument about it being the town you live in is pretty well shot down

 

On more general points - It isn't helped by numerous differences between what is said in the regulations, what has been said in guidance and what various media sources have quoted the first two as saying

 

The link provided earlier and repeated here...

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/made

 

Is the only bit of legislation in place: guidance can interpret it but can not embellish it or contradict it (or rather, it can but if it does the legislation has primacy) - the regulations on travel restrictions could include a requirement to comply with guidance issued by the secretary of state - they do not.

 

This means, for example, that the oft-stated requirement to exercise only once a day is guidance, not law, the regulation doesn't say how often. It would be a matter of fact and degree as to whether one needs to go out more than once a day (or possibly less), or whether the exercise must take in the trip to the shops/pharmacy/post office or whether they can be separate trips. It doesn't specify whether one can go for a walk from the supermarket having driven there...

 

It's interesting to note the restrictions on gatherings - "of more than two people" unless "all persons...are members of the same household" - does that mean that two individuals who are not in the same household can meet up? It rather looks like it, otherwise why specify? This at least covers a casual conversation in the street and could cover a romantic relationship where the two people don't live together. 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

...and could cover a romantic relationship where the two people don't live together.

I suspect this one is why it was put in. And neighbours getting shopping (although clearly if you can stay apart do so - but it's not much good getting shopping for an elderly neighbour then leaving it on the doorstep if they can't pick it up)

 

As a Local Councillor we've had a number of I'm divorced, does this mean the kids have to choose Mum  or Dad for the duration..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/03/2020 at 22:46, roland elsdon said:

Love the idea that residential boats on the towpath  have any more right to the towpath than local house owners and  ratepayers. Next boatowner i see walking through the village on having parked on our street i will tell to social distance off.

What about the millions and millions of house dwellers with front doors opening directly onto pavements less than 2 metres wide?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wandering snail said:

Just been yelled at to get out of the way by a jogger who came up behind us on a narrow bit of towpath when walking the dogs. We can only hope he had tested negative just before. 

Well it would have washed off him if he had done that to us....

  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Phil. said:

I have not seen any other legal opinions, but it should be pointed out that a Supreme Court justice would have been a final arbiter in respect of interpretations on a point of law, and therefore his opinion carries significant weight.

 

The fact I am asserting is that the law does not specifically prohibit driving to a place of exercise. It still doesn’t.

 

Agreed, it has not been tested in court, but if the law does not prohibit it, it would be unlikely a court would find against you if you did it.

 

I agree the government don’t want people to drive all over the countryside, and I’m not suggesting people should. But, in certain circumstances it may be appropriate to do so, and importantly, the law does not prohibit it.

I've already explained why the law does prohibit it.  I won't be repeating myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.