UKH

Rescuers slam people travelling to complete Three Peaks and have days out in Yorkshire Dales during lockdown

Rescuers have slammed people who travelled to complete the Three Peaks and have days out in the Yorkshire Dales over the weekend.

Yorkshire Post

https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/health/coronavirus/rescuers-slam-peo...

Good post. The comment in the article -

"The group, which is made up of local volunteers, said that travelling for exercise is "invitation to head out into the National Parks"."

is exactly what I thought some people would do.

When travel for exercise was discouraged there were folks going to the Peak and Snowdonia to do their exercise. Now the police advice about travelling for exercise(provided the exercise takes longer than the travel) really is, as the article says, is an invitation.

Dave

It wasn't meant to be Police advice about exercise, it was advice *to Police Officers* about what enforcement they can legally conduct.

Whoever put it on a public website rather than circulating it to the Forces directly, marked Secret, has a lot to answer for.  We don't for example publish the "10% + 2mph" thing, there was no need to publish this either.

I could imagine that in this era of celebrating self-achievement on social media there might be a thought that kudos would attach to "Doing the Peaks Under Lockdown .."

First of all, let me be clear.  I have been and will continue to self isolate as per the guidelines ,so I'm just discussing not advocating, but I have to admit I am struggling to see what harm is done by travelling alone in a car to an isolated spot and taking a walk.  Saying that you may break an ankle or have a car accident and put unnecessary strain on services seems to be stretching credibility somewhat. 

Al

And there's no danger in me driving my car at 120mph when there is no-one else on the road.

The trouble starts when everyone thinks they can do it. So therefore the safest way is to not let anyone do it.

If it's just you, that's probably fine.

But the problem is that because you're doing it, 10 other people will think it's ok.

And because 11 people are doing it, 100 more people will think it's ok.

And then it's not an isolated walk and many people are travelling miles to touch the same stiles and gates as everyone else, etc, etc.

But if everyone did it, it wouldn't be an isolated spot and therefore less attractive. The thing that got me thinking was a news item a few weeks ago where a couple walking in the middle of nowhere with no other person in sight were to all intents and purposes demonised.  The next news item took you to people on the London tube crammed together like sardines.  I found it somewhat paradoxical and odd but that's the media not reality I suppose.

Al

How isolated is acceptable, Al? For someone in Sutherland it might be the side of Cranstackie. For a Londoner it might be Box Hill. Does anyone have a true measure of isolation? All the MRTs have said stay local and that's all I need to be told.

The problem is everything things the same and then everyone gets the same idea and this shit happens:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-51994504

Which is why the lockdown was tightened

Yeah, every time I've done the Y3Ps the paths have littered with casualties, MRT teams running this where and everywhere, and the skies darkened with countless helicopters!!!

"The truth is stark – if you do travel further than you absolutely have to, you are risking the spread of the virus, your own lives and that of others.’’  How if you are not near anyone else?

"Please don’t put any unnecessary burden on our colleagues in the NHS, or put Mountain Rescue volunteers at risk.  What kind of burden?  If going for a walk is seen as a high risk activity where do we go from there?

Cafe's not opening.  I get that.  Avoiding pubs, filling stations etc. etc. I get that. Avoiding crowds.  Well that would be the whole point of going out there.

Pre lock down I used to drive with my bike in the car for 30 minutes to ride some good MB trails.  I didn't see many people then and wouldn't anticipate there suddenly being hordes of people wanting to ride those trails now so where is the harm?

Al

If you crash your bike or twist an ankle walking and need a rescue team to carry you to the road that's a dozen volunteers in close proximity who could infect each other and somebody vulnerable in their households.

Let's be realistic if you break a bone on the three peaks you really need to consider another hobby. Some folk have steeper back gardens.

That's not a viable argument IMO.  I believe that most accidents occur in the home and on the roads therefore if there are more people staying at home there will be more accidents calling on more resources even if not mountain rescue specifically. Taking your argument to it's logical conclusion we should ban climbing because we might have an accident and put mountain rescuers at risk.

Al

Most accidents take place in the home because so many people spend so much time in the home. You have to think about accidents per person-hour of an activity. 
 

DIY kills many many more than base jumping but if everyone in the UK went base jumping what would the stats look like?

The harm is less in the activity than the travel. If for instance I travel from Inverness to Ardmair, about an hour and a half and go bouldering probably there will be no harm. I might however take the virus with me. It may be that careful though I am I haven't got enough diesel and I stop. It may be that one of the many Ullapool climbers arrives just after me, it may be I break my ankle or crash my car. It may something I can't imagine. All of those things may result in me either taking covid-19 to where it isn't or bringing it home with me. None of those things are likely but all are impossible if I stay at home.

If I stop on the way and decide to go hillwalking instead again it is unlikely that I will have an accident but not impossible. If I stay at home that accident isn't going to happen. Again it isn't the accident that is the problem, a broken ankle for instance won't overwhelm the NHS but the risk of transmission from or to the people from various agencies and communities that come to get me is real. 

Also worth noting that current guidelines include do not attempt any intervention for airway or breathing without full PPE while on the hill. Interesting and brutal times.  A full face MTB helmet will also be challenge. 

IMO you place too high a value on your opinion and too little value on the opinions of the volunteer rescue teams.

https://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/18369403.lake-district-mountain-rescue-teams... 

MOUNTAIN rescue teams have thanked the public for staying at home since the UK's coronavirus lockdown began.

Richard Warren, chairman of Lake District Search and Mountain Rescue Association (LDSAMRA) said Cumbria's teams have received just one 999 call during this period.

He said: "Lake District Mountain Rescue teams would like to both thank our local communities and repeat the message about staying at home, explaining why it helps our NHS workers as the fells continue to remain very quiet. We cannot stress enough the importance of staying at home. Apart from helping to save lives in the wider community it will reduce the risk of Covid19 infection to our volunteers during any rescue and helps reduce the workload on our NHS."

Surely, it would be okay for ME to drop litter as hardly anyone would notice MY litter.

Surely, it's okay for ME to p!ss in the swimming pool as no-one would notice.

Surely, it would be okay for ME to bolt a route on Stanage as there are loads of other unbolted routes.

Rules/laws are needed to manage society and need to be adhered to by the individual for the benefit of everyone.

That's a bit personal, confrontational and unnecessary. In what way have I demonstrated not valuing Mountain Rescue Teams? I used to be in one so it's highly unlikely. I'm not advocating ignoring their requests.  Indeed I'm following the guidance to the letter. Are we not allowed to debate any more?

Al

We are going off tack here.  This wasn't about ME.  I was just illustrating an example but trying to stimulate debate about what appears to be generally held views. In fact I agree with most of the points made but that doesn't make those of us who hold those views right nor beyond questioning. 

Al

Why is being involved in a car accident (including hitting other road users) so incredible ? I don't understand people's infallibility complex when it comes to piloting 2 tonnes of metal at 100kph.

Problem was, that article is just false. I drove all the way through the national park that weekend and it was remarkably quiet. The only section that was busy was pen y pass and that was largely due to the nant peris bus service not running. I dont know what they were using to judge the 'unprecedented scenes' but it made me pretty angry that the national park were promoting falsehoods to the national media.

Even now on some Welsh social media groups are complaining about an 'influx' of tourists but I dont know how they are getting there because the traffic cams on the a55 show it is empty! 

Not saying that I agree with people travelling to go hill walking but we should be very careful. Unfortunately a lot of people will use this crisis to advance their anti tourist agenda as seen with the completely unjustified closures of large parts of snowdonia

You might be right.

The question "where is the harm?" does not communicate any value placed on the obvious risks of bringing together a dozen volunteers from different households. 

This is the problem with "blanket measures".  There are so many exceptions that do not fit so it is hardly surprising that people will feel put out by the fact that the rules seem illogical in their circumstances. This could lead to resentment and breaking of those rules.  I'm just stating facts not advocating a course of action.  Take risk and vulnerability for example.  I have said this in another thread. As a 72 year old living in rural Gloucestershire I suspect I am at less risk of catching or spreading the virus than a 20 year old in London but blanket measures do not take account of this so I feel justified in at least asking the questions.

Al

You are right but that would only happen in the event of an accident so it is not a direct consequence of going out for a walk in a quiet area. It's the consequence of having an accident and if the consequence of having an accident is that you put other peoples lives at risk perhaps we should consider banning high risk activities all together.  If that is the logic. And if we accepted that logic perhaps that is exactly what some people might advocate following the end of the lock down.

Al

MR is voluntary and team members have a choice whether or not to respond to callouts. Some team members, either because they are particularly vulnerable or just because they don't want to expose themselves to the virus, will choose not to attend.

Anyone going into the hills right now needs to understand that this is the case - the cover isn't the same as in normal times.  However, the argument that it puts MR team members at risk is specious because to some extent so does any callout and team members will decide for themselves what level of risk they are prepared to tolerate.

Alternatively defer to their clear request that you don't go out on the hills in preference to putting them in the invidious position of deciding whether or not to let down their teammates.

Does anyone even give a thought to Mountain rescue services when they embark on a trip into the hills? I certainly have never gone through what would appear to be a 'risk assessment' before I've gone for a walk or climb.

Problem is with that argument is that if you don't go you can't have the accident. Normally you have the accident, 15 to 30 or so people show up, shift you, go home and forget about it. Trouble is now is those people show up, one or more may be carrying the virus, they don't have any effective PPE, it gets transmitted to one or several others, who go home, often to geographically separate communities infect their families, who may then infect those disparate places.

It is, at the moment, not simply a question of how much risk is someone prepared to take for a casualty but how much risk they are prepared to make their family and wider community accept. 

Times simply aren't normal. 

Maybe not, but I think its the only line that its appropriate for mountain rescue to take. The line between advising people to stay off the hills and telling them is a fine one which I think has been crossed several times. We do not have any authority over the hills and I'm unhappy that some seem to be putting us into this role. What if someone gets into trouble and doesn't make a call because they're worried about us giving them a bollocking? Aside from that, at this point in particular, its important for us to maintain a good relationship with anyone we do come into contact with because we'll need to check in with them for a few days afterwards to see if they develop any symptoms.

I do a risk assessment whenever i go out for a walk. What's the weather going to do, what are the ground conditions going to be like, how remote is the area, what escape routes are there plus many other risks. In remote solo backpacking trips the accessibility of MR is one of those things i consider. Surely this is something everybody should be doing?

Someone would inevitably make a FOI request for it and there would be no justification for withholding it, it's easier for everyone if they just make it public.

I'd be very surprised if the "10% + 2mph" isn't published somewhere - I've certainly heard senior police officers openly stating it.

I certainly consider the likelihood of various none ideal outcomes when packing for a walk or a climb. If it's like it's been the last few days I won't bother taking the bothy bag but will take more water, if it's a short walk I'll only take a couple of snacks or a butty, a longer walk I'll consider throwing in some sugary stuff to give me some oomph toward the end of the day (I remember eating what had been intended as the next day's breakfast the day I did Lurgh Mor as I decided to head down that night but had eaten all of my butties/ chocolate bars etc which I had packed for that day).

Why don't they do a virtual 3 peaks by going up and down the stairs the requisite amount of times, sitting in their (stationary) cars for hours and then slamming the doors and waking up the neighbours. 

Throw in a few hours in full waterproofs while standing under a cold shower and trying to sleep for no more than a few hours curled up on the stairs and you'll have near enough the full package.

I expect the first Just Giving account has already been set up and a Facebook page is in the offing too.

T.

Excellent idea! You could do a virtual National 3Peaks by including piddling on the neighbours hedge or crapping in their garden. I'm sure they wouldn't mind seeing as it's for charity. Then again, does coronavirus live on plop?

Is simple- want to go for a walk? Don't take your phone and don't tell anyone... Break your leg and it's your problem 

Absolutely! We are not there to police the fells and mountains, and never should be. We are just volunteers, who, as has been rightly said, are under no obligation to attend a call out. What we should have said, publicly at least, was that our service was standing down for the duration. (Whether or not we actually stood down being an altogether different question). At least we'd not be allowing people to think that a normal service would be provided, and that might have focused some minds.

It's really rather sad how many on here have taken it upon themselves suddenly become Guardians of the Hills since this all started. To them, go away and re-read the BMC's participation statement. It's about personal responsibility; you are responsible for yourself, and your actions. Not anyone else's. We're all grown ups. Stop judging others, especially when you mightn't have all the facts. Maybe the people going up a hill are locals taking their exercise? We've already seen the Lockdown Taliban wrong over the College of Policing guidance re: driving to access exercise. If people aren't following the rules the Police have more than enough powers to deal with them. I know you must be bored with the whole lockdown thing, and perhaps you're not coping as well as some of us are? You'll feel better if you go and do something positive that you enjoy, instead of being a d*ck.

I would rather call it Gauleiters of the Hills.  I'm considering having an armband made with a jagged emblem involving lightning flashes and a jagged peak, probably silver or white piping on a black background.   I might take to wearing collar flashes as well and a fetching peaked cap

Ho Ho Ho Ho, let thye dislikes come - I collect them

Leaving aside the risks of accident, probability of transmission, dilemma's that team members will face, representation versus governance of climbers/hill-walkers, assumed authority (or not) for excluding people from the hills.  There is another factor which hasn't been (unless I've missed it) be highlighted and that is public perception (and harnessing thereof).

At present there are elements of society that wish to roll back access, whom are wanting to use locals fears about covid to that end, and generate support for change.  Climbers and hill walkers going on the hill will be portrayed as irresponsible (irrespective of whether or not they are actually being so), and there are individuals and representative organisation whom are just looking for examples that can be spun to the media (and at the moment that won't be hard) to suit that narrative.

They need that narrative to push the agenda that the public are incapable of exercising access 'responsibly', and thus legislation needs to be 'tweaked'...read changed for their benefit.  By not going we deny them oxygen to that narrative, and post lock down we will have very strong evidence that the public is 'responsible' and those elements of society can be firmly put back in their box.

Plus there are jobs-worths whom will report people they perceive to be breaking 'the rules', with the same end result.

The emergency services are very familiar with false alarms with good intent, there are also false alarms with malicious intent. By going on the hill you risk fueling other peoples narratives, and in an extreme situation somebody whom has nothing to do with you, reporting you missing, or in difficulty (either with good intent or maliciously).

Don't think this is too far fetched, I know of one incident (non MRT related) locally which  didn't require the emergency rescue services, but a member of the public reported the incident in such a manner assets were tasked, and the local paper ran easy copy of 'everyone look at this idiot and feel smugly superior'.

Agree with the sentiment, but unless you're a hermit with no friends or family (admittedly I almost qualify on this basis) then I think I spot a problem with that strategy.

...and it also ignores the locals, people think the countryside and Highlands are 'empty', but no where is truly remote; every glen has  a stalker/keeper/farmer/housekeeper/hydro-worker, locals notice cars parked, and have sharp-eyes normally let alone when bored at the moment. 

People are behaving generally responsibly round here, with the exceptions of letting their dogs make contact physical with people  outside their household involving the dog's bodily fluids and also burning plastic on bonfires, but the farmers are asking for all footpaths over farmland to be closed.  **

Talk about reactionary! 

I get the impression that a lot of dogs are bing transported in cars to be walked in nice places

** that would give us here the option of pure road walking or driving to open land like the eastern fells, or driving into town to walk the pavements!  Or improving our health by not going anywhere for exercise.

not sure about England/Wales but in Scotland Mountain Rescue teams  are NOT covered by insurance for infectious diseases.Any family of a MRT member who catches and dies from Covid will receive no payout, worth considering 

The first few are normal trip planning things that a lot of us have grown up with having been in the scouts. Are you saying that you'd not go on a hillwalking trip if there were no Mountain rescue available in that area? 

note. My initial post was nothing to do with the OP - in fact I fully agree with the various authorities telling people to stay local etc.  

Same applies for MREW.

No - but route choice might be different and kit taken with me might be different.

The chance of having a car accident while driving to take exercise is almost certainly very small, but the chance of having a car accident if you do not drive to take exercise is nil.

Dave

And the consequences of having a car accident is likely half a dozen blue lights and someone being hospitalised. 

You wouldn't know this of course until your car journey was complete

The thing that got me thinking was a news item a few weeks ago where a couple walking in the middle of nowhere with no other person in sight were to all intents and purposes demonised.  The next news item took you to people on the London tube crammed together like sardines.  I found it somewhat paradoxical and odd but that's the media not reality I suppose.

I doubt the people on the tube were traveling like that to an isolated beauty spot for a bit of a leg stretch! 

surely the greatest aid to stoppin yahm would be a virtual reality game of chance on the Eiger, North Face, naturally ...

You are missing my point which is that the pressure on two disparate groups to conform did not appear to be equal taken in the context of catching and spreading the disease.

Al

you really are an ignorant arse.

Stay out of the Dales, I & my other half don't want to be making unnecessary trips out to rescue idiots.... we have enough avoiding "unavoidable" contact in our daily work lives she on the ward , me dealing with anti social behaviour  etc...

Given the folks we encounter daily - its is quite possible that one or both of us could be asymptomatic carriers of SARS-CoV-2.  

" You've Got To Ask Yourself One Question: 'Do I Feel Lucky?' Well, Do Ya, Punk? "

There is no need for that.  I am neither advocating nor encouraging anyone to break the lock down or visit anywhere.  Learn to read before posting offensive, personal, aggressive texts.  You are the arse and a very nasty one at that.  When will you f*ckwits realise a forum is for discussion NOT setting policy. It's meant to be a mechanism for free speech.  What you and your like are doing is bullying people into not taking part in that.

For what it is worth I fully support the rescue teams in what they are saying and have NEVER said otherwise.  You dim witted arse.

Al

In light of the tone of your reply and the likes you have received could you please explain to me where you got the impression I was advocating a course of action that has upset you so much.

Apologies for the tone of my response but you have really angered me and accused my of something of which I am totally innocent.

Al

You say you want free speech, but when Ed freely expresses his mind you have a little meltdown. So just free speech for you then?

Nonsense I am objecting to being misrepresented in a very offensive and unnecessary manner, that's all. I am after all posting in my own name and not hiding behind a pseudonym so it is a very personal thing.

Al

Meh, that's only because Gridnorth is banned.

Get your facts straight before posting.  GridNorth was NOT banned.  He was removed at his own request on the advice of the Police because he and his family had received death threats.

This is a very irresponsible post that may have now resurrected a dangerous situation and I have no other recourse other than to withdraw from UKC all together.

Thank you, another attack on free speech has succeeded.

Then you have my apologies.

And you are missing mine, which is that some journeys are more important than others

Absolutely. I am in total agreement, it's just that I didn't specifically mention that.  My mistake. That's the problem with discussing these matters on a forum. I don't know why I let myself get drawn in

I was desperately trying to find a way of expressing my feelings about this. You did it perfectly. 

Our golden rule through this has been, if everyone did what we're doing, would it be OK. If the answer is no, we don't do it. 

"Let's be realistic if you break a bone on the three peaks you really need to consider another hobby. Some folk have steeper back gardens."

Just look at MRT reports: by far the majority of their casualities are walkers. People go to A&E in an ambulance from garden injuries (of which there are many).

You only have to read the annual I've just bought a chainsaw thread on here to understand why. 

Good try with the 'look squirrel' distraction (funny and correct though it may be) how about maybe acknowledging you were unfairly distracting from genuine MRT concerns.

This sounds like someone who's never actually been on top of Ingleborough or Penyghent. Lots of steep, craggy slopes and boulder fields to trap the navigationally challenged.

Yes, largely due to the huge numbers doing the Three Peaks. CRO hoover up far more walkers and tourists on the Waterfalls Walk than ever they do cavers or climbers.

No. My point remains. If you break a bone walking the 3peaks, find a new hobby. 

Yeah and there's a path 1-2m around the lot. Even the 'steeper' sections were turned into staircases with big blocks many years ago. 

The waterfalls walk isn't part of the 3 peaks though. 

You're the bigger idiot then. All it takes is a rocking piece of paving (they mostly sit on bog on the 3 Peaks walk) or a hidden rabbit hole. Multiply risk by traffic and you get the normal casualty rate of broken bones for experienced walkers as reported in MR accident summaries.

Would have been the 3 Peaks Fell Race today. Sorry to be missing it and the accompanying weekend in Yorkshire.

What are you on about? There isn't any path on the summit plateau of Ingleborough. Have you ever had to navigate off it in thick weather, snow, ice etc? Take a bearing from the summit shelter and see if you can hit the exact leaving points of three entirely different descent routes -  Clapham, Horton or Chapel-le-Dale all right next to each other. It's just as serious as anywhere else potentially. I was there in March and it was a bright sunny day. The paths northwards to the Hill Inn and Horton were hidden under frozen snow and would have been indistinguishable in mist. The path down The Arks was frozen over so I carried on to Simon Fell before descending.

Yes, of course. I used that to illustrate the fact that the CRO (who are the local MRT) pull more people off that than out of caves or off crags.

This seems reasonably clear this weekend:

Driving to Craven to climb the Yorkshire Three Peaks 'is not essential travel' - North Yorkshire Police

https://www.cravenherald.co.uk/news/18403762.driving-craven-climb-yorkshire...

24th April

or the source: https://northyorkshire.police.uk/news/police-urge-day-trippers-to-stay-home...

24 April 2020

You can always have bad luck, slip and land wrong. If you did it a second time I would tend to agree though.

Looks like it's getting busy in the Dales again, some people drove to Malham from Kent! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-52442573

Not just the UK as some have been climbing near La Palud sur Verdon - https://www.laprovence.com/article/faits-divers-justice/5972464/alpes-de-ha...  - idiots everywhere

Thirteen fines written in a hour? In 4.5 minutes I doubt there will have been much ID verification. I bet there'll be a lot of summons for non payment send to M. Mouse, D. Duck and B. Johnson in the next few weeks...

Jeez - they busted a bid ban as well as the covid 19 restrictions.  Shame the birds weren't corvids.

Lots of cars parked along both sides of the road at the (closed) car park for the Cobbler at the weekend. 

Need to go round and ticket them for causing an obstruction!

Maybe there was more than one officer handling the fines? 

I generally get the impression there are a load of "locals" (rich retirees who priced all the young people out of the village years ago) stomping around in the hills scowling at each other and complaining about "incomers". Plenty of examples on the BBC of people yelling at each other to "go home" when for both people involved 'going home' would only involve a 20 minute walk. Quite funny really.

This whole thread illustrates why I'd rather see hard limits enforced rather than simple sounding rules that really just leave everything to interpretation. Surely it would be better to say e.g. "you can't travel more than 10 miles from your primary residence for exercise." "You can't meet more than one person not from your household." (increase this one to 3 or 5 as the lockdown is eased). That way you have clear rules but people can still get by. And you wouldn't get this toxic atmosphere where everyone tries to decide what is 'reasonable' or justified and takes a perverse pleasure in shaming or mocking anyone with a slightly different conclusion. This approach works with speed limits, taxes and all sorts of things and those trying to argue with police officers wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Is that 10 miles as the crow flies or 10 miles by road?

In Ireland, I believe the exercising limit is 2km radius from home.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/qa-irelands-lockdown-res...

I guess it is because given the population density they should know the locals? Living in London for all I know the stranger walking down my street might live around the corner so I am not going to shout at them. Also I think living in cities you get used to more people about and take it for granted that some stranger might walk right past your house and even pause outside it.

Given that I pulled it out of my arse I reckon exactly 9.81 miles radially... The actual number isn't the point, it's about having a simple limit that a copper can quote when some arsehole decides to argue and leaving as little as possible to people's individual interpretation.

If I had to choose I'd pick a number that allows someone living in a flat to get somewhere safe to exercise without bumping into people but not enough to allow travel between cities or regions. That way I'd expect people to follow the rules for longer.

I think that's what they assume. In Malham that might be true but in Hathersage, Llanberis or St Ives I doubt it. Very few people know all their neighbours. I live in a "village" and the overwhelming majority of people here don't know me or anyone in my family even though some of them have been here since the 60s and were quite involved in the community.

I didn't query the distance, I was explicitly asking how you would measure it, hence "Is that 10 miles as the crow flies or 10 miles by road?"

Absolutely, just facetiousness on my part. Always puzzles me why people self-identify in these situations. Can’t imagine the Old Bill marching you off Malham.

Because it's better than getting arrested for giving false details?

Ah yeah... I guess that's why I don't write the law... Well I suppose as long as the government pick one and state clearly what is it doesn't matter. I think these days the distance by road would be easier since almost everyone has a phone with maps on it. People could still lie when asked their main address but that affects enforcement of any rules including the current ones.

I wondered when you’d pop up.

I do hope, as part of the what-went-wrong enquiry, we take a long, hard look at policing in the UK. There should never be a situation when I leave my house and I have no idea whether I’m breaking the law or not. Policing is a great service to the country and shouldn’t be an outlet for political whim.

You also know that if I don’t tell you who I am, I am not committing an offence (certain specifics notwithstanding).

Always "happy" to help explain policing/legal issues. As I have done with this COVID19 situation on a fair few threads.

Look at the law rather than just policing.  This has been extremely light touch policing of a health emergency, far outside our remit, with legislation that is so far from fit for purpose that it's a credit to UK policing that they've got anyone to comply with the guidance at all.

This has never been a problem that can be solved by law and policing - as demonstrated by the vast majority of the public who have been prepared to follow pretty restrictive guidance and advice from the government, NHS and PHE.

If we are trying to issue a FPN and you start lying to us, I'd be pretty confident with my powers under s24 PACE. Which would probably end up with you in the nick.  You might get an obstruct police charge as well.

But you know that.

I didn’t mean to be condescending; I’ve found your posts most interesting.

Specifics aside my concern is that while the intention of the law is clear, the interpretation is being done on the street by police officers not in the courts. While guidance is available, it is vague and situations have arisen where the advice of officers has been incorrect. Through issuing a FPN the statement is that “I disagree with your interpretation of reasonable and for your to state your counter argument it will cost you a great deal of time and money”. I find the presence of constant but vague FPN threat disturbing. Hence, once Covid has passed, we need to look carefully and ensure this situation does not arise again.

Fair enough, sorry if I misread the tone.

It's worth bearing in mind the specific guidance is engage, explain, encourage. If you are in disagreement there is opportunity to discuss it with officers, prior to a move to enforcement.

Also worth bearing in mind that this isn't about the vast majority of reasons for leaving the house - I've run out of milk, Can I go to the vets etc. This generally is about those examples where the guidance is being stretched or most commonly just outright flouted. And even then the principle followed will be engage, explain, encourage.

If you feel you really need to go out and do something, then you may well have a reasonable excuse. If you operate from the basis that you will do your best to follow the guidance (not the letter of the law) you will almost certainly be ok.

If you do get stopped, you will be nearly always be able to have some sort of conversation about what you are trying to do. Prime example I've given previously of a woman sat on a park bench with two young kids. Following discussion she hadn't been out of tiny flat for some time - kids needed to run around. Decision made - reasonable excuse, kids exercising.

Now had she packed everyone in a car and driven an hour+ to Malham for a picnic, that decision might not have been the same. It wouldn't necessarily have led to a ticket though.

The flawed legislation lends itself to the use of the much-maligned police discretion in judging "reasonable excuse", and the NPCC engage, explain, encourage approach almost mandates it.

Much as I'm not keen on several aspects of the legislation, the fact it hasn't mandated specific parameters for certain things means that it can't be wielded like a blunt tool - "you are 3cm outside the limit - here is your ticket". It really must be used as a last resort.

Thank you for your clear and sensible comments and approach: very interesting and informative to read.  It's been (& still is) a tricky time, and with the pitchfork mob baying, the media looking for click-bait, the social meeja ranting, The Thin Blue Line has been in the middle, working on "guidelines" which seem to fluctuate more often than hot dinners.  I am not far from one or two of the places mentioned in this thread, and North Yorkshire's finest seem to have done an excellent job in the face of some fairly unpleasant (& unnecessary IMHO) behaviour.  One thing that has come out during the present crisis is that the Boys and Girls in Blue are people: our neighbours, people we see in the supermarket, people we pass in the street, family etc: not just the nearest convenient face of authority to be targeted as such, and they deserve much commendation.

the people I really resent are those self appointed guardians behaving with self assumed Lictorian rights.  A poor woman in our village put a sign up on the noticeboard pleading people to be nicer as she'd been abused while outside - on her notice she explained that she had suffered abuse from people (not police, obviously)  in the village and that she was both a carer and an asthma sufferer as well as being a person.  Just how the brownshirts used the empowerment of Hitler's rantings to take it out on anyone they pleased - it's the same phenomenon.

Put the Fasces away, you are not the guardians of public authority (to them, not to you personally)

people ringing up the police to report someone going for 2 runs a day should have their details taken down and be later prosecuted (when the situation is less serious) for wasting police time and threatening public order by sowing dispute

But how do you define doing a thing? For example, if you define it as taking a walk to a local hidden crag to potentially climb in a safe way, then it probably wouldn't pass your test if there's a large local population of climbers who might also do that thing. But if you added to your definition of doing that thing that you'd turn around and leave if there's any evidence of other climbers being there or having been there recently, then it would pass your test.

So it's a good rule of thumb but in practice could be applied fairly arbitrarily and could, for example, rule out something as safe and uncontroversial as going for a walk around a local park.

Seems a similar parallel to travelling to go winter.climbing and finding it out of condition. 

Expect this time it isn't just the environment that's getting harmed.

havent read the whole post, but the 3 peaks challenge, done by any motorised means, is a joke. the consumerist, disposable attitude. They are beautiful. At least stay for a day!

Why? have you never witnessed or heard of people having an accident?

They can happen to anyone at any time.

At the moment MRT have to travel to any call out, and yes they are still getting called out, in individual vehicles to keep each other safe. If you can't see how this puts a strain on things then I'm lost.

On top of this, the patient then needs to go to hospital, where they also seem to be a bit busy.

There was an accident on the M40 yesterday, the road was closed for a number of hours, I doubt anyone involved in that thought they'd be involved in an accident, when they left home.

Err..Yorkshire three peaks...?

Unless they've moved Scafell?

Of course I broke my ankle seriously 2 years ago but that's not the point.  In principle I agree absolutely but we are talking about the "odds".  I'm questioning the odds not advocating breaching the guidelines.

Al

Odds for one person ? odds for a front line blue light worker ? odds for the whole poulation ?

The odds of an individual being involved in a RTA are low.  The odds of an RTA somewhere in the country are pretty high.

Lets get one thing clear.  I have to listen and go by what the experts are telling me. I would be foolish to do otherwise but it is perfectly reasonable for me to ask why I, as a healthy 72 year old living in rural Gloucestershire have to be house bound for a considerable amount of time whilst a 20 year old in London may be living his life as near as damn it as normal but with social distancing. I don't know but suspect his chances of catching and spreading the virus are an order of magnitude greater than mine.  So I'm questioning the logic of the guidelines.  NOT advocating anything just questioning.

I suspect that given how many people deliberately misinterpret even simple government guidelines (stay indoors ...), adding exceptions is going to be pretty counter productive very quickly.

As to 20 year olds living a normal life in London? Doesn't sound very normal. 

Bad choice of words on my part. "Not housebound" might be better. But the point, regarding odds, still stands.

Al

What makes you think that "a 20 year old in London may be living his life as near as damn it as normal"? This might be worth a read to give you some perspective:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/apr/27/london-coronavirus-sacked-h...

I've already responded to that.  Please try to keep up

In case you missed the smiley, this is meant in a light hearted way.

Al

id only heard of the snowdon, scafell, ben 3 peaks. i will now have a look at the yrksr 3 peaks. thanks. and i think the older 70+ people should make their own minds up!

You don't think 70+ people can spread this disease to others who'd rather not have it?

Where is the 2 metre wide obvious path going up the steep end of pen y gent.  It is no less than a scramble in  some places and on limestone in the wet that make sit one of the worst things possible to move on. 

Thank you wercat, you've just made my day: I had no idea what Lictorian and fasces mean, so spent a happy 10 minutes with my OED (pure porn!).  For added value, the entry previous to fasces was fartlek (what a great word and of relevance to ukh): "A method of training for middle- and long-distance running, in which the athlete runs over country, mixing fast with slow work" (Swedish: fart: speed, lek: play).  I'm going to try and use that word at least once a day

always loved that Roman stuff, but it is with you for life ..