UKH

More serious charges this time

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-52892409

So according to Stirling Police exercise is to be taken “not exceeding 5 miles from home”?

Not quite the official advice. I wonder how many cyclists would fall foul of this. Pretty much everyone, I’d guess.

In reply to S Andrew:

Where do they say that? I didn't see it in the article. 

5 miles is the guide for how far we can travel for exercise, not how far we can go while exercising. 

In reply to girlymonkey:

3rd last paragraph:

"We want people to enjoy our outdoor spaces safely and exercise should be done locally, not exceeding five miles from your home."

The article also says the people had "not been suitably equipped". It's an odd mountain to choose if you're going to go out ill-equipped for going up a Munro. 

Chief Inspector Gill Marshall, area commander for Stirling:

“exercise should be done locally, not exceeding five miles from your home”

As far as I was aware, the 5 miles is simply a guideline. And nobody has been particularly unambiguous about how it applies.

But when have the Polis ever been under-zealous?

In reply to S Andrew:

Presumably they’d have gotten away with it if they hadn’t need mountain rescue?

In reply to tinnishill:

Maybe they would have been ok if they had just said they were out to test their eyesight........?

In reply to Harry Jarvis:

It's one of the closest once you know that Ben Lomond is for all practical purposes inaccessible at the moment due to car park closures and police roadblocks.

Obviously I’m not suggesting that the Beinn a’Chroin start is ‘approximately’ 5 miles from Glasgow. 

It was a poor decision. But I think singling out this pair is poor justice. The embarrassment should have been enough.

Free the Crianlarich Two!

In reply to alan moore:

I’m sure plenty of people are.

I’d be interested to know why the police feel they were culpably unprepared.

In reply to tinnishill:

I looked up the charge

https://crime.scot/culpable-and-reckless-conduct/

In reply to tinnishill:

If conditions are anything like those in Wales at the moment, about the only way I can see you could be poorly equipped is a water bottle that is too small, or maybe forgetting the suncream.

I think charging people who need rescued up a mountain is clearly wrong and creates a dangerous precedent and can hopefully be challenged in court.

There is no law in Scotland just now restricting travel for excerise, and I imagine Munro's have been climbed by thousands of people traveling more than 5 miles since lockdown was eased.

The problem here is the the walkers were inexperienced poorly equipped and made poor judgement choices.  But did they really endanger anyone during the rescue process? I am imagine it's fairly easy to help navigate stranded walkers off a hill side while maintaining social distancing, with little risk of transmitting the virus in an outdoor environment.

Are we saying now the outdoors is only for people who are experienced?   As far as I am aware people are allowed to make mistakes and maybe more education is needed, but everyone from mountain guide down to first time walker could potentially sprain and ankle etc and require assistance, but charging the walkers basically says to me that no one is aloud outdoors because if you get hurt or require assistance you will be prosecuted.

In reply to tinnishill:

Maybe they travelled a significant distance from their home address while suffering coronavirus symptoms and/or having recently been in contact with someone who had tested positive.

In reply to GerM:

That's OK now if you use your judgement, isn't it?

In reply to tinnishill:

So 'Coronavirus' but not charged under Coronavirus Regulations. Looks like something they could do to anyone at anytime if they get away with it now. Never need rescuing.

In reply to daftdazza:

I'd rather say it's "avoid taking unnecessary risks". Again, that's not a law, but rather than a recommendation from MRT. Makes sense though. Maybe walkers who walked parts of West Highland Way shouldn't go and climb Loch Lomond. Maybe climbers who never climbed multi-pitch shouldn't go and climb one... Apply this to soloing, downhill mountain biking, scrambling, etc. 

I don't see many details, but given how nice weather was, I can only assume the walkers did take a risk more than they were comfortable with. 

Personally, I have driven ~8 miles last weekend to Doughnot Hill. It's a less popular hill, I've been up it few times before and I have run to or surrounding areas from home and back during lockdown few times, knowing it was less popular than other Kilpatrick hills. 

In reply to girlymonkey:

Be careful you Scots, Sturgeon did say the other day, if too many people take the piss, they'll make the guidance Law.

Personally, I think driving around 100 miles (there and back) or so for an outing is OK.  Scots & Welsh, you have my sympathies.

In reply to Taylor's Landlord:

I did take a crude approach and draw 50 mile radius of 7 settlements: Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee, Aberdeen, Fort William, Perth and Inverness. I know 50 miles as the crow flies is different from real distance on road (Bridge of Orchy happens to be under 50 miles in straight line, 63 miles on road). 

I would say... you might as well drop the 50 mile limit. 

In reply to tinnishill:

Link to the Police Scotland site. As a nosey bugger I'd love to know how it ended up in an MRT callout.

https://www.scotland.police.uk/whats-happening/news/2020/june/two-people-ch...

In reply to tinnishill:

This is quite a scary charge, that I wasn't aware exists. Surely it applies more widely in mountain rescue situations. For example, if mountain rescuers are put under a significant risk to their health (e.g. hypothermia, rockfall) through a person's deliberate actions (e.g. going hillwalking in bad wintry weather, going rock climbing).

I'm very glad that this charge isn't triggered routinely in more dangerous mountain rescue situations. But I'm not sure why it isn't, if it applies in this case.

In reply to peppermill:

It seems to suggest someone else called the police/rescue.

And no mention now of the “within 5 miles”.

In reply to Myr:

 Absolutely hope not.  One persons extremely dangerous risk is another persons perfectly acceptable day out in terms of ability/preparedness. Where would the line be?

In reply to PPP:

It's hard to know what actually happened without being there, I guess with the extremely hot conditions it would be easy for some people not to factor in extra clothing required for wind chill etc, or lack of water refill points due to extremely dry spring, the walkers in question might have been more experienced than what we assume.  Plenty of experience fell runners, mountaineers etc make poor judgement calls with regard of clothing choice, amount of water to take with you and we all learn from our mistakes.   Maybe mountaineering Scotland etc promoting mountain safety in hot conditions would be more appropriate than prosecuting the few who make mistakes.

In reply to daftdazza:

In normal times, yes, that would be the problem. But at the moment the problem is that they are balatantly taking the piss out of the guidelines. I struggle to have any sympathy with anyone doing that who then comes unstuck.

In reply to Taylor's Landlord:

I am sticking to the driving distance, I have the west end of the Ochils and the Touch hills available to me. I can go as far as I like (or rather, as far as is well within my capabilities) once I get there. Good excuse to explore odd corners that you don't normally go to. If the FM puts these things into law due to people being idiots, then so be it. If that is the only way to make people listen then she has to do it

In reply to tinnishill:

From Scottish Mountain Rescue "guidance and information regarding the ongoing Covid-19 outbreak", 22 May:
Should I feel guilty if I need to call MR?
No, accidents happen, we would be concerned if you didn’t call us. We are here to help, not judge.
https://www.scottishmountainrescue.org/covid-19-information/

From BBC News report (2 June) of the Beinn a' Chroin incident:
Chairman [of Scottish Mountain Rescue] Damon Powell said: "We are also aware how deeply frustrating it is when everyone who is making such sacrifices see people openly flouting the guidance. We are pleased to see the police taking action against such individuals."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-52892409

The 22 May guidance and information doesn't appear to have lasted very long.

In reply to PPP:

There is no 50 mile limit - it's 5 miles for exercise! And preferably by bike or walking. Driving should be last resort!

We are allowed further to visit friends and relatives in their gardens, but shouldn't use their toilets, so travel limited by bladder size! We went to some friends who live on site at an outdoor center, so I was happy enough that I could pee in the woods if needs be! 

In reply to girlymonkey:

Be careful, though - the five miles for exercise thing is seemingly now being interpreted by the Stirling polis as meaning no more than five miles from one's house, period:

"Chief Inspector Gill Marshall, area commander for Stirling ... exercise should be done locally, not exceeding five miles from your home."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-52892409

This is a considerably more limiting situation than during the main lockdown - and not what the FM has said. Like you, I'm busy on the Ochils - but it now appears that the apparent increase in scope, even locally, that was introduced last Friday should be treated with considerable caution.

In reply to Dave Hewitt:

Sorry, what is your point? The individuals blatantly flouted the guidance.

In reply to Robert Durran:

It would appear that they did, in terms of the distance travelled. But my point is that the MR chair said his organisation would not judge in the event of a callout, yet less than a fortnight later he's "pleased to see the police taking action against such individuals". That looks like judging to me.

In reply to Dave Hewitt:

I still read that as referring to how far you can drive. Many people think of exercise as a thing that doesn't really take you anywhere, so you might drive to a park and walk around the park, for example. The fact that runners, walkers and cyclists go on  journeys is a bit of an anomaly really for most people. 

What they did wrong was driving from Glasgow to Crianlarich, but as this is not law (yet), the police can't charge them with it. 

In reply to Dave Hewitt:

Well I took it he was talking about the fact they breached the guidelines. I imagine locals needing rescued would not have been criticised.

In reply to girlymonkey:

I would like to hope so too, but (assuming she was quoted accurately) that's not what Chief Inspector Marshall says in the BBC report. This leaves me worried that were I to say drive to Menstrie (four-point-something miles from where I live) then walk to Blairdenon (more than five miles) and require rescue, there might be consequences. I know from discussing this with various other hill people both this evening and over the past few days that it's become quite a concern.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I guess I'm mainly surprised - and disappointed, given what he said - that Mr Powell said anything public on this at all, particularly in light of the 22 May guidelines which I read at the time and thought were very good and helpful.

In reply to Robert Durran:

The point is that guidelines are guidelines not law. The SNP chose not to make the 5 mile ,limit a law. Hence the police were unable to charge the walkers with breaching it. Instead they found a serious criminal charge they could stretch to fit and used that instead. This law is usually used for behaviour with an immediate serious risk to health or life. Selling glue sniffing kits back in the day was stamped out with this law. It has also been used for tampering with medicine or throwing traffic cones off a bridge into a city street. It has never been used for conduct which would have been lawful closer to home.

   If the SNP want the police to enforce the 5 mile limit they should make it a law.

In reply to Dave Hewitt:

I am sure you have nothing to worry about; you are clearly within the spirit of the guidelines whereas the people who travelled to Crianlarich were blatantly flouting them. 

In reply to irc:

They were presumably hoping the public would be responsible enough not to need it in law. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

Thanks - I hope so too, but one does worry, particularly in these parts after having seen that statement from the local police commander. And the old mountain rescue idea of not criticising casualties in public, no matter how stupid they might have been, has certainly gone. (As my better half, who has a family background in mountain rescue, has just commented while doing the washing up, "It used to be that they'd be given a right telling-off once they were safely down off the hill, and the team might have a good moan about it in the pub, but nothing would be said in public.")

An anecdote relating (sort of) to the distance-travelled thing. Last weekend on the Ochils I was chatting with a bloke I'd never met before, but who had clearly done masses of stuff. This was his first hill outing since November, as he'd been recovering from what sounded like a hellish incident where he got cold/wet feet while snowholing and subsequently lost parts of several toes to frostbite - something that must be really quite rare in Scotland. The reason I mention this here is that I asked where he'd come from. It wasn't as far away as the Chroin duo, but it was more than five miles. However the Ochils on a sunny late-spring Sunday seemed an utterly sensible place for him to try and get back to doing what he clearly loved, and it was very obvious (we bumped into each other twice during the day) that getting out and starting to ease himself back in was doing wonders for his general wellbeing / mental health - aspects that are being woefully neglected in this current crisis. I felt really happy for him, and meeting him was undoubtedly the highlight of my day. I worry now however whether he might not feel able to keep doing what he did last weekend, for the foreseeable future at least, given that were he to somehow end up needing help there would appear to be a risk of a public shaming by various agencies including mountain rescue.

In reply to Dave Hewitt:

For what it's worth, I've also extended my walking to the Ochils since the 5 miles thing came in (previously I had stuck to the Lomonds which are within cycling distance for me, and the Ochils on just a couple of occasions when I was at their foot for work anyway). To go to the Ochils, I have also driven more than 5 miles but it definitely feels local and within the spirit of the guidelines.

In reply to Robert Durran:

That's very much my position too. I've got Ochil access within a five-mile drive but I've stretched it a bit (to the wilds of Dollar!) as it still feels very local, it's the same range of hills and I know them pretty well. I'd very much like to get round to Glen Devon soon, but it's that bit further (nearer for you) and I'm not sure. As with you, even near-ish Munros are too far at present - something I felt even before hearing of the Chroin incident. Will see what's what later in June, and just keep on Ochiling for now.

Hope to see you up there one day, anyway - I'll be the tall bloke carting about a single unextended walking pole - I've been taking that with me in case of mishap.

In reply to tinnishill:

My worry here is that an impression some people make take away from it is that should they require help they will end up being detained and charged with an offence, that could result in some people deciding that should they have an accident or medical incident which requires help that they would not make that call while the effects of what has happened is reverseable. Instead the call may be delayed to the point where the damage is done and they are in a much more serious condition, or end up as a missing person search. And herein lies the problem with a politician standing up and saying on tv "ideally within five miles" when they could have written in black & white but opted not to, and given how little five miles is in most of Scotland it is somewhat laughable. Five miles from where my sister lives bare reaches the nearest town in a straight line.

In reply to tinnishill:

I find this episode shocking. Once again Plod is deciding what the law is, presumably with general confusion at the top of the policing tree (no criticism of the officer on the street). Scot's Law has always been a little backward and presumably we'll now see the police turning up with the rescue services and charging the asthmatic who forgot his inhaler on a caving trip or the sailor who forgot her Epipen under this law. And how about the cyclist who crashes her bike 75 miles from home?

Like it or not the 5 mile rule is both confusing (as this thread has illustrated) and advisory. Implicitly this allows an individual to make a judgement as to whether to follow it or not. Yes some judgements may be irresponsible but at this time they are not criminal.

In reply to Dave Hewitt:

This is what I feared when that cursed distance was first mentioned. It was a tightening of restrictions heavily disguised.

Of course it is particularly harsh if you live in an urban area on the coast.   

In reply to girlymonkey:

Your reading wouldn’t necessarily get you far in court.

In reply to Dave Hewitt:

Sadly one of the many with no hills - intend "pushing my luck" and hitting the Lammermuirs soon. I consider them local but it's amazing how soon 8km runs out.  (Usually when all the houses and crowds do).  The mental health implications have been serious in my household.

In reply to Fat Bumbly2:

In what way was it a tightening? While I can see the reason for it, I was personally disappointed there was not more of a loosening, but it is definitely a loosening.

In reply to tinnishill:

I am rather confused by the reporting of this incident. I have read the Police statement several times and I don't think it is clear which aspect of their behaviour is the basis of the charge.

Is it that they travelled beyond an advisory limit or is it their apparent unpreparedness for their walk? I think we would need to see more details of the evidence to decide which it is.

If it is the travel then it does seem reasonable to sanction them in the current situation. But if it is the mountain aspect then this does set a precedent that rings alarm bells for the future.

In reply to irc:

I think in this case the argument for the charge will be that the behaviour was a serious risk to the health (and perhaps life) of others by unnecessary travel and unreasonable behaviour during a pandemic.

Quite what that behaviour was we don't know. 

It is worth remembering that the fundamental restriction upon leaving the 'place where you are living' remains in place; 

5.—(1) Except to the extent that a defence would be available under regulation 8(4), during the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living.

What has changed is the removal of the word 'need' from 8(4) in relation to exercise.

That removal is what has let us do more things providing we have a 'reasonable excuse'. It may be that travelling 60 miles to exercise might not be considered reasonable.

Let us hope that remains the case. It will be interesting to see what the procurator fiscal makes of the police report.
 

In reply to Toccata:

There is no "5 mile rule". The 5 mile limit is advice, it isn't a rule. Members of the public are quite entitled to ignore it if they so decide. It was only suggested in order to avoid over-crowding at popular tourist destinations. If you aren't going to such a place then there is no particular need to stay within 5 miles. There is therefore no reason why people should now feel inhibited from day trips to go hill-walking or climbing.

This action by the police strikes my as being quite outrageous and a worry to us all. It is a very small step from this to saying, for example, that the Scottish hills are too dangerous in the winter and it should be deemed illegal to climb them.

In reply to Point of View:

If they are not public spirited.

Nonsense. This is about the pandemic.

In reply to irc:

If they were closer to home they wouldn't risk recklessly spreading a serious infection to remote communities.

It's not a limit, it's just guidance as to what may constitute your local community. That's why it's "around 5 miles" rather than "5 miles".

What works for the city isn't going to work for the highlands & islands. So you either need a legal limit that varies by region, which is impractical, or you need to rely on people behaving responsibly.

In reply to tinnishill:

I think it's worth comparing with the guys who were rescued on the Cobbler the week before, that was before phase 1 so they could be fined under the regulations. I get the impression the police could not hand out a fine under the new corona regs so they came up with culpable and reckless conduct, a charge which has been supported by Scottish Mountain Rescue and has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Not the sort of thing you would want on your PVG/Disclosure form.

Hopefully this will be dropped but it does set a precedent of the police and MR supporting a serious criminal charge on what appears to be a straightforward rescue in perfect conditions.

In reply to snowmore:

Precisely. It is all about staying local. Driving from the Central Belt to the Highlands is not staying local. 

In reply to Dave Hewitt:

The '5 mile rule' isn't from where you live, its from your community. The wording of the guidance is dreadful - "stay within a short distance of your local community (broadly within 5 miles) and travel by walk, wheel and cycle". The use of the words community, broadly and wheel are all vague and people will interpret them differently.

In reply to Robert Durran:

True, but unfortunately there will always be some who don't have the responsibility to follow the request/guidance.

This - https://www.gov.scot/news/lockdown-begins-to-ease-in-phase-1/ - includes the following

From tomorrow (29 May), you can now travel short distances for outdoor leisure and exercise but should remain in your local area, suggested to be five miles from your house, although we ask people to use their judgement. People are encouraged to walk, wheel or cycle where possible.

Definitely not law but my interpretation is that it is pretty straightforward in what it wants and I don't think, "... although we ask people to use their judgement.", includes driving 20/30 miles to exercise.

A limiting exercise to within 5 miles of home is not going to restrict anyone. True, you might not be able to do a hill, but exercise is certainly going to be easily possible.

Dave

In reply to tinnishill:

I think it’s ok to have no sympathy for the two exceptionalists who thought the guidance didn’t apply to them and risked moving disease from one community to another, while also being deeply concerned at the police use of heavy duty criminal law that makes no reference to the current health emergency. As someone else has noted, though, the 5-mile limit was described as “flexible” and “advisory” so plod had to make something up from whatever they had in their pockets. We need to find ways of getting assurances that this practice will cease when the health emergency abates, otherwise lives will be lost because folk will be reluctant to call the MRT.

In reply to Grahame N:

Although it could probably have been worded better, I think the vagueness is deliberate and sensible; as I said, the message is clearly to stay local and actual reasonable distances in that spirit will vary from place to place. The important thing is not to take the piss.

In reply to snowmore:

It's a bit more complicated than that. The guidance on travelling relates to what you are travelling for. It is acceptable to travel beyond your local area to socialise, but not for outdoor recreation. 

"It is acceptable to travel outside your local area to meet members of  another household in an outdoor space such as a private garden, but you should use your judgement about how far to travel."

Ironically, I think if these people had travelled from Glasgow to Crianlarich for a BBQ in a friend's garden they wouldn't have been charged. I think this stems from a view that socialising is very important for mental health, but the mental health benefits from exercising in a city park are equivalent to those of going to Scotland's wilder areas (or that the extra mental health benefits of going to the wilder areas are not offset by the inter-community transmission risks generated). 

This leads to a slightly topsy-turvy situation whereby you can only travel outside your local area if it is to meet someone else!

In reply to Myr:

The restrictions need to be blanket in nature, otherwise they would just lead to chaos. Many unsociable climbing types are probably very atypical in valuing the freedom to drive 100 miles and walk up a hill on their own above driving ten miles to visit a friend they havn't seen for ten weeks - the guidelines are not tailored for us outliers and so may well seem topsy-turvy.

In reply to Myr:

You are quite right. Meanwhile the golf courses, bowling greens and tennis courts are filling up. The hills meanwhile remain empty. One of Scotland's greatest assets is its outdoor spaces.  Time for a sensible access approach again. According to the roadmap we will all have to wait until sometime in July for this. 

Ps  I am an SNP member of some 40 years standing . . I fear in the long term an undermining of our access rights

In reply to rogerwebb:

Good to have a professional appraisal.

The statement on Police Scotland begs more questions than it answers: 

"Police received a report of a man and woman in difficulty on the munro around 2.40pm on Saturday. Officers and members of Killin Mountain Rescue Team were subsequently deployed to rescue the individuals who had not been suitably equipped for the climb. They were traced safe and well."

The charge is "culpable and reckless conduct", and it seems a reasonable question to examine at what point in the future (if not the present, depending on the procurator fiscal's decision) would this not apply.

What is the background to the "report": did the walkers request it; did someone else on the hill decide to make the call; was it made by someone not on the hill; what made the reporter decide to make the call, etc?

The walkers were "traced safe and well". Was the call-out justified by the nature of the incident itself, not by the extremely flexible interpretation of the regulations? If not, was it the report and subsequent call-out that placed police officers and mountain rescue in a "hazardous" situation?

In what way, and by whose interpretation, were they "in difficulty"? And in what way "not suitably equipped"? Putting yourself in positions of difficulty, and managing yourself through them, is a large part of what mountaineering is about, surely. I can't think of many rock climbs on which I wasn't "in difficulty" or needing more "suitable" equipment (- if only I had another Rock No2) at some point. And a number of hills, over the decades (- I've even, believe it or not, forgotten my map a few times). So: "culpable and reckless conduct"?

I share Dave Hewitt's concerns, and think this case needs watching, and a lot more answers.

In reply to Myr:

That's true, but the problem is a hill rescue may require the MRT to be assembled together introducing new vectors for transmission and risks spreading the disease further afield.

In reply to snowmore:

Indeed, but few outdoor forays require MRT. Conversely, all trips for socialising involve some significant transmission risk.

I suppose another aspect to this is that the MRT members on Saturday were unwillingly forced into potential coronavirus exposure, whereas people meeting up to socialise take that risk consensually.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Agreed - although perhaps not just 'unsociable climbing types'. Walkers, hill-runners, mountain bikers, bird-watchers and naturalists in Scotland build their lives around areas beyond their 'local area'. But realistically a tiny proportion of society; also, these guidelines may only apply for a couple more weeks before the next review, anyway.

In reply to Cam Forrest:

I quite agree. If the basis of the charge is not the journey or some behaviour unrelated to the activity of hillwalking it is worrying. 

In reply to tinnishill:

Never mind. Jump in car and drive over 5 miles to your neares MtcDonalds for some healthy grub and queue for 1 hour plus!

Don't dare go out and climb some nasty big hill cos you,ll be nicked even if you are practicing the ultimate in social distancing

In reply to Grahame N:

Yes, I noticed the "community" (rather than, presumably, "home" or "front door") wording when the Phase 1 details were published a week or so ago. Potentially that allows someone in, say, the middle of Glasgow to treat the city boundary as the edge of their community and head to some quiet bit of the Campsies or wherever for a walk. That seems sensible to me, and on seeing it I felt, not for the first time during all this, that the politicians/civil servants (both UK and Scottish) were deliberately wording things vaguely to allow well-intentioned people a fair bit of wiggle room. However, the police tend not to do vague or nuanced, and the pitchforkerish masses in the Facebook etc comments certainly don't, so it hits problems and confusions anyway.

I've also given thought to what "community" means where I live on the eastern edge of Stirling. I'm basically treating it as "from the door" and sticking with the driving five miles thing plus the "roughly" (but not "ridiculous") factor that the FM spoke about when announcing all this. But in theory I could treat "community" as the eastern Stirling bypass, which gets me a couple of extra miles (especially as we have friends who live just this side of the bypass). In a way I'm tending to treat the community aspect more as being at the hill end of things - I'm happy going on the Ochils, at least this side of Glen Devon, as that's kind of all of a piece, whereas I'm not looking to go further afield whether west or north, at least not yet (much though I would like to). I suspect lots of people are having similar rather woolly internal debates around the area where conscience meets pragmatics.

In reply to Dave Hewitt:

As anSNP member I was sent acopy of the roadmap last week. I emailed for clarification of the 5 mile issue as my nearest hills are over 10 miles away. I was told flexibility was ok provided the normal social distancing rules were strictly observed.  I gather many people including The FM have travelled in excess of 20-30 miles or more to visit family members(which is ok with me) . No wonder confusion reigns

In reply to snowmore:

Who are they going to spread it to at 3000 feet?  The MRT? Why don't we charge anyone who needs an ambulance with putting the crew at risk?

In any case they were found safe and well so presumably guided off the hill with nobody putting hands on. So no risk.

The bottom line is they were not doing anything which was illegal within 5 miles of home. If the govt want hillwalking more than 5 miles from home to be illegal they make a law not issue guidelines. The police should not be re-purposing a law based on where you are at the time.

In reply to Cam Forrest:

Good points. Pure speculation here but surely there was more than handful of walkers on the hill that day. Some of whom had driven 60 miles or more and some locals. To me it reads like another party made the call to the rescue/police.

Traffic Scotland reported problem parking at Falls of Falloch just down the road on Saturday. There was a police block at Drymen stopping cars going up to Balmaha because of problems on Friday. Glencoe and Callander also busy. People coming from far and wide. All this despite advice not to visit popular beauty spots. Alll over would have been busy, I'd imagine the hills were too. Could be totally wrong though.

Were they having trouble dealing with either the scramble or the traverse up from the An Caisteal bealach? That was my first thought. 

Its a serious charge compared to the guys on the Cobbler. Sure they had driven a bit too far but so had thousands. Were they hurling rocks down the hill,I doubt it.  Can't help but think what happened to just a plain old fashioned good stern talking to and a nod towards hill related educational resources online or just a good book. However these are not normal times.

In reply to The Watch of Barrisdale:

Even with allowances for sensible flexibility, there's a lot of variation (and arguably unfairness) in a postcode lottery kind of way. I'm very lucky here in that the Ochils are on tap - scope to walk to the western end of the range even without the short drive along the Hillfoots which opens up the middle part. But there are some definite coastal blackspots where even small hills are too far away unless you're minded to properly stretch the guidance. Fat Bumbly2 upthread is in one such blackspot in the east of Scotland, and I know someone else (again a keen hillgoer) who is in another one over west. Getting anywhere quiet and on-hill for these people is far more difficult just now than it is for me, and they have my sympathy.

There appears to be a grey area where a legitimate longish-distance drive to visit someone might then be combined with exercise. If I had a hillwalking sister in Crianlarich (I don't), then as with the people you mention I'd be absolutely fine to visit her outdoors (with toilet facilities being the only real concern), even though Crianlarich is about 45 miles from here. But what if the Crianlarich sister then said "It's a lovely day, how about we go for a walk - Beinn a' Chroin, perhaps?" The standard parking area (assuming it isn't coned off) is only a couple of miles from Crianlarich - and anyway walking from the house is unlimited in terms of distance (despite what the Stirling police chief appears to have said). So would this imaginary sister and I be able legitimately to go up Beinn a' Chroin together, keeping careful social distance as we went? I'm not sure, but I suspect that she'd be OK as she'd be within five miles of home, whereas I wouldn't be OK because I'd already travelled 45 miles to get to her house. It all gets a bit silly, but these are the kind of issues that are genuinely troubling people just now in terms of trying to do the most that they feel is permissible. If in this situation one of us had to be rescued, what would be the consequences be? Would I be charged if it was me, but my sister wouldn't be charged if it was her? Or would they do us both as a job lot? And had the real-world Beinn a' Chroin twosome last Saturday been visiting someone in Crianlarich on the same day they ended up getting rescued, would the result have been any different from what actually happened?

PS - Surely it shouldn't just have been SNP members who were sent the route map? It's a Scottish Government document, not an SNP thing.

In reply to Dave Hewitt:

Getting anywhere quiet is difficult - I am lucky, I live in a tourist attraction / honeypot.   A far more important piece of guidance than 5 miles is keeping away from tourist attractions and honeypots and observing physical distancing, so this cooler weather is great I can get back on the beach.  Half the 64pi square km I have is sea, the other half is mostly urban with any walks involving roads which has required a round of Russian roulette with the boy racers, too frightening for my other half - now that's a job for the polis!

In reply to Fat Bumbly2:

I live in a rural village in Scotland. It has 3 roads all without pavements once you leave the village .

Heavy log lorries use all 3 roads among other large and small vehicles.

So its dangerous and unhealthy (diesel fumes) to use them.

Before the lockdown I used to drive 8 miles to an area full of paths and climbs in a mainly forestry area.

Since the lockdown its very difficult to get exercise.

So I can risk returning to my previous walks and perhaps  a fine or jail sentence.

I have no intention of going to any 'honey pots'  yet I face criminalisation. 

I will certainly not be voting SNP at any future election.

In reply to Removed UserBryan Sweeney:

Of course. That is entirely within any sensible interpretation and in the spirit of the guidance.

In reply to Robert Durran:

You’re evidently an intelligent and sensible person, Robert, so I find it somewhat confusing that you appear to have been arguing in this thread for the abuse and misuse of law to punish something that is not illegal and not considered particularly morally questionable by a significant portion of the population. Surely this can't be right? Justice only works when it is applied fairly and proportionately. Regardless of your personal opinions of the men's actions, I'd never have expected you to argue in favour of flagrant abuse of the law.

I suspect that Mr. Peel would be turning in his grave were he to find out about the bending of obscure offences to suit an appetite to punish those not following guidelines.

I sincerely hope I've misinterpreted your position.

In reply to tehmarks:

It's not that I want the force of the law brought on them. I'd be quite happy for them just to be named and thoroughly shamed. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

My apologies. I thought that:

was meant in the sense that you supported their prosecution.

In reply to Removed UserBryan Sweeney:

Nobody will know or care and if you did meet a cop it would be a local who'd almost certainly be completely reasonable.   

No you don't.  The 5 miles is a guideline.  On the 100 to 1 chance of getting stopped by a cop they aren't going to chuck you in jail for driving 8 miles when the guidance says 5.  Especially since it is only guidance not a legal requirement.

How would you write the rules? They need to be simple and they need to stop people from cities with high infection rates like Glasgow and Edinburgh going to rural areas with low infection rates and discourage tourists and second home owners.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I would suggest that one way hill walkers can help stop infection spreading is not to leave hand-painted YES stones on cairns at the top of hills. So much for John Muir's dictum about leaving nothing behind but your footprint. Despite the risk of infection I picked one up a couple of days ago and disposed of it under an erratic to save other hill walkers having their walk disturbed by such eye sores. No need to thank me.

By the way, the starting point for my walk was exactly 5 miles from my house and I didn't cause any problem with parking so I hope no over zealous Nat has sent a photo of my car to be added to Alyn Smith's collection.  

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

One would have found it unbelievable that the police might shame people going about their lawful business by recording them with drones too, or that a police officer might threaten to fabricate an offence to justify arresting someone that they suspect of breaching lockdown, or that a chief constable would threaten to unlawfully set up roadblocks and check the contents of shoppers' trolleys (before doing an abrupt U-turn and denying he ever made the comments on live television), or that the police might bend some obscure legislation to justify dragging some people through the courts for having the temerity to drive to a hill and subsequently need rescuing from it.

The problem with making reasonable assumptions is that the behaviour of the police is very often at odds with the trust and confidence needed to make them. Yes, these are difficult and exceptional times -  but this authoritarian, dangerous and unlawful behaviour needs challenging at every corner. It is incompatible with living in a modern democracy, pandemic or otherwise.

In reply to Robert Durran:

"I'd be quite happy for them just to be named and thoroughly shamed. "

Why? Are you a fan of mob rule? Encouraging public castigation of people who 'society' deems to take excessive personal risk will not end well for the climbing community. 

It's not apparent what they have done wrong. On the face of it (and of course there may be details which are relevant and have not been disclosed) they have gone for a walk. Someone (not them) has called mountain rescue and they have been found to be fine. Nothing in what they have done contravenes the Coronavirus (Scotland) Act. 

Therefore we are left we the heinous crime of going up an munro and being arguably unprepared. Essentially taking what has been deemed to be excessive personal risk. This should be a cause for concern for anyone who enjoys the outdoors. I can think of many things I do that carry much higher objective risk than wandering up a munro in blazing sunshine in shorts and t-shirt (for example, I don't know what they had with them) and I'm a bit of a wimp really. Up until now doing dangerous things at the weekend in the hills has not been a crime indeed collectively people engaging in such activities forms the canon of Scottish mountaineering history. 

There may be some moral debate about complying with government guidance. But government guidance tends to have muddled, political motivations, is one size fits all and very risk averse (with some exceptions). How many people are limiting themselves to 14 units a week right now? Following it will probably keep you alive I'm not sure I'd call it living. The government is never ever going to encourage anyone to go winter climbing for instance or take significant personal risk. It doesn't mean you shouldn't though or exercise personal judgement.

Nevertheless, this charge is clearly an outlier. Hopefully it will come to nothing when everyone calms down a bit. I don't think it fairly represents how the Scottish Police had behaved during the lockdown. They mostly appear to have policed with significant restraint relying heavily on educating rather than fining people at what must be a very stressful time for them dealing with fluid legislation and significantly increased personal risk of catching the virus. Indeed on the 5 mile thing the head of the Scottish Police Fed moved quickly and eloquently to shut down the more Maoist instincts of some politicians to write this into legislation saying "I’m not convinced that would be good for the country and its people. It certainly wouldn’t be good for police-public relations". more https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/5661073/coronavirus-scotland-nicola-s...

Even so I cannot escape a sense of unease on this and a deep sense of sadness for the two affected. The idea that they will have to live with this charge hanging over them at what is already a desperate and uncertain time which will only get worse as the effects of the deepest downturn since before the industrial revolution take hold. 

If anyone is aware of any way in which I can assist them with any legal costs, please let me know. While I do not think this will come to anything the consequences of it becoming precedent could be far reaching. 

In reply to 1932:

Well said. 

In reply to 1932:

That is not what I have a problem with. If they lived at the bottom of this Munro then this would have been no different to any other mountain rescue (people make mistakes, shit happens, sometimes need rescuing and are lucky if they are rescued).

The problem I have with them is entirely that they took the piss out of the current guidelines by driving there from Glasgow. The fact that they went up a Munro is neither here nor there. Ninety nine times out of a hundred they might have made their trip, climbed their Munro and returned home without anything happening to bring their trip to public attention, but they didn't and I have no sympathy with them. If their trip had come to light because of a road accident or any other reason I would feel the same.

This last weekend I could have filled my car with fuel and headed virtually anywhere in Scotland on my own and, unless I had some sort of accident or my car broke down, almost certainly avoided contact with anybody else and nobody else need have known about it. But I didn't because I would have been completely taking the piss out of the guidelines - if I had done so and been found out, I would have deserved to be pilloried. 

In reply to 1932:

" While I do not think this will come to anything the consequences of it becoming precedent could be far reaching. "

Well said, all of it, and this is precisely the point I was attempting to make yesterday

In reply to Robert Durran:

Why do you think you would have deserved to be pilloried? You wouldn't have done anything illegal or anything liable to spread the virus (assuming that you took appropriate precautions regarding distancing, touching gates or stiles etc).

Guidelines are not rules.

In reply to Cam Forrest:

The police almost certainly overreacted by actually charging them, but I really don't think anyone need worry that this is going to become a precedent; the statements from both the police and the MR in the article the OP linked make it perfectly clear that their criticism is linked to the coronavirus guidelines rather than than specifically the fact that they messed up on the hill. I'm really not sure why people are getting so worked up about it.

In reply to Robert Durran:

If that is honestly the society you would like to live in then I can't argue with you. Personally I prefer liberal government and the rule of law enforced by well trained professionals. What you are advocating is tabloid government and the return of putting people in the stocks. 

Personally I would like people with liver disease, lung cancer or type 2 diabetes to have access to the best care available for their conditions. I would think it disproportionate for them to be publicly named and shamed for serial breaches of public health guidance over the years and charged with crimes. That would be a grotesque way of organising society in my view. 

In reply to Point of View:

Because I would have been flouting guidelines designed to help get rid of this virus. If everyone did similarly the highlands would be absolutely mobbed at the moment and I'm not at all sure that is a good idea just now.

In reply to 1932:

I think that is a somewhat overdramatic way of putting it. I'd just be happy if these people went home with their tail between their legs feeling a bit ashamed of themselves and if the publicity made other people think twice before ignoring the guidelines.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I don't think it is overstating it. Public pillory costs people their jobs (unless you're Dominic Cummings). It can ruin peoples lives and in some cases lead to serious mental health problems and suicide. I think it's a very distasteful form of punishment to advocate. 

Also I return to my point on the nature of government guidance and the less than thorough burden of evidence needed to issue it coupled with confused motives. I do not follow why the 5 mile rule has been imposed on exercise. The impact appears to confine people living in cities to very limited spaces. Yet driving a considerable distance (bladder dependent!) to meet someone else is fine. It is not apparent why driving say 50 miles to exercise alone or with your household is a greater risk to the spread of the virus than driving the same distance expressly to meet someone from another household in another area. Contrasting these instructions raises the possibility that some of the thinking behind it is not strictly epidemiological.

This leads to questions over why people are being asked (it is guidance after all) to limit their liberty. Most may well accept it on sound, persuasive epidemiological grounds, but if there are other considerations then what are they? 

In reply to tinnishill:

We've just had this press release from Mountaineering Scotland:

Rescue reassurance for walkers

999 calls during lockdown will not lead to prosecution

Hill walkers and climbers have been reassured that they should not be penalised if they have to call on the services of a mountain rescue team.

News that two people had been charged with culpable and reckless conduct following a rescue call-out near Crianlairich at the weekend had been causing concern in the outdoor community.

Mountaineering Scotland is working with Scottish Mountain Rescue and Police Scotland who have said to climbers and walkers that if they stick to the Phase 1 lockdown guidelines they will not be at risk of a fine.

Stuart Younie, Chief Executive of Mountaineering Scotland, said: “Walkers and climbers who follow the guidance on travel and stay local should have no concerns. We want to encourage everyone who is able to access the hills to make sure they stay safe and are well prepared before they go.”

Damon Powell, Chairman of Scottish Mountain Rescue, said: “Mountain rescue teams are here to help. If people get into difficulties in the hills they should be clear that MR assistance is provided without cost and without judgement.”

Chief Inspector Gill Marshall, of Forth Valley Police, said: “I would like to reassure outdoor enthusiasts that when the guidance allows the resumption of their pursuits, Police Scotland and our colleagues in Mountain Rescue teams across the area will be committed to providing support and assistance to those in difficulty, as we always have done.

“In the current climate we must all work together to minimise the risks faced, and we will continue to engage and encourage compliance, with enforcement as a last resort."

...And here's the latest coronavirus-phase-1-related advice for walkers and climbers in Scotland: https://www.ukhillwalking.com/news/2020/05/new_corona_advice_for_walkers_an...

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

And, by implication, if you flout the guidance, you should presumably continue to feel concerned.

I don't think that is going to reassure a lot of the contributors to this thread!

In reply to Robert Durran:

I respect your position on this even though it's not mine and I think you're being pretty harsh. But would you take the same view if it was you who had been "named and thoroughly shamed"? Upthread - early hours of Wed - you and I compared notes about us both having gone beyond the five-mile stated limit for our Ochils outings. From what I can gather you didn't go hugely over it, just as I haven't (the furthest I've yet been is 12.9 miles to Dollar, which would have been about a mile less had the car park I wanted to use not been taken over by the locals, and a mile less again had I gone a different way at the start - but 10ish miles for me at least anyway). I'm fine about doing that - it kept me well within my local hills - and from what you said your change of scene from the Lomonds to the Ochils seemed absolutely fine and sensible too. But in a story where precise details are thin on the ground, one thing we do appear to know is that the local police chief in these parts is, at least on occasion, interpreting the five-mile thing rigidly - she said this in her quotes about the Chroin incident. It's also known that Scottish Mountain Rescue were "pleased" that charges were brought at Beinn a' Chroin (which is the aspect I continue to find most worrying and disheartening in all this).

So it appears that if either you or I had had a mishap on the Ochils and needed rescuing, we could have been charged in the same way and could also have been publicly shamed in the way that the Chroin two are being shamed. They haven't been named, thank goodness, but as 1932 says above it must now be a pretty miserable and worrying state of affairs for them.

If that was you, after a drive of dozen miles with which you were (justifiably in my opinion) happy with, would you still be OK about receiving the consequences of a police/MRT/Facebook etc shaming (and potentially a serious criminal conviction in due course)? Because that does appear to be feasible in the current situation, as I doubt very much that the "within the spirit of the guidelines" argument for either of us would wash with police or mountain rescue were they minded to again make an example of someone, as appears to have been the case in the Chroin incident.

(All that was written just before the Mountaineering Scotland press release - which I'm not sure clarifies much - was published.)

In reply to Robert Durran:

No, indeed. 

I'm staying local for now because I'd have to travel a lot more than five miles to get to any decent hills. Five miles might be a vague aspiration but 50 miles is clearly outside the spirit of the thing. And then what..?

I'm on board with the generally cautious approach to lifting things, but this aspect of it seems arbitrary and is beginning to grate for us hill-deprived central belters. 

In reply to Dave Hewitt:

The press release clarifies nothing.

"Mountaineering Scotland is working with Scottish Mountain Rescue and Police Scotland who have said to climbers and walkers that if they stick to the Phase 1 lockdown guidelines they will not be at risk of a fine."

In other words go past 5 miles and you risk a fine. And as the guidelines (so far) are not law this suggests the police would again resort to stretching criminal law and using "culpable and reckless conduct" which is a serious criminal charge  being used in this case to criminalise conduct which is legal close to home.

How can going for a walk be reckless because you drive for an hour first? There is no greater risk to anyone. Arguably less risk if you avoid busy local areas and go somewhere quiet.

Who would have thought in the 21st century we would need to worry about dodging the police to go on the hill? 

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

Thanks for posting. This is a helpful first step. Credit to Mountaineering Scotland for working so quickly to get this out. I think they've been doing a great job throughout in trying to interpret guidance and legislation which has not be drawn up with walkers and climbers in mind - rightly and understandably of course. 

It certainly does largely assuage my longer term concerns. Nevertheless it does pose some further questions regarding the current situation, academic for me as I don't have access to a car, but important nonetheless. 

My understanding of the law, with the important caveat that I'm not a lawyer, is that you are allowed to do whatever you like as long as the law does not prohibit it. Therefore concerning the case in hand we now have clarity that calling out MR or having them called out on your behalf is not a crime. Driving more than 5 miles for exercise is not a crime but is advised against. I'm struggling to understand why adding together two things which are not prohibited by law can be deemed illegal? 

There should be certainty on this so people understand what is the law and what is guidance. As I understand it from traffic data, it was not just this unfortunate pair out in the hills at the weekend. There is a significant gulf in my view between drinking 15 units of booze in a week (advised against) and punching people in the face (illegal - as i understand it - not a lawyer!). If the intention is to enforce the guidance as law then this needs to be made clear, and not to get too pernickety but it actually needs to be made law. 

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

Is there anything to be read into this clause being in the future tense? This seems to take quite a different position to the statements from MS and SMR - possibly just semantics though.

In reply to tinnishill:

Damon Powell 2 June:

“We are also aware how deeply frustrating it is when everyone who is making such sacrifices see people openly flouting the guidance. We are pleased to see the police taking action against such individuals.”

Damon Powell 4 June:

“Mountain rescue teams are here to help. If people get into difficulties in the hills they should be clear that MR assistance is provided without cost and without judgement.”

In reply to Robert Durran:

Not getting at you, but wondering if you spent the night away from home on 30/31 May? Lovely sunset and sunrise photos. I bivvied out on my local hills 3 times during lockdown, and I know others have too.

In reply to tehmarks:

The discussion was about how a local person might be treated by Police Scotland in a rural area of Scotland.  The cops there are going to be local and very few of them spread over a wide area,  There aren't arseh*le cops with drones lurking round every corner ready to pounce on a local person who has gone 8 miles rather than 5.  

In reply to GrantM:

Presumably the 2nd June statement refers to ignoring the covid guidance, whereas the 4th June statement is confirming that the long established principle of the MR not judging people for getting into difficulties and needing rescuing is unaffected. I see no contradiction.

In reply to Grahame N:

Yes, I bivied. I've also bivied on West Lomond once during lockdown.

In reply to Robert Durran:

No, it refers to the the couple rescued at the weekend being charged by the police with culpable and reckless conduct.

https://www.scotland.police.uk/whats-happening/news/2020/june/two-people-ch...

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Major problem caused by using a random number, in this case 5 miles, to suggest a limit to travel. For  substantial number of the population this inhibits their ability to visit family, play golf, go hillwalking, canoeing,go to beach for swimming etc while favouring others who can meet this limit.  The key it seems is clearly social distancing.  Eventually people,s good sense has  to be relied upon and eventually travel limits removed. As far as I can tell this will be sometime in July in the Scottish governments roadmap. I think the timescale-which will be around17 weeks into lockdown is causing a bit of despair in some quarters. -wbich is hardly surprising.

In reply to Dave Hewitt:

I think that the way I have decided what is reasonable throughout the lockdown is to ask myself whether I could, hand on heart, defend my behaviour as being within the letter of the law and the spirit of the guidelines. So, as such, if the police had apprehended me for stretching my "5 miles" to driving to the Ochils, I hope I would have been happy to be publicly "shamed", because of the simple fact that I was  already at ease with my behaviour and not ashamed of it - I could happily stand there and defend it. If I had driven to Crianlarich that would not be the case.

As for criminal conviction, I think it is inconceivable that my trips to the Ochils would result in this happening, so I am entirely unconcerned about the possibility. I think getting charged by a misguided policeman would possibly even be quite amusing!

In reply to GrantM:

Yes, for flouting the guidelines as I said.

In reply to Robert Durran:

If they were all observing sensible social distancing I don't see why it should be a problem.

In reply to Point of View:

It might not have been a problem for me personally because I am happy to shit in the woods, doss in my car and cook outside. Most people want accomodation, public toilets, food etc. 

In reply to The Watch of Barrisdale:

I have just read the recent posts on this thread and regret the antagonism which seems to emerge between people who would normally be bosom buddies. I have fallen prey myself to the temptation - in a way which I now regret - to react badly to friends who have been doing things (climbing on a crag more than five miles away) that I would not have done, but why do we not just accept that different people have different, reasonable view in the complexity of this situation which is unprecedented for all of us? This too will pass, there is no point in building grudges as if - maybe - they will persist. History shows that deeper divisions than we are concerned with heal over.

In reply to tinnishill:

So we have clarity that their charge was not specifically because they needed rescued from a hill - that's a relief to hear.

We also know there were thousands out and about for exercise, more than 5 miles from home, at the weekend at various beauty spots all over Scotland. So if Police Scotland ( or Forth Valley Police specifically ) were wanting to be seen to enforce the "drive roughly 5 miles for exercise" guideline they had plenty opportunities, but not seen or heard that being reported as having happened.

So, is the inference that they are only charging someone if they get in to some sort of difficulty ( whilst well over 5 miles away ) and have to call help ?

Say, you had a car accident, after your walk at Falls of Falloch, and police and recovery were called out ( analagous to MR being called and co-ordinated via police ) would they charge you with the same charge as the hillwalkers got ?

Are we saying the actual rule in practice is "you can break the travel distance rule as long as you don't need help and we'll turn a blind eye to it, but if we have to get involved then we'll come down on you."

In reply to The Watch of Barrisdale:

The five miles was certainly disappointingly low. I think the problem is that they said 5 miles but that it was just a guideline and that it might be more as long as you stay "local". This means that some people hardly go anywhere while others stretch "local" to Crianlarich or wherever. I think it would have been better to have emphasised "local" but to have put an absolutely definite but more generous upper limit of, say, 15 miles.

It is an unfortunate feature of the lockdown that, at all stages, some people are inevitably going to have a worse time of it than others due to where they happen to live.

In reply to steelbru:

Is this not as absurd as interpreting the law as saying you can rob a bank as long as the getaway car doesn't crash or break down. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

It won't remain amusing when you find yourself charged – actually charged, as you seem to not fully understand what being charged with something means – and in front of whatever the Scottish version of a magistrate is. You'll find it even less amusing when you're found guilty by a lay magistrate who is bereft of real legal understanding of the law and suddenly have a serious conviction on your record.

Every one of us is not much more than one misunderstanding and three lay idiots (or nine lay idiots) away from being wrongfully convicted of a crime. Don't be mistaken in thinking that sense will prevail – the justice system in England is fundamentally broken, and while I can't comment on Scotland I'd wish to avoid ever appearing in any court and having to place my faith in the right outcome being arrived at. It isn't arrived at in a shocking number of instances.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Let's not lose track of the reason for these rules.

Glasgow and Lanarkshire still have relatively high infection rates.  Edinburgh is next.   The highlands have very low to no infections.

The rate of infection in Glasgow and Edinburgh was falling quite predictably and reasonably quickly under lockdown.   If we stay locked down then in a few weeks it would be low enough there would be no reason to segregate urban and rural populations.   The more we relax the lockdown the more we increase R and, even if it stays below 1, the rate at which infection is falling off will reduce so it will take longer before it is safe to open fully.

If the populations start mixing while the infection rates in cities are still quite high then rural infections are going to kick up to the same level as urban ones and it is going to take even longer to control. 

Any rules need to be simple enough to remember and have criteria which the police can enforce.  They can't have hundreds of - in themselves - perfectly reasonable exceptions for different activities or they will become unenforceable and everybody will be saying 'if they can do that then why can't I do this'.   The simplest way to resolve this is to keep things tighter so the infection rate falls faster and in the end we will get back to normal quicker.

All 27 EU countries added together now have fewer deaths per day than the UK.   Westminster really is not the lead we should be following when developing lockdown policies for Scotland.

In reply to Robert Durran:

The law concerning robbery is unambiguous. The law concerning coronavirus lockdown is actually also reasonably unambiguous – but it's not what you (or the police, or apparently Arrochar MRT) would like it to be.

It's a very simple concept – you can't be tried for doing nothing wrong. Breaching guidelines is not the same as breaking the law. No matter how much you'd like it to be. No matter how morally abhorrent you might find it, there's simply nothing unlawful or illegal about driving however many miles you want to go for a walk. It's that simple.

If you have a problem with it, I suggest the best way of expressing it would be to write to your MP – as a member of the body who pass laws – and express your displeasure.

In reply to tehmarks:

So why bother with a trial then if everyone tried is guilty?

Oh dear, you have taken my post far too seriously! I wasn't remotely suggesting that the guidelines are equivalent to the law - just that it seems absurd to me to take the view of either in the spirit that it's only a problem if you don't get away with it.

In reply to Robert Durran:

The problem is that this is a very, very important issue, and regardless of how you feel about individuals flouting guidelines, it's paramount to denounce this flagrant abuse of power and process by the police. I'm dead serious when I say that I believe that ending up in a court seems akin to rolling the dice on your future. But don't take my word for it - the legal profession are regularly vocal about how our legal system is not fit for purpose and regularly generates astounding miscarriages of justice. Joking that you think it'd be funny to be charged for driving six miles from your house; it really, honestly, will cease to be funny when it happens. And it may well happen. Maybe not to you personally - but that hardly makes it better, does it? Someone somewhere is still having their life turned upside down by a disgusting abuse of process.

In reply to Robert Durran:

You seem to have misunderstood entirely. You can't (or certainly shouldn't) end up in court when you have no case to answer, having very clearly not broken the law. If you have broken the law and there is sufficient evidence that there's a reasonable prospect of securing a conviction, and it's in the public interest to prosecute, then of course you should be tried.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that you should never end up in court when there is absolutey no evidence that you have broken any law.

In reply to tehmarks:

I almost want it to happen now!

In reply to tehmarks:

What other guidelines are okay to ignore and/or breach? Is it just the distance thing?  I often noticed people not bothering to wash their hands or use hand sanitizer before coronavirus, maybe we should ignore that too - it is only guidance and not law after all...

In reply to tehmarks:

Of course, but that is not what you seemed to be saying.

In reply to tehmarks:

As I have already said, I accept that. But it does not change the fact that these individuals blatantly flouted the guidelines and I'm happy for them to be pulled up for doing so.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Where is the ambiguity? Which bit are you having problems with? I can't be any clearer: unless there are some very compelling facts that we do not know, the men don't appear to have broken any coronavirus-related law. They do appear to have broken the guidelines, and appear to have been charged with a disproportionately serious crime for flouting guidelines. Which are not law. Which can't be enforced legally.

It's surely obvious what I mean when I say that you can't be tried for doing nothing wrong, if you read it in the context of the rest of the paragraph that follows. Interpreting that to mean that I only think people should only be tried if they are definitely guilty is asinine. 

In reply to Naechi:

Oh for goodness sake. They're two separate issues. It's irrelevant what my opinion is with regards to those who break the guidelines, and I'm keeping my opinion firmly away from this topic because it only clouds the argument which must be made: that regardless of how morally objectionable some of the population find guideline-flouting, it's absolutely unacceptable to punish it by bending obscure and serious offences to fit. It doesn't matter whether you think the punishment is fitting; it's unjust to misuse the law to punish people who have not broken it. It's quite an important concept because once you break that barrier down, what's to stop you from being put in prison because you're...recklessly climbing a crag in 2023, post-coronavirus? Or because you went out onto the hill underprepared and needed rescuing? Or, heaven forbid, because you're black. Or Jewish. Or left-wing?

First they came for...?

In reply to tehmarks:

I know all that. 

Yes, I know all that too.

Yes, I have already accepted all that.

Not at all.

Well you seemed to then be very concerned that people might be tried and found guilty despite not doing anything wrong!

Anyway you later seemed to clarify that what you actually meant to say was that you should not be tried without there being evidence that you might have done something wrong. I hope we can agree on that!

In reply to tinnishill:

Just to cheer us all up a wee bit. 51 new cases in last 24 hours in Scotland- so coming down steadily, only 9 of which in biggest population area of Glasgow and Clyde.  Can only hope this rate of progress carries on. - although no comfort to those who,ve got the virus. Sorry if this is a bit off track, but at least there,s hope yet.

In reply to tehmarks:

Unfortunately it isn't that simple;

From The Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions) (Scotland) Regulations 2020

5.—(1) Except to the extent that a defence would be available under regulation 8(4), ... no person may leave the place where they are living.

When you leave your house you are potentially in breach of that law. It may be that you have a 'reasonable excuse' as set out in Section 8(4) and can justify your position.

Whether or not driving a significant number of miles to go hillwalking is such an excuse has yet to be determined. Whether or not it is culpable and reckless conduct to do the same thing during the current crisis is also yet to be determined. It may be illegal, it may not be. We haven't heard the evidence yet.

It may be that we never will, perhaps the procurator fiscal will put a line through it, perhaps not but in the absence of a definitive ruling by a court and with such imprecise legislation it is not clear or simple.

I would hope that this gets clarified sooner rather than later.

In reply to The Watch of Barrisdale:

Don't be sorry, it is good news!

In reply to rogerwebb:

Thanks Roger. Only sorry cos it,s"off-topic". There again maybe it.s not really..

In reply to tinnishill:

its not written in law, the advice makes no sense anyway refuse the fines

In reply to Robert Durran:

This is not in reply to Robert in particular, it is just a general sense of oh for goodness' sake. See my previous post about all things will pass. What's the point in slinging mud at each other and vehemently arguing fine points about this and that? Why not accept that we all, each of us, mostly do what we see as right, bearing in mind that climbing tends to be an obsession leading to irrational tendencies, that we are none of us terribly differently to each other, we mostly act most of the time in good faith, (and, rarely, when we don't, it is bloody obvious) and leave it at that?  

In reply to Robert Durran:

I'm finding your argument hard to follow. You seem to be applying your own guidelines to suit yourself. Your actions are based on reasonable judgement and I'm not for a second suggesting they would put anyone at risk. Nonetheless it is clear that driving 15 miles for exercise in the Ochils is more than 5 miles. Similarly bivvying anywhere but your garden is not consistent with the stay at home guidance. You are sensibly applying your own judgement. So far so understandable. 

Yet on the other hand you are arguing that someone driving 45 miles more than you feel happy doing deserves public opprobrium. This isn't a logical position. What is the increase in risk of driving 5, 15 or 60 miles to go for a walk in the hills? I suspect the risk of passing the virus to anyone is vanishingly small in each case. Probably much less than the increase in risk of transmission of going to the supermarket twice a week rather than once. It may even be reasonably argued that going for a walk somewhere remote reduces the risk vis a vis a popular central belt location. 

If the 5 mile rule has any evidence behind it lets see it and give it the due scrutiny which a law would have. 

In reply to The Watch of Barrisdale:

Thanks. Absolutely nothing to be sorry about. This is a lot more important than tying ourselves in knots about whether or not or not we can go up a hill. - That's becoming a bit like medieval scholars arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. [I include myself in the pin head angel counting.]

In reply to Robert Durran:

why 5 miles anyway, most places have fairly similar (within 0.8% in the main) infection levels why not say 50 miles. that seem reasonable as the virus isn't all that transmissible outside anyways

In reply to 1932:

Because I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that they were staying "local".

In reply to CurlyStevo:

You need to ask Nicola Stugeon. I presume the idea was to try to stop "beauty spots" being mobbed. I was certainly hoping for (and expecting) something more like 50 miles.

In reply to Robert Durran:

That's just choosing the bits of the guidance that suit you though. Also what is local? The settlement you live in? Local Authority? 1hrs drive? 

It also says hill walking is an acceptable activity. One might, somewhat fancifully perhaps, interpret that as they have no hills immediately next to them that its fine to go for a 1hrish drive to the nearest ones. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

well seeing as the infection and deaths rates that were going down are almost universally  staying that way world wide irrelevant of location and measure changes the whole thing is arbitrary for the time being atleast.

In reply to 1932:

I would be very surprised if many people could travel 50 miles from their home and honestly say that they still felt "local".

Definitely fancifully. Anyway, the people on Beinn a'Chroin definitely drove past quite a few closer one. More likely it was the closest Munro they hadn't done!

In reply to Naechi:

Of course we should all be observing good hygene. But it doesn't mean that someone should be charged with a serious crime if they don't. Would you expect a criminal record for not washing your hands? That is in effect what is happening to the Crianlarich two. They breached a guideline not a law and if found guilty will have a criminal record which would bar them from  many occupations.

In any case not washing hands increases risk. Driving 50 miles to a quiet hill does not. In fact arguably walking in a quieter place reduces risk.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Or more charitably to them, drove past the Loch Lomond Honeypots, avoiding the busiest areas, in the spirit of the guidance. While you may want the criterion in the guidance to be what Robert Durran reckons is local, it is not. 

In reply to 1932:

It is just possible I am wrong, but, as I said, I would bet that very, very few people honestly consider 50 miles local. Do you think that people can interpret it completely freely? Or do you have a reasonable cut off? If people can interpret it completely freely then the government were presumably daft to use the word in the guidance?

In reply to Robert Durran: I imagine all of us are considering at every point whether we would feel comfortable defending what we have done.  There are however widely differing views on every aspect of this re what different people think is ok and what isn't.  Many people would regard your bivies as 'flouting' the guidance and possibly the regulations.  I suspect a high proportion of the people on the SMR Facebook site who are castigating the rescued walkers  would take that view.  Many people will regard anything more than a short walk as flouting the guidance.   I appreciate you have applied the same test to this.  I am sure there will be people who will report a car that has been out overnight or if they saw someone heading into the hills for an overnighter.  I don't think camping out is mentioned in any of the Mountaineering guidance. There is still a heavy emphasis on stay at home as much as possible.  Perhaps your name and shame chance will come sooner than you think!

The real depressing aspect of last weekend was the litter

In reply to Robert Durran:  I live in Edinburgh.   Forgetting about coranvirus I would probably have described the Ochils, Fife and Border Hills as local.  In a city there might be a different perspective.  

In reply to abbeywall:

Well it seems to be happening right now! 

In reply to abbeywall:

I take the point, though I would have though most people in Edinburgh would have considered the Pentlands to be their local hills. I think if I lived in Edinburgh I would have taken last week's easing to be a green light to drive to the Pentlands in a similar way to me driving to the Ochils.  Would you feel at ease with yourself driving to those three sets of hills at the moment?

Edit: No need to answer that publicly if you don't want to! I think it probably generally pretty hard to know what sort of consensus there is on all this because most people, perhaps sensibly, don't want be be scrutinised over what they consider reasonable. But it would be interesting to know how many people drove to the highlands from the central belt to go walking last weekend!

In reply to Robert Durran:

Do be careful, Robert - as others have said, your 'fessing-up to bivvies is risky, especially on top of the more than five miles thing. There might well be police or others in authority reading this thread, and there do appear to be dangers just now. A lot of people are being very cagey (or totally silent) about what they're doing exercise-wise, and although I admire your openness and honesty I wouldn't want for a minute for it to lead you into proper trouble. (I know there's at least one polis on UKC but I'd imagine that s/he would not carry anything over into work unless something absolutely terrible was admitted.)

Re the "local" thing, it clearly does vary hugely among people both in terms of inclination and simply where you live. I've probably become a curious case in recent years as I've become prone to homesickness and as a consequence I get out a lot but don't go very far. I don't think I've had a night away from home, apart from visiting family, since a bivvy at the head of Loch Avon (very nice) in the summer of 2013. Hence the initial lockdown felt scary at first as there seemed to be a risk of being denied even very local stuff, but over time I worked out new routines and habits to cope with that. In the current situation I'd happily stay Ochiling, ie very local, for months and months if need be, although I am beginning to hanker slightly after the standard Munros and Corbetts within a 40ish-mile radius. But I've got no desire to go further than that, so maybe I'm lucky in that regard.

Oh, and in the spirit of trying to introduce cheerfulness to this thread, my better half and I drove to the quiet northern side of Dumyat yesterday (4.3 miles!) for a very pleasant wander to the summit that included curlew, two cuckoos doing a noisy rivalry thing and the first of the summer orchids. Very enjoyable.

Homesickness amendment: the better half reminds me that I spent a night in a friend's caravan near Aviemore in summer 2018 after helping him with some Strathfarrar Munros in his second round. I enjoyed the hill and friends aspects of it enormously but I couldn't wait to get back home.
 

In reply to Robert Durran:

indeed!  I think I can safely say that if I lived in the Highlands I would be exercising in the Highlands.

 But I look forward to when Ratho opens and we keep it local!

i agree with Dave.  It is an uncomfortable atmosphere.  

In reply to rogerwebb:

On reflection (and as I've said to Robert in private), I have come across quite strongly here. For that I do apologise. You are of course right, it isn't that simple. But I'd be amazed if anyone could find any (scientific) evidence to suggest that activities which are safe 'about five miles' from your home become hazardous sixteen (or sixty) miles from your home - much less reckless. And I think it's a very poor outcome to have to test this in court. Of course, I'm making assumptions. Maybe they actually stopped off at every shop in the nearest town and coughed profusely over everyone in the vicinity. That would certainly be reckless, and they would certainly be culpable. In the absence of evidence though, I'd rather assume that they were normal, reasonable people with a normal, reasonable amount of common sense, and that the issue is that they drove sixty miles to a hill and subsequently needed rescuing.

One would assume that, if they were in breach of that law, they would be charged with an offence under that law? That is not the case. If they have committed an offence under said act, why go to the trouble of bending a common law offence to suit? There's only one conclusion that I can draw from that.

Presumably they haven't been charged under that act because:

5) In paragraph (4), a reasonable excuse includes the need—
(b)to take exercise, either alone or with other members of their household,

Someone has decided somewhere that they can't be charged with that - so they've instead charged them with something more often used for people lobbing traffic cones into oncoming traffic? You must see that, to many average people, that seems like an abuse of process? It's also not entirely a legal question - the trust and cooperation of the population is very much at stake.

As a final point, what on Earth were Scottish MR thinking when they decided to openly state that they welcome the prosecution? There's something deeply unsettling about the recent tendency for mountain rescue teams to criticise their 'customers', and I can only see it ending in tragedy when someone is so afraid to call them that they press on into an even more perilous - maybe even fatal - situation. If nothing else, it potentially makes the inevitable rescue harder and more dangerous for the attending team.

In reply to irc:

Sure, for the person walking maybe.  I've been to 3 incidents in the last week involving people up from the central belt.  Yeah they probably didn't have coronavirus though could be asymptomatic - who knows? PPE was worn but risk was increased for us as it always is.  I'm sure the distance from home was the only thing they weren't bothered about...

In reply to abbeywall:

Sorry I meant would you drive to the Ochils and so on from Edinburgh (but no need to answer!). I certainly shouldn't be complaining - I've counted myself lucky right from the beginning of this not to be in a city and to have had great countryside within walking distance. Having said that, feeling able to extend my walking to the Ochils this last week really does feel like it's transformed things.

I think I've missed the social side of Ratho more than anything! I just hope it survive this.

In reply to tehmarks:

'need' has been taken out of the regulations. That makes it harder to charge under the regulations. Culpable and reckless is a far commoner charge than many may think and not unusual. This is certainly not its first use in relation to coronavirus.

The reported charge is simply that in the police report. What the procurator fiscal makes of it remains to be seen. That might or might not include a breach of the regulations.

I am neither defending nor condemning what has happened. I don't have sufficient information to make a judgement. I can only surmise that there must be something exceptional in the circumstances. If not I am alarmed. 

As for your last point I will restrict myself to 'no comment' 

In reply to Robert Durran:

Is it just me or is this thread descending into a discussion about what is acceptable within and without of the guidance, and/or the law, and what may be appropriate consequences in varying scenarios?

The essence of the issue for me seems to be whether Mountain Rescue should be used as an arm of law enforcement, as it is what is happening as far as I see it, and whether this may affect the issue of safety on the mountain due to how Mountain Rescue is perceived.

In reply to Robert Durran:

yes I knew what you meant.  I was making the point that I wouldn't actually have to worry about asking myself whether it was ok to drive to the central belt.  I will probably stick to indoor yoga and finger boarding in my own house at the moment.  Hopefully no one is going to say that isn't ok

In reply to tehmarks:

MR teams are volunteers, while I may not agree if they wish to criticise their “clients” that is their prerogative. Equally it is my, or any other persons, right to decide if we continue financially supporting the our local or otherwise MR teams.  It is a sad place we have arrived at if either of these “rights” become commonplace. The current situation appears to be changing the mountaineering world and not for the better. 

In reply to rogerwebb:

If threre is, I will happily retract all that I have said. For now, I remain cynical.

In reply to HighChilternRidge:

I am in total agreement.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Robert, I respect your position on this. Yours is clearly a reasonable and thoughtful approach. I think in trying to make my point that there are different points of emphasis people could take from the guidance I went too far in saying you are choosing the bits that suit. I've also portrayed a bit of a straw man of your actual position, apologies for this. Hopefully before too long we can all get out in the mountains and be too tired for these kind of debates. 

In reply to GerM:

I think all three aspects are being discussed with different people emphasising different aspects (for my own part I'm most interested in what is reasonable within the guidance). The fact that all three are being discussed has clearly led to some misunderstanding and aggravation.

In reply to 1932:

No, I think you have a fair point and I should be scrutinised if I am prepared to point the finger at others. I can appreciate that Dave Hewitt thinks I should be careful, but I don't think I could have justified hiding what I have done while criticising others. I have certainly continuously scrutinised myself over the last ten weeks and have really wrestled with how far I can justify venturing at every stage. But having convinced myself of what is reasonable I have probably failed to consider that others have just as reasonably come to different conclusions - and so I may well been unfairly critical. I apologise for this. This whole thing has certainly not been easy for anyone.

Absolutely!

In reply to Robert Durran:

I think I understand your attitude in terms of being unsympathetic to this pair given the government guidance, and agree to some extent in that I believe that their actions went beyond both the spirit and letter of the guidance if not the law. What concerns me are the further implications of the actions of the police and the reaction of Mountain Rescue in this situation. In my opinion it could easily lead to a reluctance to call for help when needed, and potenially even curtail the freedom to partake in adventurous activities in general. Do you not have any such concerns in this situation?

In reply to GerM:

I'm still not convinced that the MR situation is a concern - they do not seem to have criticised the two for needing rescuing but rather for flouting the covid guidelines. In fact they have clarified that they will carry out rescues without judgement (at least that is how I read it). 

In reply to Robert Durran:

There is certainly logic there.

Mountain Rescue will not judge, but rescues will lead to fines, charges and possibly prosecution, all with the full support of Mountain Rescue.

In reply to GerM:

Possibly an outside chance but only in the context of covid restrictions and they are not going to be here for too long (I hope!).

In reply to Robert Durran:

Let's hope you are right.

In reply to rogerwebb:

The fact that what this pair did would be considered perfectly safe had they lived in England might provide a good argument for the defence.

In reply to tinnishill:

Re the "local" aspect, there's an interesting trip report on Walkhighlands just now:
https://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=97167

Assuming the details are correct, the chap went along the Aonach Eagach east-west on Saturday (the same day the Chroin duo had their problems) and had never done it before, so there was no "familiarity" - although he says he'd "climbed everything there is to climb in Glencoe and surrounding area" in the period since September last year. Why it's interesting in light of this whole discussion is that he lives in Kentallen.

He started his walk from the standard eastern layby, and assuming he got there by car it appears, from my rough calculations, to have been a drive of 11 or 12 miles. Hence it's perhaps at the upper end of that tricky distance slot of "roughly five miles", but not anywhere as far as the Chroin people went. Had he walked or (arguably) cycled there from his house there almost certainly wouldn't have any problem with distance, given that it's not under the jurisdiction of the Stirling police office.

Anyway, he looks to have had a fine day out, got along and down no problem and got home for his tea (his wife collected him from the western end of the traverse and appears to have driven him back up to his own car). But had something gone wrong - and given that it's a serious bit of ridge which he tackled solo, with no prior knowledge and after a fair bit more than five miles of a drive - might he have ended up with a criminal charge which the mountain rescue would have been "pleased" to see applied?

In reply to Dave Hewitt:

I don't know and may be  its just me ,but don't other walkers and climbers feel that Mountaineering Scotland is being incredibly condesce22nding ?

As a walker on the hills for about 50 years having climbed most of the munros  and now  still enjoy a day out on the hills I cannot remember  a period where some officials talk down to the rest of us as if we were children.

Its a very dangerous development.

Self appointed experts will interpret and decide what the rest of us should do.

The right to walk on the hills was hard won and we need to be ever vigilant to resist the ever encroaching 'experts' regulating us.

Tom Weir must be turning in his grave

In reply to tinnishill:

So the advice remains "Call the MRT and you'll be charged (unless you live locally)". Don't follow 'the advice' and you're committing a criminal offence. Wonder what will happen in winter with 'High' avalanche warnings ("We advise not going onto the hill")? High winds ("Climbers are advised not to head for the hill this weekend")?

I'm tired of saying that the judiciary are there to enforce the law, not to act on the whim of the executive. 'Good' intentions can quickly induce serious problems if not subjected to proper parliamentary scrutiny.

In reply to Toccata:

I can understand your wariness, but I think it is important to remember that the "advice" is covid specific and not directed specifically at hillwalkers and climbers. I don't think there is really any real reason to believe that this sets a dangerous precedent and that this sort of thing is likely to continue beyond the unprecented situation of the pandemic.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Sadly there will be a bad week in a future Winter - the press will be howling, Ground Elder and that Adams woman will be ranting on the radio -  and then some senior polis will decide "something must be done", especially with a precedent.   The take home message of the past 15 years is that the unthinkable is not unthinkable anymore  and I cannot commit to this level of trust.

In reply to Fat Bumbly2:

Maybe, but would it not require government action (in law or maybe "advice") for anything to actually happen?

In reply to Robert Durran:

The pair were charged because they recklessly put mountain rescuers at significant risk to life and health, through their own deliberate actions. Is there a qualitative difference between recklessly putting rescuers at risk of being avalanched/hypothermia/rockfall, and putting them at risk of contracting coronavirus? - both pose a significant risk to life and health.

In reply to Myr:

Do you know that? (this is a question not an accusation)

In reply to rogerwebb:

No - definitely just my own assumption. I assume that the risk to the mountain rescuers is why these people were charged, and why other people that had driven to the Highlands from the Central Belt to camp or sunbathe were just sent home by police without being charged.

In reply to Myr:

Maybe not, but do you think a it could become punishable in law to put the MR at risk in normal circumstances without the MR supporting such a change?

In reply to Robert Durran:

I think you're probably right that such a change would need support of the MR - or perhaps it could also change if there was increasing appetite for it from the public. I believe there has been a slight shift in that direction recently from Scottish MR teams. The 'no judgement' approach seems slightly less evident on some MR social media posts (for what that's worth) - due to total exasperation. Surely the police will have some say too, given that they invest considerable resources in MR callouts. With the precedent from Saturday's incident, and changing attitudes, it feels to me like we're only a couple of notches away from 'charges will only be brought in exceptional circumstances'.

I don't know quite where I stand on this. I never want to see my right to take risks in the hills taken away. But I also wouldn't say I have a right to endanger others. I'm not quite sure there's a solution that accounts for both of those things.

In reply to tinnishill:

Seems that MRT are taking quite a lot of flak over this culpable and reckless conduct charge.

Quote from the BBC Newsfeed -

Latest Updates

Posted at 14:50

Rescue team's concerns about funding after breach.

Lochaber Mountain Rescue Team says it has been inundated with questions after two people were charged by police for breaching lockdown restrictions last weekend.

The pair had to be rescued after driving more than 60 miles from Glasgow to climb a mountain near Crianlarich.

On a social media post Lochaber MRT says following the incident it has been worried to see messages from people threatening to withdraw their financial backing from mountain rescue teams.

Lochaber says it, along with other volunteer teams, depend on the generosity of the public to support them.

Since the lockdown began Lochaber, traditionally one of Scotland's busiest MRTs, says it has had no call outs and praised the public for showing "remarkable restraint".

In reply to Myr:

It could be argued that one never endangers mountain rescue volunteers as they have no obligation to come and rescue you.  They almost always do but they have the choice to say it's too dangerous and they're not coming out. 

In reply to GerM:

As Mountain Rescue in Scotland now appears to be an arm of law enforcement, should we assume that they are therefore funded by same. No need for any donations from the public anymore.

is it clear if they called, wanted or needed the MRT  ? 

the report is very ambiguous/lacking in detail.  If none of the above it all seems very unfair.

In reply to 1932:

It is not clear whether any alleged offence stems from the activity of hillwalking or behaviour that would be an offence whatever activity it was associated with. 

There is not enough information to come to any conclusion one or the other. 

In reply to Myr:

Interesting thoughts. But I think it would be a bit alarming if people could bring criminal charges against others simply because they were in a position of relative moral authority regardless of what the law actually said. The times when you may inadvertently rely on public funded services is what taxes are for not prison!

Taking this approach though you just end up with a tyranny of whataboutery. For instance I was going to go for a walk but I didn't because if I got ran over or tripped up, it would be an inconvenience to someone else. Simply put you don't have a right to put others in danger but that doesn't impinge on your right to take risks. If the rescuers deem the risk of coming to get you to be too great they won't. Many people have frozen to death in the Alps in a storm waiting for a helicopter that never came. 

They are two separate choices your risk does not bind anyone else to take involuntary risks. 

In reply to rogerwebb:

Fair point. Apologies I could have been a bit clearer in reiterating that my comments are based on what was in the news report. I did note that my initial post was based on the linked report, but have not repeated since. Like you I hope there is another explanation for this charge not immediately apparent in the news report. It does seem a real outlier otherwise.  

In reply to 1932:

This is where my total lack of legal expertise becomes apparent! But potentially, MRTs could argue from a position of victimhood (and thus having some say as to whether charges are brought), rather than moral authority.

And yet, they did come out in this case, even though they deemed (insofar as they welcomed the charge) the risks to their own lives/health high enough to merit a charge of culpable and reckless conduct.

I suppose my arguments here ride on the interpretation that it was the MRT, rather than the public at large, that were deemed to be recklessly put at high risk to life/health by this pair. But what other interpretation is there, given that other people went to the Highlands for outdoor recreation over the weekend, and were turned around without being charged?

In reply to Grahame N:

It may also  be worth considering that Lochaber MRT are distancing themselves 'politically' from the position of Scottish Mountain Rescue, which they have not been a part of for quite some time.

In reply to Toccata:

The thing is you don't call the MRT you call the police and ask for Mountain Rescue.  You put yourself in contact with the police and if you come in contact with the police when you are doing something illegal you can expect them to act like the police.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

And if you’re not doing something illegal but something an elected politician would like you not to?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

https://www.scotsman.com/arts-and-culture/roger-cox-despite-deaths-climbers...

In reply to tinnishill:

https://www.facebook.com/IanBlackfordMP/posts/2840460649409078

Ian Blackford, FB:

In reply to PPP:

I like Iain Blackford. And he should also be aware we are allowed to travel to meet friends and relatives. We might meet them at their house or somewhere ‘roughly 5 miles from our community’. We might also stop somewhere to break the drive home. (I’m off to Inverness next week and will he stopping to stretch the legs on the way back).

He’s welcome to challenge his party’s leader and complain lockdown has been eased too early. He is wrong to criticise those who are following the rules, the consequences of his leader’s choices.

In reply to Toccata:

Really? With no limit on distance travelled? I wasn't aware of that. I've just checked the Phase 1 guidelines and it certainly doesn't make that clear. I and others I know are, as far as I know, working on the give or take 5 mile "local" rule for visits.

In reply to Robert Durran:

The 5 mile suggestion Is in the ‘Getting Around’ section where it is in the same sentence as exercise and outdoor leisure. There is no mention of distance in the ‘Family and Friends’ section.

In reply to Toccata:

So do you think it is generally being interpreted as being able to travel as far as you like to visit people? Because, if so, presumably you could arrange to meet up at whatever "beauty spot" (or hill, or climbing venue) you like. In fact, maybe I could arrange to meet up with a friend from down the road in Skye (well, obviously that would be taking the piss, but still......... )

In reply to Robert Durran:

Yes, you can travel as far as you like if you are visiting family or friends. But you are not allowed in their house.

In reply to Grahame N:

Is that in writing anywhere?

In reply to Robert Durran:

I’m in no way being argumentative when I say that that is my understanding of the guidelines. I travelled (200 miles) to meet my dad (who also considered it ok) and we walked up the Cheviot (6 miles from his community). I went biking on the way home. I (genuinely) don’t believe I have acted out with the letter or spirit of the rules.

And if I have then what’s written really is obtuse.

In reply to tinnishill:

I can’t be certain of this, but I’ve heard a suggestion that the walkers involved may have been somewhat arsey to the police, whose  attendance is fairly normal on any call out. That, along with clearly travelling a good distance out with all scope of Scottish Government guidelines, could go some way to explaining the charge.  Nonetheless it’s a worrying development. My concern is that people in genuine need may be reticent in calling for help for fear of prosecution and condemnation on social media. In fact the latter has been a concern of mine, and others, for a while. The social posts from rescue teams often attracts a lot of vitriolic comments. 
 

It may have been mentioned earlier in this thread but Lochaber MRT sought to ‘distance’ themselves from the situation based on comments from people threatening to cease donating to team funding. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

Yes - or at least with the "toilet" proviso mentioned by the FM, ie given that one can't go indoors once one gets to the house of the friends/family, that in theory limits distance although bladder size is variable. One potential way round that appears to be go to the loo at a supermarket en route. This can make things a bit one-way-ish, however - eg we have a friend along in Muckhart, 15 miles from here, and whereas she could easily visit us for an outdoor cuppa as there are Stirling supermarket options for loos, there's nothing equivalent for us to use out her way.

The golfers are also travelling a fair way (ha) - eg Gleneagles from here must be close on 20 miles.

In reply to Robert Durran:

John Swinney drove from Perthshire to Edinburgh to visit his dad on the first day of 'Phase 1'. So it must be correct.

In reply to Dave Hewitt:

And if I'm quite happy peeing in the bushes, that isn't a restriction?

In reply to Grahame N:

Not that politicians always stick to the guidelines, but that would appear really change things. I'm just a bit baffled that my friends or relatives outside my local area havn't mentioned it. Maybe they just don't want to see me

In reply to Robert Durran:

On gov.scot: 

"For this reason our advice is that you should stay within your local area when you go outside for exercise or other activities.

...

It is acceptable to travel outside your local area to meet members of  another household in an outdoor space such as a private garden, but you should use your judgement about how far to travel."

In reply to Robert Durran:

Seems to be OK - I'd do that too. The better half is requesting a proper loo, however. I believe the question of catheters has also been discussed in some quarters - semi-seriously, eg grandparents visiting grandchildren.

PS - Ochils good again this lunchtime, 4hr circuit from Tilli. Quite chilly for June (back to double Ronhills) but just one proper shower - a fierce little ten-minute job as I was going over the top of the Law. One other minor squall was sleety hail. Not too windy - it picked up more on descent.

In reply to Myr:

These completely open "use your judgement" things really aren't very helpful.

In reply to Robert Durran:

So true. Meaningless.

I judged 200 miles to be ok as that was exactly how far away my elderly father, whom I’d not seen for months, lived.

In reply to Rich W Parker:

That had crossed my mind as being a distinct possibility. Is there any hard evidence for this, or is it just hearsay? I'd imagine getting any firm details on the incident would be hard given the sub judice aspect. The question of who initiated the callout remains a key part of the story, but we're probably not going to know that until the case comes to court (presuming the PF doesn't throw it out before then).

In reply to Dave Hewitt:

I have no hard evidence just a second hand report. It may be wrong. 

From the same source I heard that the callout was initiated by the casualties, which would be pretty standard. It’d be good to get some clarification from the police regarding the circumstances  but I have no idea about police procedures so don’t even know if it’s possible at this stage. At the very least a statement from Police Scotland reassuring  that even in a Covid environment people can and should call for help, if in difficulty, without fear of prosecution. If they were to disagree with that sentiment I think we would have a problem.  

In reply to Removed UserBryan Sweeney:

Agreed, at least to an extent, but it could be connected to Mountaineering Scotland having in recent years (if I recall correctly) having been in receipt of some funding from the Scottish government. That would inevitably limit what they could say in a situation such as this. Certainly the current Mountaineering Scotland, for all its merits, is a different beast from the old MCofS which felt quite independently minded and strident at times.

Overall, I think the Mountaineering Scotland situation is one of several factors that have evolved over recent years and which together are having a significant effect on the hillgoing aspects of the current crisis. Three others come to mind: (1) the tendency of mountain rescue reports to now quite often include a fair bit of opinion rather than the old minimalist approach of providing just straight facts. Related to this is (2): the rise of social media - MRTs now very often report incidents via Facebook or Twitter, which is maybe OK in itself but leaving the Facebook comments facility switched on leads to simplistic mob-type input of "You're wonderful" (with lots of emoticons) re the team and "They're idiots" re the rescued people. And (3), this appears to be a Scottish government with a remarkable lack of interest in hill matters. There may be the odd shy walker or climber in the cabinet or lurking on the back benches, but I can't think of any offhand and it shows in the lack of nuanced awareness of such issues. There are hill people at Holyrood - perhaps most notably Liz Smith MSP, who is a Munroist - but she's a Tory and thus not very likely to be asked for her thoughts. Perhaps Andy Wightman of the Scottish Greens - undoubtedly a hill person - might be best placed to have some input.

Slight thread drift?

Latest council and police response to 5 miles flouters is to close the Drymen to Rowerdennan road to prevent access to Loch Lomond.  Where's yer right to roam noo! Locals only.

https://www.stirling.gov.uk/news/2020/june-2020/road-closures-in-response-t...

In reply to Toccata:

If it isn't illegal then the cops can't get you for it!

The 'elected politician' doesn't want to stop anyone hillwalking.  She wants to stop people catching Covid and spreading it about and she and the government scientists are trying to find a simple set of rules and guidelines to achieve that.

They are now saying that R in parts of England has gone to just above 1.   Everybody is in a hurry to get back to normal but the fastest way to do that is to get R down so infections fall quickly.  This p*ssing about that Boris is indulging in is just making it take longer for infections to fall to near zero where it will be safe for everyone to get out.  And if he pushes it too far it will cause another spike.

In reply to irc:

It's not "right to roam", it's this self entitled "right to drive" attitude. 

In reply to irc:

Few car parks remain closed too, as per the article. 
 

Is there anything better that could be done? Sure, Devil’s Pulpit would be crowded and there’s not much space, but Whangie and such? The farm shop nearby was open 3 weeks ago, but the car park for walkers is closed. 

In reply to PPP:

Correct.  East Dumbrtonshire and Stirling Councils have now opened all the car parks at Mugdock. I see no reason why Queens View should still be closed.

In reply to GrahamD:

"it's this self entitled "right to drive" attitude. "

Well they are public roads last I heard.

In reply to irc:

There's been a marked contrast between how Stirling and Clackmannanshire councils have handled the car parks thing. Generally Stirling have closed theirs, whereas Clacks have mostly kept theirs open. The Blairlogie one mentioned in the closure list (officially called Blairlogie Meadow, and used by visitors to Blairlogie as well as those going on the steeper sides of Dumyat) is about half a km from the Clacks boundary, and had it been the other side then I suspect it might have stayed open.

The Alva Glen and woodland park car parks (both in Clacks) have stayed open throughout - the latter has had a big Cheyenne campervan in it for a couple of months. Castle Campbell car park (and the top bit of the road) has been shut, but that's NTS rather than council. Dollar village car park was shut last week but full of cars - it appears that the locals have adopted it for themselves, which maybe shouldn't have happened - it's a council car park (with a Central Region sign!) so should either be properly open or properly shut.

The bit round the popular western side of Dumyat is semi-chaos. Stirling and Bridge of Allan residents are now perfectly entitled to drive there for a walk, as it's within five miles, but both the big Pendreich car park and the fancy new parking bays at the foot of the path have been closed - so cars are crammed into every available verge and layby. I was past there last week - en route to the quieter Lossburn start for Dumyat - and some of the metal barriers in the parking bays had been moved and cars were in the gaps, so it looks like the locals are voting with their feet (or tyres).

In reply to Dave Hewitt:

Sign at road turn off at Logie Kirk this morning reminding people to keep their distance. As no church services just now can only assume that it is meant for walkers and therefore police, council or whoever are happy for people to park here for Dumyat.

Talking this morning to a fellow who travels to Loch Earn for essential work. Told me all Loch Lubnaig car parks are shut and one day last week road was down to single file at bits due to cars parked on both sides of road for a stretch of about 6 miles. Makes me wonder if it would be better keeping car parks open.

In reply to irc:

Public roads isn't a right to drive.  Driving isn't a right, it's done under licence. 

In reply to russellcampbell:

Yes, I think so - and anyway it would be almost impossible to police given that the initial lockdown legislation quickly included an amendment to allow people to travel to visit graveyards, so there have been cars in there all along. I'd walked up that way - from the house then along to Logie Kirk and up the race route (takes me about 90 mins to the top) - a few times during the main lockdown and there was never any problem.

Yes, one does wonder. The Dumyat/Cocksburn/Pendreich situation is pretty silly as it stands, and I can imagine that Lubnaig etc is similar - although you're into the Nat Park across there so that complicates things. Certainly I've been impressed by the Clacks attitude throughout - it's easier for them perhaps given that so many of the main walking routes on to the Ochils start in the villages, hence there's no point shutting the car parks, but even so they've been very good in terms of signage which in turn must have helped nervous locals with the local exercise and mental health aspects. Seemingly the big Glensherup car park round in Glen Devon is still shut - it'd be good to see that open again soon.

In reply to Dave Hewitt:

Yes, this annoyed me a bit too. These carparks are within my 5 mile limit. I would often cycle up to there and then run, but sometimes I like to drive up to take the dog for a walk. For now I am sticking to North Third which has no closed car parks (if you can call those bits car parks!!), but it would be nice to go up the ochils with the monster since it is allowed in our restrictions.

In reply to girlymonkey:

Dunno which bit of Stirling you're in (I'm lucky in being in Cambuskenneth right on the eastern edge), but you ought to be able to get to the big Menstrie village car park without greatly over-reaching the five-mile thing (which is "broadly five miles" anyway) - and that then gives you some very pleasant options up on to Colsnaur etc. I've been going along to Alva and Tilli, 7-9 miles (or 6-8 miles if I drive via the back of the monument), which seems OK and of course has masses of options (although I've been slightly looking over my shoulder and crossing my fingers since last weekend's events elsewhere). Up top, the main Ochils are middling busy - kind of average for this time of year. Lots of the usual faces being seen.

In reply to Dave Hewitt:

I'm not sure what's been going on with the Dollar carparks. Last Saturday evening the bigger one on the right on the way up to the castle was open and fairly full but the continuation road was coned off at that point. When I returned on Sunday morning, the cones had been moved to block off the car park where my car was with the road open. On Monday evening the lower car park was coned off still, but the road onward and top car park open with a few cars there (there were cones either side of the road with notices attached reminding people to socially distanced but nothing to suggest I couldn't park). I wonder if there is some battle of wills going on with people repeatedly moving the cones back and forward!

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I don't doubt that at its core the guidance is well intentioned. Nevertheless, it is clear other considerations are in play. It is a stretch I think to say going to B&Q or McDonalds is essential or carries no risk of getting CV, yet both are open. Sensibly in my view, they have well designed ways to reduce risk and it is important to get some economic activity going again. Similarly, it's not clear why driving as far as your bladder will take you, expressly to meet someone else (socially distanced), is less likely to spread the virus than driving alone or with your household for the same distance to exercise. Yet the first is okay and the second advised against. 

It might be true that we should all drive a bit less, that locals don't like outsiders and that people leaving rubbish is very unpleasant. However, to use the sweeping and extraordinary powers granted to the executive, expressly for dealing with a pandemic, for other reasons, no matter how 'right on' they may seem, is a slippery slope. 

If the reason for the 5 mile limit is a concern that transmission will occur in car parks serving popular beauty spots then how has this been balanced against the risk that it will result in beauty spots and parks in the central belt become very busy making social distancing a challenge? 

In reply to Dave Hewitt:

My favourite evening walk/run in the Ochils is the Ben Ever/Ben Cleuch/Andrew Gannell/Kingseat circuit from Tillicoultry, but at the moment I think I would feel uneasy about venturing beyond Dollar to Tilly - It wouldn't really feel local. I work in Dollar and know lots of people there (some of whom have offered parking and been on he hills with me, so it certainly feels local/community.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

You'd think, wouldn't you?

youtube.com/watch?v=4w2TeTaEU1I&

In reply to Robert Durran:

Almost certainly. I've been there three times during all this - once recently, twice earlier at the outer limit of long walks that got me as far as Whitewisp - and it's been different each time. I think the first time both the upper and middle car parks were shut and the road was coned off above the middle one - with no one around. Second time (still during the main lockdown) they were both still shut but the upper one had five cars in it, two of which, containing the local lads and lasses, came down past me as I walked down the road. The more recently the middle car park was open and the upper one was still shut but again with cars in it. Pretty sure the top car park is NTS, and possibly the upper section of road too. Dunno who runs the middle car park - council? Forestry?

Working in Dollar, do you know the nice car park on the back road, below the Law Hill path system? That's open and allows easy access to the very useful track leading up on to Hillfoot Hill etc and which has branches across to Whitewisp etc. I use that track a lot - eg a favourite loop is to park in the Dollar village car park, take the glen side-exit on to Bank Hill and King's Seat, then round by Tarmangie and Whitewisp and back via the Hillfoot track and through the village.

Yes, very good - esp if one finishes down the Kirk Glen, as I did yesterday - a fine way off King's Seat. The high Ochils on summer evenings are lovely.

I know what you mean - I have the reverse situation where Dollar feels quite a bit "further out" than Tilli even though there's only a couple of miles between them.

In reply to GrahamD:

"Public roads isn't a right to drive.  Driving isn't a right, it's done under licence. "

And hillwalking has gone the same way under this Scottish Govt. Only where the police let you, whatever the law actually says.

In reply to Dave Hewitt:

Yes, I think Dollar and Tilly both out of my "local" range. Shame because I really like running over there. I think for now Menstrie is probably my limit, and I haven't even been that far *to go to the hills*. I regularly cycle further than that though, both for commuting and for fun. It's odd, it feels local on the bike but as I probably wouldn't ride there to then run, I don't feel it's local for running. I'm not sure of my logic with it all! Lol

In reply to irc:

You do realise that, at the moment, there are the exceptional circumstances of a pandemic?

In reply to Dave Hewitt:

And considering how long a game of golf takes - how many of them are making the "rough" a little less inviting to go searching for a lost ball ?

In reply to fred99:

Good point - I hadn't thought of that. Maybe even though the main clubhouses are shut the loos and the little comfort cabins or whatever they're called part-way round the courses are still open, just as the loos in Sainsbury's etc are open. I'll ask my going-to-Gleneagles neighbour the next time I see him.

In reply to Robert Durran:

"You do realise that, at the moment, there are the exceptional circumstances of a pandemic?"

Yes, but measures should be based on risk not panic.

The transmission rate among healthy people in the outdoors who are passing others several metres aparts must for practical purposes be zero.

In reply to 1932:

I don't know but I think it goes beyond car parks at beauty spots getting busy.  If there are too many legal reasons for driving to the highlands from the lowland cities with higher infection rates it is going to be impossible to police.  If they can keep the traffic levels low they have some chance of stopping tourists, second home owners and day trippers going to towns rather than munros.

Also, a big difference with longer trips compared to 'within 5 miles' is you are going to need to use a toilet and may want to buy fuel or water/food.  Public toilets in 'beauty spots' are manky enough at the best of times without having to worry about contamination with Covid.

In Edinburgh I don't see a problem with social distancing in the park near me.   Some people clearly aren't but they could if they wanted, it isn't down to lack of space.   Admittedly Holyrood Park is pretty big, but Glasgow has a lot of large parks too.

I'm not saying the current rules are perfect.  I really want to break them too and have a sneaky wild camp one night but I think any set of rules is going to be imperfect.  My view, ignoring the political considerations, is they should have kept the tight lockdown a bit longer in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Lanarkshire where the infection rate is highest and maybe released it a bit more in the highlands and islands.  The fastest way out is to get R low so the rate falls quicker.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Anyone thinking that the 5 mile limit was made specifically for climbers and keen hillwalkers must be delusional. I could bet that most of us would avoid honeypots even before pandemic. 

Even on perfect days I could name so many places with virtually no one around because these places are remote and obscure. But there's so many places that are crazy busy. Photos just say everything:

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/coronavirus-fears-loch-lom...

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/5651624/coronavirus-scotland-loch-lom...

In reply to irc:

Yes, but these closures are about preventing places getting mobbed and trashed.

In reply to PPP:

Of course, but having one rule for "them" and another for "us" is somewhat problematical in several ways.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Interesting statistic today. Percentage increase in cases in Highland and in Glasgow and Clyde area in past week is now the same at 0.6 percent. Only 21 new cases reported in last 24 hours for all Scotland of which only 3 in biggest Health Board area of Glasgow and Clyde. 

Any chance we,ll see the roadmap shortened a wee bit if this carries on?

(Just trying to keep spirits up!)

In reply to The Watch of Barrisdale:

That sounds really good.  Still a few hundred in hospital and maybe the relaxation in the last week or so will show through in another few days.  But only 21 new cases sounds like it's going to be suppressed fairly soon.   

Let's get it done and hope England does the same.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Something we can all agree on🙂

In reply to The Watch of Barrisdale:

Given that the new Drymen etc road closures run for three weeks and thus extend beyond the next general review date (just under two weeks hence), I wouldn't get your hopes up too much. I'd be delighted to be proved wrong, but the evidence thus far appears to suggest that we'll still be in Phase 1 come July.
 

In reply to Dave Hewitt:

And I thought you were an optimist, Dave!

In reply to Dave Hewitt:

So it looks like December for getting back to the hills! !Never mind the shooters will be allowed back in August

In reply to The Watch of Barrisdale:

I know, sorry - I realised I was being a bit gloomy when posting that and before yours appeared! Fingers crossed...

Actually, it was maybe because I'd been thinking about the political aspects which surely float around in the background of all this. The FM appears to be very cautious by nature, plus from what she's said this past week she doesn't seem at all keen on regional easings - perhaps because that would almost certainly leave the big cities, and particularly Glasgow, with the harshest situation, and that's where much of her core vote resides (not that she's said that, of course).

In reply to tinnishill:

Guys,
This thread has morphed from criminalising two hill-walkers into how you interpret the pandemic guidance in the Central Belt.  Was that intentional?
The couple were not charged or fined under the new pandemic law so the guidance is a distraction.  They were alleged to have committed culpable and reckless behaviour.  Since this coincided with, and was unique to, a mountain rescue then that must be relevant to the crime.  
The speculation that they got "arsey" with the police is still not enough to be charged with this offence (a friend once got arsey with the police after he was winched, against his will, from the last pitch of North Buttress on the Buachaille - they got the wrong guy!).  The only justification is that they were threatening others directly, eg hurling rocks at the MRT.
If it was something more innocuous, like getting lost because their smartphone mapping wasn’t working, then we should all get down to Stirling Police Station and confess to our own reckless behaviour as mountaineers, when sometimes we got it wrong.
 I suspect it's more to do with the heavy hand of the law (thankfully not their knee) which Police Scotland did assure us would not happen during the current crisis.
Free the Crianlarich two!

In reply to Jim at Craigdhu:

I think it's because the Crianlarich/Chroin incident happened at one end of the Stirling police area and quite a few people on here (girlymonkey, Wingeing Old Git, me, plus one or two others) are based in Stirling itself and are worrying about what's legit just now (in terms of avoiding similar charges) at the eastern end of the Stirling police area - hence quite a bit of Ochils discussion but not Pentlands/Campsies etc. I know that from my own point of view I quickly went from feeling a bit liberated by the start of the Phase 1 thing to feeling a bit liberated but also a bit more anxious after last Saturday's events (and the more recent statements from the police, MS and SMR haven't alleviated that).

In reply to Dave Hewitt:

Plenty of material for The Angry Corrie, now Dave. You could even have a legal advice page or 3. A weebit of anarchy  doesn't,t go amiss especially in the current situation always remembering to observe social distancing of course!!

In reply to Jim at Craigdhu:

" The couple were not charged or fined under the new pandemic law so the guidance is a distraction.  They were alleged to have committed culpable and reckless behaviour.  Since this coincided with, and was unique to, a mountain rescue then that must be relevant to the crime.  "

Since the odd incompetent and/or reckless hillwalker has needed the services of mountain rescue for years the only new factor here is the Covid. The guidance is relevant because it appears that since the police were unable to charge them under the guidance they looked for something else.

This has had the effect that the walkers on the Cobbler the previous week during full lockdown got a lighter punishment than the Crianlarich Two during Phase 1 of the release from lockdown.

As the Arrocher walkers were fined under the Covid regs then it is a £30 fine (if paid right away) which as far as I know is not recorded as a crime  (unless prosecuted after failing to pay the fine).

The Crianlarich Two will if, convicted, get a criminal record which could have adverse effects for current or future employment.

In reply to me:

There has been some discussion on this thread about the doings of MCofS and the MR Committee. I have been struck by the utter absence of any public defence of our rights since lockdown from Ramblers Scotland.

In reply to irc:

The guidance isn't a distraction. It is a factor that will be considered when deciding whether or not the conduct was culpable and reckless. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

Yeah it's tough. 

Came back from a one hour run in Kilpatricks, parked on East side, avoiding the big car park. Met a single runner and cyclist doing their exercises. Then there was a group of three young lads (16-18 year old) chilling by the reservoir that could well be brothers, but could have been drinking as they shouted something indistinguishable to me. Then there was another group, of at least 6-8 people as I could hear the voices from a good half mile away. I saw few couples of walkers near the car park, but that's about it. 

So the rules might not be for us, but we still need to stick to them. 

In reply to The Watch of Barrisdale:

Thanks - you probably won't be surprised to hear that you're not the first person to have been hankering after TAC just now. Overall I'm relieved it's been and gone - it had a great run but both it and its editor eventually ran out of steam. Plus life got in the way too much and anyway it was a creature of the pre-social media age. But having said all that, this current access situation is the first time since TAC finished that I've felt the same mix of anxiety, anger and general agitation that fuelled the mag during its 20-odd years of existence.

In reply to Dave Hewitt:

After 50 years of hill_going there,s something wrong if you feel you have to keep looking over your shoulder. - so I know exactly how you feel.

In reply to tinnishill:

There are echoes of foot and mouth in this. At that time - a crisis but a lesser crisis than this - various of the agencies and individuals one would have expected to have been asking awkward questions and attempting to get things back to normality in terms of hill access went strangely quiet and seemed to find other things to do (then re-emerged after matters had been resolved and tried to claim bits of credit). Similar here - various agencies are clearly trying and struggling in what are very difficult circumstances, but others have done a bit of a vanishing act. Likewise some individuals in the hill-journalism field - suddenly they seem far more interested in tweeting about Trump or Cummings rather than about what's going on under their own noses. Nick Kempe is a notable exception to this - he could well prove to be one of the heroes of the hour.

In reply to rogerwebb:

Since when was going for a walk in any way culpable or reckless?

The govt has brought in laws to govern behaviour during this pandemic. The police should be dealing, where appropriate,  with breaches of those laws. It is not up to the police to enforce guidelines using general criminal law. The govt chose not to make the 5 mile limit a law. The police should not be deciding to enforce the 5 mile limit using other laws.

In reply to irc:

I don't say it is. 

Whether or not conduct is culpable and reckless depends upon the facts and circumstances of that conduct. At present I have no idea whether the individuals involved were acting in a culpable and reckless manner. I do not have sufficient information.

It is however reasonable to assume that the current crisis and the guidelines will form part of the facts and circumstances considered. 

In reply to Dave Hewitt:

... and requires a ferry.

CalMac ferry operator reveals 273 incidents of attempted non-essential trips since 26 March, including golfers hiding in a van to Cumbrae

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-scotland-52849328

I am amused by the fact that someone was travelling to Cumbrae for any other reason than visiting a crocodile. 

In reply to Dave Hewitt:

Thanks. I knew of it but didn't realise it gave such good access to above the castle. Went there this afternoon/evening. Good that it is unambiguously open! Nice circuit of White Wisp to Ben Cleuch and back over Kingseat.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Glad to be of service! Sounds like a good outing - I've just been pottering/gardening here all day but it's been nice weather.

In reply to Dave Hewitt:

Yes, as a member of Mountaineering Scotland I'm very disappointed at the utter lack of any overt pressure regarding our interests. Very reminiscent of the utterly supine response to Foot and Mouth. My subscription's just been paid - I'll need to decide later in the year whether next year's will.

If certain hill-journalists want to continue their self-imposed silence then there may be a silver lining after all.

In reply to rogerwebb:

 > It is however reasonable to assume that the current crisis and the guidelines will form part of the facts and circumstances considered. 

As will the reason given for this guidance (to avoid over-crowding at tourist hot-spots - obviously not relevant in this case) and the fact that different guidance is available from the national government.

In reply to Point of View:

The reasons for the guidance will certainly be relevant.

Assuming that by national government you mean the UK government as health is fully devolved and Scots Criminal Law is and always has been a separate jurisdiction its guidance has no bearing on this matter anymore than the Scottish breath /alcohol limits have any relevance in England and Wales. 

In reply to Point of View:

Taking that line would effectively be saying it is ok for everyone to use their own judgement in how to stop the virus spreading. Is that wise?

Is that relevant? Could I take my guidance from the Swedish government?

In reply to rogerwebb:

The First Minister stated that 5 miles was a guide, not set in law, and that she wanted people not to gather in tourist hot spots and use their common sense.

I must admit that I wondered if this was tacit permission to travel further to pursue socially distanced pursuits like hillwalking.

As far as I can see this pair did not break Phase 1 rules (and presumably this is why there's no mention of action under Covid legislation).

Over 70 cars parked on A83 at the Cobbler yesterday. Angry locals (presumably) suggesting vandalising cars (which won't clear the roads) rather than pressuring the council to open the car park.

https://twitter.com/AliCampbellAC/status/1269252298137571330

Looks like safety in numbers for walking on the Cobbler. Not enough police to charge 70 carloads of walkers. Just don't call the mountain rescue.

In reply to Spurtle:

Quite what the thinking is behind the charge I don't know. Whether or not there will be a coronavirus regulations charge is also unknown. The decision to bring them to court or not and if so what the final charges will be is for the procurator fiscal not the police.

As the two people concerned aren't in custody it may be that the report hasn't been considered yet. (speculation) 

In reply to irc:

Even in normal times that parking would be ridiculous. 

So is it now better for hill walkers to break the guidelines and all crowd together rather than break the guidelines in order to be away from others?

In reply to rogerwebb: 

In this case I would have thought it would have considerable relevance. It would surely be very odd if conduct which is considered perfectly acceptable in one part of the UK were deemed to be "reckless and culpable" in very similar circumstances in another part.

In reply to rogerwebb:

No none of us know.

I'm sure it's entirely unintended that leaving this degree of inclarity leaves a threat of rather unpleasant consequences hanging over the heads of a population who are generally more law-abiding.

Perhaps expect the PF decision once Phase 3 is activated.

In reply to Point of View:

A lot of people would say that the more cautious Scottish guidance is more sensible in the circumstances. What happens if things improve faster in Scotland as a result (As was posted in this thread evening, we may already have R down to 0.6 in Scotland) and we can sensibly relax guidelines while England has to retighten them? What about the suggestion of local or regional lockdowns to suoppress hotspots? Should they be ignored?

In reply to Spurtle:

The courts are as affected by coronavirus as everything else is. At the moment all cases, except for custodies, are being put off. Generally to August and beyond (In Highland anyway) . Nothing sinister, it is tricky to socially distance in a court. 

(There is a lot of effort going in to use remote working as much as possible but that introduces a lot of contentious issues too) 

In reply to rogerwebb:

We don't know if this will be a case yet. The outcome of the report being sent to the PF is unknown. As long as it remains unknown there is a tacit threat to hillwalkers.

That may, or may not, be an unintended consequence.

In reply to Spurtle:

Quite. It would be nice to hear something definitive from someone. 

In reply to Point of View:

Why would it be odd? It is a different jurisdiction. 

In reply to Dave Hewitt:

all this talk of the Ochils reminds me of the few years I spent living in/around Blairlogie when an undergrad at Stirling uni.

Has anyone linked to the discussions on http://parkswatchscotland.co.uk/ ?

In reply to Doug:

Thanks Doug. Didn't,t know about this website. Nick Kempe talks a lot of sense

In reply to Doug:

http://parkswatchscotland.co.uk/2020/06/05/covid-19-why-the-police-charges-...

Thanks for the link. An excellent blogpost that covers the issue well. I agree with it 100%.

In reply to Point of View:

And what happens if they apply for a job in England or Wales - is this "criminal conviction" on their records here or not due to it being Scottish ?

This is a right legal mess. Looks to me (and I may be wrong, but this is the impression) more like the plod involved was in a bad mood (or is a "nimby" local who didn't want people coming to "his" village) and dreamt up the reasoning for a greater charge. This matter has got to be sorted, or else this district can say goodbye to tourists from the south when CV-19 is no longer a problem. The unemployment rate would mean disaster for youth in the area. For that matter, Scottish MRT's could find themselves unable to operate if donations drop below a certain level, which they may do after the spokesman's statements.

I always used to empty my pocket of coins into the collection container. Will I ever do so in future ??

In reply to fred99:

For that matter, Scottish MRT's could find themselves unable to operate if donations drop below a certain level, which they may do after the spokesman's statements.

Interestingly Lochaber MRT were very clearly pointing out that Lochaber/Glencoe/Tayside/Cairngorms form the independent Scottish MR (iSMR) on a FB post in the last few days.

I'm not surprised given the comments of SMR's Chairperson.

Hopefully everyone will take a deep breath once this all cools off, in the meantime however I'm not impressed by SMR's leadership.
 

In reply to Doug:

Thanks for the link, just read it through. A lot of sense there.

In reply to Spurtle:

The fact that there are TWO MRT groups does help assuage some fears.

However the fact that there are two groups means that any influence on government (or indeed some councils) is reduced, which cannot help whenever any problems need to be dealt with in future.

The Police are a different matter however, as there is only ONE Police Force that covers the whole of Scotland. It is the Police who have made this arrest, and the Police who oversee/co-ordinate any Mountain Rescue incidents.

Can we actually have any trust that the Police elsewhere in Scotland will not act in the same way, no matter what the local MRT's view may be ?

In reply to fred99:

None I'm afraid. It's possible there is a very good reason the Police acted as they did. However, until the legal system either disposes of these charges or a case comes to court then the suspicion that this was an egregious abuse of Police power remains.

Personally I never want to be in a position where I have to hope that the professional I'm dealing with isn't in a bad mood or is a bad apple. There is supposed to be proper oversight to achieve that.
Interesting Times unfortunately.

In reply to irc:

Unfortunately this bit should have  'not' after the 'probably'

if the charge was made because of the risk of spreading disease, the Procurator Fiscal would probably have to show that the two people went out walking knowing that they had Covid-19