NEWS: Lockdown Rules - Still Ambiguous, but the Right Thing is Clear

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 UKC/UKH News 17 Apr 2020
Keeping it local, and staying off the crags...

When taking their daily outdoor exercise, just what exactly are people allowed to do? We have attempted to steer through the muddy waters to summarise the situation in different parts of Britain.



Read more
6
 The Pylon King 17 Apr 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Thank you to UKC for getting all the correct information in one place. Obviously it isn't UKC's place to tell people not to climb, that is left up to the individual to take responsibility, although obviously some dimwits don't have enough awareness and morals to make the right decision.

39
 Lrunner 17 Apr 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

This is a great article, though its worth noting that in Scotland there is nothing in the law that says you can't exercise more then once a day. That appears only on that memo from parliament- but it is not law. What people must remember is the distinction between what the government wants us to to do and what the law says we must do. The two are very different. Michael Gove making a throw away comment about the length of a run is a great example. 

When situations evolve so fast it is possible that even those writing memos and updates aren't privy to correct legal advice and just publish stuff without giving it proper scrutiny. 

Obviously doing the right thing is more then just following the law. Climbing is clearly not the best idea just now, but is it so bad to drive 5 minutes down the road to run in an empty forest then go out your door and have to avoid heaps of folk?

 timjones 17 Apr 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

And once again a journalist tries to put their own spin on the advice

19
 aln 17 Apr 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Dan, that path between Aberdour and Burntisland isn't a great place to be taking your daily exercise. It's narrow and it would be hard to keep that 2m distance when someone's coming the other way.

4
 Michael Gordon 17 Apr 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Thanks for clarifying the rules. Deciding what is merely in the 'spirit' of the thing though is surely just interpretation and what one 'should' do a matter of opinion. 

1
 Wiley Coyote2 17 Apr 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Clearly the one hour limit is officially right out of the window now since police guidance is "Stopping to rest or to eat lunch while on a long walk." is in the "Likely to be reasonable" column.  A walk requiring a lunch stop is obviously going to take several hours and the police accept that is reasonable.

However the need for social distancing will still have dictate routes. Crib Goch or Striding Edge would not be a smart choice under the circumstances. Back o' Skiddaw not such a problem - if you can get there  without a long drive.

 Lrunner 17 Apr 2020
In reply to Michael Gordon:

The spirit of the law is generally what test cases and judges decide. I imagine that once a few of these go through the courts we will know. Given how woolly the legislation is, the Crown will bin the vast majority of these before they get near a court room.

In reply to Lrunner:

Thanks Lawrence. It's a minefield. I've cleared that bit up in the wording of the piece now (hopefully)  

 Steve Woollard 17 Apr 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

The government advice is all about achieving social distancing. They have also said repeatly that they will be guided by the science. There is nothing in the science that says hill walking, scrambling, bouldering or climbing is a problem so long as you maintain the social distance, and it's far easier to maintain social distancing in the hills than in a crowded shop, or on public transport etc.

Driving is also not a problem as you are sealed in a metal bubble.

The so called moral imperative is driven by fear and ignorance and encouraged by a government that is trying to hide their failure to deal with the situation effectively.

23
In reply to aln:

A problem with lots of paths, alleys, wynds and snickets. Must be a nightmare in towns. At least our bit of path isn't busy relative to city centres.  

You're right that this one is narrow and fenced. But it has sea breeze (less chance of people's breath hanging in the air) and you can stand facing out to sea to let people pass behind, which is what we do. I also try to hold my breath when passing people running, because no one wants me panting near them at the best of times.  

I wouldn't stand chatting to someone within 2m but surely we all occasionally have to pass people very briefly?

It's got to be far more risky at the supermarket. 

4
 Flinticus 17 Apr 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

In the section on Scotland, you mention 'essential' travel but should that be 'reasonable excuse' as per England?

 Lrunner 17 Apr 2020
In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

No worries Dan, being in law enforcement I've spent a lot of time making sure I am getting it right, but even with the internet its really hard to find the correct advice. 

At work we have a good aide memoir to help us that is really useful. 

Lawrence

Post edited at 17:38
 David Barlow 17 Apr 2020

For a more amusing take, including some British Isles islands not covered by the above article, see https://barristerblogger.com/2020/03/30/those-british-isles-lockdown-questi...

 Lrunner 17 Apr 2020
In reply to David Barlow:

Very funny and probably the clearest advice I have read. Thanks for posting

 JJ Spooner 17 Apr 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

There’s some good information here for anyone that interested. https://today.rtl.lu/news/science-and-environment/a/1498185.html?fbclid=IwA...

I think many peoples impression that you can transmit Covid through breathing isn’t correct and having been at an NHS induction today no masks were provided when 30 people were in a room together.

2
 planetmarshall 17 Apr 2020
In reply to Steve Woollard:

> There is nothing in the science that says hill walking, scrambling, bouldering or climbing is a problem so long as you maintain the social distance, and it's far easier to maintain social distancing in the hills than in a crowded shop, or on public transport etc.

...

> The so called moral imperative is driven by fear and ignorance and encouraged by a government that is trying to hide their failure to deal with the situation effectively.

I disagree. The moral choice to refrain from those activities is less to do with social distancing and the chances of infection than it is:

  • Respecting the requests of MRT to abstain from activities that may necessitate a call out given among other things the additional procedures they are required to follow to avoid contamination.
  • Showing solidarity to those who are having to make sacrifices during this crisis, which mean they cannot get outside no matter how much they might contort the guidelines to suit themselves.
40
In reply to planetmarshall:

It is also about setting an example. There is a subset of climbers who live together in the same home who can access climbing easily on foot, by cycling, or a short drive. Then there are individuals who have similar ease of access to bouldering or soloing.

The above cases may be able to justify the risk to themselves. The problem is that they are seen by others who then adopt the attitude of "sauce for the goose" and summon up a partner from another household and the cycle goes on. Spreading infection as it does. 

12
 JohnBson 17 Apr 2020
In reply to The Pylon King:

Big boys rules innit. Just like climbing in remote areas, go climb but if you f*ck up don't expect, or ask for any help. So don't take risks, climb like it was the 70s when a leader fall could mean death. 

5
 Michael Gordon 17 Apr 2020
In reply to planetmarshall:

Respecting requests from MR, fair enough - that's a good reason.

Showing solidarity? Hmmm. In what way does having more people miserable help those having to self isolate?

4
 Robert Durran 17 Apr 2020
In reply to planetmarshall:

> I disagree. The moral choice to refrain from those activities is less to do with social distancing and the chances of infection than it is:

> Respecting the requests of MRT to abstain from activities that may necessitate a call out given among other things the additional procedures they are required to follow to avoid contamination.

It seems perfectly resaonable to me to do forms of climbing which are of comparable risk to examples of acceptable exercise activities in the government guidelines .

> Showing solidarity to those who are having to make sacrifices during this crisis, which mean they cannot get outside no matter how much they might contort the guidelines to suit themselves.

By that reasoning we wouldn't go out of doors for any exercise.

As far as I am concerned, if the climbing is no riskier than sedate cycling and is socially distanced then it is clearly ok. Tomorrow I am going to cycle to an old railway bridge 10 miles from where I live and do some traversing, unless, for some unlikely reason, the place is busy. Unfortunately my explorations have not found one closer. I might even park my bike on the way back and walk up a  local hill (my friends who live at the foot of the local hills certainly see no reason not to go up them).

Post edited at 19:44
4
 Coel Hellier 17 Apr 2020
In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

Two points:

"However the exercise should last longer than the drive to get there ..."

That should be "... far longer".   That's what the advice says.  Driving 30 mins to walk for 32 min is not within the guidance.   Driving 5 mins to walk for 40 mins is.

"The law may be silent on activities such as climbing and hillwalking, but collective opinion in the outdoor community is strongly that these non-essential activities should not be taking place during lockdown. Both climbing and hillwalking are usually carried out far from home, ..."

Collective opinion may well be that hill-walking "far from home" is not sensible, but if you are asserting that "collective opinion is strongly that" those who can hill walk from their house, or with a short drive, should not do so, then how did you arrive at that census of opinion? 

 planetmarshall 17 Apr 2020
In reply to JohnBson:

> Big boys rules innit. Just like climbing in remote areas, go climb but if you f*ck up don't expect, or ask for any help. So don't take risks, climb like it was the 70s when a leader fall could mean death. 

Which would be fine if it were possible to refuse assistance, but it is not. Does anyone really think that if they fell off a crag and had a smartphone handy that they wouldn't call for assistance? If they do they're deluding themselves.

 planetmarshall 17 Apr 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

> It seems perfectly resaonable to me to do forms of climbing which are of comparable risk to examples of acceptable exercise activities in the government guidelines .

> By that reasoning we wouldn't go out of doors for any exercise.

That's reductio ad absurdum, Robert. Some form of exercise is available to everyone who is under lockdown - and me going for a run out of my front door seems unlikely to inspire anyone from hundreds of miles away to do the same.

I'm not going to judge anyone else for indulging in something that seems fairly low risk, but personally I'm going to refrain until I can climb with friends.

Post edited at 20:03
9
 Robert Durran 17 Apr 2020
In reply to planetmarshall:

> That's reductio ad absurdum, Robert. Some form of exercise is available to everyone who is under lockdown.

That is inconsistent with what I was replying to: "Showing solidarity to those who are having to make sacrifices during this crisis, which mean they cannot get outside no matter how much they might contort the guidelines to suit themselves". Or did you mean "get outside to go climbing"?  And, if you did, do you think I shouldn't be going out for a three hour walk in lovely countryside every second day (as I have been pretty consistently since lockdown started) because lots of people are not lucky enough to be able to do so?

Post edited at 20:14
 planetmarshall 17 Apr 2020
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> Showing solidarity? Hmmm. In what way does having more people miserable help those having to self isolate?

If I go out and climb from my front door, which I could do, it does not sit well with me to then object to others wanting to get in their cars and do the same. 

12
 Robert Durran 17 Apr 2020
In reply to planetmarshall:

> If I go out and climb from my front door, which I could do, it does not sit well with me to then object to others wanting to get in their cars and do the same. 

Do you go for nice runs and walks in the countryside from your front door?

1
 Misha 17 Apr 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Thank you for this. You’d think it would be the BMC’s job to explain these things but clearly they’ve got more important things to do.

Regarding climbing and indeed other outdoor activities such as canoeing, the NPCC guidance for England states that “exercise can come in many forms, including walks.” The references to walking etc look like examples rather than a prescriptive list, otherwise the guidance would be internally inconsistent. So there seems to be a good case that climbing is acceptable, as long as it’s on your own or with other household members. Indeed, the actual legislation just refers to ‘exercise’. The counterargument is that the ‘fun’ or ‘hobby’ aspect of climbing somehow means that it is not ‘exercise’. That doesn’t really stack up though as walking, running and cycling can also be fun etc.

There is a separate question whether climbing is advisable in the current circumstances, assuming you go on your own or with household members. I think there are three main considerations:

Risk of accident - this depends on the type of climbing and level of experience, so for many people it should be possible to manage this risk to a remote level. However if someone is not sure that they can mitigate the risks to a remote level, they shouldn’t head out.

Risk of infection / transmission - this can be managed by taking precautions (gloves etc), choosing appropriate venues and heading elsewhere if it’s busy.

Stakeholders - this is the main thing which concerns me. Locals, landowners and authorities. They don’t see things the way we do and that’s understandable. We don’t want to strain relations because it would be counterproductive in the long run.

So on balance I think it’s sensible to hold off climbing for the time being and see what the lie of the land is in 3-6 weeks. It’s an evolving situation and so it’s hard to say what we might be thinking at that point - we just have to wait and see. There is certainly a debate to be had about the ‘exit strategy’ from the climbing ‘lockdown’ but for the time being it’s a hypothetical debate. As I’ve said on the other thread about this, it’s going to be a fairly grey area.

Having said all this, I refuse to judge other people who might already be going out climbing, as long as they do it discreetly and safely.

I’ve focused on climbing but similar considerations largely apply to hill walking, although the risk of serious injury is much lower and access is less of a consideration.

 planetmarshall 17 Apr 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Do you go for nice runs and walks in the countryside from your front door?

Running, walking and cycling - though not necessarily in the countryside - are activities available to everyone without needing to travel far from their homes. Climbing is not.

9
 gribble 17 Apr 2020
In reply to Misha:

Thank you Misha.

 Steve Woollard 17 Apr 2020
In reply to planetmarshall:

> Running, walking and cycling - though not necessarily in the countryside - are activities available to everyone without needing to travel far from their homes. Climbing is not.


I can go climbing by walking from my front door and achieving social distancing so what's the problem?

2
 Misha 17 Apr 2020
In reply to Lrunner:

Yes but only if someone who can afford top level legal representation is willing to challenge a fine in court. Seems unlikely given that these rules won’t be around forever.

Government guidance can be taken into account by the courts but it does not have the force of law. The other thing which the Courts sometimes look at is Hansard - the verbatim account of parliamentary debates about the legislation, as this can provide an insight into what Parliament intended. However this isn’t relevant here because there was no debate on these measures - in England they were brought out by way of a statutory instrument and I imagine it was the same elsewhere though happy to be corrected. Incidentally, the SI needs to be confirmed by Parliament within 28 days of issue, i.e. in the next week or so. That would provide Parliament with an opportunity for debate, though I suspect it will be a formality.

 Misha 17 Apr 2020
In reply to Steve Woollard:

I agree but the issue is that a lot of / most locals, landowners and officials consider that anything involving going to the countryside for outdoor activities is wrong at present. Even though it’s far more nuanced in reality, we have to appreciate that other people see things differently and we need to maintain good relations with these people.

 Misha 17 Apr 2020
In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

I agree that you can mitigate the risks on a narrow alleyway, especially if you know that it won’t be busy. The same logic can be applied to most outdoor activities - risks can generally be managed. That’s the conundrum: do you sit at home because it’s the only zero risk option (ignoring domestic accidents) or do you go out and mitigate risks to a remote level? But if you opt to go out and mitigate for activity X, can you really argue that you can’t do activity Y with appropriate risk mitigation? I don’t think you can. Which is why, for me, the main factor revolves around perception of climbing and hillwalking by others.

 Michael Gordon 17 Apr 2020
In reply to Misha:

But he's talking about going straight out from his front door, so clearly counts as a local. Landowners? Depends exactly where you're going I guess. Officials? They only object because they've seen photos (before lockdown) of people going up Snowdon.

 LJH 17 Apr 2020
In reply to Misha:

Decent summary.

Let's be fair here... There is no real risk to popping some where quiet and local for a bit of traversing as long as social distancing is maintained.. and if it really is deemed an issue the police will ask you to quietly leave which you do.

A few socially awkward climbers wandering in the wild on there own really won't matter... just keep it low key and maintain social distancing...

2
 Robert Durran 17 Apr 2020
In reply to planetmarshall:

> Which would be fine if it were possible to refuse assistance, but it is not. Does anyone really think that if they fell off a crag and had a smartphone handy that they wouldn't call for assistance? If they do they're deluding themselves.

Maybe the BMC should issue advice that it's fine to go climbing as long as it's in a remote area a long way from a road and you don't take a phone.

1
 planetmarshall 17 Apr 2020
In reply to Steve Woollard:

> I can go climbing by walking from my front door and achieving social distancing so what's the problem?

That is your choice - though I think you would be stretching the definition of what is considered "reasonable".

Personally, I won't be going climbing until everyone can.

15
 Misha 17 Apr 2020
In reply to David Barlow:

Great blog. Raises an interesting point. The English SI refers to ‘the need’ to buy food, take exercise and so on. Clearly there is a need to buy food but for most people there is no strict need for exercise. Is it just a matter of semantics or could it be that most exercise is actually unlawful because it is not really needed? However need is not defined and arguably a desire to maintain physical and mental wellbeing provides a need for exercise. I suspect it’s just semantics as otherwise it barely makes sense.

Rushing out legislation is rarely a good idea...

 planetmarshall 17 Apr 2020
In reply to Misha:

I think you're failing to account for how people behave in large groups compared to how they behave as individuals.

Individuals can apply common sense, individuals can exercise nuanced judgement. An individual may think he's an above average driver, or that his child is of above average intelligence - and he could well be right.

Large groups of people all thinking that they're exceptional, however, are not useful things to have when lives depend on the behaviour of those groups being under a degree of control.

 Misha 17 Apr 2020
In reply to Michael Gordon:

It may be less of an issue for very ‘local’ climbers but even then someone from the next village might see me and wouldn’t know I was local. Even people from my own village who know me might form a bad opinion of climbers as they might consider me selfish etc, local or not. Or they might not care. (I’m referring to myself figuratively - I don’t live in a village and certainly not anywhere near a crag at the moment; the local hill here in Newmarket is 50m high).

1
 Misha 17 Apr 2020
In reply to planetmarshall:

I am not advocating going climbing at the moment. Most people aren’t. Some people take a reasoned approach and conclude that it’s fine for them to go climbing. I won’t judge them. Some might be going out anyway because they don’t care. Either way, at present these people are a small minority in our already niche sport. I think that rather disproves your point, though I can see where you are coming from.

In reply to planetmarshall:

> An individual may think he's an above average driver,

Or that they are not going to have an accident whilst climbing...

3
 Robert Durran 17 Apr 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

> > An individual may think he's an above average driver,

> Or that they are not going to have an accident whilst climbing...

Or cycling....... or running......... or doing DIY.......

 bensilvestre 18 Apr 2020
In reply to planetmarshall:

> Personally, I won't be going climbing until everyone can.

Given that a vaccine is likely at the very least 12 months away, once lockdown restrictions ease there will be a subset of at risk people who have to continue self isolating even when the rest of society starts returning to work etc. Will you still be showing solidarity with those people then? At what point does the solidarity end? Clearly I'm being pedantic but this doesn't seems like the best argument for not going climbing. 

The most compelling argument in here is Misha's about not causing upset between climbers and landowners/ the public on general. It already feels slightly strained here in Bethesda, there's a noticeable suspicion outside of the immediate communities (beyond where people recognise each other), and landowners have been attempting to close rights of way, though thankfully in the closest case to my home the local authorities came within hours to cut the chains off the gates with a grinder. We don't have it too bad here though, it sounds far more strained in Llanberis.

I still haven't made a decision on climbing yet but in terms of driving the way I see it is unnecessary driving necessitates unnecessary visits to petrol stations, and petrol stations are enormous transmission vectors for the virus. But I might feel differently if I didn't live where I do.

To be honest for me this article clears nothing up. It's still all incredibly ambiguous. No hill walking is an easy statement to make but what does it actually mean? Can I spend 10 minutes walking up and down the hill immediately behind my house? 20 minutes walking up the one behind that? An hour doing a loop around the valley behind my house? At which point between that and walking the full Carneddi round does it become unacceptable? Clearly there isn't a definitive answer so the ambiguity perseveres. Living where I do hill walking is quite literally the only option for exercise short of walking to Londis. So the advice is pretty much useless

In reply to bensilvestre:

Hey Ben,

At least it’s not illegal to access your hills!

Also I don’t think anyone would see you on The Great Arete, especially as you normally wear rock coloured clothes!

See you on the other side. X

 RD 18 Apr 2020
In reply to Steve Woollard:

Fully agree. If anyones preferred exercise is climbing the law allows you to undertake that exercise.

The lockdown  is aimed at preventing the spread of the virus not to stop people climbing (in groups of 2 or less).

Both UKC and the BMC statements should reflect the law and not an individual's perception of the crisis.

6
 JohnBson 18 Apr 2020
In reply to planetmarshall:

Simple then. Don't fall, place every runner you can, climb only solid rock, climb easy and carefully like a solo with rope. As I said 70s attitude, or the same mindset you'd apply climbing in remote parts of the world.

Basically the way I was taught to climb when I started, a fall is death, don't do it. 

2
 Coel Hellier 18 Apr 2020
In reply to bensilvestre:

> and petrol stations are enormous transmission vectors for the virus.

Do we know this?

I've only filled up once in the last 3 weeks, since I've not been driving much, but on that one occasion the station requested that we used disposable gloves (provided) for handling the pump, and I then paid contactless, after zero interactions with any human.  

After that I washed my hands using hot/soapy water from a 1.5-litre thermos flask wrapped in a duvet that I take when driving.  Seems pretty low-risk to me. 

Underlying all this, let's remember what government policy is.  It is explicitly to "flatten the curve" and keep the NHS within capacity.   That is not aiming for zero risk, it is aiming for low risk.    Quite deliberately, the rules are a balance, aiming for low (not zero) risk.

If government policy were to be "lock down until eradication" and aiming for zero risk (which they have not stated), then they'd need to have a much harsher lockdown, and would have to do things like close the borders with quarantine for arrivals (like New Zealand is doing), but which we are not doing. 

All this means that it's entirely within both the letter of the laws and the spirit of the rules to continue low-risk activities.  

So yes, let's stick within the law and the guidelines on interpretation of the law that the OP points to, but there's no need to go beyond that and deny oneself low-risk activities.

Post edited at 09:31
1
 bensilvestre 18 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Should have said they have the potentially to be big transmission vectors. I've not filled up in over a week but it wasn't so strict as you say last time I did. Obviously this will differ from place to place. And I wasn't saying don't drive, more just pointing out that driving lots leads to more possibility for transmission

 Andy Moles 18 Apr 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

> The Right Thing is Clear

The Right Thing is no more and no less clear than it was four weeks ago. These arguments have been going in circles ever since.

What some people seem to struggle with is the idea that The Right Thing is not the same for every person, because people's living circumstances are not the same. In light of this unusual set of considerations, some people are simply more fortunate than others, which is an unfortunate fact of most aspects of life. Some individuals clearly find it intolerable that other people can go climbing when they themselves can't right now, but is it really so different from a multitude of other forms of circumstantial privilege that emerge in the world? If you're free on a sunny day in Penzance, you don't stay indoors just because in the rest of the country it's raining.

Misha's summary of the three points of concern provides most of the clarity that's needed. If you can both obey government guidelines and mitigate all three (and to state plainly, the majority of us can't), including not being witnessed by anyone and therefore cancelling potential conflicts with landowners/authorities etc, the only issue you might be left with is a sense of unfairness or a lack of solidarity. That's really up to each individual to reconcile, and preferably not to rub anyone's nose in it.

By way of thought experiment (though it will not be far from a few people's circumstance), if a climber lives in a croft in the west of Lewis and they have been walking each day, witnessed by no one, to the boulderfield under Creagan Tealasdale and doing some lowball traversing, and no one else ever even hears about it, can you really give a good reason that they shouldn't?

Anyway, that'll do for the online theory-bubble. Back to the real world, all hundred square feet of it...

 Howard J 18 Apr 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

It's very easy to justify our own behaviour, and it is probably true that in many instances people could go climbing without putting either themselves or others at significant risk.  However that is taking an individualistic stand, at a time when for once we are being asked to act in the best interests of the community as a whole, and this viewpoint seems to have widespread public support.  Most of us aren't used to thinking like this, as we have grown up in a society which prizes and encourages individualism (some will blame Thatcher, but it goes back to the 60s and possibly had roots in the 50s). Climbing in particular tends to be a very individualistic, perhaps even selfish, sport so this may go against the grain.

Misha's point about stakeholders is important.  Farmers and landowners are anxious about people coming onto their land, which is where they live and work.  If they feel climbers have been careless about their safety and that of their families they may not be inclined to allow access when this is over. 

More organised sports often have laws about "bringing the sport into disrepute".  Climbing isn't organised and doesn't have a rulebook, but we should care what others think about us or we may face consequences when this is over.  The public is unlikely to be sympathetic towards those who go climbing against the advice of the BMC (who the public will see as a governing body) and mountain rescue teams, and who they will see as doing something dangerous which will add to the burden on the NHS.  Many of those who crowded Snowdon and other beauty spots may not have been breaking the law, but they were widely regarded as acting irresponsibly.   For most of us (and I include myself, although I live on the edge of the Peak District) going climbing will probably involve more travel than the public would regard as essential (whether or not it falls within what is legally permitted).  We will not appear in a good light.

Certainly, if you can sneak away to a secluded local spot where you won't attract attention then you'll probably get away with it, at least at the time.  But who knows what long-term damage that might do to access arrangements in future?

It's time to put aside our own wishes and ambitions and accept the restrictions which, taken as a whole, are to protect the entire community.  The time to start climbing again will be when the travel and exercise restrictions are lifted.

10
 TobyA 18 Apr 2020
In reply to LJH:

> Let's be fair here... There is no real risk to popping some where quiet and local for a bit of traversing as long as social distancing is maintained..

Of course there is some risk. I was feeling quite anguished about going out cycling for my daily exercise last week - there is a risk of me falling off or crashing and needing help. I've ridden bikes for what must be 40 years now and despite having crashed enough times in those 40 years I've never been hospitalised or needed to seek medical attention as a result of a crash. Nevertheless, it's still a risk.

Then on Sunday instead of riding a bike, I went for a walk with my partner and carrying my youngest son in a child carrier - he is currently about 13 kgs, and the carrier must be another 2 kgs, so the equivalent of moderately heavy rucksack, although none of my rucksacks wiggle in quite the same way! Anyway, this seemed close to a no risk activity, but within 300m of my front door, on an empty pavement next to an empty road I went over on my ankle and came crashing onto the floor quite hard. The toddler wasn't very happy about it although it was only me bleeding. Worse than the scrapes and bruising on my right limbs was hitting the right side of my chest quite hard. It's nearly a week but sneezing and lying on that side is still quite painful - it's not as acute as when I'm pretty certain I've broken a rib (or ribs) when climbing in the past, but still not nice.

I'm not trying to make much of a point here but there aren't many things that have "no real risk", even low traversing I'm sure has claimed a few ankles!

1
 yorkshire_lad2 18 Apr 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I'd like to reiterate the consideration for farmers and livestock. It's also lambing time at the moment too.  It has also been mentioned that farmers are often one-man/woman operations and if they get infected, who will look after the livestock?  Some people have mentioned the risk of transmission by touching stiles and gates, but that seems controversial, but still worth a mention.

The great outdoors will still be there after all this is over, and hopefully we will too (the chances of the former are much higher than the latter, esp if we don't abide by lock down & social distancing etc).  Is there really such a rush to get out there now, or can we just not wait a little bit longer?

From a personal point of view: I live in the Yorkshire Dales.  I'm a walker but I haven't been out for 4 weeks (No, I'm not virtue signalling), but still running; walkers (local and non-local) in the village are very conspicuous (for the wrong reasons).  The communities are quite concerned (to put it mildly) about the risks of having people coming in (for whatever reason: if you want to see the pitchforks getting sharpened, just mention second home owners in some of the usual honeypot villages) and the risks of transmission.  These communities would love to have everyone back after this is all over (and some communities are already thinking about gearing up for opening up), but please think about the impact of your actions on others, the infrastructure, mountain rescue (in the worst case scenario), the farmers and livestock.

11
 Robert Durran 18 Apr 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Reading posts on this thread it is becoming apparent that the major consideration of many, when deciding whether or not to do suitably low risk activities within the government guidelines, is what other peoples' perceptions and reactions are. Should I be bothered by the disapproving glance of a dog walker while I traverse a railway bridge? Should I be bothered that a farmer might mistake me for a second home owner? Should I be bothered that some people on UKC think that the BMC edict should be followed by everyone to the letter? Should I be bothered that some people living in cities might be envious of my access the countryside? I really don't know what to make of it..........

4
 off-duty 18 Apr 2020
In reply to Misha:

An interesting post.

I don't think you mentioned the other group impacted by people going out - literally "other people".

They see more traffic on the road, more people doing stuff outdoors, in places they know. One person's 15 mile solitary fell run is another's 30 min stroll for a family picnic. The natural impact of more people going out is more people going out.

Also worth considering the default position, rather than how far you "might" be able to push it based on a CPS/NPCC opinion on what reasonable excuse "might" be interpreted as.

The guidance on videos from Chris Whitty - Don't leave the house unless absolutely necessary.

The guidance from NHS and the Government:You should only leave your house for very limited purposes.

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

The default position (and the way the vast majority of the public are tackling this crisis) seems pretty clear.

11
 Martin Haworth 18 Apr 2020
In reply to UKC/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-52332857

A good news story. I'll guarantee that if the first call out is for a climber during the current isolation period it won't look good, and it will get a lot of publicity.

 Martin Haworth 18 Apr 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

I actually think the general public will be sympathetic if they see you traversing a remote railway bridge, I expect they will view it in a different light to someone climbing/bouldering at a crag. The former will be seen as keeping fit(exercise) in a remote and isolated location, the latter will be seen as just enjoying yourself by doing your hobby.

2
 Howard J 18 Apr 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

Should you be bothered about those individuals' reactions to you as an individual climber? Maybe not.  However you should be concerned at how the community as a whole regards climbers as a group.  If we are seen by the public to be behaving irresponsibly and flouting the new social norms (irrespective of whether individual climbers actually present a real risk) then we may find we face increased problems when things return to normal. In particular we should be concerned about greater opposition from landowners to allowing access. 

The government has asked that we all make personal sacrifices for the greater good, and that seems to be broadly accepted by the general public.  Those who flout the rules are criticised - just look at the criticism cyclists are getting for continuing to ride around in swarms - the behaviour of a few reflects on all cyclists.  We are being asked to suppress our individual desires in the wider interest.  Now is not the time to be looking for loopholes. If it's too much to ask for the benefit of the wider community, do it for the benefit of the climbing community.

2
 Wiley Coyote2 18 Apr 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> An interesting post.

>

> The guidance on videos from Chris Whitty - Don't leave the house unless absolutely necessary.

> The guidance from NHS and the Government:You should only leave your house for very limited purposes.

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

> The default position (and the way the vast majority of the public are tackling this crisis) seems pretty clear.

So are you saying that as a police officer you would follow Chris Witty's remarks rather than the written advice from the National Police Chiefs' Council (which presumably speaks for your own Chief Constable)? That advice clearly states that stopping for lunch 'on a long walk' is 'likely to be reasonable' under the regs NB that advice does actually say in so many  'a long walk'  and the implication, to me at least, is that a walk requiring a lunch stop would last several hours. Otherwise it's just a picnic, isn't it?

Also you are a bit economical in your quotation of the regs. It does indeed not to leave home without reasonable excuse but immediately says that exercise is just such a reasonable excuse

 off-duty 18 Apr 2020
In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

If the message you've got from the last 3 weeks isn't "stay at home" but "what excuses do I have to go out" then clearly the messaging isn't working.

The advice is just that "advice". It is some suggestions as to how they  think "reasonable excuse" might be interpreted.

It is an opinion.

Where legal terms like "reasonable excuse" are placed in to legislation then the place they end up actually getting defined is on a court room.

Some of the guidance is helpful. Some, particularly around exercise, considerably less so.  As can be seen by the barrack room lawyers now arguing that driving 2 hours is accept if you then go for a 4.5 hour walk.

Where these barrack room lawyers appear to fall down is in failing to realise that this guidance is purely an opinion. Other opinions exist. As those very guidelines say themselves - each situation should be assessed on a case by case basis.

My selective quoting isn't selective. That is the baseline- reg 6 1 "Stay at home" (for brevity)

The reasonable excuses then list the exceptions.

You can argue and disagree if you want. You can state your interpretation of reasonable excuse at the roadside. It might be that we agree. It might be that we don't.

I'd be using the government guidance, and depending on your destination the clear instructions from the BMC, Mountain Rescue, the fact that national parks, local parks, Scotland and Wales are largely closed. You can argue that your personal risk assessment and precautions render your actions as reasonable.

If we disagree then the place you can continue that argument is in a courtroom.

Or in a respiratory ward.

17
 Thomas Martin 18 Apr 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Looking at the guidelines it seems as though people are trying to see a beneficial interpretation of them in order to do something as climber we want to do. When personally I don't believe there is one. 

Ask any non climber the same is it ok to climb ? And they'd say "definitely not" I imagine social acceptance is important as it will influence our access in future. Local communities won't thank us for traveling to national parks etc. 

Also this all on only works if you expect the rest of the climbing community to be selfless in order for you to be selfish by going to deserted crags. 

That been said I do find the guidance confusing and over zealous in terms lone bouldering for example. 

I just carnt see the police or general public buying it one bit.

Post edited at 15:26
10
 Wiley Coyote2 18 Apr 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> The advice is just that "advice". It is some suggestions as to how they  think "reasonable excuse" might be interpreted.

> It is an opinion.

> Some of the guidance is helpful. Some, particularly around exercise, considerably less so..... Other opinions exist. As those very guidelines say themselves - each situation should be assessed on a case by case basis.

>I'd be using the government guidance, and depending on your destination the clear instructions from the BMC,

Thank you. You have summed up the problem in a nutshell.

The National Police Chiefs' Council, representing the most senior officers, has issued guidance. So far so useful and very welcome.

But you, perhaps a PC   - I'm sorry I don't know your actual rank but I'm guessing not a chief constable - have decided to ignore your superiors' guidance and go off your own ideas, including the 'clear instructions' (sic) of the BMC.  Can I just point out  that the BMC is a completely voluntary group with absolute zero  authority to instruct anyone to do anything. You on the other hand are a member of a supposedly disciplined organisation with a clearly-defined rank structure and chain of command. I find it amazing that you apparently think it better to ignore the established authority of your superior officers in favour of the entirely fictitious  'authority' of the BMC.

And against this background of individual officers making it up as they go along rather than following police guidelines  - which seems to be bordering on anarchy in a police force - you expect the public to know what they are supposed to do? Well I'm afraid my crystal ball is on the blink and I cannot predict exactly which set of 'rules' each individual officer has chosen to follow that particular day.

In my naivety I had assumed that the word of the National Police Chiefs' Council would count for something with junior ranks

3
 JohnBson 18 Apr 2020
In reply to Thomas Martin:

But many non climbers consider it unacceptable every day. Just look at the reaction in the media and social media. There's always some boring person wanting to moan.

 Misha 18 Apr 2020
In reply to bensilvestre:

Exactly, there are shades of grey everywhere. If I were currently living in Bethesda like I did last summer, generally I'd have no issues with going for walks from the village onto the Carneddau etc or driving up the A5 to go for walks around Ogwen. However I'd have to make sure that I wouldn't end up on any closed footpaths, which could be a fair few of the popular ones in the area (haven't checked the list).

I'm also not clear whether walking on access land away from any closed footpaths is permitted. Haven't looked at the rules but it could be another grey area. Assuming it's not actually banned, some might say that it's not in the spirit of the rules so should not be done. The counterargument is that the footpath closures in popular areas were intended to avoid overcrowding and the reality is that most of the people causing the overcrowding wouldn't go off piste anyway, so it's ok to go cross country as only a minority would do it. Then again, officials such as SNP wardens might take the view that entire areas are effectively closed. Yet how do you define a closed area, other than by shading it on a map? I might be wrong but I think Welsh local authorities have to provide lists of closed footpaths rather than maps which can clearly show closed areas.

Anyway, I don't live in Bethesda now so this is purely hypothetical but it does show that even for locals the situation is not clear cut in Wales. It's a bit simpler in England in that there are no formal path closures and sounds like Scotland is the same.

By the way, the article doesn't mention Northern Ireland at all.

1
 Misha 18 Apr 2020
In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:

Ah, now there's a thought. Ben and other Bethesda climbing locals could clean up the Carneddau crag as their daily exercise

In reply to Misha:

Huge areas of access land are closed. Look here https://www.snowdonia.gov.wales/authority/coronavirus for maps of the affected areas.

It's not just a few popular footpaths its massive swathes of our national parks.

 Misha 18 Apr 2020
In reply to RD:

> The lockdown  is aimed at preventing the spread of the virus not to stop people climbing (in groups of 2 or less).

Just to clarify, exercise is only permitted alone or with other members of your household. The legislation does not limit the number of participants as such, as long as they are from the same household. Conversely, any exercise in a group of two or more is not permitted if the participants are from different households.

It's possible that restrictions on exercise will be lifted gradually, so for example exercise in small groups from different households will be permitted before all restrictions on exercise are lifted. In that sense, climbing is in a better position than many team sports.

 JohnBson 18 Apr 2020
In reply to RD:

> Both UKC and the BMC statements should reflect the law and not an individual's perception of the crisis.

I agree I'm pretty sick of UKC articles pretending it's some sort of moral authority in the climbing world as if it were persuing some higher woke goal. I personally think it is a disservice to many of our best climbers who have historically been counter culture, rebels, oddballs, rule breakers and misfits. Even dubious characters taking unjustifiable risks.

Advice on climbing should be restricted to what government advice on exercise is, we can do the interpretation without UKC pseudo-philosophical instruction. 

7
 Misha 18 Apr 2020
In reply to pancakeandchips:

Thank you, I should have checked myself. That is very clear then. I'll amend my post above. It does show that the Carneddau and other less visited areas are not closed. I wonder if these areas will get busier than normal (which is to say still not very busy). The average person wanting to go up Snowdown or for a stroll round Idwal would have little interest in wandering into the Carneddau for example.

 TobyA 18 Apr 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> You can argue and disagree if you want. You can state your interpretation of reasonable excuse at the roadside. It might be that we agree. It might be that we don't.

Or "we" might just make something up. https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/18/police-officer-filmed-threatening-make-somet...

I guess that sort of behaviour doesn't really help does it? Having to deal with groups of at times very angry, aggressive or agitated teenagers sometimes myself I really sympathise with how deeply annoying they can be, but the fact that this got recorded suggests that it has happened before and hasn't been recorded.

2
 off-duty 18 Apr 2020
In reply to TobyA:

Yes. The cop is an idiot.

Not sure I agree with the conclusions you come to based on this video.

1
 Thomas Martin 18 Apr 2020
In reply to JohnBson:

I understand that, but this moment in time things a particular level of sensitivity above the normal. 

There are lots of actors outside the climbing community who are in some way connected, Communities, National park authority's, landowners, local government etc. Wither we like it or not we have to consider those groups as before you know it  many more non climbers will be against it spreading the impact far wider and for longer than we would like.  

You have to think of the perception beyond just the virus spread. I stand by what i said i do find the guidelines overzelous in some certain ways. I.e lone bouldering but the advice is there at a population level. Not a sporting or personal level.

 Trevers 18 Apr 2020
In reply to Howard J:

You make a good argument about collective responsibility. However a keyword in what you've written is "seen". Optics are at the heart of this issue, so if one is able to climb safely without being seen to be flouting guidelines (either by being invisible or at least very discreet), then I don't see an issue.

I'd also challenge your use of the word "loopholes". To me, that implies somebody looking for excuses to do something that they know is wrong or not in the spirit of the law, but which is technically permissible. If I drove to the Cairngorms from Bristol to go for a multi-day trek, that would be exploiting a loophole since it's within the letter of the law and the guidance but clearly taking the mick.

What's going on here, as I see it, is a discussion about the moral aspects regarding restrictions placed upon us for the greater good and our adherence to them. That's an incredibly important discussion to be having at this point in time in general (not purely related to climbing).

1
 RKernan 18 Apr 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

What about Northern Ireland?

 off-duty 18 Apr 2020
In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

FFS. You've literally misunderstood almost everything I've posted.

Read the guidance. It's guidance. It's not proscriptive.

It actually states everything will be dealt with case by case.

As can be seen in the debate ongoing it's already being construed by some to mean a 2 hour journey to carry out a 4 hour walk is now "reasonable excuse". 

I can think of numerous reasons why this would not be the case, including legal opinion from others. Some of which I spelled out in my post. That includes factors such as governing bodies and national government, national park authorities.

It's fairly straightforward forward to ensure you won't get "in trouble", though my primary concern would be not getting infected/infecting others; that would be by basing your actions on the simple principle that you will stay at home.  

From there make a decision if you really need to go out and consider if you may be covered by a reasonable excuse.  For most examples given this is pretty bloody straightforward.

Where it goes wrong is when people decide that staying indoors unless absolutely necessary, or leaving under limited conditions, not to mention minimising their time outdoors when conducting that activity, includes "going for a 6 hour walk", "driving across the country to climb a hill I fancy" etc etc.  We are stuffed in that our favourite activity involves being outdoors.

No-one is making it up as they go along. Debate about wording is unfortunately the way the law works.

Nearly every word in the 1968theft act has been defined by stated cases, and that's just stealing stuff.

Guidance isn't instructions, and your naivety in the role and responsibility of a constable is clear in your post, not to mention your understanding of the role of "authority" within the rank structure. We do not exist in an organisation where we can excuse an unlawful arrest because "we were just following orders", the corollary of that is that we are responsible for our own actions.

7
 TobyA 18 Apr 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> Not sure I agree with the conclusions you come to based on this video.

Fair enough, you just get the feeling that this isn't the first time ever that an officer, and probably this officer in particular, has used the "who do you think they are going to believe, me or you?" line as a threat.

I thought that in the tweeted footage from the London park the other day that for all the -arguably- unnecessary aggressiveness of the senior TSG officer yelling at the journalist, the fact that he stated his name and badge number so readily meant he was perfectly willing to justify his behaviour, and even if it all looked a bit heavy handed he obviously thought he was acting reasonably and correctly and hence didn't care that it was being recorded.

I suspect the officer in Lancashire didn't realise he was being recorded, because I don't think even the thickest of people would think that's a clever thing to be recorded as saying! What do you think will happen to him? Can you get sacked for something like that? Or just a brief telling off? Or somewhere in between 'not much' and 'a lot'? 

 Coel Hellier 18 Apr 2020
In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

> The National Police Chiefs' Council, representing the most senior officers, has issued guidance. So far so useful and very welcome.

Indeed!

And surely it is "reasonable" to take and act on the NPCC's publically stated advice on what is "reasonable" (or, strictly, "likely reasonable").

I doubt that a court would declare it "unreasonable" to do something that the NPCC's public advice says is reasonable. 

Therefore, if the NPCC's advice says it is reasonable, then it is indeed reasonable. 

 off-duty 18 Apr 2020
In reply to TobyA:

Here's the Lancs police statement on it.

https://twitter.com/LancsPolice/status/1251535259516239874?s=19

What might happen to him? Anything from not a lot to being sacked.

The TSG footage in Finsbury Park from April 5th?

I'd go with unnecessarily aggressive, but at it's core he appears to have told someone filming something on a mobile phone to go away, and not been persuaded by his argument that he's both exercising and being a journalist.

Given the identity of the person filming, the police were never going to come out of that encounter well even if he'd been allowed to conduct a full interview with the female (arrested for something entirely unrelated, that the filmer had no knowledge of and who had no connection to the filmer). It was a lose/lose but could have been dealt with better.

2
 tim carruthers 18 Apr 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

As we enter the next 3 weeks of lockdown here is a summary of the advice:

1. You MUST NOT leave the house for any reason, but if you have a reason, you can leave the house

2. Masks are useless at protecting you against the virus, but you may have to wear one because it can save lives, but they may not work, but they may be mandatory, but maybe not 

3. Shops are closed, except those shops that are open

4. You must not go to work but you can get another job and go to work

5. You should not go to the Drs or to the hospital unless you have to go there, unless you are too poorly to go there 

6. This virus can kill people, but don’t be scared of it. It can only kill those people who are vulnerable or those people who are not vulnerable people. It’s possible to contain and control it, sometimes, except that sometimes it actually leads to a global disaster

7. Gloves won't help, but they can still help so wear them sometimes or not

8. STAY HOME, but it's important to go out

9. There is no shortage of groceries in the supermarkets, but there are many things missing. Sometimes you won’t need loo rolls but you should buy some just in case you need some

10. The virus has no effect on children except those children it effects

11. Animals are not affected, but there is still a cat that tested positive in Belgium in February when no one had been tested, plus a few tigers here and there…

12. Stay 2 metres away from tigers (see point 11)

13. You will have many symptoms if your get the virus, but you can also get symptoms without getting the virus, get the virus without having any symptoms or be contagious without having symptoms, or be non contagious with symptoms... 

14. To help protect yourself you should eat well and exercise, but eat whatever you have on hand as it's better not to go out shopping 

15. It's important to get fresh air but don't go to parks but go for a walk. But don’t sit down, except if you are old, but not for too long or if you are pregnant or if you’re not old or pregnant but need to sit down.  If you do sit down don’t eat your picnic

16. Don’t visit old people but you have to take care of the old people and bring them food and medication

17. If you are sick, you can go out when you are better but anyone else in your household can’t go out when you are better unless they need to go out

18. You can get restaurant food delivered to the house. These deliveries are safe. But groceries you bring back to your house have to be decontaminated outside for 3 hours including Pizza...

19. You can't see your older mother or grandmother, but they can take a taxi and meet an older taxi driver

20. You are safe if you maintain the safe social distance when out but you can’t go out with friends or strangers at the safe social distance

21. The virus remains active on different surfaces for two hours ... or four hours... six hours... I mean days, not hours... But it needs a damp environment. Or a cold environment that is warm and dry... in the air, as long as the air is not plastic

22. Schools are closed so you need to home educate your children, unless you can send them to school because you’re not at home. If you are at home you can home educate your children using various portals and virtual class rooms, unless you have poor internet, or more than one child and only one computer, or you are working from home.  Baking cakes can be considered maths, science or art.  If you are home educating you can include household chores to be education. If you are home educating you can start drinking at 10am

23. If you are not home educating children you can also start drinking at 10am

24. The number of corona related deaths will be announced daily but we don't know how many people are infected as they are only testing those who are almost dead to find out if that's what they will die of… the people who die of corona who aren’t counted won’t be counted 

25. You should stay in locked down until the virus stops infecting people but it will only stop infecting people if we all get infected so it’s important we get infected and some don’t get infected 

26. You can join your neighbours for a street party and turn your music up for an outside disco and your neighbours won’t call the police.  People in another street are allowed to call the police about your music. 

27. No business will go under due to Coronavirus except those businesses that will have already gone under.

Now I understand 

2
 Andy Clarke 18 Apr 2020
In reply to JohnBson:

> I agree I'm pretty sick of UKC articles pretending it's some sort of moral authority in the climbing world as if it were persuing some higher woke goal. I personally think it is a disservice to many of our best climbers who have historically been counter culture, rebels, oddballs, rule breakers and misfits. Even dubious characters taking unjustifiable risks.

It seems to me that counter-culture isn't particularly well represented in the history of climbing, outside of the obvious decades of the 60s and 70s. Two climbers (and writers) I particularly admire, Ed Drummond and Paul Pritchard, would certainly fit the bill. However, another of my heroes is Jack Longland, a Cambridge first and blue, a Director of Education and a Knight - hard to be more establishment than that! The Master, Joe Brown, was also an entrepreneur and an OBE/MBE. The Magician, Johnny Dawes, is certainly unique - but is he anti-establishment? I can't see anything particularly counter-culture about contemporary greats such as Dave Macleod, Steve McClure, James McHaffie, Hazel Findlay or Shauna Coxsey. Mick Fowler is famously a senior taxman. Jules Lines is different, for sure, but he's the only one who comes to my mind. I'd like to believe in this somewhat romantic image, but I can't. Do you really think it's "many of our best"?

 off-duty 18 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Indeed!

> And surely it is "reasonable" to take and act on the NPCC's publically stated advice on what is "reasonable" (or, strictly, "likely reasonable").

> I doubt that a court would declare it "unreasonable" to do something that the NPCC's public advice says is reasonable. 

> Therefore, if the NPCC's advice says it is reasonable, then it is indeed reasonable. 

Go for it. Bear in mind it is advice. It clearly states each case will be dealt with on a case by case basis, and it's liberally scattered with "might" and "likely to be".

And also bear in mind that legal definitions of words are often decided in a court of law. If you want a prime example look at The Theft Act. - "dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another". Ultimately all of those words was defined following a numerous separate court cases.

3
 Misha 18 Apr 2020
In reply to bensilvestre:

Was editing my post above but timed out, so here's the updated version for all it's worth...

Exactly, there are shades of grey everywhere. If I were currently living in Bethesda like I did last summer, generally I'd have no issues with going for walks from the village onto the Carneddau etc or driving up the A5 to get onto the Carnedday from the other side. SNP have published maps on their website which clearly show which areas are closed. The Carneddau and other less well known areas are not closed at the moment.

Having said that, as you point out, local sensitivities may need to be taken into account even if you are a local. People living in Gerlan might not appreciate lots of people trooping through to get to the valley (though I doubt there would ever be lots of people doing that). Alternative access points are available to minimise the need to walk through the village. Is driving a few miles up the A5 to access the Carneddau from one of the laybys there (assuming they are open) a better solution as it avoids having to walk through the village?

One thing is for sure, it's much easier to achieve social distancing in the hills compared to going for a walk round Bethesda itself with its tightly packed houses and narrow pavements and roads. You could of course stay at home all the time but no one in government is suggesting that. It's a question of balance but there are many shades of grey.

Anyway, I don't live in Bethesda now so this is purely hypothetical but it does show that the situation is not clear cut.

Post edited at 17:28
 JHiley 18 Apr 2020
In reply to tim carruthers:

To be fair, most of those apparent contradictions are just because this is real life and the real world/ universe is actually quite a complicated system.

> 12. Stay 2 metres away from tigers

Well that's just unreasonable.

In reply to Misha:

Really weird that the Arans are covered though. I hardly ever see people up there, certainly fewer than the Carneddau.

In reply to tim carruthers:

This is the best thing I’ve read in ages. 

 Misha 18 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Good point about low vs zero risk. I would add that we should all try our best to minimise the risk (however low) but within reason.

Some people will say that even going for 'local' walks is unacceptable because it's not zero risk and strictly speaking it's not essential. That is true but then are those people doing everything else to eliminate risk where possible? For example, going to the supermarket as infrequently as possible (once a week or less) and using gloves and face masks when doing so; not making any online purchases which are not truly essential (risk to warehouse and delivery workers).

I agree that the petrol station risk can be mitigated by taking some basic precautions. Even if they don't hand out gloves, you can take your own (eg robust outdoor gloves), then when you're done store them in a plastic bag - once you need them again in a few days, any virus should have 'died off'. Avoid going at busy times. Pay by card, preferably contactless (Apple Pay is very handy as in theory it's not subject to the £30 limit, though in practice some businesses still impose that limit, so do check - with a petrol station you can ask to prepay). If possible, pay through the 'night shift' window to avoid having to go in the shop where there could be other people.

On a related point, we could really do with a study to show the likely risk of transmission via door handles and the like. A small German study suggested that this risk was very low, unless someone sneezes in their hand and uses the door handle shortly before you. I wouldn't want to hang my hat on a single small study but it's an important question. In any case, I'd opt to use gloves or my foot where possible but the good thing is that many shops have automatic doors these days. These are all relevant considerations... 

 kevin stephens 18 Apr 2020
In reply to RKernan:

> What about Northern Ireland?

My understanding is that Mountaineering Ireland looks after the whole of Ireland, particularly regarding access. For example they have put a lot of work into access for Fairhead in NI

https://www.mountaineering.ie/aboutus/news/2020/?id=265

Post edited at 18:08
 Misha 18 Apr 2020
In reply to Andy Moles:

Well put. There is one other aspect as well. A lot of my friends in the outdoor activities business are currently out of work but they live in places like North Wales where they can go hill walking or even do some form of climbing (though I suspect most are not climbing at the moment). Whereas I have the benefit (privilege?) of being able to work from home but the most exciting outdoor activity I can do at the moment is go for a walk in Thetford Forest.

Covid has hit different people in different ways and I think it's fair to say that all climbers are impacted in some significant way, whether it's access to the countryside or something else. It would be completely wrong for me to feel envious of my friends or to tell them that they shouldn't be going out. Which is one of the reasons I will not judge others who may be hillwalking or climbing at the moment, as long as they do it safely and discreetly.

 Misha 18 Apr 2020
In reply to Howard J:

> Misha's point about stakeholders is important.  Farmers and landowners are anxious about people coming onto their land, which is where they live and work.  If they feel climbers have been careless about their safety and that of their families they may not be inclined to allow access when this is over. 

Which is not desirable at the best of times but will be a big issue if the government criminalises trespass as is currently proposed.

 Misha 18 Apr 2020
In reply to off-duty:

You are right about 'other people' seeing someone walking etc and deciding to head out as well, which is why it's important to be discreet and choose suitable venues. If you head out walking etc in the countryside, hardly anyone other than locals will see you anyway - which comes back to my point that locals and landowners are key stakeholders here.

You are also right about the default position but the whole point is what constitutes a reasonable excuse. Exercise is clearly accepted as a reasonable excuse, there is no doubt about that, and the government has said that exercise is important for physical and mental wellbeing. It's just that the detail of what the rules actually mean (or were intended to mean) is a grey area.

At least we are far more fortunate than people in Spain (no exercise at all) and France (I believe you are meant to stay within 1k of your home and cycling for exercise is not permitted).

Regarding your other point about the guidelines, clearly I'm not a police officer but I thought that NPCC and CPS guidelines do carry some weight in terms of determining what police officers should be doing, though as you say each situation has to be assessed on its own merits. The guidance is important because it provides some clarity and would hopefully prevent fines being issued by over-zealous officers in fairly innocuous circumstances such as someone driving 10 minutes to go for a two hour walk. As you say, a test case would be needed to provide clarity and set legal precedent but it seems unlikely that someone with sufficient dedication and who is able to afford top level legal representation would be willing to pursue this any time soon.

Post edited at 18:45
1
 Wiley Coyote2 18 Apr 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> FFS. You've literally misunderstood almost everything I've posted.

Not sure how. You are the one who relegated the public  guidance of the National Police Chiefs' Council to mere 'opinion' while saying you would be guided by the 'clear instructions' of the BMC instead.

Have you by any chance passed that on to your chief constable? Oh I don't know, maybe an email  saying something like "Thank you for your input, sir,  but that's just your opinion. I prefer to go with the clear instructions of the BMC instead?"

2
 GrahamD 18 Apr 2020
In reply to Steve Woollard:

Driving IS a problem because there is a greater risk to others, you potentially spread CV to areas previously unaffected and you degrade air quality.  Why do people have this blind spot about cars, and especially car use at the moment ?

13
 rogerwebb 18 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Indeed!

> And surely it is "reasonable" to take and act on the NPCC's publically stated advice on what is "reasonable" (or, strictly, "likely reasonable").

'Likely reasonable' is very different from 'is reasonable' the latter offers a complete defence the former does not.

> I doubt that a court would declare it "unreasonable" to do something that the NPCC's public advice says is reasonable. 

> Therefore, if the NPCC's advice says it is reasonable, then it is indeed reasonable. 

No court is bound by NPCC's or any police officer's definition of reasonable. If they were there would be little point in their existence and certainly no point in criminal defence.

Post edited at 19:14
 TobyA 18 Apr 2020
In reply to off-duty:

As I said I can really sympathise in some ways, as a teacher we only have to deal with kids being unreasonable, rude and occasionally threatening or violent up to normally 16 (although plenty of 15 and 16 year olds I teach are bigger than me!). Police have to deal with teenagers and adults acting like that. I don't think before I started teaching that I realised just how difficult some people can be. But at least the statement shows that the Lancs Chief Constable accepts just how awful this looks.

I googled to check with the other one that we are talking about the same thing, we are, and -oh what a surprise!- here it is on RT! https://www.rt.com/uk/486026-journalist-police-coronavirus-lockdown/ The irony of the Russian state paying to inform us about police "aggression, rudeness (and) arrogance"! But yeah, the threats to fine him and repeatedly stepping forward, closer to the journalist, in order to shout at him wasn't a great look.

I'm sure it has been discussed, but giving police surgical masks to wear when out on patrol as lots of other European states have done, would potentially offer cops some protection but more importantly be a strong reminder to people why the police are having to police them in the way that they are currently? They could also yell at people without inadvertently spraying them with spit!

 off-duty 18 Apr 2020
In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

> Not sure how. You are the one who relegated the public  guidance of the National Police Chiefs' Council to mere 'opinion' while saying you would be guided by the 'clear instructions' of the BMC instead.

> Have you by any chance passed that on to your chief constable? Oh I don't know, maybe an email  saying something like "Thank you for your input, sir,  but that's just your opinion. I prefer to go with the clear instructions of the BMC instead?"

Read the guidance. Learn the powers, duties and responsibilities of a police officer.

In fact, just re-read my posts.

I make regular decisions on threat/harm/risk as well as law on a regular basis that fully equip me to debate the definition of reasonable excuse with the CPS. And if necessary all the way up to Chief Constable.

On the other hand you appear unable to even understand what I've written let alone the clear provisos in the guidance itself. I can only apologise. And suggest on that basis you might not be best placed to push the extremes of your interpretation of the law.

9
 off-duty 18 Apr 2020
In reply to TobyA:

I agree about the masks. I think police wearing them out and about would be a real reality check for a lot of people, most importantly our regular customers, who despite the impression that might be given on social media, are still the people  with whom we have the most interaction - especially now.

Further- as you say i think it would protect the public from us as vectors. 

I suspect the reason we don't is down to the softly-softly approach that appears to have been taken by NPCC to all aspects of this crisis.  The focus internally does appear to be more on arguments and rapidly changing guidance on PPE to protect staff themselves.

1
 Wiley Coyote2 18 Apr 2020
In reply to off-duty:

>  And suggest on that basis you might not be best placed to push the extremes of your interpretation of the law.

I am not pushing anything. I have scrupulously obeyed the law as it appears on legislation.gov and welcomed  the guidance of the National Police Chiefs' Council as very helpful clarification.  I am however astonished by  the way you seem on the basis of an 'I know best' approach to be dismissing the guidance of your own senior officers in the NPCC as merely one  'opinion' among many while simultaneously following the 'strict instructions' (your words) handed down by the BMC.  Just as a matter of interest what, as a serving police officer yourself,  makes you think the BMC opinion is so much better than that of the NPCC?

5
 Misha 18 Apr 2020
In reply to Trevers:

Agree about ‘being seen’. On a pedantic point, strictly speaking your example of a multi day trek would fall foul of the rules as you’d be sleeping and probably cooking etc outside your home and those are not reasonable excuses to be out. 

 Oceanrower 18 Apr 2020
In reply to Misha:

How pedantic do you want to be?

It says "You can leave your home..."

Once I've left it for exercise there's nothing about having to go back to cook. 😏

Post edited at 19:59
1
 Misha 18 Apr 2020
In reply to off-duty:

I suspect the main reason the police don’t wear masks is there aren’t enough masks to go round...

 Misha 18 Apr 2020
In reply to Oceanrower:

A literal interpretation would be that you can leave your home only for one of the reasonable excuses but once you’ve left you can do whatever. Clearly that’s ridiculous and a court would apply a purposive approach to the legislation.

 Oceanrower 18 Apr 2020
In reply to Misha:

Clearly. But someone did mention pedantry...

 RKernan 18 Apr 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

You're right, of course, re. MI. I'm being a big disingenuous and facetious really, but this is UK Climbing and not GB Climbing, and the law here (NI) is plenty ambiguous at the moment.

 Misha 18 Apr 2020
In reply to rogerwebb:

Indeed. Although I wonder if a court would take the guidance into account. After all, it was reported in the press and people are going to use it to help them navigate the rules. The court would then look at the specific circumstances as of course the guidance is generic and there are grey areas.

The other aspect is the CPS. It’s their guidance as well and I would be surprised if they opt to prosecute against their own guidance. But my knowledge of the criminal justice system is superficial, so I don’t know whether or at what stage the CPS would get to make that call in an appeal against a fine. May be if it gets to a Crown Court? The first stage would presumably be a Magistrate’s Court.

Still, I find off-duty’s attitude a bit odd. NPCC guidance is issued for a reason. Of course police officers are not bound by it as such but I’d have thought they are supposed to take it into account whilst recognising that each case is different and has to be judged on its own merits. I’m guessing an officer who clearly goes against the guidance (for example issues a fine to someone for buying a bottle of champagne as part of their weekly shop) would look a bit silly and it would be easier to appeal the fine. But the whole idea of the guidance is presumably to avoid those kinds of silly examples of over-zealous policing we’ve occasionally heard about, which reflect badly on the police and undermine the principle of policing by consent.

My main takeaway from the guidance is it states that driving to exercise is ok in principle. That’s implicit from the wording of the legislation anyway but it’s good to have this in official guidance. You then have to look at the time spent driving vs exercising and that’s where it gets fuzzy but I think common sense goes a long way here. I’m not sure anyone is advocating driving for hours to go walking or whatever. ‘Local’ travel seems ok though. Different people / officers / courts will no doubt have different ideas about what ‘local’ means, not least because it will depend on the specific circumstances.

 cragtyke 18 Apr 2020
In reply to Misha:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-52323784

An example of staying within the guidance but antagonising the locals, to show how rancourous this could become.

 off-duty 18 Apr 2020
In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

I think you're choosing to wilfully misread or misinterpret my posts.

The guidance is just that - guidance.

It is scattered with "might", "likely" and is given the proviso that cases must be assessed individually.

In the most part it is helpful. In the exercise section - less so.

How should it be interpreted - "practically" by looking to it to give you some guidance in particular situations.

How should it NOT be treated - a proscriptive set of instructions as to what is or is not permitted.

The most tricky element in this forum is exercising. We all want to go back outdoors and do what we enjoy.

How can we judge whether that is legal or not ( leaving aside the moral point - imo we shouldn't for a whole host of reasons many articulated far better than me by Misha).

From a legal standpoint as regards hillwalking - you could say you believe, based on the guidelines that driving 2 hours to go for a 4 hour walk is reasonable.

My position is that i would disagree.  The starting point for that opinion would be the fact that the default position is that as per reg 6 1 - you should go not go out.

Yes, there are reasonable excuses, one of which you are trying to use. However in determining whether in that specific case you were being "reasonable" I am perfectly entitled to make my own decision based on the individual facts of the situation. In making that judgement I would also consider other factors - the fact that all guidance suggests minimising time outdoors even when exercising, the fact that national parks, wales and Scotland are closed. The fact that "experts" in the form of the BMC and MR teams are requesting people don't go out.  All of these would form part of my rationale.

Ultimately we can choose to agree to disagree. The matter then gets escalated to court and ultimately a court makes a decision in whether your view if reasonable excuse based on your understanding of the law was right, or whether mine was.  Parts of my rationale might be heeded, parts might be ignored. Ultimately the court decides and indeed it might say neither of us were and perhaps set it's own definition.

So that's how I'll be using the guidance. Just like any other guidance published by NPCC or CPS. 

Post edited at 21:47
10
 NewHam 18 Apr 2020
In reply to Steve Woollard:

I'm sure, at the moment, one could attend any crag in the UK and climb with no more risk than usual whilst maintaining appropriate social distancing - but the only reason you could do that is because everyone else has decided to stay at home. If everyone on Furlough, and everyone working from home, went out climbing as and when they fancied (as seems to be suggested by many on this thread and in the wider community) all the crags would be rammed all the time and social distancing while climbing wouldn't be possible.

The story is the same with parks and other public spaces. One can easily go for a picnic or a kickabout without any overt danger but only because everyone else has decided to not go. If we all went out to the park it would be really busy and the virus would likely spread in an uncontrollable manner.

Ideally, everyone would be allowed to go climbing whenever and wherever but that is definitely not viable in the current situation so it's only fair that none of us do.

5
 Trevers 18 Apr 2020
In reply to NewHam:

Apart from the fact that most people on here probably don't share a household with their regular climbing partners, nobody in this thread has advocated going about climbing as usual.

I've been cycling through the Avon Gorge fairly regularly recently. Given the weather we've been having, I could expect in normal times to see the crags rammed daily. Instead I've only seen a few people doing low level bouldering traverses. So some people are continuing to climb in a safe, discreet and self-aware manner, which seems absolutely fine to me.

9
 Misha 18 Apr 2020
In reply to cragtyke:

Indeed. Thing is, road cyclists don’t have the same access issues as climbers - no one is going to take away their right to cycle on country roads after this is over (although a ban during Covid is theoretically possible, as noted in the article). So it’s less of an issue for them.

I do wonder just how paranoid some people have become. The chances of a cyclist infecting someone in a village they cycle through is pretty close to zero, to my mind. I’d be a lot more concerned about getting infected in a shop. 

 olddirtydoggy 18 Apr 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

What's interesting reading on here from the sidelines is how opinions on here are changing after 4 weeks. When the original article  'NEWS: Outdoor Climbing - Time to Put it on Hold' was published, 161 - 2 were in favour of the sentiments suggesting we stay away from the rock and many of the posts were celebrating the call to stay at home. Now I get the feeling we're about 50/50 on here.

I wonder if the lockdown is making some of us desperate to get out, it is for me. Has the understanding of risk and the virus improved over 4 weeks? The title of the article that heads this thread says "The right thing is clear". It's very hard to try and keep the mind on what the right thing to do is, verses what we can get away with.

Just last week we were out on the edge of moorland down the road from home and a farmer came over to us on a quad to tell us the countryside was closed. A polite exchange took place and we continued back home. It seems the rural population is still a bit shakey about visitors and who can blame them.

 Misha 18 Apr 2020
In reply to off-duty:

Thanks for clarifying your approach. That makes sense (I just thought some of your earlier comments were a bit dismissive of the guidance but that was possibly because there was a slightly heated exchange going on - as ever, online forums are tricky!). I think we can agree that on the driving point there is a wide range of possible scenarios, which start with perfectly reasonable (driving 10 minutes to a local park etc) and then at some point become increasingly ‘unreasonable’ and get to the stage where a fine could be issued. Which might or might not be upheld by a court if challenged.

 NewHam 18 Apr 2020
In reply to Trevers:

That's the point though: you would expect to see the crags rammed, and if the crag were rammed it would obviously be pretty bad, but we don't because the majority of people have followed advice to not go out climbing. I see the argument to say there's nothing wrong with climbing in a discreet self aware manner, and the people doing that aren't really in danger or stressing the NHS ect. I'm also aware that nobody is explicitly advocating climbing as usual, but some do advocate climbing within the bounds of social distancing. I suppose I haven't been clear:

My point is that you're only able to go out climbing and maintain social distancing because everyone else, despite wanting to go climbing, has stayed at home. I'm not saying that it's unsafe from a climbing or virus perspective, just that it is unfair on those who have followed advice to not go. If we all tried to go to the crag, albeit for a lowball traverse, there would be no climbing for anyone because it would be too busy, as you have described, so it only seems reasonable for us to all collectively not go.

2
 Misha 18 Apr 2020
In reply to olddirtydoggy:

I think the vast majority of people aren’t walking or climbing at the moment, at least going by the people I know. But you are right that sentiment is slowly changing and that’s inevitable. People are starting to think about the ‘exit strategy’ at the same time as getting increasingly restless, particularly with the nice weather (we need some rain!). At the moment it’s mostly people just discussing what is or might be ok, rather than actually acting on it. However that will probably change with time and increasing numbers will start heading out once restrictions start getting relaxed. It’s just human nature.

There are some grey areas at the moment but on the whole ‘the right thing’ for most people seems to be to avoid heading out. As discussed on the other thread, there will be a lot more grey areas when it comes to the question of when it’s ok to start heading out again. The forums will get plenty more traffic, that’s for sure.

 Wiley Coyote2 19 Apr 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> I think you're choosing to wilfully misread or misinterpret my posts.

No I am not. I am genuinely not. I am not even discussed any of the individual points of what is and not legal/allowed. I am looking at the general principle of everyone needing know what is permitted so we all know where we stand. My amazement is entirely directed at the way you, a serving officer apparently working at street level, feel you can simply dismiss the widely published guidance of the National Police Chiefs' Council representing senior ranks, including presumably your own chief constable, in favour of your own opinion. Also that instead of following NPCC guidance which you airily  wave away as just their 'opinion' you are throwing in your lot with the 'strict instructions' - yes I do keep coming back to those words because, again, they astonish me - of the BMC over the policy laid out by your employers and superior officers.

Most organisations, companies etc have a hierarchy of some description. Policy is set by the upper levels and implemented by those lower down the chain so everyone knows what they are doing. Indeed, the police have not just a loose hierarchy but  a rigid formal rank structure so I am stunned that despite this you feel able to set aside the policy/guidance, call it what you will, of the NPCC and make up your own version instead.

In other circumstances that might be something between you, your bosses and the Disciplinary Dept  but in this case it creates problems for all of us. I think everyone agrees the regulations were rushed, badly drafted, ambiguous and confusing. So it was extremely helpful to have the NPCC issue guidance so we all had a much clear idea of where we stood, what we could do and what we could not. Not perfect, granted, but much improved. It let us know how the police would enforce the regulations.  Until you come along, blithely saying  you are not going to follow them but go your own way instead.

As I understand it there are roughly 123,000 individual police officers in this country. If every one of them is going to have their own version of The Law how is anyone supposed to know what is permitted or not?

7
 Trevers 19 Apr 2020
In reply to NewHam:

I see the point you're making. I was also a bit unclear, but I was trying to make the point that those who are still out have (I presume) modified their behaviour. If climbers in Bristol, rather than swarming up every classic trad line at every available opportunity, are occasionally going out to more varied locations for a quick and discreet boulder traverse, then perhaps there is enough to go around. And if others are choosing not to, that's their choice.

So it's not unfair on the part of those who are going, so long as they're otherwise being socially responsible. It's not as though they're using the opportunity to tick off all the classic local lines or get on someone else's project.

8
 off-duty 19 Apr 2020
In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

Holy crap. Read my post. Stop trying to interpret what I am saying with your misunderstanding of both the law and my profession.

This is guidance. It isn't law and it isn't an instruction.

It covers some hypothetical situations and provides some hypothetical suggestions as to what "reasonable excuse" might be.

It is littered with caveats and provisos.

How I would use it is literally spelled out on my previous post.

That is how the police use ALL their powers. On occasion the legal terms are well defined by case law, on occasion they aren't. Quite often there is general consensus about what the words used in law mean in practice, sometime there isn't. Sometimes the consensus is also found to be wrong.

None of this stuff gets decided by guidance, however well intentioned, it gets decided by case law.

I think I've spelled out, in pretty simple terms the processes by which you can be sure you minimise your chances of falling foul of the law. I'll repeat it.

Stay at home. 

If you need to go out, consider whether what you want to do falls in to one of the categories of "reasonable excuse". Have a look at the guidance provided by the CPS.   

it does and you are confident you can justify as reasonable excuse, carry on. 

If you are unlucky enough to be stopped by police. Have a conversation with them. They may well agree with you. 

The guidance, in conjunction with the specific words used in the regs is pretty clear for most areas. The major issue appears to lie in the exercise provision.

My thoughts on that are, I think, pretty clear. You may disagree with them. You may be right. That's why we have a court process that ultimately would be arbitrar of what constitutes a "reasonable excuse". 

An example of this disconnect between the guidance and the way the law is enforced? A single mother sitting on a park bench  with 2 small kids in the park. By the guidance- spending more time sitting than walking " unlikely to be reasonable". Following a conversation. Reasonable -The only time that they had been out of the flat all week. Exercise for children, and time outside for mum who couldn't have just abandoned them.

​​​​​​A prime example of why the guidance is not a document that MUST be followed.

2
 Wiley Coyote2 19 Apr 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> My thoughts on that are, I think, pretty clear. You may disagree with them.

The issue is not my disagreeing with you or any other member of the public falling foul of your personal interpretations but the National Police Chiefs' Council disagreeing with you if we  are following their published guidance and you are not.

8
 off-duty 19 Apr 2020
In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

> The issue is not my disagreeing with you or any other member of the public falling foul of your personal interpretations but the National Police Chiefs' Council disagreeing with you if we  are following their published guidance and you are not.

If you follow the guidance you will "probably" be alright. I say probably because it is guidance NOT instructions and not law.

If you adopt the principles that I have suggested you will almost certainly be alright.

The issue will come when/if you are playing to some interpretation of the guidance - "but I'm travelling for less time than my 5 hour hike" or "I am having a 2 hour picnic because I've elected to spend 7 hours "exercising" in the park."

At that point you are likely to end up engaged in a similar debate to this one, where your actions will then come into harsh contact with the fact that "reasonable excuse" is not defined in law.

You may then see a practical example of how the police use the guidance (written in the guidance itself) as well as a demonstration of the independence of the role of constable.

As with all guidance issued by NPCC or CPS I am confident in my ability to interpret and use it in practical situations and I am not unfamiliar with providing relevant advice or rationales for my actions to lots of higher authorities about matters considerably more complex and risky than this.  So, thanks for your concern about my dealings with "the NPCC",  but I'm certain I will be fine.

2
 Coel Hellier 19 Apr 2020
In reply to NewHam:

> My point is that you're only able to go out climbing and maintain social distancing because everyone else, despite wanting to go climbing, has stayed at home. I'm not saying that it's unsafe from a climbing or virus perspective, just that it is unfair on those who have followed advice to not go.

However, given the guidance that it is "reasonable" to drive only short distances, but driving long distances is not, then the crags would not be rammed -- since most climbers live a fair drive from crags. 

So we'll likely evolve into a situation where some can climb but others can not. Is that fair? Obviously it isn't, but the rules are not about fairness, they're about the virus. 

1
 mrphilipoldham 19 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

What next, not climbing midweek because most can only get out on Saturday or Sunday? That’s fair, innit?  

We all make certain life choices, some choose to live near rock, others choose to live in London. You pays your money, you takes your choice.

3
 TobyA 19 Apr 2020
In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

I think you're just bored and trying to have a fight. Surely you see his point, that guidance is guidance. Not case law?

1
 off-duty 19 Apr 2020
In reply to TobyA:

> I think you're just bored and trying to have a fight. Surely you see his point, that guidance is guidance. Not case law?

Probably also with mentioning that the law s6 2 actually says :

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

(My highlights).

This appears to have been overlooked on the CPS guidance, which isn't surprising.

I would suggest that "needing" to do exercise and "wanting" to go for a walk up specific big hill in a certain area, may also be a point of legal dispute. To put it politely.

If nothing else it strengthens the contention that the default position is "stay at home".

6
 Coel Hellier 19 Apr 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> If nothing else it strengthens the contention that the default position is "stay at home".

And yet, yesterday Jenrick instructed councils that they may not close parks.  The government advice is about **balance**. 

We are not locking down until eradication.  That's not the policy, and it can't be done.  The policy is about stopping an exponential growth in cases and keeping the NHS within capacity. 

The policy is then to ease the lockdown compatible with the above, and find a sensible balance for the "new normal" that will continue for now, at least  for quite a few months. 

We need that balance because we need a functioning society and economy.  A new Treasury report (The Times today) says that if the lockdown continues for more than a few weeks then 6 out of 10 businesses will have been terminally damaged.

So, can we all think about sensible and appropriate balances, which involves accepting low-risk activities in an on-going "new normal", and not aim for an unachievable zero-risk lifestyle? 

 Coel Hellier 19 Apr 2020
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

> We all make certain life choices, some choose to live near rock, others choose to live in London. You pays your money, you takes your choice.

Exactly.  A while ago I turned down a job that would have been a pay-rise of £22,000, because I didn't want to spend the rest of my career living in London and preferred to live in the Peak.

(£22,000 may sound a lot, but after 40% goes in tax, and the rest in much higher mortgage or rent, and with commuting costs and higher costs of everything else, it would not have left any more disposable income.)

So, in considering whether to go out walking on the moors or climbing or whatever, I'm happy to take fully into account:

-- government rules and advice

-- need for low-risk activities only (both accident and virus)

-- not upsetting locals or access agreements.

But I'm not going to take into account "someone living in London could not, therefore ...".  Sorry everyone! 

1
 GrahamD 19 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> So, can we all think about sensible and appropriate balances, which involves accepting low-risk activities in an on-going "new normal", and not aim for an unachievable zero-risk lifestyle? 

People as individuals are incapable of making low risk calls. If it hasn't happened to them its negligible risk. Witness the number of petrol heads that can't see that piloting 2tonnes of metal at ¹00kph is in any way negligible risk.

1
 rogerwebb 19 Apr 2020
In reply to Misha:

(And expanding on off-duty's point)

Whilst many have noticed the words 'reasonable excuse' fewer seem to have noticed the word 'need'.

If a case comes to court those words will be interpreted with the intention of the legislation in mind. 'Need' is unlikely to involve driving for some hours to go climbing or hillwalking.

It is also worth remembering that other offences exist and may be invoked. 'Breach of the Peace' (as in the Scottish charge) has already been used against an alleged persistent social distancing offender, Culpable and Reckless conduct would also appear to be an option for flagrant disregard of the regulations and their intention. Both of these can involve rather more serious penalties than fines.

Post edited at 10:38
1
 off-duty 19 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

It might be about balance, but it is done with the clear message that the default position is "stay at home". Even with open parks, this is not a license to sunbathe and I feel for my colleagues in London who seem likely to bear the brunt of this.

(It will be interesting to see the impact of this decision in other areas on local beauty spots and reservoirs etc that are honeypots on sunny days. )

I appreciate that you believe you are entirely capable of assessing the risk and making your own personal judgement on the behaviour and activity that you feel is safe, and why should that pesky state interfere.

Unfortunately the nature of a lockdown is that it is (to use a phrase of someone far cleverer than I...) "absolutist and dogmatic" and as a result your ability to make your own personal judgement about your behaviour is overridden by a greater necessity to set rules for the many rather than the few.

5
 Howard J 19 Apr 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Guidance is just that, guidance.  The guidance from the NPCC is to assist Off Duty and his/her colleagues to exercise their own judgement, as they must because the circumstances of every situation will be different.  There are checks and balances in the system which allow that judgement to be tested if you want to challenge it, by senior officers, the CPS and ultimately the courts.

The point is that the climbing community must be seen to be doing the right thing, alongside everyone else.  Yes, the restrictions are a nuisance, to put it mildly, and in our individual lives it is easy to find situations where they seem over the top.  It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the government is making it up as it goes along (but besides being better prepared to begin with, what else could they do) and that the guidance is of necessity simplistic.  We're seeing how the cycling community is being criticised, in the press as well as online, because of the actions of a minority who insist on their own interpretation of the rules.  They may not be breaking the law, but they're seen to be taking the piss.  

We don't want climbing to get the same sort of negative attention.  Strava is being criticised for not shutting down its challenges which are said to be encouraging cyclists to continue to go for long rides.  It is to UKC's credit that it closed the logbooks very early.

To repeat a point I made earlier, for the time being we are all being asked to behave as members of a community rather than as entitled individuals.  It shouldn't need legislation and police enforcement for us to comply.  Hopefully it will not be for too long, after a time things will begin to return to normal (although perhaps not the old normal) and we can go back to being our old self-absorbed selves.

2
 NewHam 19 Apr 2020
In reply to Trevers:

I can't say I'm convinced but I get what you're getting at, and I do agree that if and when people are climbing it seems their doing so in a discreet and reasonable manner. With any luck this will pass before the weather goes again and we can all enjoy the outdoors.

 Howard J 19 Apr 2020
In reply to rogerwebb:

Bearing in mind the underlying purpose of the legislation and the core instruction to stay at home, "need" could be interpreted to mean exercise for health reasons, rather than for pleasure.  As always there is a balance to be struck, but if the nature and duration of an activity suggests it is more for recreation than health then it is possibly more likely to fall on the wrong side of the line.  Climbing, walking on big hills, and Strava challenges seem to me to be recreational in intent, even though they may provide intense exercise, whereas a short walk or cycle ride are more easily justified in terms of physical and mental health.

 NewHam 19 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

I don't think the discussion was ever about coming to/from London - I was, in my comments, only referring to those who could access the crag within a 'reasonable' drive as per the current advice.

I know for my locals there are more than enough climbers within a reasonable travel distance for the crag to be very busy without considering those who travel from afar. I obviously can't attest to the exact situation in other parts of the UK but I should imagine it is very similar. It seems quite unlikely that it's only you who lives locally to the peak. I still maintain my earlier points that you can only go out and walk or climb on the moors in a safe (re virus) manner at the moment because everyone else who lives locally, and still wants to go climbing, has followed advice to not.

1
 Trevers 19 Apr 2020
In reply to Howard J:

> Bearing in mind the underlying purpose of the legislation and the core instruction to stay at home, "need" could be interpreted to mean exercise for health reasons, rather than for pleasure.  As always there is a balance to be struck, but if the nature and duration of an activity suggests it is more for recreation than health then it is possibly more likely to fall on the wrong side of the line.  Climbing, walking on big hills, and Strava challenges seem to me to be recreational in intent, even though they may provide intense exercise, whereas a short walk or cycle ride are more easily justified in terms of physical and mental health.

I'm not sure a distinction needs to be drawn between "exercise" and "recreation". Neither the law nor the guidance are not there to stop people from enjoying themselves, in fact it's very much in society's interest for everyone to be as healthy and as happy as possible.

In reply to Trevers:

This is completely right. Surely part of the point of going out for exercise is to enjoy being outside and derive a bit of mental well-being from it. If it was strictly about physical health we could just be doing fitness with Joe and yoga with Adrian in front of the telly all day.

 Robert Durran 19 Apr 2020
In reply to pancakeandchips:

> This is completely right. Surely part of the point of going out for exercise is to enjoy being outside and derive a bit of mental well-being from it. If it was strictly about physical health we could just be doing fitness with Joe and yoga with Adrian in front of the telly all day.

Absolutely. I'm pretty much deliberately not exercising hard when I go out - to me the important part is the breathing space and just enjoying the fresh air, sunshine and the countryside. I've really got a lot of sympathy for the sunbathers in London and not just because it must be awful being stuck in a city - as long as they don't lie there for hours and hours, they are taking up no more space than someone on the move and are far more easily socially distanced from than a moving target.

 Misha 19 Apr 2020
In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

I think you’re being a bit OTT with off-duty. If you look at his/her post at 21.44 last night, the gist of it is that it’s guidance which needs to be taken into account but each case is judged on its own merits and officers will apply their judgement and discretion. At least that’s my reading of it. This is new legislation with some grey areas, so people (both officers and members of the public) will inevitably get things ‘wrong’ at times and the courts could ultimately sort it out if need be. However hopefully the guidance will avoid too many instances of overzealous policing, which doesn’t do anyone any favours.

I think we can all agree that the guidance is not carte blanche to drive for several hours to then go walking and climbing, even if the time spent exercising is longer than the time spent driving. But driving to a ‘local’ spot would be ok and indeed sensible if it allows for better social distancing as opposed to walking round the streets where you live. 

 Misha 19 Apr 2020
In reply to off-duty:

It’s a good point about ‘need’. It could be just semantics or it could be deliberate. I sort of agree with your point about need vs want but equally how do you define the need for exercise? Someone may be feeling depressed about being indoors and therefore need some fresh air. I think many people are in that position now and for some people it’s bordering on clinical depression. So it’s a fair point but assessing or proving ‘need’ is tricky. Nor is it in the country’s interest for everyone to literally stay at home at the time and then develop physical and mental ill health. In fact the government has been very aware of that fact. So it’s all a question of balance and common sense. 

 Misha 19 Apr 2020
In reply to rogerwebb:

Fair points. I’m not a criminal law expert but would be surprised if breach of the peace could be used for hill walkers for example. Still, as you say it’s something to consider. 

 NewHam 19 Apr 2020
In reply to NewHam:

*they're

 Howard J 19 Apr 2020
In reply to Trevers:

I agree it's not there to stop people from enjoying themselves, and the law does not specify what are acceptable forms of exercise.  However taken in context, against a general duty to stay at home and only go out for limited purposes, it might be argued that there is not a "need" to go climbing when physical and mental refreshment can be obtained more simply and (for most people) closer to home.It's also about public perception - when most people are confined to a walk around their local park, if they're lucky enough to have one, to go out climbing for several hours might seem like not entering into the spirit of things.  That then reflects on all climbers.

 rogerwebb 19 Apr 2020
In reply to Misha:

Not in the context of hill walking as such but as in persistent failure to abide by social distancing 'to the fear and alarm of the leiges' so far as I am aware it has only used in an urban context so far. Culpable and reckless conduct is a contender. 

 Misha 19 Apr 2020
In reply to rogerwebb:

Culpable and reckless seems to be a Scottish legal term. There may well be an equivalent in E&W. Anyway, as you say, other provisions may be available, though the fact that specific regulations needed to be brought it would suggest that as a general rule existing legislation and case law would not be sufficient (which makes sense given this is all unprecedented). That said, I think there used to be Plague Laws, back when plague was a thing. I wonder if they still stand? Wouldn’t surprise me, given the nature and history of our laws! Anyway, we digress...

 rogerwebb 19 Apr 2020
In reply to Misha:

Yes culpable and reckless is a Scottish thing as is breach of the peace (I believe there is an English and Welsh breach of the peace but it is of a less potentially serious nature),both are common law so can be used for a variety of things. I sometimes wonder if almost all Scots criminal law could be expressed as breaches of the peace. It certainly gives procurator fiscals a flexibility perhaps denied to the English and Welsh CPS.

I don't know what the penalties for breaching the old plague laws were but I suspect that they might have been more extreme than current ones. If so I hope they are off the statute books! 

Post edited at 16:31
 Lrunner 19 Apr 2020

Breach of the peace covers a lot in Scotland, but there must be "riotous" or "disorderly" conduct for the crime to be complete. You also need to prove fear and alarm. Mostly it has been superseded by a statuary equivalent of "threatening and abusive behaviour" there is NO WAY you could prosecute hill walking or climbing or any breach of the covid rules under the legislation unless you were publicly behaving abusively to members of the public and scaring them. But that would be a crime regardless. 

Culpable and reckless conduct requires others to be put at risk and you still must prove criminal intent. So, if you coughed on someone whilst making no effort to cover your mouth that might be culpable and reckless. If you did it on purpose that's an assault. 

I think you might be able to make a case that climbing in the current climate is reckless but you would need evidence that the "offenders" knew they were putting others at risk. So given that no one goes climbing with the intent to get rescued you couldn't do it.  If you were utterly rubbish at climbing and didn't have a clue what you were doing then maybe but to be honest the Police/MR would rather you asked for help and got rescued then died fearing prosecution if you did. 

Take Covid out of the equation a good example might be if you pushed a giant block off  a crag foolishly and hit someone you could reasonably be prosecuted for that. 

There is however a test case in the North somewhere where some one hit a golf ball  without saying "four" and were convicted of reckless behavour after it hit someone on the head. That case is used to guide the courts in Canada and NZ now.  So there is always scope for new things to be tested. 

Post edited at 16:53
 off-duty 19 Apr 2020
In reply to rogerwebb:

The E & W breach of the peace appears to be for a higher (more serious) level of conduct than the Scottish - it's all about harm and violence, but with (I think) lesser consequences than Scotland - if convicted it's just a bind over.

We hardly lock up for it now, as by preventing the imminence of the harm/violence we can negate the offence - eg remove them from scene.

 Michael Hood 19 Apr 2020
In reply to Misha:

I think "need" would be interpreted differently for different people & circumstances, for example...

I would consider that a professional cyclist would be more likely to need to do a 50 mile cycle ride several times a week than someone who cycles for recreation.

 rogerwebb 19 Apr 2020
In reply to Lrunner:

There are currently cases going through for breach of the peace. I have one for culpable and reckless although none of those are hillwalking or climbing related. The bop ones relate to persistent failure to distance the culpable and reckless has  knowledge and intention.

I think you could construct a culpable and reckless charge if someone travelled to another community without reasonable excuse in knowledge of their own potential infection. It wouldn't be that much of a stretch from the classic I've got aids cases. Remember for a bop you no longer need an actual person to be in fear and alarm just a person or persons who might be. I doubt very much you would get far with the charge without some form of encounter to start with though. A S38 seems unlikely unless someone kicks off when challenged.

I agree probably absolutely no way you could get charged for hillwalking or climbing. The issue is the travel and how one responds to any form of enquiry /challenge.

 rogerwebb 19 Apr 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> The E & W breach of the peace appears to be for a higher (more serious) level of conduct than the Scottish - it's all about harm and violence, but with (I think) lesser consequences than Scotland - if convicted it's just a bind over.

> We hardly lock up for it now, as by preventing the imminence of the harm/violence we can negate the offence - eg remove them from scene.

People sometimes get prison for it here, usually frequent flyers though. 

Post edited at 18:00
 Mr Lopez 19 Apr 2020
In reply to Howard J:

>might seem like not entering into the spirit of things. 

And that is the problem. There is no 'spirit of things'. There are control measures put on by the govenment to maintain the rate of infections at a level manageable by the health service. That's it.

All the 'rules' given freely by everyone with an internet connection on their interpretation of the governent advice and what they think is the 'the spirit of things' are just worthless opinions which do nothing but muddle and confuse things.

The idea of there being an 'spirit of things' is just an instrument for people to try and impose their own thoughts of what should be happening. "Oh yes, that is legal and within the guidelines, but is not in 'the spirit of things' therefore you should not do it"

The government and police have had to intervene now several times to stop keyboard warriors and vigilante mobs from forcing draconian measures onto the population. "You can only exercise for 30 minutes a day", "You can only exercise for 150 minutes a week", "You can only exercise once a day", "You are only allowed running, walking or cycling", "You are not allowed to drive", "You can't go to the countryside", "You can only buy basic foodstuffs", "You can't buy easter eggs", "Oh yes, you can drive but only if you stay local", "blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,..."

Govenrment turns around and says that yes, you can of course buy easter eggs, it would be stupid to suggest otherwise, holier-than-thou Bob says "Ah well, that's not in the spirit of things. You dont NEED easter eggs. Something something people dying, something something NHS, something something we didn't have easter eggs in 1921 and survived..."

Is the 'spirit of things' really to make people as miserable as possible? I mean, like, what the f*ck? When did that make it into the government advice? "Reg 11.0.2 You can go out to exercise but only if that is a form of exercise you don't enjoy doing. If it's something you enjoy then is against 'the spirit of things'"

The Police will be having a field day. Off-duty is already ordering pallets of fine-books

"Sir, i couldn't help it but noticing you were enjoying yourself while exercising. Can i see some identification please?"

 If you can go and exercise in whatever form of your choosing while maintaining social distance it's your call and nobody else's, and if that happens to be climbing then by all means go and have fun.

 Those who advocate for more stringest standards are welcome to apply them to themselves if they so choose.

1
 Oceanrower 19 Apr 2020
In reply to Mr Lopez:

Well said!

1
 Robert Durran 19 Apr 2020
In reply to Mr Lopez:

Brilliant post. Best I've read on here about this subject.

2
 TobyA 19 Apr 2020
In reply to rogerwebb:

Do I remember correctly (Roger, or anyone else) that there is a grade III somewhere on Edinburgh Castle Rock called "Breach of the Peace" with the guide book description "and, yes, they were charged"?

 Coel Hellier 19 Apr 2020
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> Is the 'spirit of things' really to make people as miserable as possible? I mean, like, what the f*ck? When did that make it into the government advice? "Reg 11.0.2 You can go out to exercise but only if that is a form of exercise you don't enjoy doing. If it's something you enjoy then is against 'the spirit of things'"

It's this sort of post that makes me regret turning off the "like" buttons.    Otherwise I'd be pressing it. 

UKC: How about a user option to turn off the "dislike" button, but retain the "like" button?

3
 rogerwebb 19 Apr 2020
In reply to TobyA:

Yes. I don't think it is an apocryphal tale. A friend of mine got done for a bop when we were students for bouldering, at a sensible low height, on a building in central Glasgow. In retrospect that seems harsh. 

 Lrunner 19 Apr 2020
In reply to rogerwebb:

well put, I forgot about the reasonable person test. I think the chief's approach of educate first is the way to go. I really think he's doing a good job and keeping human rights as a fundamental issue.  

To be honest I think the public are following the guide lines really well. I'm hoping we can get through this with out having to book anyone but the bare minimum. 

Most people are doing their bit. I hope it works. 

 Lrunner 19 Apr 2020
In reply to Mr Lopez:

couldn't have put it better. It is terrifying how many people want to dob in their neighbours for things that aren't against the law.  When this is all over we should reflect on that.

Post edited at 18:32
 Robert Durran 19 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> UKC: How about a user option to turn off the "dislike" button, but retain the "like" button?

I'd like that. I like the like button but dislike the dislike button.

2
 TobyA 19 Apr 2020
In reply to rogerwebb:

I got stopped a few years ago by airport security at a place we used to ice climb on road cuttings at the end of the main runway at Helsinki airport. They were bemused by a bunch of us speaking English/bad Finnish but basically said as long as you don't go over the fence at the top, on you go! We didn't need to go over the fence but it was handy for belaying off! The police swung by one time too but just said they were going to watch from their van because they hadn't seen ice climbing before. We were a bit nervous when they arrived, as I didn't know if there was a Finnish law equivalent to BoP, but they seemed very relaxed about it. I think 95% of their business is collecting drunks so we were probably an interesting distraction.

 Robert Durran 19 Apr 2020
In reply to rogerwebb:

> Yes. I don't think it is an apocryphal tale. A friend of mine got done for a bop when we were students for bouldering, at a sensible low height, on a building in central Glasgow. In retrospect that seems harsh. 

A friend of mine was charged for climbing on Salisbury Crags.

 off-duty 19 Apr 2020
In reply to Lrunner:

> well put, I forgot about the reasonable person test. I think the chief's approach of educate first is the way to go. I really think he's doing a good job and keeping human rights as a fundamental issue.  

> To be honest I think the public are following the guide lines really well. I'm hoping we can get through this with out having to book anyone but the bare minimum. 

> Most people are doing their bit. I hope it works. 

Generally speaking it seems to be the regular customers down here as well.

90% + appear to be doing their best to keep to the guidelines.

 off-duty 19 Apr 2020
In reply to Mr Lopez:

LOL. 

An interesting opinion, and one that will no doubt be welcomed by many here as your conclusion is - do what you want and make your own judgement.

Unfortunately, that isn't what the clear message is - stay at home. 

It obviously hits the grey bit where the law tries to define the edges of what you can and can't do.

The problem with these lethal infectious global pandemics, that have already killed 15000 people in the UK, is they don't lend themselves to individuals making their own judgement as to what is safe or not.

Because ultimately some people have much worse judgement than others.

As regards me and my FPN book, rest assured that the bizarre process required to submit a FPN, as these are entirely incompatible with all current processes, mean that the last thing I want to do is generate the extra paperwork.   

Though to be fair I would quite like to reduce the number of dead people we've had to attend - so if you could give me a few humourous tips about that it would be appreciated.

11
 Misha 19 Apr 2020
In reply to Michael Hood:

Sure. Besides, a pro cyclist (day a Team GB member) could also justifiably argue that they are training for cycling because it’s their job. Should that apply to pro climbers as well, in which case who is a pro climber? Could I argue that I need to climb every available day because I need the practice to keep my level, whereas a V Diff climber doesn’t need to climb till this is all over because they’d still be able to do a V Diff off the couch? I’m saying this tongue in cheek if course but it’s just one example of ‘need’ vs ‘want’ being a grey area. 

1
 1poundSOCKS 19 Apr 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> An interesting opinion, and one that will no doubt be welcomed by many here as your conclusion is - do what you want and make your own judgement.

I'm pretty sure you've misrepresented the post there.

1
 Michael Hood 19 Apr 2020
In reply to Misha:

If you could show that you had a regular exercise habit, then I suspect it would be easier to argue "need" but of course it's a grey area which as off-duty "says", will ultimately remain grey until/unless decided by the courts.

Post edited at 19:10
 Michael Gordon 19 Apr 2020
In reply to Martin Haworth:

> I actually think the general public will be sympathetic if they see you traversing a remote railway bridge, I expect they will view it in a different light to someone climbing/bouldering at a crag. The former will be seen as keeping fit(exercise) in a remote and isolated location, the latter will be seen as just enjoying yourself by doing your hobby.

Just responding to this now. As per the last few posts, why on earth should enjoyment be a consideration? The primary issue is whether you're social distancing effectively or not. 

 Misha 19 Apr 2020
In reply to Mr Lopez:

I would still be concerned about the impact on access and community relations with locals going forward. I’d hate to lose access to crags or find that my van has been vandalised because locals want to get back at ‘selfish climbers’.

 Steve Woollard 19 Apr 2020
In reply to Misha:

I can only respond with regards to Dartmoor NP, but you needn’t be too concerned as long as you're not in a motor home, and even then we're all too reserved down here to say anything

Post edited at 19:50
 off-duty 19 Apr 2020
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

> > An interesting opinion, and one that will no doubt be welcomed by many here as your conclusion is - do what you want and make your own judgement.

> I'm pretty sure you've misrepresented the post there.

Quite possibly: 

"If you can go and exercise in whatever form of your choosing while maintaining social distance it's your call and nobody else's, and if that happens to be climbing then by all means go and have fun."

But then again I can't quite find "it's your call and nobody else's" in the law or the guidance on "reasonable excuse'.

Which isn't to say that it definitely is excluded, but that's part of the problem with sweeping legislation, it removes a degree of personal freedom, and generally speaking, sucks.

2
 Misha 19 Apr 2020
In reply to Michael Hood:

It all comes down to what’s reasonable and common sense. The ‘man on the street’ test, if you like. Then again, the man on the street might just think that all climbing is dangerous and irresponsible at all times...

mysterion 19 Apr 2020
In reply to off-duty:

Typical attitude from our resident Plod, I'm the Law, everything else is just an opinion. It's policing by consent, never forget that.

5
 mrphilipoldham 19 Apr 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

In non-climbing news, Woodhead MRT have just put a report on Facebook for a call out to a fallen mountain biker in woodland near Kimberworth. 

 off-duty 19 Apr 2020
In reply to mysterion:

> Typical attitude from our resident Plod, I'm the Law, everything else is just an opinion. It's policing by consent, never forget that.

If that's what you take from my attempts to explain the context of the guidance and how it fits in to both the practical and legal  framework I'm disappointed.

If nothing else it should better arm you for any dispute if you decide to do whatever it is you want to do.

I 100% agree that we police with consent. That appears to be what has underpinned the NPCC instructions around this, that we should engage, explain and educate, prior to any enforcement as a last resort.

Unfortunately for some the whole point of policing with consent is that it is the consent of the public, not the individual.

Post edited at 20:15
2
 olddirtydoggy 19 Apr 2020
In reply to off-duty:

We might not agree with this copper here but it's been very useful hearing what he has to say if some of us could be on the wrong side of what a policeman thinks we're allowed to do. Thanks for posting.

 Martin Haworth 19 Apr 2020
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> Just responding to this now. As per the last few posts, why on earth should enjoyment be a consideration? The primary issue is whether you're social distancing effectively or not. 

I agree with you that the primary issue should be whether you're socially distancing, I was trying to make a point about how non-climbers may view it.

 1poundSOCKS 19 Apr 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> But then again I can't quite find "it's your call and nobody else's" in the law or the guidance on "reasonable excuse'.

It's your call on what's a reasonable excuse. So think carefully about the law's intention and how your excuse will be received if it comes down to it. Don't take the word of random posters, take responsibility. 

Obviously it won't say that in the law. Is that what you call a straw man?

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I think people need to be honest with themselves. Are they searching for a loophole/niche citizen's freedom interpretation of guidance to validate going climbing (meant as any mountain/hill/crag activity), or are they taking the citizen's  responsibility approach, screwing the nut and accepting that unprecedented times and that the jormal urge to go climb is something that has to go on hold?

People do know the answer to this.

Post edited at 20:39
1
 off-duty 19 Apr 2020
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

> > But then again I can't quite find "it's your call and nobody else's" in the law or the guidance on "reasonable excuse'.

> It's your call on what's a reasonable excuse. So think carefully about the law's intention and how your excuse will be received if it comes down to it. Don't take the word of random posters, take responsibility. 

Is that what was said in the post? Can't see anywhere where he's mentioned that the reader thinks carefully about the law before acting. Or where he suggest considering how the reader's excuse will be received? Or indeed where he suggest "taking responsibility". 

It seems a pretty long opinion piece, strong on rhetoric, somewhat less strong on actual mention of guidance, legislation or any other "official" indication of how he's come to his conclusion.

> Obviously it won't say that in the law. Is that what you call a straw man?

You're the one whose suggested I'm misrepresenting him. I'm the one who's actually quoting what was said.

 1poundSOCKS 19 Apr 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> You're the one whose suggested I'm misrepresenting him. I'm the one who's actually quoting what was said.

Claiming that if you quote somebody then by definition you're not misrepresenting them just obviously isn't true. You're selectively quoting and ignoring the rest of the post.

The post quite clearly aims at "All the 'rules' given freely by everyone with an internet connection on their interpretation of the governent advice" (in the second paragraph).

It doesn't advise ignoring the law or government advice.

Which is quite different from the impression you gave when you said...

"An interesting opinion, and one that will no doubt be welcomed by many here as your conclusion is - do what you want and make your own judgement."

Which for most of us would mean ignoring the law or government advice.

 off-duty 19 Apr 2020
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree, because here I think you are misrepresenting what was said.

2
 1poundSOCKS 19 Apr 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree

So I go to the bother to outline clearly where you misrepresent the post and that's all you've got to say?

1
 off-duty 19 Apr 2020
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

> > Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree

> So I go to the bother to outline clearly where you misrepresent the post and that's all you've got to say?

Pretty much. I'm not sure what more I can add to my previous post.

Regardless of how you are trying to interpret the post as somehow heeding or being steered by the guidelines, there is a passing reference to them as you mention - a dismissal of them based on opinion, and a conclusion, again based on opinion, that I quoted :

"If you can go and exercise in whatever form of your choosing while maintaining social distance it's your call and nobody else's, and if that happens to be climbing then by all means go and have fun."

Essentially do what you wish and make your own judgement, in the posters opinion. 

I genuinely don't see what's to be gained in continuing this meta argument. We disagree. 

2
 1poundSOCKS 19 Apr 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> Essentially do what you wish and make your own judgement, in the posters opinion.

No. The post essentially says do what you wish as long as it's within the law. Pretty obvious since it talks about exercise specifically, which is one of the legal exemptions from "stay in", and also mentions social distancing. 

 GrantM 19 Apr 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

The wording in the Scottish regulations is:

"5) In paragraph (4), a reasonable excuse includes the need—

(a)to obtain basic necessities, including food...

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

...and so on"

My reading is that the law defines basic necessities, outdoor exercise etc as 'needs' (noun) that are reasonable excuses. The police can't argue that you don't 'need' (verb) a certain type of exercise any more than they can go through your shopping trolley and argue you don't 'need' a certain food. That would be a misunderstanding of how the word 'need' is used in the regs.

1
 Robert Durran 19 Apr 2020
In reply to nickinscottishmountains:

> I think people need to be honest with themselves. Are they searching for a loophole/niche citizen's freedom interpretation of guidance to validate going climbing (meant as any mountain/hill/crag activity), or are they taking the citizen's  responsibility approach, screwing the nut and accepting that unprecedented times and that the normal urge to go climb is something that has to go on hold?

> People do know the answer to this.

Yes, I think they do. They recognise that the guidance is all about maintaining social distancing to stop the spread of the virus, so they are doing things within the the letter of the restrictions and which achieve that. Exploiting a "loophole" would be to do something within the letter of the restrictions but which does not maintain social distancing.

1
 Misha 19 Apr 2020
In reply to GrantM:

That's the kind of thing you'd need a court to decide on. Is the use of the word 'need' purely a matter of semantics or does it mean that there should be an actual 'need' as opposed to 'desire'? Who knows! A literal interpretation suggests that there should be an actual 'need' (after all, they could have written the subsection slightly differently, without using the word 'need'). However how does one define 'need'? In practice, I would hope that the police and ultimately the courts would look at what's reasonable and common sense in the circumstances.

Say I go to Tesco to get some grapes (and nothing else) because I don't have any grapes at home. I could argue that I need grapes because I don't have any at home. But a reasonable counterargument could be that, assuming I have other food (particularly fruit and veg) at home, I don't really need the grapes. If I go to get some bread (and nothing else) because I don't have any at home, the same arguments could apply but the counterargument would be weaker as bread is more important than grapes. If I go to do a general grocery shop which should last me a week, having last been to the supermarket a week previously and having run out of most (but probably not all) food supplies, clearly that's entirely reasonable (even if I could in theory subsist for a few more days on a basic diet using whatever is left in the larder).

Post edited at 23:11
 off-duty 19 Apr 2020
In reply to GrantM:

> The wording in the Scottish regulations is:

> "5) In paragraph (4), a reasonable excuse includes the need—

> (a)to obtain basic necessities, including food...

> (b)to take exercise, either alone or with other members of their household

> ...and so on"

> My reading is that the law defines basic necessities, outdoor exercise etc as 'needs' (noun) that are reasonable excuses. The police can't argue that you don't 'need' (verb) a certain type of exercise any more than they can go through your shopping trolley and argue you don't 'need' a certain food. That would be a misunderstanding of how the word 'need' is used in the regs.

That's pretty much identical to the English regulations. The default position "no person may leave" is also pretty much the same.

I think it's less an argument about the type of exercise, more an issue about whether what you are doing fits in to 'reasonable excuse'.

In order to do that you may have to demonstrate that you have a "need" for it. 

Just as discussed earlier in the thread.

 off-duty 19 Apr 2020
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

> > Essentially do what you wish and make your own judgement, in the posters opinion.

> No. The post essentially says do what you wish as long as it's within the law. Pretty obvious since it talks about exercise specifically, which is one of the legal exemptions from "stay in", and also mentions social distancing. 

"If you can go and exercise in whatever form of your choosing while maintaining social distance it's your call and nobody else's, and if that happens to be climbing then by all means go and have fun."

No reference to staying within the law.

"Maintaining social distancing" isn't mentioned in the law.

And the guidance itself indicates the default position is stay at home. If you do go out, there are some exceptions to having to stay at home, and if you want to do, then "minimise time outside" (an element that seems to be being ignored by everyone)  and stay 2m apart.

It's literally an opinion piece.

 Misha 19 Apr 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

A general observation. Went for a walk from the house today. Came across a few people but that wasn't an issue as there's plenty of space here in Newmarket to be able to give others a wide berth (huge racehorse training grounds next to where we live).

My issue is this. The alkie/junkie type who lives just down the road had two visitors. They got out from a car which drove off and went into the house with him. I don't know if one or both of them live with him but I know that all four of the people involved don't live there because I've not seen that car before and it drove off anyway. So pretty sure these are people brazenly breaking the rules.

This kind of thing pisses me off. While most climbers and hillwalkers are generally doing 'the right thing', at 'worst' going for a hill walk or a climb alone or with household members, you get people like that who totally disregard the rules. Fortunately they seem to be a small minority but this kind of thing does put the debate on this thread into context. I'm not saying this is an excuse to go climbing or whatever but I do think that there are far more consequential breaches of the rules out there.

 Misha 19 Apr 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

The real question is this though: is it ok to go to the supermarket to get bog roll? I've heard that bog roll is a thing again now.

 off-duty 19 Apr 2020
In reply to Misha:

The reality is that despite the sometimes heated nature of the discussions on here, the people we are actually spending our time dealing with for breaches are predominantly our usual customers, exactly as you highlight.

This is society in a microcosm. It works because, despite how we bitch, argue and moan, the overwhelming majority of us do the "right" thing, whether that is abide by laws or follow guidance in this situation.

The remainder leech along on the underside of society carried along by the lawful majority.  We try and scrape them  off, or pull them onboard dependant on inclination, but the best we can hope for is either temporary relief or ultimately clambering onboard themselves (typically as they get older or get clean).

It's just unfortunate here that the consequences of their lack of social responsibility in this case is a lot more dangerous than usual.

(Just to make it clear, in my effort to stretch an analogy I do not intend to suggest that going bouldering during lockdown makes you a leech on society. Apart from anything else a leech has a better grip...)

The simplest practical solution might be to report either the gathering, or the vehicle, for either or both the drug related activity you suspect or the repeated COVID19 breaches you've seen.

Post edited at 23:30
2
 Mr Lopez 19 Apr 2020
In reply to off-duty:

The guidance says you are allowed to go out and do a form of exercise, with 2 caveats, that you go alone or with members of your household, and maintain 2 metres distance from anybody else.

Farther guidance states that is likely resonable to also drive to the countryside to do that exercise, so far as you spend far more time exercising than driving, that is likely reasonable to exercise more than once a day, and stopping to have lunch during long walks.

Now, if Mrs Sprinkles wants to go out and exercise, what should Mrs Sprinkles do?

A) Make a call herself on how she can go about doing her exercise while stayig within the guidelines.

B) Go online and ask Off-Duty if he will give her permission to go exercise.

It's not rocket science and if you have problems understanding it i suggest you are unfit to interpret laws and guidance for the purposes of law enforcement

12
 off-duty 19 Apr 2020
In reply to Mr Lopez:

Thanks for your reply.

I notice you don't mention the law at all.

Which is unfortunate if you are intending to give advice to Mrs. Sprinkles.

1
 Misha 19 Apr 2020
In reply to off-duty:

Indeed. If they were just endangering themselves fine, but they also endanger others - their family and acquaintances, the police who deal with them, the NHS workers who would look after them in hospital and potentially members of the public through indirect transmission in shops etc. I don't think there was actual drug dealing going on, otherwise as you say I'd report it.

 Misha 20 Apr 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

One other point I've just picked up is the rules in E&W say gatherings of more than two people in a public place aren't allowed, except if it's with household members, plus a few more specific carve outs like moving house. So it would appear that non-cohabiting couples or friends can still meet in public (but not at home as that's not a public place). I had thought this wasn't allowed.

However exercise is not permitted with non-household members, that's clear. Thing is, what's a 'gathering' - does it need to be stationary? So you can meet a non-cohabiting partner for a chat or even a snog, as long as you stay stationary, but walking together isn't allowed because that's exercise? However to get to a gathering (even if it were allowed) you need to leave the house, for which you still need a reasonable excuse and 'going to a gathering with a friend or other half' isn't one of them.

So whilst technically you might be able to meet a non-cohabiting partner or friend as long as you stay in one place in public, you can't actually leave the house to get to that place and you can't do it in your house either (the other person wouldn't have a reasonable excuse for going to your house anyway). So in practice it's not allowed and the love struck teenagers you see hanging around are breaking the rules after all, unless they've been teleported there by aliens.

I'm only being half serious here but this is just bizarre... If we ever have to go into lockdown again, I hope they will improve the wording of the legislation!

1
 Michael Gordon 20 Apr 2020
In reply to Misha:

> One other point I've just picked up is the rules in E&W say gatherings of more than two people in a public place aren't allowed, except if it's with household members, plus a few more specific carve outs like moving house. So it would appear that non-cohabiting couples or friends can still meet in public (but not at home as that's not a public place). I had thought this wasn't allowed.>

It seems blatantly obvious to me that this "more than two people" is for policing purposes. They have to draw the line somewhere, and stopping everyone they see who isn't on their own would be a right pest and may turn the general public against them. It's not the same as saying that meeting up with non-household members is fine as long as there's only two of you together at any one time.

 Coel Hellier 20 Apr 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Exploiting a "loophole" would be to do something within the letter of the restrictions but which does not maintain social distancing.

One can also say that a "loophole" is something that the writers of the rules did not intend.

It's entirely obvious that the rule writers intend -- indeed even encourage -- people to go out for exercise. 

This going out for exercise is not in any sense exploiting "loopholes".

Second, on "need". There is no requirement to demonstrate a "need" for your chosen form of exercise.  The "need" for exercise in general is accepted, and the particular form of it is then not restricted, so long as it maintains social distancing. 

(Obviously we all think we should choose forms of exercise with a low risk of accidents, but even that is not stated in the rules; really, there is nothing in the rules about forms of exercise.)

 1poundSOCKS 20 Apr 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> No reference to staying within the law.

Mentions "control measures" rather than law. I think you can be fined for ignoring social distancing for example, so I admit I don't know why that's a "control measure" and not the law.

"There are control measures put on by the govenment to maintain the rate of infections at a level manageable by the health service. That's it."

But not to distract, I was challenging the original assertion that the post was saying do whatever you like.

"An interesting opinion, and one that will no doubt be welcomed by many here as your conclusion is - do what you want and make your own judgement."

Not sure how you can read the full post and still come to that conclusion, ignoring the reference to "control measures", "social distancing" and "sport" (a specific government exclusion to stay in). Just picking one quote from the last paragraph would lead people to that conclusion, if they hadn't read the full post.

> And the guidance itself indicates the default position is stay at home.

Well obviously. Since there's an infinite number of things you could do outside what's the alternative to giving the default with exceptions?

> "minimise time outside" (an element that seems to be being ignored by everyone)

Just because people don't follow the advice to the letter doesn't mean they're ignoring it. It's the effect across the population that's important and that's why the advice is worded how it is, or should be. If this advice leads to less time outside, less time to potentially get infected or infect then across the population it's had an effect.

Post edited at 09:15
 planetmarshall 20 Apr 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Exploiting a "loophole" would be to do something within the letter of the restrictions but which does not maintain social distancing.

Or deciding for themselves exactly what entails "social distancing". The government guidelines on this are pretty explicit - 

  • Requiring people to stay at home, except for very limited purposes.
  • Closing certain businesses and venues.
  • Stopping all gatherings of more than two people in public.

Now obviously this is just *my* opinion, but if you think that those guidelines permit climbing then you are most definitely looking for a loophole.

2
 Robert Durran 20 Apr 2020
In reply to planetmarshall:

> Or deciding for themselves exactly what entails "social distancing". The government guidelines on this are pretty explicit - 

> Requiring people to stay at home, except for very limited purposes.

> Now obviously this is just *my* opinion, but if you think that those guidelines permit climbing then you are most definitely looking for a loophole.

One of the limited permitted purposes of leaving your home is for exercise and climbing is exercise. Why is that, in your opinion, a loophole?

Post edited at 13:01
 planetmarshall 20 Apr 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

> One of the limited permitted purposes of leaving your home is for exercise and climbing is exercise. Why is that, in your opinion, a loophole?

Because I don't think going climbing is one of the forms of exercise anyone had in mind when drafting the rules - to me this seems implicit in the phrasing "very limited purposes" and "Stopping all gatherings of more than two people in public". Again, my opinion.

In addition, I think in that describing climbing as "a form of exercise" - some contributors may be categorizing it into a convenient form so that it fits into the guidelines. I suspect that if climbing were categorized that way on a UKC Forum under any other circumstances, it might meet with a fairly negative response.

7
 Sankey 20 Apr 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

One thing is the way in which the concept of rural community fragility appear to be accepted without much challenge.  I contrast my expectations, living in a Sheffield suburb terraced house with those of farmer/land owner in the peak, and can’t see where the farmer is getting a bad deal in respect of the current situation.  My house has a shared ginnel with three other properties, so people are frequently walking through “My land” within 2 m of my door, exercising their legal right, which I would not dream to challenge.  As soon as I leave the ginnel I am on a public pavement and road system, again I would never consider challenging people walking on pavements or driving/running/cycling outside my house.  If I need to take hygiene precautions due to this, then it is clearly on me to do so.  In contrast, farmers/estate owners have lots of land surrounding their houses, most of which is private access, the remainder of which has very well defined legal public access rights, which they were well aware of when buying/inheriting the property.  I have never had to come anywhere near to a 2 m proximity to a farmers door, or farm staff while out walking over many many years.   It also has to be said that one reason the BMC etc. is super cautious over maintaining good relations with land owners now is because how awkward and obstructive the starting position from many of them is. The caution currently showed demonstrates this power balance.   Sadly I don’t deny that outdoor communities poor behavior fuels this view too.

The idea of overstretched rural healthcare also bears examination, here my GP surgery cancelled all appointments weeks ago at the start of the crisis, likewise all non-essential hospital appointments, so at worst rural access can only be as bad as it is here.  Where are sick Peak districters treated if seriously ill? The Sheffield, Leeds, Manchester etc. hospitals, not in a mythical local facility. The “cottage” hospitals that remain are in the main specialized and with no A+E facility.  As for the whole idea of “importing” the bug to rural communities, I also would have wished that people didn’t travel and spread the bug from London etc. to Sheffield, but recognize I had no right to demand special treatment because of where I happen to live.  However this right to protection seems to be viewed as more valid in a rural setting.  Clearly there are many exceptions to these arguments and the Peak is not really rural by any stretch, but it is certainly a battle ground for Covid-19 restrictions, based on these "rural" lifestyle expectations.  In the end, yes, we should all be as careful as hell to avoid getting Covid-19 and passing it on, but I can’t see how the current countryside v city divide in approach and expectations is justified.

1
 TobyA 20 Apr 2020
In reply to Sankey:

I found these signs attached to numerous stiles and gates for public footpaths around one farm that literally runs up to the PDNP boundary west of Holmesfield, up above Totley. https://photos.app.goo.gl/X5Ki4jKkEssCF7cn6

If you can't read the bottom line it says "so, turn around and go away."

The public footpaths around there are getting more use than normal as people walk there from Holmesfield, Dronfield and probably up the hill from fringes of Sheffield. Normally where a RoW crosses a field of just grass you couldn't see where it went, but post-lockdown there are clear lines between stiles at the field edges from people walking. But still it is hardly "busy".  

 olddirtydoggy 20 Apr 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Interestingly yesterday we went for a walk and observed 2 climbing couples on the local crags. This was a very quiet area, one pair bouldering and the other doing trad routes, I don't think they were out together. It seems some are starting to hit the rock.

 planetmarshall 20 Apr 2020
In reply to bensilvestre:

> Given that a vaccine is likely at the very least 12 months away, once lockdown restrictions ease there will be a subset of at risk people who have to continue self isolating even when the rest of society starts returning to work etc. Will you still be showing solidarity with those people then? At what point does the solidarity end? Clearly I'm being pedantic but this doesn't seems like the best argument for not going climbing. 

Well it's a matter of personal judgement. This idea that every ethical choice has to be taken to its logical extreme to be of any worth is again reductio ad absurdum. It's the same argument that faces environmental campaigners because they don't grow all their own vegetables while dressed in a burlap sack wearing home made sandals.

 wintertree 20 Apr 2020
In reply to TobyA:

> If you can't read the bottom line it says "so, turn around and go away."

I believe that in England posting signage designed to mislead on a PROW is actually a legal offence.  It’s about 15 years since I poured through the relevant legal stuff so I could be wrong.

davideostar 20 Apr 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

The advice in Scotland is clearer than England&Wales.

Exercise from your home. Cycle locally, nothing long distance, run, jog and walk. Enjoy the weather doing these activities.

One police force in England put out a stupid article that confused matters:

"You can drive to exercise if your exercise is longer than the drive."

This is stupid advice, as you could drive for 3 hours, hillwalk and drive 3 hours back and be within such a rule.

Go direct to the source for any news: Your local government website. The advice in Scotland is clear, hillwalking isn't ok. Even Mountain Rescue have broadcast this, as have WalkHighlands.co.uk

BBC article reporting the Police England district message that is best ignored in favour of official Government advice:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-52312560

 Coel Hellier 20 Apr 2020
In reply to planetmarshall:

> In addition, I think in that describing climbing as "a form of exercise" - some contributors may be categorizing it into a convenient form so that it fits into the guidelines.

The police guidelines explicitly mention yoga as a form of exercise, and climbing is as much a form of exercise as yoga. 

2
 Non E-Mouse 20 Apr 2020
In reply to Trevers:

Low level bouldering even at a crag you can walk or cycle to is selfish. 

The idea that this is fine is nonsense; a very significant proportion of the population is off work right now, similar to a bank holiday you might say.  If all climbers went out to 'climb in a safe, discreet and self-aware manner' then the crags would be heaving like bank holidays normally are.  The idea that this is OK only works because 99% of the climbing population have the moral decency to take the advice from the Government, The BMC and UKC to stay away from the crags. 

The MRT had twenty call outs last weekend, admittedly this is a very low number but this is twenty more than each team needed to attend.  Nobody goes out to injure themselves bouldering or climbing, but I know plently of people that have had to undergo significant operations due to a 'low level' bouldering accidents.  

Post edited at 14:55
20
 planetmarshall 20 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> The police guidelines explicitly mention yoga as a form of exercise, and climbing is as much a form of exercise as yoga. 

I thought that was a bit of a bizarre example, since surely most people just do yoga indoors or in their gardens? Maybe there's a "yoga in the park" thing that I'm unfamiliar with.

In any case, I don't think anyone is really arguing in favour of going climbing *because* it's a form of exercise, which is what I was getting at.

 GrahamD 20 Apr 2020
In reply to Mr Lopez:

I don't think I've seen a guide for the general public saying it's ok to drive to exercise.  All I've seen is guidelines to the police stateing what they might or might not let people get away with which is totally different.   Car journeys clearly increase physical risk, and there is some evidence that car pollutants decrease someone's recovery chances.

Secondly, it's pretty clear by the exercise examples (walking, cycling, running) that exercise in this context is CV exercise

4
 TobyA 20 Apr 2020
In reply to wintertree:

I guess in the sign writer's defence, it's a request. They hadn't locked the gates or put barbed wire on the stiles etc.

 Lankyman 20 Apr 2020
In reply to TobyA:

> I found these signs attached to numerous stiles and gates for public footpaths around one farm

I've only encountered one similar example in my wanderings. I try to avoid paths that go through farmyards just now as I don't want a confrontation with an angry farmer, even though I know I have the legal right. There is an argument about avoiding suchlike since a farmer who gets sick may not have help available to run things while out of action - feeding animals, milking etc. They are vulnerable and an important part of the food production chain so I'll go along with it for now. When the situation improves I'll go on my merry legal way. I've had one verbal with a farmer who seemed to think the countryside was closed (as in F&M 2001) and also a very nice chat with another farmer who was rounding up sheep who'd strayed into a woodland where my footpath went through.

 Coel Hellier 20 Apr 2020
In reply to Non E-Mouse:

> If all climbers went out to 'climb in a safe, discreet and self-aware manner' then the crags would be heaving like bank holidays normally are.

That's not really true given the (sensible) requirement that any driving should be "far" shorter than the time spent when you get there. 

> The MRT had twenty call outs last weekend, ...

Out of interest, do you have a breakdown by cause?  Were they climbers, mountain bikers, old people with dementia wandering off ...?

2
 TobyA 20 Apr 2020
In reply to Lankyman:

I should add this is only on one farm in my local area. Absolutely nothing else like it - rather the opposite really, other walkers, joggers, horse riders, cyclists, farmers driving their tractors about all giving or acknowledging greetings - generally everyone being friendly whilst respecting the 2 meter clearance advice.

 Coel Hellier 20 Apr 2020
In reply to Lankyman:

> I've had one verbal with a farmer who seemed to think the countryside was closed (as in F&M 2001) and also a very nice chat with another farmer who was rounding up sheep ...

I have exchanged amicable waves and nods with about a dozen farmers in the last few weeks, none of whom seemed upset.

On one occasion a farmer suggested (though not confrontationally) that the "footpaths were all closed", but accepted my statement that no they weren't, and then seemed mollified when I said that I had walked from my front door (true) and had not driven anywhere that day.

 Lankyman 20 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> I have exchanged amicable waves and nods with about a dozen farmers in the last few weeks, none of whom seemed upset.

Yes, the vast majority of country folk are perfectly OK youtube.com/watch?v=ZtPOcSChtMs&

 Robert Durran 20 Apr 2020
In reply to TobyA:

> I should add this is only on one farm in my local area. Absolutely nothing else like it - rather the opposite really, other walkers, joggers, horse riders, cyclists, farmers driving their tractors about all giving or acknowledging greetings - generally everyone being friendly whilst respecting the 2 meter clearance advice.

This is exactly my experience having ventured further afield over the weekend by bike and on foot (previously I have tended to walk from my house in the evenings). Everyone just sensibly enjoying the sunshine and fresh air, being friendly to each other and observing social distancing. One family walked past while I was traversing a railway bridge and said hello and a farmer said good evening as I crossed her field of sheep. I think I have probably exchanged pleasantries with more people in my local area in the last four weeks than in the previous four years! The reality out there is very different from the judgemental nightmare that UKC threads might give the impression is the norm!

 mrphilipoldham 20 Apr 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

I have to say my experience out in the field has been nothing but positive too. I've only exercised from home, and have seen many more people out on the bridleways and footpaths than normal, and many of them I don't recognise as local but do exchange friendly hellos with. One couple I passed at the top of the hill were looking down in the valley wondering what certain features were - clearly not local, clearly never been there before, and if I were some off here I would have probably given them a good scolding. But life's too short, so a quick 'Evening!' and on my merry way I went. The farmers up the road have continued letting on too, and there's not a single new sign up anywhere. All very refreshing.

 Sankey 20 Apr 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

It's great that there are plenty of positive experiences.

There are defintely issues though e.g. from a Peak centric view, see the above Toby A post and:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-52323784

(having lived in Bradwell I  know there is a deep seated tension with "vistors" that drives this)

Signs are up in other Peak villages, tar was spread onto a Houndkirk road gate etc.

 Trevers 20 Apr 2020
In reply to Non E-Mouse:

> The idea that this is fine is nonsense; a very significant proportion of the population is off work right now, similar to a bank holiday you might say.  If all climbers went out to 'climb in a safe, discreet and self-aware manner' then the crags would be heaving like bank holidays normally are.

I've already responded to this argument: if climbers weren't moderating their behaviour, then yes, given the recent good weather the crags would have been constantly rammed. In normal times I'd had been out probably every other day for the last two weeks. If, instead, climbers are going for an occasional and brief session, and of course turning around if anybody else is there, where's the problem?

> The MRT had twenty call outs last weekend, admittedly this is a very low number but this is twenty more than each team needed to attend.

Are you sure? I thought they'd had twenty call outs the weekend before the lockdown, and none since.

> Nobody goes out to injure themselves bouldering or climbing, but I know plently of people that have had to undergo significant operations due to a 'low level' bouldering accidents.

I'm suggesting it's possible to reduce the risk of an injury requiring recovery/rescue/medical attention to an arbitrarily low level, based on the sort of considerations we all make every time we go out climbing. Not zero risk of course, but there is no activity with zero risk.

3
 Coel Hellier 20 Apr 2020
In reply to Sankey:

> Signs are up in other Peak villages, ...

There are such signs where I am, but:

The signs actually say little more than "please observe government guidelines", and ..

The signs date from the short window post-"Snowdonia" and pre-lockdown, when for a short period there was a big increase in visitors (currently visitors overall and walkers are way below normal levels; road cyclists are perhaps a bit above normal levels, but not massively so).

 Non E-Mouse 20 Apr 2020
In reply to Steve Woollard:

> Driving is also not a problem as you are sealed in a metal bubble.

Driving is a problem.  The ONS report that in 2018 (the latest figures I could find) there were 165,100 casualties of the road, of which 24840 were seriously injured and 1770 died.  That's 452 casualties, 68 serious injuries and almost 5 deaths EACH DAY. 

Clearly none of these people wanted to be a part of this statistic but I can guarantee the NHS, Police and Fire Service would rather not have to deal with these types of incidents right now.  

2
 Non E-Mouse 20 Apr 2020
In reply to Trevers:

I assume Bristol to be like Sheffield in that there is a large climbing community; if everyone took liberty to take a short drive to the local edge only 15 minutes by car and climbed well within their limit (V7 boulderer climbing V3s) for a few hours to justify the drive or even cycle then the MRT would certainly have more call outs. 

Based on your logic why don't we have a Sainsbury's queuing system to take it in turns at the crag.  

Anyone climbing at crags is being selfish. Finding loopholes to venture out because it's within grade, only 3 meters off the floor, just a short cycle away is not within the spirit of what is going on right now. 

Just like litter spreads litter, seeing climbers at crags is only going to encourage more climbers to go out.  

Government: Stay at home except for essentials and exercise. 

UKC: Refrain from climbing outside

BMC: Now is not the time to be hill walking or climbing.

MRT: 20 Easter callouts were 20 too many

Selfish Climbers: I guess bouldering or climbing well within my limit is still OK as long as everyone else stick to their morals and doesn't turn up.  
 

https://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2020/04/17/mountain-rescuers-20-easter-ca...

Edit: Selfish climbers also make sure you hit that dislike button to show support for getting outside and climbing again 

Post edited at 17:04
26
 off-duty 20 Apr 2020
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

As I said, we disagree.

No point continuing really, since the OP has made a reply indicating he doesn't really grasp the differences between the different types of guidance he refers to, and fails to mention how they actually relate to the law.

Since you've now meandered off in to discussing how you can get fined for failing to social distance, suggesting "sport" is mentioned in the guidance and that "control measures" is actually supposed to mean something, I'm fairly convinced you are just trolling.

I'm out. (Though obviously with a reasonable excuse under reg 6...)

Post edited at 17:32
1
 1poundSOCKS 20 Apr 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> No point continuing really, since the OP has made a reply indicating he doesn't really grasp the differences between the different types of guidance he refers to, and fails to mention how they actually relate to the law.

Not relevant to what you said initially.

> suggesting "sport" is mentioned in the guidance

Sorry, meant to say exercise. People use sport for exercise anyway so I'm sure you could interpret that more intelligently if you chose to. Obviously that didn't suit.

> Since you've now meandered off in to discussing how you can get fined for failing to social distance

Was taking about the confusion between law and guidelines, since you said social distancing (?) wasn't in the law. Or something like that. The underlying principle is you can get in trouble with the police, not whether it's a law or a guideline. Doing whatever you like implies ignoring the law and guidelines so it doesn't make any difference to what you said initially.

> I'm fairly convinced you are just trolling.

Yawn. No you're not.

> I'm out.

Not really surprised, you've tried to distract from the initial point and have just stated you don't agree several times without addressing the point directly. And then try to bury this in a lot of other stuff that isn't relevant to this.

2
 Uluru 20 Apr 2020
In reply to Non E-Mouse:

My local crag is getting busier during each week of lockdown (within 3km of my home). Unfortuately some climbers also decided to try to climb over the fence at the top of one entrance to it yesterday, causing more damage to the fence.

Locals are noticing and as they know I climb have voiced their opinions on climbing during the movement restrictions. They have seen and mention the sign put up by the BMC on the fence asking climbers to exercise restraint and not climb during the COVID 19 restrictions.

The BMC has already had to negotiate access to them and the landowner has still not given formal permission two climb in two of the areas. Antoginising the landowner and local people isn't going to help our position when restrictions are eased.

1
 JMarkW 20 Apr 2020
In reply to planetmarshall:

> In addition, I think in that describing climbing as "a form of exercise" - some contributors may be categorizing it into a convenient form so that it fits into the guidelines.

Climbing is my main form of exercise. And if a lot more of the obese smoking public that were waiting outside B&Q with me this morning in Stockport in the sunshine did some as well maybe the NHS wouldn't be struggling trying to keep them alive when they do get Corona.

5
 kevin stephens 20 Apr 2020
In reply to JMarkW:

> Climbing is my main form of exercise.

But does it have to be for now? Could you not walk cycle or run for the time being and look forward to climbing later? Maybe benefiting from improved aerobic fitness?

3
 JMarkW 20 Apr 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

And I'm missing my sea kayaking!

 Steve Woollard 20 Apr 2020
In reply to Uluru:

I don't think anyone here would condone this sort of behaviour regardless of their views on whether climbing is acceptable or not at this time.

 Robert Durran 20 Apr 2020
In reply to Steve Woollard:

> I don't think anyone here would condone this sort of behaviour regardless of their views on whether climbing is acceptable or not at this time.

Of course. We are just arguing that some very limited forms of climbing are ok for some people in some places. I think some people are missing that point.

1
 kevin stephens 20 Apr 2020
In reply to JMarkW:

> And I'm missing my sea kayaking!

Me too, desperately. Trying to compensate by practicing packing my camping gear and watching online sea kayaking videos

Lou_D 20 Apr 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Climbing has played a major part in my attempt to cope with clinical depression over a number of years. My doctor would agree with this.

When lock down was announced I was terrified how I'd cope without it

I have local crags and live with my climbing partner. I could have climbed close to home whilst social distancing. I haven't. But I have felt the "need" to do so, (so strongly that I've felt guilty about it, almost as if I had ignored the BMC advice against climbing).

The lock down rules seem to admit a need for exercise. Must "need" always be too strong a word to apply to climbing?

 Tom Valentine 20 Apr 2020
In reply to Lou_D:

> . Must "need" always be too strong a word to apply to climbing?

If it's not a good thing to feel a "need" for alcohol and gambling then the same applies to climbing. So, yes.

12
 planetmarshall 20 Apr 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Of course. We are just arguing that some very limited forms of climbing are ok for some people in some places.

And it is, I agree. The trouble is - and here's the rub - how do you produce general guidelines that climbing is OK only for some exceptions, and not have the audience believe that they are the ones who are exceptional?

2
 Robert Durran 20 Apr 2020
In reply to planetmarshall:

> And it is, I agree. The trouble is - and here's the rub - how do you produce general guidelines that climbing is OK only for some exceptions, and not have the audience believe that they are the ones who are exceptional?

Simply by saying that it is ok if done within the general guidelines and with no greater risk than the examples of exercise in the guidelines. Why should climbers think they are exceptional any more than drivers or cyclists?

1
 Misha 20 Apr 2020
In reply to Michael Gordon:

Possibly. It's an odd rule though as it pretty much doesn't make sense. In theory, you could have a 2 person gathering with a friend. In practice, you can't anyway because you can't leave the house to go to a gathering. I guess you could, hypothetically, meet in a supermarket car park or something on your (coordinated) way there. I'm not saying people should do it, just idly speculating about the rules. The point is, you aren't supposed to do it but the way the rules have been written there is this bizarre quirk which is a kind of minor loophole which actually doesn't really work. As a tax adviser well versed in delving into legislation, I just find this interesting (yes, I'm quite sad really).

Post edited at 23:44
 Misha 20 Apr 2020
In reply to planetmarshall:

I get what you're saying but 'exercise' is not defined and the NPCC guidance acknowledges that exercise can take many forms (recognising the caveats about practical application of the guidance which off-duty has helpfully set out). So I'm not sure you can really argue that climbing is not permitted (as long as it's alone or with household members), although I recognise that a police officer or a court might take a different view.

But arguing about whether or not it's permitted is missing the point.

The real question is not whether it is permitted but whether people should do it. My main concern is around stakeholder relations, which is a pretty significant issue in the medium to long term. It is mainly for this reason that I think most people should generally refrain from climbing and indeed hill walking. I would not go so far as to say that absolutely everyone shouldn't do it at all as there will be some 'locals' with discrete crags on their doorsteps and that kind of thing.

1
 Misha 21 Apr 2020
In reply to Sankey:

There seems to be an attitude of 'the village is closed' in rural areas, which is understandable but some people seem to be being unduly concerned. I suspect this is partly due to a lack of understanding how the virus actually spreads and what the likelihood of catching it is in certain situations. Of course no one knows these things for sure but common sense suggests that if someone simply cycles or walks through a village the risk is going to be pretty remote as long as you give them a wide berth. As you say, city dwellers have to contend with this all the time and no one is suggesting closing the roads!

However the issue is not whether people are being reasonable. We are where we are and we have to deal with it, reasonable or not. Based on reports in the media and from friends living in outdoorsy places, tensions are running high in places. We need to be cognisant of that and do our best to avoid fanning the flames, for our own long term benefit. 

 Michael Gordon 21 Apr 2020
In reply to Misha:

What I heard was that "the police will have the power to stop gatherings of more than 2 people". So they aren't advocating gatherings of 2 people, they are just saying what the police may do.  

 Robert Durran 21 Apr 2020
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> What I heard was that "the police will have the power to stop gatherings of more than 2 people". So they aren't advocating gatherings of 2 people, they are just saying what the police may do.  

I was in a gathering of two people on Saturday. I was passing close to a friend's house on my bike, so I phoned them and they came out into the road and we had a well socially distanced chat for about half an hour (my first face to face conversation since lockdown began!). Should I technically not have been doing this? We were just as far apart as people on TV clapping and so on, so I assumed (possibly wrongly) that it was ok.

1
 Graeme Hammond 21 Apr 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

have just seen this new article from the BMC via facebook:

https://thebmc.co.uk/can-i-drive-to-go-walking-or-climbing?fbclid=IwAR2WHIc...

plenty more stuff for everyone to argue about...

2
 Dave Hewitt 21 Apr 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I was in a gathering of two people on Saturday.

Two's absolutely fine as per the regs, is it not? Sounds to me like what you did was perfectly OK and actually very sensible, as it's important that people get some face-to-face company. It's pretty much exactly the same as I did this morning with my half-mile-away neighbour Archie - we had quite a long chat over his garden gate, a good two metres apart as usual. My interpretation of it is that things (in most places at least) are also more lax if part of the "gathering" is on their own property - eg several times when I've had chats with Archie his wife Christine has also been there, them on their property, me outside - that seems fine too (and anyway it's along a farm road where no one is likely to complain).

This kind of keeping-contact thing is really important - eg one day last week I was needed to collect and deliver prescriptions for a couple of friends who are on the proper 12-week lockdown (one of them has had the dreaded high-risk letter and the other - who is a big hill man, very active - has opted to stay at home with her for the duration). I rang the doorbell, plonked the bag of meds on their doorstep, then retreated to their garden wall. When they emerged we had quite a long chat - technically three of us but I'd say the chat was far more important for them in their current predicament than is any debate over whether two or three is the permitted number.

 UKB Shark 21 Apr 2020
In reply to Graeme Hammond:

Beat me to it.

Dave Turnbull CEO is doing a live Q&A at 12.30 tomorrow on Facebook. Dave’s background is Access and he is still directly responsible for the Access teams so will be able to address all the issues 

https://m.facebook.com/381399730827/posts/10159525235905828/

 Tringa 21 Apr 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

Some of the comments I read on UKH and other forums about how difficult it is to exercise close to home and maintain social distancing make we wonder where some people live.

I live in a local authority which has a larger population than every Welsh authority, bar one and every Scottish region, bar three.

Its population density exceeds that of every local authority/region in Wales or Scotland. Even Glasgow doesn't come close. In England its population density exceeds that of over 95% of all other authorities.

However, compared to before the 'lockdown' the streets are empty and I have no problem maintaining social distancing, quite the opposite.

I can't work out how it is difficult for some folks.

Dave   

2
 krikoman 21 Apr 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

From the doctor in an ICU wing on TV the other night, "Stay home if you can" that's a simple and as effective as it needs to be.

If you think you can't and you need to go out, then go out, but if you can do what you're going out for at home, then stay home.

Only the individual can make the decision, some will lie to themselves and go out anyway, others won't care and simply do what they want either way. Some will do what he asked and stay home as long as they can.

1
 krikoman 21 Apr 2020
In reply to Misha:

> There seems to be an attitude of 'the village is closed' in rural areas, which is understandable but some people seem to be being unduly concerned.

And yet one of the largest rural areas, the Lakes, has been a CV-19 hotspot, so maybe the concern might be justified?

 Michael Gordon 21 Apr 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

Gatherings of more than 2 people who aren't social distancing obviously! 

 olddirtydoggy 21 Apr 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Just got back from our first negative experience out there.

We're often going for around an hours walk and sometimes drive within 10 mins of the house to get a place almost to ourselves. All locals over the last few weeks have been very positive. Today we were on the edge of an estate that is now managed by the National trust which includes some public footpaths, managed, not owned. We saw signs up on the stile from the NT saying the paths were closed due to government guidelines. We had a chat and decided woodland areas with public footpaths are open so over we went, making sure we kept to the public paths and off the parkland they manage.

After 30 mins, over to my right is a NT park ranger who's body language is already suggesting he's up for a verbal, he's coming towards us at some speed from a 4x4 parked in the corner of some woodland. I got the feeling this could have been just what he was waiting for. Naturally we start nicely but the reply is. DIDN'T YOU SEE THE SIGNS! THE PARK IS CLOSED, YOU SHOULDN'T BE ON HERE!

We calmly explained that we were not on park land but on the surrounding paths. These paths are part of the management agreement but not part of the park. Why are you telling us these paths are closed?

Rather than get into the script of where it went, some people just can't be reasoned with. We continued with our walk and he cleared off with steam coming out of his ears. Such a contrast to the farmers who live and work on the land we've been engaging with at a safe distance like so many others on here. I've still got no idea why he put those signs up. Feel free to bash me.

Post edited at 18:38
4
In reply to olddirtydoggy:

Some people are just really enjoying the excuse to flex their authority and advertise their moral superiority.

4
 Misha 21 Apr 2020
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> What I heard was that "the police will have the power to stop gatherings of more than 2 people". So they aren't advocating gatherings of 2 people, they are just saying what the police may do.  

Sure, of course they aren’t advocating it. I’m just pointing out that the legislation seems a bit quirky. It’s a geeky point, I’d better shut up about it...

 Misha 21 Apr 2020
In reply to Graeme Hammond:

Thanks. Good of the BMC to bring this out. Generally it’s sensible and I don’t disagree with the overall conclusion at present but one paragraph wasn’t really correct.

“This new information from the College of Policing doesn’t give us the lawful right to drive to the crag or nearest mountain to climb or walk. This would be defined as unreasonable.“

No, it doesn’t define it as unreasonable and neither does the underlying legislation. In fact the guidance specifically says that driving to the countryside to go walking is likely to be considered reasonable “where far more time is spent walking than driving”. A police officer might or might not take that view. A court might or might not agree. It’s more nuanced than what the BMC are saying. I’m not saying we should all drive to the countryside to go climbing but the BMC seems to be taking an overly conservative approach.

“The guidance also states we should be partaking in one form of exercise once a day so if you walk to the crag, the walking part could effectively be interpreted as your daily exercise.”

No, it does not state that and neither does the underlying legislation. The guidance actually says that exercise may be taken more than once a day. Same comments as above really.

 Misha 21 Apr 2020
In reply to krikoman:

When you say hotspot, do you mean in terms of the number of cases per 1,000 people? Is it just higher than other comparable rural areas with towns of a similar size (Kendal is not tiny for example) or is it higher than in large towns / cities? I’d be interested to know. Of course there could be a number of reasons for that, of which ‘outsiders’ is one.

 Misha 21 Apr 2020
In reply to olddirtydoggy:

You get power mad busybodies everywhere. They know they’re a nobody really but this situation has given them an excuse and a perceived right to boss people around. Ironically, the NT is probably one of the few stakeholders people could in theory afford to antagonise as they aren’t realistically going to close their paths forevermore (there would be an outcry). I’m not saying people should antagonise them (or anyone else) but there’s a certain irony there. 

 GrahamD 21 Apr 2020
In reply to Misha:

"Reasonable Excuse" is not the same as "Reasonable" 

 Misha 21 Apr 2020
In reply to GrahamD:

Not sure I understand your point. The legislation uses the term reasonable excuse. Either way, I think the BMC was, to put it mildly,  unduly conservative in its comments in that paragraph. I’d even say they were misunderstanding the guidance there. I know they’re pushing a certain message but it detracts from the message if your analysis does not really stand up to scrutiny. Better to say something along the lines of  ‘it would appear you may be able to do that but there could be arguments to the contrary and it’s only guidance so the police and the courts might not agree with you plus the locals and landowners might get unhappy so on balance our advice remains the same’. Same conclusion but a better argument despite being more nuanced. Rather than interpreting that it says X when actually people can see that it says Y. The point is that it says Y but that doesn’t mean Y is definitely always going to be ok. But it doesn’t mean that it’s definitely X either.

 olddirtydoggy 21 Apr 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Considering that some people put a lot of stock in the BMC opinion, I'm surprised they put out a further statement trying to interpret the guidance. It's a bit like a news organisation putting an opinion piece out as news, many news orgs will clearly label an opinion piece as such, rather than stamping it as news.

Perhaps it would have been better to do the same with this last statement, allow Catherine Flitcroft to publish that on the BMC website as an opinion piece. I'm sure this person has done wonderful things for access and conservation and I'm by no means attacking her. She has a right to an opinion and that's all it is, just a shame those words have taken the form of an official statement. We've all made a lot of statements on here, it's all good.

1
 Misha 21 Apr 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Having re-read this paragraph:

“This new information from the College of Policing doesn’t give us the lawful right to drive to the crag or nearest mountain to climb or walk. This would be defined as unreasonable.“

I wonder if it’s just badly worded. May be they meant driving to literally any crag or ‘nearest’ mountain which might still be far away. In other words, that a long drive might not be lawful.

Strictly, it is also correct that the guidance does not give us the ‘lawful right’ to do anything as it’s just guidance. Not sure if that’s badly worded or cleverly worded. Either way, the gist of it is rather conservative.

The bit about once a day in England is just wrong though.

 Misha 21 Apr 2020
In reply to olddirtydoggy:

It’s good that they’ve responded and I don’t have any issues with the form of it. It’s more some of the content I have an issue with. Not necessarily the overall message as such. 

 Michael Gordon 22 Apr 2020
In reply to Misha:

> “This new information from the College of Policing doesn’t give us the lawful right to drive to the crag or nearest mountain to climb or walk. This would be defined as unreasonable.“

> Strictly, it is also correct that the guidance does not give us the ‘lawful right’ to do anything as it’s just guidance. Not sure if that’s badly worded or cleverly worded. > 

Badly worded. Driving to the nearest mountain or crag (in England) has clearly not been outlawed, since they say you can drive if your chosen exercise takes much longer than your drive.

 GrahamD 22 Apr 2020
In reply to Misha:

The legislation says "Reasonable excuse". Guidelines to Police officers draw a line in the sand as to whether to take action against an individual.  Testing the exact position of this line is NOT reasonable behaviour.  Its akin to driving as fast as you can so as just to not trigger a speed camera.

2
 Tringa 22 Apr 2020
In reply to krikoman:

> From the doctor in an ICU wing on TV the other night, "Stay home if you can" that's a simple and as effective as it needs to be.

> If you think you can't and you need to go out, then go out, but if you can do what you're going out for at home, then stay home.

> Only the individual can make the decision, some will lie to themselves and go out anyway, others won't care and simply do what they want either way. Some will do what he asked and stay home as long as they can.


I see the phantom disliker strikes again. How can anyone seriously dislike your post?

Dave

3
 Andy Moles 22 Apr 2020
In reply to Non E-Mouse:

> Anyone climbing at crags is being selfish. 

This debate has descended below tedium (though Mr Lopez's post gave a moment of entertainment), but there is a salient point that the more diehard Scolds* are determined to ignore, so I'm saying it again.

Neither the distribution of crags, nor the distribution of climbers, is even across the country. Some areas have few crags and lots of climbers, some have lots of crags and lots of climbers, and some have lots of crags and few climbers.

If you live in Sheffield or Bristol, well that's tough, you almost certainly should not go climbing. If you are seen climbing anywhere with access sensitivities, you are an ass. If you live on Barra, on the other hand, the reasons not to cycle to your local sea-cliffs and go shunting are flimsy to non-existent.

Obviously that's an extreme example, and you can legitimately point out that this only applies to a minority of climbers. Fine, but drop the blanket condemnation and have a bit of compassion and imagination.

For people who can mitigate all the concerns, it is not a matter of 'finding a loophole', it's doing what they want to do because there is no good reason not to. Selfish? Maybe, but no more so than anyone doing anything for personal gratification. If someone is being selfish all by themselves somewhere and I don't know about it, I don't really care, as long as it's doing no one any harm.

* credit to Andrew Bisharat for the term: https://eveningsends.com/pretending-not-to-climb/

5
 Robert Durran 22 Apr 2020
In reply to Andy Moles:

> If you live on Barra, on the other hand, the reasons not to cycle to your local sea-cliffs and go shunting are flimsy to non-existent.

My recurring fantasy just now is that I live in one of those houses at the end of the road at Reiff and am regularly pottering along the coast doing  a little boudering and soloing in the glorious evening sunshine. And probably nipping down the road for the odd sunset on Stac Pollaidh.

>  Fine, but drop the blanket condemnation and have a bit of compassion and imagination.> For people who can mitigate all the concerns, it is not a matter of 'finding a loophole', it's doing what they want to do because there is no good reason not to. Selfish? Maybe, but no more so than anyone doing anything for personal gratification. If someone is being selfish all by themselves somewhere and I don't know about it, I don't really care, as long as it's doing no one any harm.

Oh come off it, that's far too balanced and entirely rational for this thread. 

1
 Robert Durran 22 Apr 2020
In reply to Tringa:

> I see the phantom disliker strikes again. How can anyone seriously dislike your post?

Maybe they don't like being accused of lying or not caring by some anonymous person preaching at them on the internet.

2
 Coel Hellier 22 Apr 2020
In reply to GrahamD:

>   Its akin to driving as fast as you can so as just to not trigger a speed camera.

It's more akin to finding out what the speed limit is and then driving at that speed on a road and at a time when it is safe to drive at that speed.

 joem 22 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> It's more akin to finding out what the speed limit is and then driving at that speed on a road and at a time when it is safe to drive at that speed.

Good response, but i also wonder how many people on UKC can honestly say they have never set their cruise control to 68mph or 79mph depending on the speed limit. 

 joem 22 Apr 2020
In reply to Tringa:

Perhaps because it is easier than entering into a discussion with the man who thinks that going for a 30min run is currently banned.

1
 Robert Durran 22 Apr 2020
In reply to joem:

> Good response, but i also wonder how many people on UKC can honestly say they have never set their cruise control to 68mph or 79mph depending on the speed limit. 

And what's wrong with that? As soon as you touch the brakes you come out of cruise control.

 joem 22 Apr 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

Well you'd be breaking the speed limit, highly unlikely to be prosecuted for it of course the rights and wrongs of it could probably fill more threads than climbing in Corona.

 Robert Durran 22 Apr 2020
In reply to joem:

> Well you'd be breaking the speed .

Sorry, I assumed that you were setting the cruise control to just under the speed limit.

 joem 22 Apr 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

Ahh sorry I didn't explain it well i was meaning setting it to 10% +2. I wasn't saying that I would advocate this just that I bet a lot of people do it.

 GrahamD 22 Apr 2020
In reply to joem:

Basically its pushing the limit of what you can get away with, not what is right.

1
 Pete O'Donovan 22 Apr 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Am I the only one who thinks that when the government introduced its lockdown measures on nonessential outdoor activities, it should have stipulated that ALL outdoor leisure activities were suspended?

Go to essential work if home-working is not an option — fine.

Go to the supermarket or pharmacy — fine.

Go for a brisk daily one-hour walk (or even a bit longer) from your home to get some fresh air and keep basic fitness levels up — fine.

But to allow runners and cyclists to carry on pretty much as normal while telling all other outdoor enthusiasts to “make a sacrifice for the good of the country” couldn’t help but create discontent.

Banning all forms of outdoor sport would have led to far greater solidarity and far less of the “if they can do that, why can’t I do this?” sentiment.

It’s not just (some) climbers who are upset; there are almost identical threads to this on (for instance) fishing forums from guys wondering why, when they’re being asked not to cast a line into rivers they can walk to from home, large numbers of cyclists are happily riding along those self-same riverside paths and bridleways? Are fishermen more likely to put an extra strain on the NHS than cyclists by having accidents at the moment? Does fishing pose a greater threat of transmission of the virus than cycling does?

Of course, I fully realize that many folk on here not only climb, but also cycle and/or run, so I’m not expecting much support for this view. Even so, it would be refreshing to read the odd post from cyclists and runners saying something along the lines of “whatever the government says on this, I don’t feel comfortable going out on my bike/out for a run at a time when so many other people are being asked to sacrifice their own sporting ambitions”.

Post edited at 14:41
5
 kevin stephens 22 Apr 2020
In reply to Pete O'Donovan:

I recognise that it's a massive privilege being able to cycle and I really enjoy my 1 to 2 hour local road bike rides on some punishing hills every few days.  But if this was not allowed I, like many other cyclists would resort to turbo training sessions at home, still preferable to fingerboard dead hangs!

I can imagine the comedy of policing walkers to make sure they don't briefly break into a run

Post edited at 14:23
In reply to Pete O'Donovan:

> Am I the only one who thinks that when the government introduced its lockdown measures on nonessential outdoor activities, it should have stipulated that ALL outdoor leisure activities were suspended.

It didn’t give an stipulation on what exercise can or cannot be done during lockdown.

The government just said you need a ‘reasonable excuse’ to leave the house. One of those excuses is exercise. It did not define exercise in any way.

The organisations saying you cannot do this and that are generally national governing bodies, who have no actual authority. 

I guess, regarding fishing, it’s not exercise, therefore you don’t have a ‘reasonabl excuse’ to do it currently. However I’d hope most cops would use their discretion, realise you were doing no harm, and get on with more important things. 

That’s my take on it anyway. 

> Go to essential work if home-working is not an option — fine.

> Go to the supermarket or pharmacy — fine.

> Go for a brisk daily one-hour walk (or even a bit longer) from your home to get some fresh air and keep basic fitness levels up — fine.

> But to allow runners and cyclists to carry on pretty much as normal while telling all other outdoor enthusiasts to “make a sacrifice for the good of the country” couldn’t help but create discontent.

> Banning all forms of outdoor sport would have led to far greater solidarity and far less of the “if they can do that, why can’t I do this?” sentiment.

In that case should everyone who is lucky enough to have a home training board remove all the holds in solidarity with those who cannot climb at all?!

> Of course, I fully realize that many folk on here not only climb, but also cycle and/or run, so I’m not expecting much support for this view. Even so, it would be refreshing to read the odd post from cyclists and runners saying something along the lines of “whatever the government says on this, I don’t feel comfortable going out on my bike/out for a run at a time when so many other people are being asked to sacrifice their own sporting ambitions”.

The lockdown is about stopping the spread of Covid19, it’s not about stopping people from having fun. Most have had enough disruption to their lives and livelihoods already. It would be good if a few more folk remembered that.

2
 Pete O'Donovan 22 Apr 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

> I can imagine the comedy of policing walkers to make sure they don't briefly break into a run

That'd make a good Benny Hill sketch...

 joem 22 Apr 2020
In reply to Pete O'Donovan:

What is everyone's obsession with a race to the bottom, "if I can't do something why should they do it" life isn't fair get on with it. Running or cycling can easily be done virtually anywhere from your front door and are individual activities if anything I think walking should be banned as its not really exercise for most people and i see a lot of people wandering about with no real purpose getting in the way. I wouldn't actually think that it's a good idea as there are lots of people who need the exercise and can't run or cycle. 

Would you recommend that we all refrain from watching TV or using the internet  to show solidarity with those who don't have access to these?

3
 Pete O'Donovan 22 Apr 2020
In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:

> In that case should everyone who is lucky enough to have a home training board remove all the holds in solidarity with those who cannot climb at all?!

Is having a home training board a matter of luck? Anyway, it's something you're doing in private (or should be) so how does this affect other people?

> The lockdown is about stopping the spread of Covid19, it’s not about stopping people from having fun.

Indeed, but witnessing a certain section of the outdoor community continuing to 'have fun' while others are told that what they're doing is "utterly selfish" doesn't strike me as the best way of keeping people off the crags (which I think this thread is about?).

Post edited at 15:05
In reply to Pete O'Donovan:

> Is having a home training board a matter of luck? Anyway, it's something you're doing in private (or should be) so how does this affect other people?

I would say in the context of this pandemic it is. No one built their home wall because they though one day it might be the only thing they could climb on for several months. 

> Indeed, but witnessing a certain section of the outdoor community continuing to 'have fun' while others are told that what they're doing is "utterly selfish" doesn't strike me as the best way of keeping people off the crags (which I think this thread is about?).

Accessing the outdoors isn't actually banned. But some organisations, without any authority to do so, have decided to 'ban' it. Not surprisingly not everyone is happy about this. 

I personally don't see how DIY, rock climbing, hill walking, running, or road biking are any more or less dangerous than each other. Whilst I understand there is risk involved in all of them, non of them, if done by persons experienced and competent in doing them, are likely to result in hospitalisation. As far as I can tell none of these activities are actually banned, yet in the eyes of the outdoor community, only DIY, road biking, and running are socially acceptable. 

3
 1poundSOCKS 22 Apr 2020
In reply to Pete O'Donovan:

> Is having a home training board a matter of luck?

In the context of the current situation, yes. None of us planned for this, nobody expected access to crags and walls to be suddenly taken away. So you are lucky if you have a board.

1
 Trevers 22 Apr 2020
In reply to Pete O'Donovan:

> Indeed, but witnessing a certain section of the outdoor community continuing to 'have fun' while others are told that what they're doing is "utterly selfish" doesn't strike me as the best way of keeping people off the crags (which I think this thread is about?).

This is an argument for keeping things subtle (which I entirely agree with), not banning climbing.

3
 GrahamD 22 Apr 2020
In reply to Pete O'Donovan:

Anyone driving to partake of an activity is increasing their chance of being involved in an accident.  And accidents involving cars often involve a lot of blue lights.

As far as I'm concerned the stipulation should be exercise from home.  If you are one of the very few who can climb from their back door, shut up and keep a low profile. 

7
 Michael Hood 22 Apr 2020
In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide (& whoever):

But to leave your home you need a reasonable excuse where "reasonable" is not defined in law (at least in this context) because it's not come up in court (yet).

So really a lot of what this thread's discussing is the meaning of "reasonable".

From what off-duty has said, it's up to each police person to determine that for each circumstance they come across, using the guidance to help them. But "reasonable" will (by the police) have to be defined differently for each circumstance. It is going to be different depending on activity, numbers, location, etc.

So bouldering on Barra after getting there by bike is much more likely to be considered reasonable than cycling out of Sheffield to Burbage, etc, etc.

And driving many miles to any activity is unlikely to be considered reasonable.

And if that means you can't reasonably go climbing, whilst others might be able to, then tough. That's just one of the vagueries of life.

In reply to Michael Hood:

> So bouldering on Barra after getting there by bike is much more likely to be considered reasonable than cycling out of Sheffield to Burbage, etc, etc.

I roughly agree with what you are saying, but struggle to see why former is more reasonable than the later. The obviously the chances of getting caught on Barra are slim to zero.

> And if that means you can't reasonably go climbing, whilst others might be able to, then tough. That's just one of the vagueries of life.

Agreed. 

 TobyA 22 Apr 2020
In reply to Pete O'Donovan:

> it would be refreshing to read the odd post from cyclists and runners saying something along the lines of “whatever the government says on this, I don’t feel comfortable going out on my bike/out for a run at a time when so many other people are being asked to sacrifice their own sporting ambitions”.

If you are a "cyclist with sporting ambitions" then, yes, you got lucky that basically you can carry on training as before, or at least as much as you can do while withstanding any social pressure you happen to come under to do less. But I watch a constant stream of people on bikes and people walking going past my front drive, heading out into the countryside. Some of those people on bikes are "cyclists", possibly even cyclists "with sporting ambitions" - nice road bikes or fancy mountain bikes, and the pricey clothing appropriate to that discipline. But far more are 'people riding bikes', often looking like they haven't ridden a bike in many years, possibly decades. I see lots of family groups out too, and even a bizarrely large number of (almost all middle-aged to 'young-older) couples on tandems! Who knew there were so many tandems in the Sheffield/Chesterfield area!

Competitive cyclists are a small sub group of cyclists. Most people who ride a bike do it for transport and/or exercise. I'm sure I spend considerably more time on my bike each year than I do climbing, but a big part of my identity is being a "climber". I've done a handful of local friendly CX races a few years ago, and ridden 3 organised sportives, that's in about 40 years of having a bike a riding regularly. About half the time I drive my car to work but don't really think of my self as a "motorist" and am absolutely not involved in motorsports.

So yeah, a few keen club cyclists have lucked out that they can keep training and be easily within the legislation, but most people riding their bikes now are doing it for exercise - not for any sporting ambition. I'm sure there are hundreds of people like me going out cycling to do something active, when we would much prefer to go climbing.

 Steve Woollard 22 Apr 2020
In reply to GrahamD:

> Its akin to driving as fast as you can so as just to not trigger a speed camera.

doesn't everyone do this?

Sorry, just got in from a long walk and catching up and couldn't resist this one

 Coel Hellier 22 Apr 2020
In reply to Pete O'Donovan:

> Is having a home training board a matter of luck?

Is living local to a crag a matter of luck? Nope.

> Anyway, it's something you're doing in private (or should be) so how does this affect other people?

If you go to a local crag with no access issues in a socially-distanced way, how does this affect other people?

2
 Michael Gordon 22 Apr 2020
In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:

> I roughly agree with what you are saying, but struggle to see why former (climbing on Barra) is more reasonable than the later (climbing at Burbage). >  

Because you are much less likely to meet other climbers there.

 kevin stephens 22 Apr 2020
In reply to Michael Gordon:

Or to encourage picnickers 

 krikoman 22 Apr 2020
In reply to Misha:

> When you say hotspot, do you mean in terms of the number of cases per 1,000 people? Is it just higher than other comparable rural areas with towns of a similar size (Kendal is not tiny for example) or is it higher than in large towns / cities? I’d be interested to know. Of course there could be a number of reasons for that, of which ‘outsiders’ is one.


I think it was just number of cases in total, considering the low population density it should have been a lots less. I can't find the article.

Kendal only has a population of around 28k which is quite small Hartlepool has 93k.

 krikoman 22 Apr 2020
In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:

> I personally don't see how DIY, rock climbing, hill walking, running, or road biking are any more or less dangerous than each other.

Look at how many people would need to be involved if someone has an accident doing a particular activity. Also look at how many people are required to do each activity.

It just sounds lie you are trying to make excuses to do what you want to do.

I don't want to stay at home and do f*ck all, I'm heeding what the Dr. said in the ICU, "Please don't go out unless you have to", I don't have to got out to climb, so I'm not., and it's the same reason why I'm not going out on my bike either.

Just because other people are doing all sort of other shit, doesn't mean I need to do ignore the Dr., I can make my own mind up about what I do.

There are plenty of other people who can do the same, and others who will argue the "allowed" means "I should", and other still who'll say, "f*ck you I'll do what I want."

Remember this the virus doesn't move around by itself, people move it around. If enough people stop spreading it, it ceases to be a problem.

13
 joem 22 Apr 2020
In reply to krikoman:

You’re a bore stop miss representing people’s statements and stop having a go at everyone for doing things within the guidance if you choose to impose other rules on yourself leave the rest of us out of this it’s hard enough as it is. 

1
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> Because you are much less likely to meet other climbers there.

Unless you are sharing belays with them, I’m not sure what the issue is.

 krikoman 22 Apr 2020
In reply to joem:

> You’re a bore stop miss representing people’s statements ...

Care to give an example?

I quoted the ICU doctor verbatim, you can watch the program yourself if you like.

And yes at's really really hard not climbing, I'm pretty sure most of us on UKC will be dead shortly if we can't get out and climb.

Post edited at 19:43
6
 joem 22 Apr 2020
In reply to krikoman:

But the point is that stay at home is short hand for follow the lock down rules which includes prevision for exercise misrepresenting is not the sane as misquoting. Go out for a bike ride or a run it’ll do you good.

1
 Coel Hellier 22 Apr 2020
In reply to krikoman:

> Look at how many people would need to be involved if someone has an accident doing a particular activity.

Which would be a fair comment if the government had banned road cycling and non-essential work and other things that it has not banned.

There really is no need to go beyond the government bans. Though if you personally want to then go ahead.

 krikoman 22 Apr 2020
In reply to joem:

> But the point is that stay at home is short hand for follow the lock down rules which includes prevision for exercise misrepresenting is not the sane as misquoting. Go out for a bike ride or a run it’ll do you good.


"Allowed" isn't the same as "please do this". Like I said  do what you want, you will anyway.

But it's just as boring listening to people trying to justify doing what they want, and "stretching" the "rules".

Post edited at 19:50
5
 joem 22 Apr 2020
In reply to krikoman:

Oh well if I should do what I want maybe ill go climbing this weekend? Maybe somewhere far away like the north west highlands. 
 

Oh wait no I won’t do that because I’m not just some selfish idiot that you would like to portray just someone who would like to use the small freedom given to him to exercise in the fresh air and sunshine. There’s a reason this is allowed it’s there for you as much as for me and i think you’d be a happier less stressed person if you used it. 

3
 Michael Gordon 22 Apr 2020
In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:

> Unless you are sharing belays with them, I’m not sure what the issue is.

Burbage may compare favourably with Stanage Popular, but I'm guessing it can still get fairly busy on occasions. How many folk do you want milling around at the base of the crag? 

 Martin Haworth 22 Apr 2020
In reply to Pete O'Donovan:

> Am I the only one who thinks that when the government introduced its lockdown measures on nonessential outdoor activities, it should have stipulated that ALL outdoor leisure activities were suspended?

> Go to essential work if home-working is not an option — fine.

> Go to the supermarket or pharmacy — fine.

> Go for a brisk daily one-hour walk (or even a bit longer) from your home to get some fresh air and keep basic fitness levels up — fine.

> But to allow runners and cyclists to carry on pretty much as normal while telling all other outdoor enthusiasts to “make a sacrifice for the good of the country” couldn’t help but create discontent.

> Banning all forms of outdoor sport would have led to far greater solidarity and far less of the “if they can do that, why can’t I do this?” sentiment.

> It’s not just (some) climbers who are upset; there are almost identical threads to this on (for instance) fishing forums from guys wondering why, when they’re being asked not to cast a line into rivers they can walk to from home, large numbers of cyclists are happily riding along those self-same riverside paths and bridleways? Are fishermen more likely to put an extra strain on the NHS than cyclists by having accidents at the moment? Does fishing pose a greater threat of transmission of the virus than cycling does?

> Of course, I fully realize that many folk on here not only climb, but also cycle and/or run, so I’m not expecting much support for this view. Even so, it would be refreshing to read the odd post from cyclists and runners saying something along the lines of “whatever the government says on this, I don’t feel comfortable going out on my bike/out for a run at a time when so many other people are being asked to sacrifice their own sporting ambitions”.

 I guess it would have been difficult to ban running, walking, cycling, as these are all routine ways of people commuting to work. Also, I suspect the rules have been made up a bit "on the hoof" and the obvious vanilla forms of exercise that most people can partake in are running, walking, cycling, the Ministers probably aren't climbers or fishermen.

I also run and it is a godsend that running is allowed, I live in a rural location so get no hassle, and an hour or so most days keeps me sane. I also have a home wall in my garage, I bought the materials the weekend before the lockdown and built the wall in a week as it was obvious what was coming. 

However, even with running and home wall bouldering I am fed up and crave real rock and mountains. Give it a few more weeks and the public patience will wear out and if the Government want people to still stay in they will have to make the rules more specific and enforce them.

Post edited at 20:34
gezebo 22 Apr 2020
In reply to krikoman:

> I don't want to stay at home and do f*ck all, I'm heeding what the Dr. said in the ICU, "Please don't go out unless you have to", I don't have to got out to climb, so I'm not., and it's the same reason why I'm not going out on my bike either.

> Just because other people are doing all sort of other shit, doesn't mean I need to do ignore the Dr., I can make my own mind up about what I do.

There are thousands of Doctors across the UK many of whom work in ICU. The one I spoke to in person and know personally rather than listening to on the TV said that ICU was deserted. In fact they went 3 days without a cardiac incident as people sat at home to scared to come in. Another doctor I spoke to said capacity at a different hospital was down down by 75% again because the decks are cleared and others don’t come anymore. A third doctor I spoke to commented about how quite is was in general practice. 
 

I actually went to hospital a couple of weeks ago and benefited from the low numbers and received a good standard service so arguably this could be a good time to get things fixed!  
 

Ok so I know a few doctors but the point is that just as in life sometimes you need to fact check and look at other viewpoints before making your mind up and just because one person said something that reflects on their experience in one area or region it doesn’t mean that that’s a given for everyone else.  

1
 Misha 22 Apr 2020
In reply to GrahamD:

I see. I think most people agree that driving for hours to go walking or whatever is not reasonable. Whereas  some would say that a short ‘local’ drive is ok and indeed sensible if it achieves better distancing compared to going out in a city park for example. Common sense applies and I don’t think every outing would be testing the boundary. But there could be other reasons not to do it such as antagonising landowners. 

 Misha 22 Apr 2020
In reply to Pete O'Donovan:

I can see your point but for me it comes down mostly to the fact that road runners and cyclists don’t risk losing access. They don’t go on private land generally and no one is going to take away their right to run or cycle somewhere. Cross country runners and mountain bikers are more dependent on access and I imagine many (most?) of them have transitioned to the roads. 

1
 Misha 22 Apr 2020
In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:

Trouble is, not everyone is competent. This rules out a lot of people, as does having to climb alone or with household members. Antagonising locals and landowners is also a key consideration, which rules out a lot of venues. As Andy says, the percentage of climbers who can satisfy all these criteria is tiny. But if someone can climb on their own or with household members in a safe and discreet way, I’m not going to judge them.

 Misha 22 Apr 2020
In reply to Michael Hood:

> So bouldering on Barra after getting there by bike is much more likely to be considered reasonable than cycling out of Sheffield to Burbage, etc, etc.

I’d be impressed if you cycled to Barra   (I know what you meant but couldn’t resist!)

 Misha 22 Apr 2020
In reply to krikoman:

To be fair, Tom is extremely unlikely to have an accident climbing. Clearly that is not the case for everyone.

 Misha 22 Apr 2020
In reply to krikoman:

> And yes at's really really hard not climbing, I'm pretty sure most of us on UKC will be dead shortly if we can't get out and climb.

Actually, it’s not that big a deal for most people. I was thinking of starting a separate thread about it. I last climbed on 15 March (in the Alps, just before the French lockdown) and whilst it’s annoying I’m not losing any sleep over it, even though normally I’d be out every weekend. However I will defend people’s right to go climbing if they are suitably safe and discreet.

 GrahamD 22 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> If you go to a local crag with no access issues in a socially-distanced way, how does this affect other people?

If you walk or cycle there it doesn't

5
 krikoman 22 Apr 2020
In reply to joem:

>  There’s a reason this is allowed it’s there for you as much as for me and i think you’d be a happier less stressed person if you used it. 

How do you know how happy and stressed I am?

It's great how people who argue that there's no risk in going out, are usually the same one's who are able to make judgements about people they know nothing about.

Once again, if you feel you need to go out, go out. What more do you want me to say?

 krikoman 22 Apr 2020
In reply to Misha:

> Actually, it’s not that big a deal for most people. I was thinking of starting a separate thread about it. I last climbed on 15 March (in the Alps, just before the French lockdown) and whilst it’s annoying I’m not losing any sleep over it, even though normally I’d be out every weekend.

I was being sarcastic

 Robert Durran 22 Apr 2020
In reply to krikoman:

> It's great how people who argue that there's no risk in going out........

Nobody is arguing that there is literally no risk.

> Once again, if you feel you need to go out, go out. What more do you want me to say?

Nothing please! 

Post edited at 23:24
1
 joem 23 Apr 2020
In reply to krikoman:

> How do you know how happy and stressed I am?

I’ve been reading your posts on here. You don’t come across as a happy bunny.

1
 DDDD 23 Apr 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I thought that you guys might want to read about the situation in the Blue Mountains, Australia. I lifted it from their fb page:

Few local friends of mine have done some leg work to figure out what’s the legal climbing situation in the Blueys. In short, it’s allowed but only to locals and under strict distancing rules. Remember this is not a legal advice, just the best they could gather so far, and this is an ever changing situation. And as far as the morality of going climbing is concerned, I’m not touching this even with a 6m stickclip!

For the city folks:

The first obvious one has been hammered in multiple government orders. City folks cannot travel to regional areas for “exercising”. The police have been asking for ID of climbers in the Blue Mtns to confirm they are “locals”. Penalties can be very hefty, they’re not kidding “a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 6 months or a fine of up to $ 11 ,000 (or both)”.

You cannot legally stay here either, no camping, no AirBNB’s, not even friends’ places.

For the locals:

The best information we have about who’s allowed to exercise and where is from Katoomba police. They confirmed the activity of climbing is allowed. The rule of thumb given was a 20min drive from home. Again, this is discretionary to the police officer/ranger on the day, I’d suggest play safe and stay well within this rule of thumb as this info has only been obtained from a phone call. Info from the NSW government about doing exercise “You are allowed to drive across town”.

If you’re climbing:

1.5m rule applies: Don’t carpool unless you have a van (second back seat) or unless you live under the same roof, don’t climb where it’s physically impossible to abide like most of Shipley Upper (consider walkers, they cannot legally go around you). Multis are a No-No.

2 person gathering rule applies: Even if you and your mate are a two-person party, you must stay well away from another party. The exact distance is not clearly stated but even funerals require 4sqm per person within the gathering itself! Just be reasonable. The usual high-density crags should be avoided. If a carpark appears busy don’t even bother to walk down. If you have the crag to yourself and someone else arrives - discuss with them how to avoid each other during your time there.

Good hygiene practices: It has been reported the virus can stay alive on hard surfaces such as rock for a period of 72 hours (3 days!). Don’t share gear, climb different climbs to your partner or at least don’t share draws, use your own rope and don’t let your belayer touching it close to the end where it will touch your body (especially teeth!!!) while clipping, sanitise hands before/after touching rock AND before/after belaying (touching your partner’s rope).

Safety: With our medical system potentially under immense stress, it is important prioritise safety. Wear a helmet, use a stickclip, climb only well protected routes (if trad enjoy placing more gear!), consider climbing well under your limit or just toproping if safer and climb at areas that are not remote (to avoid a huge rescue if you get injured). An accident resulting in a public rescue is the worst possible look for the climbing community.

 krikoman 23 Apr 2020
In reply to joem:

> I’ve been reading your posts on here. You don’t come across as a happy bunny.


that simple shows the problems of reading text then and the bias you might bring to the party.

2
 joem 23 Apr 2020
In reply to krikoman:

You do you then.

1
 krikoman 25 Apr 2020
In reply to joem:

> You do you then.


Eh?


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...