Discussion:
Out of the way
Add Reply
Mark, Devon
2020-03-26 18:24:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
So, what do people reckon to the police clamping down on people who are doing activities remotely? Such as going out of the way for an Instagram snap. Walking the dog etc. Where the people are well away from anyone else.
Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
2020-03-26 18:28:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 11:24:51 -0700 (PDT), "Mark, Devon"
Post by Mark, Devon
So, what do people reckon to the police clamping down on people who are doing activities remotely? Such as going out of the way for an Instagram snap. Walking the dog etc. Where the people are well away from anyone else.
So, no means no.
Mark, Devon
2020-03-26 18:34:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
So, no means no.
It seems to me a massive imbalance. There are far more likely to be cases of people not social distancing in other areas than the Lake District. What on earth is the logic in tracking a dog walker etc. who decides to spend a few hours alone, miles from anyone?!
m***@btopenworld.com
2020-03-26 18:45:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark, Devon
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
So, no means no.
It seems to me a massive imbalance. There are far more likely to be cases of people not social distancing in other areas than the Lake District. What on earth is the logic in tracking a dog walker etc. who decides to spend a few hours alone, miles from anyone?!
There is no logic which is why it won't and never has happened.

The new legislation which comes into effect tonight,is aimed towards the awkward squad. Those who delight in playing up police officers. From now on they have no choice in the matter. If they continue to gather/loiter having been told to move on they risk arrest. If they are arrested they will be afforded the same opportunity to defend themselves as any other arrestee.
Keema's Nan
2020-03-26 19:01:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark, Devon
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
So, no means no.
It seems to me a massive imbalance. There are far more likely to be cases
of people not social distancing in other areas than the Lake District. What
on earth is the logic in tracking a dog walker etc. who decides to spend a
few hours alone, miles from anyone?!
There is no logic which is why it won't and never has happened.
Wrong.

I have just watched it and other similar on the TV news.
The new legislation which comes into effect tonight,is aimed towards the
awkward squad. Those who delight in playing up police officers.
Wrong again.

These people were mature individuals alone.
From now on
they have no choice in the matter. If they continue to gather/loiter having
been told to move on they risk arrest. If they are arrested they will be
afforded the same opportunity to defend themselves as any other arrestee.
abelard
2020-03-26 20:26:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 19:01:30 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Mark, Devon
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
So, no means no.
It seems to me a massive imbalance. There are far more likely to be cases
of people not social distancing in other areas than the Lake District. What
on earth is the logic in tracking a dog walker etc. who decides to spend a
few hours alone, miles from anyone?!
There is no logic which is why it won't and never has happened.
Wrong.
I have just watched it and other similar on the TV news.
The new legislation which comes into effect tonight,is aimed towards the
awkward squad. Those who delight in playing up police officers.
Wrong again.
These people were mature individuals alone.
obedience trumps sense any old time
--
www.abelard.org
abelard
2020-03-26 20:25:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Mark, Devon
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
So, no means no.
It seems to me a massive imbalance. There are far more likely to be cases of people not social distancing in other areas than the Lake District. What on earth is the logic in tracking a dog walker etc. who decides to spend a few hours alone, miles from anyone?!
There is no logic which is why it won't and never has happened.
The new legislation which comes into effect tonight,is aimed towards the awkward squad. Those who delight in playing up police officers. From now on they have no choice in the matter. If they continue to gather/loiter having been told to move on they risk arrest. If they are arrested they will be afforded the same opportunity to defend themselves as any other arrestee.
doubtless by video link
--
www.abelard.org
Richmond
2020-03-26 18:50:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark, Devon
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
So, no means no.
It seems to me a massive imbalance. There are far more likely to be cases of
people not social distancing in other areas than the Lake District. What on
earth is the logic in tracking a dog walker etc. who decides to spend a few
hours alone, miles from anyone?!
Probably because they had to drive to get there, and if they drove a
long way they could be spreading it from a localised outbreak. I don't
know how that happens in a car though, through the vents? It stays in
the air for three hours?

I wonder if all the money spent rescuing the economy could have been
spent on temporary hospitals and ventilators, and everything else could
have carried on as normal.

In the war they turned factories to making guns and tanks, so they could
make ventilators.
abelard
2020-03-26 20:28:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richmond
Post by Mark, Devon
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
So, no means no.
It seems to me a massive imbalance. There are far more likely to be cases of
people not social distancing in other areas than the Lake District. What on
earth is the logic in tracking a dog walker etc. who decides to spend a few
hours alone, miles from anyone?!
Probably because they had to drive to get there, and if they drove a
long way they could be spreading it from a localised outbreak. I don't
know how that happens in a car though, through the vents? It stays in
the air for three hours?
I wonder if all the money spent rescuing the economy could have been
spent on temporary hospitals and ventilators, and everything else could
have carried on as normal.
indeed, buying respirators will stimulate the economy...that
there are no respirators is irrelevant
Post by Richmond
In the war they turned factories to making guns and tanks, so they could
make ventilators.
that it takes time is just a triviality
--
www.abelard.org
Richmond
2020-03-26 20:54:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
indeed, buying respirators will stimulate the economy...that
there are no respirators is irrelevant
Which isn't true, but you know that, and anyway you go on to agree...
Post by abelard
Post by Richmond
In the war they turned factories to making guns and tanks, so they could
make ventilators.
that it takes time is just a triviality
that they can be made in time. Did you get as far as thinking about how
much time? No probably not, because you have to move onto the next one
liner.

How much time does it take to make a ventilator? Well, that depends on
how many you have working on it, and what equipment that they have. How
much time was available? well probably since January when it became
apparent what was happening in China.

I don't know if the Government watches netflix, but there is a handy
documentary on there about pandemics which they could have watched a few
month ago.

How much time does it take to pass laws making it illegal to go out more
than once a day? how much time does it take to descend into
totalitarianism? Not long apparently.
abelard
2020-03-26 21:09:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richmond
Post by abelard
indeed, buying respirators will stimulate the economy...that
there are no respirators is irrelevant
Which isn't true, but you know that, and anyway you go on to agree...
Post by abelard
Post by Richmond
In the war they turned factories to making guns and tanks, so they could
make ventilators.
that it takes time is just a triviality
that they can be made in time.
probably...but you want something to whine about
Post by Richmond
Did you get as far as thinking about how
much time? No probably not, because you have to move onto the next one
liner.
it'll take as long a it takes...whining won't speed that up
or slow it down...
but you just want faked up 'reasons' for whining
Post by Richmond
How much time does it take to make a ventilator? Well, that depends on
how many you have working on it, and what equipment that they have. How
much time was available? well probably since January when it became
apparent what was happening in China.
'apparent' is a moveable feast
Post by Richmond
I don't know if the Government watches netflix, but there is a handy
documentary on there about pandemics which they could have watched a few
month ago.
'they' are too busy dealing with dopes like you whining about
grenfellizing buildings, universal credit, 'the homeless'
and nhs 'underfunding'
Post by Richmond
How much time does it take to pass laws making it illegal to go out more
than once a day? how much time does it take to descend into
totalitarianism? Not long apparently.
but you want such government...we don't
--
www.abelard.org
abelard
2020-03-26 20:24:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 11:34:42 -0700 (PDT), "Mark, Devon"
Post by Mark, Devon
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
So, no means no.
It seems to me a massive imbalance. There are far more likely to be cases of people not social distancing in other areas than the Lake District. What on earth is the logic in tracking a dog walker etc. who decides to spend a few hours alone, miles from anyone?!
because it is safer to work out in the countryside

and it's a nice day
--
www.abelard.org
MM
2020-03-27 12:36:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 11:34:42 -0700 (PDT), "Mark, Devon"
Post by Mark, Devon
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
So, no means no.
It seems to me a massive imbalance. There are far more likely to be cases of people not social distancing in other areas than the Lake District. What on earth is the logic in tracking a dog walker etc. who decides to spend a few hours alone, miles from anyone?!
Well, the cops have to do ~some~thing with their new drone toy!

MM
Keema's Nan
2020-03-26 18:40:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark, Devon
So, what do people reckon to the police clamping down on people who are doing
activities remotely? Such as going out of the way for an Instagram snap.
Walking the dog etc. Where the people are well away from anyone else.
I’ve just seen that on the local news. Chap on bench looking at a lake. No
one else around until two plod turn up and ask him what he is there for, and
that he should go home.

Presumably, they don’t have the resources to sanitise the bench after he
has sat there?

FFS. I never thought I would live in an extreme police state. The security
services must be wetting themselves in excitement.
Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
2020-03-26 18:49:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 18:40:45 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by Mark, Devon
So, what do people reckon to the police clamping down on people who are doing
activities remotely? Such as going out of the way for an Instagram snap.
Walking the dog etc. Where the people are well away from anyone else.
I’ve just seen that on the local news. Chap on bench looking at a lake. No
one else around until two plod turn up and ask him what he is there for, and
that he should go home.
In case two other people turn up, presumably.
Presumably, they don’t have the resources to sanitise the bench after he
has sat there?
Presumably, there isn't the need?
FFS. I never thought I would live in an extreme police state. The security
services must be wetting themselves in excitement.
We live in interesting times, sunshine. No wonder the Chinese think
that's a curse.
abelard
2020-03-26 20:30:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 11:49:17 -0700, Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 18:40:45 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by Mark, Devon
So, what do people reckon to the police clamping down on people who are doing
activities remotely? Such as going out of the way for an Instagram snap.
Walking the dog etc. Where the people are well away from anyone else.
I’ve just seen that on the local news. Chap on bench looking at a lake. No
one else around until two plod turn up and ask him what he is there for, and
that he should go home.
In case two other people turn up, presumably.
like two plods? and then they kissed them
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
Presumably, they don’t have the resources to sanitise the bench after he
has sat there?
Presumably, there isn't the need?
FFS. I never thought I would live in an extreme police state. The security
services must be wetting themselves in excitement.
We live in interesting times, sunshine. No wonder the Chinese think
that's a curse.
--
www.abelard.org
Keema's Nan
2020-03-26 20:34:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 11:49:17 -0700, Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 18:40:45 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Mark, Devon
So, what do people reckon to the police clamping down on people who are doing
activities remotely? Such as going out of the way for an Instagram snap.
Walking the dog etc. Where the people are well away from anyone else.
I’ve just seen that on the local news. Chap on bench looking at a lake. No
one else around until two plod turn up and ask him what he is there for, and
that he should go home.
In case two other people turn up, presumably.
like two plods? and then they kissed them
Is that a line from your 1960s chart hit?
Post by abelard
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
Presumably, they don’t have the resources to sanitise the bench after he
has sat there?
Presumably, there isn't the need?
Post by Keema's Nan
FFS. I never thought I would live in an extreme police state. The security
services must be wetting themselves in excitement.
We live in interesting times, sunshine. No wonder the Chinese think
that's a curse.
abelard
2020-03-26 20:37:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 20:34:23 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 11:49:17 -0700, Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 18:40:45 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by Mark, Devon
So, what do people reckon to the police clamping down on people who are doing
activities remotely? Such as going out of the way for an Instagram snap.
Walking the dog etc. Where the people are well away from anyone else.
I’ve just seen that on the local news. Chap on bench looking at a lake. No
one else around until two plod turn up and ask him what he is there for, and
that he should go home.
In case two other people turn up, presumably.
like two plods? and then they kissed them
Is that a line from your 1960s chart hit?
you're a fine guesser!
--
www.abelard.org
Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
2020-03-26 21:36:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 11:49:17 -0700, Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 18:40:45 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by Mark, Devon
So, what do people reckon to the police clamping down on people who are doing
activities remotely? Such as going out of the way for an Instagram snap.
Walking the dog etc. Where the people are well away from anyone else.
I’ve just seen that on the local news. Chap on bench looking at a lake. No
one else around until two plod turn up and ask him what he is there for, and
that he should go home.
In case two other people turn up, presumably.
like two plods? and then they kissed them
Plod is immune to the corona.
Joe
2020-03-26 21:44:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 14:36:34 -0700
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
Post by abelard
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 11:49:17 -0700, Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 18:40:45 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
(in
Post by Mark, Devon
So, what do people reckon to the police clamping down on people
who are doing activities remotely? Such as going out of the way
for an Instagram snap. Walking the dog etc. Where the people are
well away from anyone else.
I’ve just seen that on the local news. Chap on bench looking at a
lake. No one else around until two plod turn up and ask him what
he is there for, and that he should go home.
In case two other people turn up, presumably.
like two plods? and then they kissed them
Plod is immune to the corona.
Don't think so:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/26/police-force-closes-stations-public-due-coronavirus/
--
Joe
abelard
2020-03-26 22:33:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 14:36:34 -0700, Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
Post by abelard
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 11:49:17 -0700, Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 18:40:45 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by Mark, Devon
So, what do people reckon to the police clamping down on people who are doing
activities remotely? Such as going out of the way for an Instagram snap.
Walking the dog etc. Where the people are well away from anyone else.
I’ve just seen that on the local news. Chap on bench looking at a lake. No
one else around until two plod turn up and ask him what he is there for, and
that he should go home.
In case two other people turn up, presumably.
like two plods? and then they kissed them
Plod is immune to the corona.
i see they're even tracking individuals with drones....

they have a well developed sense of priorities
--
www.abelard.org
abelard
2020-03-26 20:21:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 18:40:45 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by Mark, Devon
So, what do people reckon to the police clamping down on people who are doing
activities remotely? Such as going out of the way for an Instagram snap.
Walking the dog etc. Where the people are well away from anyone else.
I’ve just seen that on the local news. Chap on bench looking at a lake. No
one else around until two plod turn up and ask him what he is there for, and
that he should go home.
plod need to show they are dong a vital job, otherwise they
won't get paid one of the gov't handouts
Presumably, they don’t have the resources to sanitise the bench after he
has sat there?
FFS. I never thought I would live in an extreme police state. The security
services must be wetting themselves in excitement.
--
www.abelard.org
MM
2020-03-27 12:39:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 18:40:45 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
FFS. I never thought I would live in an extreme police state. The security
services must be wetting themselves in excitement.
Certainly, Ms Patel seemed excited on TV yesterday that her police
state was finally kicking off. Anyone forgotten yet what her stance
"once" was on the death penalty?

MM
Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
2020-03-27 13:06:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 18:40:45 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
FFS. I never thought I would live in an extreme police state. The security
services must be wetting themselves in excitement.
Certainly, Ms Patel seemed excited on TV yesterday that her police
state was finally kicking off. Anyone forgotten yet what her stance
"once" was on the death penalty?
I have. Would you remind me?
MM
2020-03-29 16:44:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 06:06:14 -0700, Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 18:40:45 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
FFS. I never thought I would live in an extreme police state. The security
services must be wetting themselves in excitement.
Certainly, Ms Patel seemed excited on TV yesterday that her police
state was finally kicking off. Anyone forgotten yet what her stance
"once" was on the death penalty?
I have. Would you remind me?
Sure.

"For many years the right-winger was an outspoken defender of capital
punishment.

She told an episode of BBC Question Time in 2011 that it would 'act as
a deterrent,' even if innocent people were killed.

'I do think that when we have a criminal justice system that
continuously fails in the country and where we have seen murderers and
rapists... reoffend and do those crimes again and again I think that’s
appalling.

'On that basis alone I would support the reintroduction of capital
punishment to serve as a deterrent.' "

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/priti-patel-boris-johnson-cabinet-views-death-penalty-immigration-497861

Want more proof she said it?

Here's the Question Time segment in question:


MM
Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
2020-03-29 20:28:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 06:06:14 -0700, Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 18:40:45 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
FFS. I never thought I would live in an extreme police state. The security
services must be wetting themselves in excitement.
Certainly, Ms Patel seemed excited on TV yesterday that her police
state was finally kicking off. Anyone forgotten yet what her stance
"once" was on the death penalty?
I have. Would you remind me?
Sure.
"For many years the right-winger was an outspoken defender of capital
punishment.
She told an episode of BBC Question Time in 2011 that it would 'act as
a deterrent,' even if innocent people were killed.
'I do think that when we have a criminal justice system that
continuously fails in the country and where we have seen murderers and
rapists... reoffend and do those crimes again and again I think that’s
appalling.
'On that basis alone I would support the reintroduction of capital
punishment to serve as a deterrent.' "
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/priti-patel-boris-johnson-cabinet-views-death-penalty-immigration-497861
Want more proof she said it?
More to the point, do you have a PROBLEM with it?

If so, WHY?
MM
2020-03-31 09:48:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 13:28:39 -0700, Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
Post by MM
On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 06:06:14 -0700, Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 18:40:45 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
FFS. I never thought I would live in an extreme police state. The security
services must be wetting themselves in excitement.
Certainly, Ms Patel seemed excited on TV yesterday that her police
state was finally kicking off. Anyone forgotten yet what her stance
"once" was on the death penalty?
I have. Would you remind me?
Sure.
"For many years the right-winger was an outspoken defender of capital
punishment.
She told an episode of BBC Question Time in 2011 that it would 'act as
a deterrent,' even if innocent people were killed.
'I do think that when we have a criminal justice system that
continuously fails in the country and where we have seen murderers and
rapists... reoffend and do those crimes again and again I think that’s
appalling.
'On that basis alone I would support the reintroduction of capital
punishment to serve as a deterrent.' "
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/priti-patel-boris-johnson-cabinet-views-death-penalty-immigration-497861
Want more proof she said it?
More to the point, do you have a PROBLEM with it?
If so, WHY?
Too many innocent people are murdered by the state in the process.

But also, it's illogical for a state to make a crime of murder, then
kill the alleged perpetrator.

Besides, it will never happen. Patel will never achieve it.

MM
Maxwell Boltzmann
2020-03-29 17:41:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 18:40:45 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
FFS. I never thought I would live in an extreme police state. The security
services must be wetting themselves in excitement.
Certainly, Ms Patel seemed excited on TV yesterday that her police
state was finally kicking off. Anyone forgotten yet what her stance
"once" was on the death penalty?
I am not convinced that the two issues are especially closely related.
The properties of a police state might be thought of as including
widespread surveillance of the general public; arbitrary powers to
detain; random arbitrary arrests of innocent people; non-judicial police
powers to harm people; lack of accountability for police wrongdoing; the
ability to punish thought crimes; restrictions on freedom to express an
opinion; imposing conditions that citizens must meet to be allowed to
carry on a normal life; encouraging people to be suspicious of their
fellow citizens and report them to the police.

None of these have anything to do with the ability of the judicial
system to impose capital punishment. There are of course many arguments
against capital punishment, but they are not linked to the 'police
state'.
--
Max
MM
2020-03-31 09:53:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 18:41:52 +0100, Maxwell Boltzmann
Post by Maxwell Boltzmann
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 18:40:45 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
FFS. I never thought I would live in an extreme police state. The security
services must be wetting themselves in excitement.
Certainly, Ms Patel seemed excited on TV yesterday that her police
state was finally kicking off. Anyone forgotten yet what her stance
"once" was on the death penalty?
I am not convinced that the two issues are especially closely related.
The properties of a police state might be thought of as including
widespread surveillance of the general public; arbitrary powers to
detain; random arbitrary arrests of innocent people; non-judicial police
powers to harm people; lack of accountability for police wrongdoing; the
ability to punish thought crimes; restrictions on freedom to express an
opinion; imposing conditions that citizens must meet to be allowed to
carry on a normal life; encouraging people to be suspicious of their
fellow citizens and report them to the police.
None of these have anything to do with the ability of the judicial
system to impose capital punishment. There are of course many arguments
against capital punishment, but they are not linked to the 'police
state'.
Right-wing ---> far right-wing ---> capital punishment ---> police
state.

I'm pretty sure where on that continuum many Tories are.

MM
abelard
2020-03-26 20:23:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 11:24:51 -0700 (PDT), "Mark, Devon"
Post by Mark, Devon
So, what do people reckon to the police clamping down on people who are doing activities remotely? Such as going out of the way for an Instagram snap. Walking the dog etc. Where the people are well away from anyone else.
because other people will get envious as socialism has long
strained every sinew to condition into them
--
www.abelard.org
Mark Devon
2020-03-27 01:44:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I mean, I get it that people going to remote places for a few days holiday is frowned upon.....staying at campsites with others and all that. But that's not what this is about. People having a day out in some remote location are being responsible! Honestly, have the police got nothing better to do in this time of national crisis than play with drones and persecute people who are being more sensible than many others? Pathetic.
Pamela
2020-03-27 09:48:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Devon
I mean, I get it that people going to remote places for a few days
holiday is frowned upon.....staying at campsites with others and all
that. But that's not what this is about. People having a day out in some
remote location are being responsible! Honestly, have the police got
nothing better to do in this time of national crisis than play with
drones and persecute people who are being more sensible than many
others? Pathetic.
If a family in a remore location keeps it itslef then there's no problem.

The problem seems to be transission between one family and another.

Whilst a family keeps isolated then transmission is restricted to it's own
members, but as soon as one member mixes outdoors with a member from another
family then the opportunities for transmission multiply.
Ian Jackson
2020-03-27 10:46:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Mark Devon
I mean, I get it that people going to remote places for a few days
holiday is frowned upon.....staying at campsites with others and all
that. But that's not what this is about. People having a day out in some
remote location are being responsible! Honestly, have the police got
nothing better to do in this time of national crisis than play with
drones and persecute people who are being more sensible than many
others? Pathetic.
If a family in a remore location keeps it itslef then there's no problem.
The problem seems to be transission between one family and another.
Whilst a family keeps isolated then transmission is restricted to it's own
members, but as soon as one member mixes outdoors with a member from another
family then the opportunities for transmission multiply.
The obvious problem is that if someone decides to drive to a normally
totally remote spot to take a walk, they then find that hundreds of
others have decided to go there too. This morning, a police spokesman
said on LBC that "The Law is The Law" - and they will crack down on
anyone driving unnecessarily long distances to exercise.
--
Ian
Basil Jet
2020-03-27 11:45:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
This morning, a police spokesman
said on LBC that "The Law is The Law" -
Where was that spokesman when my car was broken into / I was burgled / I
was pimped by a grooming gang etc.
--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
Future Of The Left - 2009 - Travels With Myself And Another
m***@btopenworld.com
2020-03-27 12:14:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
The obvious problem is that if someone decides to drive to a normally
totally remote spot to take a walk, they then find that hundreds of
others have decided to go there too. This morning, a police spokesman
said on LBC that "The Law is The Law" - and they will crack down on
anyone driving unnecessarily long distances to exercise.
And quite right too. There s no point in shutting down half the country if you are going to tolerate Transgressions. Make compliance voluntary. The law has no place in regulating voluntary activity You might just as well allow the virus to run its course.
Keema's Nan
2020-03-27 14:07:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Ian Jackson
The obvious problem is that if someone decides to drive to a normally
totally remote spot to take a walk, they then find that hundreds of
others have decided to go there too. This morning, a police spokesman
said on LBC that "The Law is The Law" - and they will crack down on
anyone driving unnecessarily long distances to exercise.
And quite right too. There s no point in shutting down half the country if
you are going to tolerate Transgressions. Make compliance voluntary. The law
has no place in regulating voluntary activity You might just as well allow
the virus to run its course.
And yet just 24 hours ago, you insisted this was never going to happen.
Mark, Devon
2020-03-27 15:18:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Clumsy and lazy policing, is what this was. For all we know (and probably the police) some of the socially aware and responsible individuals they filmed and broadcast/shamed to the world may have mental health issues, and the walks they did well away from anyone were necessary for their wellbeing.

To my mind there was/is nothing wrong with what they did.....in fact the police didn't put out any pictures of these people even meeting others (and not social distancing).

Police....get of with doing things right.....approach and tackle those who are clearly not social distancing.....this was a pathetic action and very very lazy. If you want the support of law-abiding and socially aware people, then stop this utter nonesense immediately.....there are far more people not social distancing in towns and cities. Stop this utter laziness and waste of resources.
Keema's Nan
2020-03-27 15:35:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark, Devon
Clumsy and lazy policing, is what this was. For all we know (and probably the
police) some of the socially aware and responsible individuals they filmed
and broadcast/shamed to the world may have mental health issues, and the
walks they did well away from anyone were necessary for their wellbeing.
To my mind there was/is nothing wrong with what they did.....in fact the
police didn't put out any pictures of these people even meeting others (and
not social distancing).
Police....get of with doing things right.....approach and tackle those who
are clearly not social distancing.....this was a pathetic action and very
very lazy. If you want the support of law-abiding and socially aware people,
then stop this utter nonesense immediately.....there are far more people not
social distancing in towns and cities. Stop this utter laziness and waste of
resources.
They can’t. It is what the establishment want.

People cowering in their homes afraid to go out in case they get arrested.
They have been dreaming of this scenario for decades.

Now all they need is for everyone to have an app on their phone which
transmits their location within the house at all times, and the job is
complete. Then it will be knock on the door “good evening sir, we notice
you didn’t go into the garden and applaud the NHS last night. We need to
ask you a few questions regarding your failure to obey state instructions,
otherwise you will go on record as an enemy of the state”.
Keema's Nan
2020-03-27 18:48:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark, Devon
Clumsy and lazy policing, is what this was. For all we know (and probably the
police) some of the socially aware and responsible individuals they filmed
and broadcast/shamed to the world may have mental health issues, and the
walks they did well away from anyone were necessary for their wellbeing.
To my mind there was/is nothing wrong with what they did.....in fact the
police didn't put out any pictures of these people even meeting others (and
not social distancing).
Police....get of with doing things right.....approach and tackle those who
are clearly not social distancing.....this was a pathetic action and very
very lazy. If you want the support of law-abiding and socially aware people,
then stop this utter nonesense immediately.....there are far more people not
social distancing in towns and cities. Stop this utter laziness and waste of
resources.
You think that is bad?

What about fining a shopkeeper for chalking white lines on the footpath
outside her bakery in order to give people an idea of separation.

Apparently it is graffiti/criminal damage

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8159177/Police-forces-accused-
overzealousness-follow-dog-walkers.html
Ophelia
2020-03-27 21:42:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark, Devon
Clumsy and lazy policing, is what this was. For all we know (and probably the
police) some of the socially aware and responsible individuals they filmed
and broadcast/shamed to the world may have mental health issues, and the
walks they did well away from anyone were necessary for their wellbeing.
To my mind there was/is nothing wrong with what they did.....in fact the
police didn't put out any pictures of these people even meeting others (and
not social distancing).
Police....get of with doing things right.....approach and tackle those who
are clearly not social distancing.....this was a pathetic action and very
very lazy. If you want the support of law-abiding and socially aware people,
then stop this utter nonesense immediately.....there are far more people not
social distancing in towns and cities. Stop this utter laziness and waste of
resources.
You think that is bad?

What about fining a shopkeeper for chalking white lines on the footpath
outside her bakery in order to give people an idea of separation.

Apparently it is graffiti/criminal damage

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8159177/Police-forces-accused-
overzealousness-follow-dog-walkers.html


====

You couldn't make that up ... :((((
Pamela
2020-03-27 16:08:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Ian Jackson
The obvious problem is that if someone decides to drive to a normally
totally remote spot to take a walk, they then find that hundreds of
others have decided to go there too. This morning, a police spokesman
said on LBC that "The Law is The Law" - and they will crack down on
anyone driving unnecessarily long distances to exercise.
And quite right too. There s no point in shutting down half the country
if you are going to tolerate Transgressions. Make compliance voluntary.
The law has no place in regulating voluntary activity You might just as
well allow the virus to run its course.
And yet just 24 hours ago, you insisted this was never going to happen.
It was less than 24 hours when Rowing foolishly claimed:

"There is no logic which is why it won't and never has happened."
Keema's Nan
2020-03-27 16:44:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Ian Jackson
The obvious problem is that if someone decides to drive to a normally
totally remote spot to take a walk, they then find that hundreds of
others have decided to go there too. This morning, a police spokesman
said on LBC that "The Law is The Law" - and they will crack down on
anyone driving unnecessarily long distances to exercise.
And quite right too. There s no point in shutting down half the country
if you are going to tolerate Transgressions. Make compliance voluntary.
The law has no place in regulating voluntary activity You might just as
well allow the virus to run its course.
And yet just 24 hours ago, you insisted this was never going to happen.
"There is no logic which is why it won't and never has happened."
Rowing, the world’s biggest hypocrite has just been found out.And yet he
will carry on, in complete ignorance of his own laughing stock status.
Pamela
2020-03-27 18:43:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Ian Jackson
The obvious problem is that if someone decides to drive to a
normally totally remote spot to take a walk, they then find that
hundreds of others have decided to go there too. This morning, a
police spokesman said on LBC that "The Law is The Law" - and they
will crack down on anyone driving unnecessarily long distances to
exercise.
And quite right too. There s no point in shutting down half the
country if you are going to tolerate Transgressions. Make
compliance voluntary. The law has no place in regulating voluntary
activity You might just as well allow the virus to run its course.
And yet just 24 hours ago, you insisted this was never going to happen.
"There is no logic which is why it won't and never has happened."
Rowing, the world's biggest hypocrite has just been found out.And yet
he will carry on, in complete ignorance of his own laughing stock
status.
Perhaps Rowing will spin us his sob story again about being "forced" by
"criminals" to invest 6% of salary in return for a gold-plated inflation-
linked final-salary pension.
MM
2020-03-27 12:42:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 10:46:38 +0000, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Pamela
Post by Mark Devon
I mean, I get it that people going to remote places for a few days
holiday is frowned upon.....staying at campsites with others and all
that. But that's not what this is about. People having a day out in some
remote location are being responsible! Honestly, have the police got
nothing better to do in this time of national crisis than play with
drones and persecute people who are being more sensible than many
others? Pathetic.
If a family in a remore location keeps it itslef then there's no problem.
The problem seems to be transission between one family and another.
Whilst a family keeps isolated then transmission is restricted to it's own
members, but as soon as one member mixes outdoors with a member from another
family then the opportunities for transmission multiply.
The obvious problem is that if someone decides to drive to a normally
totally remote spot to take a walk, they then find that hundreds of
others have decided to go there too. This morning, a police spokesman
said on LBC that "The Law is The Law" - and they will crack down on
anyone driving unnecessarily long distances to exercise.
What's an "unnecessarily long" distance in order to find a remote spot
to walk one's dog.

Nope. It's the police being heavy-handed, as per usual.

MM
m***@btopenworld.com
2020-03-27 16:39:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 10:46:38 +0000, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
The obvious problem is that if someone decides to drive to a normally
totally remote spot to take a walk, they then find that hundreds of
others have decided to go there too. This morning, a police spokesman
said on LBC that "The Law is The Law" - and they will crack down on
anyone driving unnecessarily long distances to exercise.
What's an "unnecessarily long" distance in order to find a remote spot
to walk one's dog.
Nope. It's the police being heavy-handed, as per usual.
My experience of dogs (and I've had one or two of them) is that a walk is a walkies. You don't have to take a dog tens of miles or more from its home to exercise it. Once or twice round the block will usually suffice. Of course in normal times if you go out on a days jolly you may well take the dog with you but to him it's still a walkies.

That's what these were doing they were taking the opportunity for a day out and using the dog as an alibi. TV showed packed car parks up here in North Yorkshire, Peak District, Cumbria and coastal resorts. All of these people we were told should have been in their own homes or at work with or without their dogs.
Mark, Devon
2020-03-27 17:06:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
That's what these were doing they were taking the opportunity for a day out and using the dog as an alibi.>>
Alibi....like they're committing a crime! Even you must know that this issue of driving to take exercise is unclear. It's often been brought up on the media....it's perfectly reasonable for people to think they can do that, so long as they social distance etc. That's my first point. My second is that there are far more cases of people NOT social distancing in towns and cities than in the Lake District National Park......a jolly day out playing with drones for the police (probably two right next to each other is a van, by the way), that's what this was....pathetic. What a waste of money and time.
abelard
2020-03-27 17:11:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 10:06:18 -0700 (PDT), "Mark, Devon"
Post by Mark, Devon
That's what these were doing they were taking the opportunity for a day out and using the dog as an alibi.>>
Alibi....like they're committing a crime! Even you must know that this issue of driving to take exercise is unclear. It's often been brought up on the media....it's perfectly reasonable for people to think they can do that, so long as they social distance etc. That's my first point. My second is that there are far more cases of people NOT social distancing in towns and cities than in the Lake District National Park......a jolly day out playing with drones for the police (probably two right next to each other is a van, by the way), that's what this was....pathetic. What a waste of money and time.
practicing for spying on everybody

thin end of the wedge
--
www.abelard.org
Mark, Devon
2020-03-27 17:29:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
practicing for spying on everybody
thin end of the wedge>>
And where were the police anyway? Didn't see them going to have a chat with these 'culprits'? Probably stuck in the van, all together, with their sandwiches, thinking they're doing somethin' useful. They prolly drove their van(s), officers and drones all that way to play around for the day, and humiliate a few innocent members of the public in the process...pathetic.
Keema's Nan
2020-03-27 18:53:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark, Devon
Post by abelard
practicing for spying on everybody
thin end of the wedge>>
And where were the police anyway? Didn't see them going to have a chat with
these 'culprits'? Probably stuck in the van, all together, with their
sandwiches, thinking they're doing somethin' useful. They prolly drove their
van(s), officers and drones all that way to play around for the day, and
humiliate a few innocent members of the public in the process...pathetic.
My feeling is that the plod are suffering from a catastrophic drop in
motoring fines income.

They need the cash for the chief constable's free bar Christmas bash. So they
are out to fine everything that moves.
Mark, Devon
2020-03-27 21:07:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
That's what these were doing they were taking the opportunity for a day out and using the dog as an alibi. TV showed packed car parks up here in North Yorkshire, Peak District, Cumbria and coastal resorts. All of these people we were told should have been in their own homes or at work with or without their dogs.>>
I suppose you think BonZo has shown a responsible attitude to social distancing and handshakes?
Joe
2020-03-27 21:09:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 14:07:02 -0700 (PDT)
Post by Mark, Devon
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
That's what these were doing they were taking the opportunity for a
day out and using the dog as an alibi. TV showed packed car parks
up here in North Yorkshire, Peak District, Cumbria and coastal
resorts. All of these people we were told should have been in their
own homes or at work with or without their dogs.>>
I suppose you think BonZo has shown a responsible attitude to social
distancing and handshakes?
I don't suppose he had a choice. Politicians are such shifty oiks that
they need to talk to each other face-to-face to best estimate the lie
quotient.
--
Joe
Pamela
2020-03-27 23:49:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 14:07:02 -0700 (PDT)
Post by Mark, Devon
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
That's what these were doing they were taking the opportunity for a
day out and using the dog as an alibi. TV showed packed car parks
up here in North Yorkshire, Peak District, Cumbria and coastal
resorts. All of these people we were told should have been in their
own homes or at work with or without their dogs.>>
I suppose you think BonZo has shown a responsible attitude to social
distancing and handshakes?
I don't suppose he had a choice. Politicians are such shifty oiks that
they need to talk to each other face-to-face to best estimate the lie
quotient.
Maybe it was a close contact weird masonic handshake. :)
m***@btopenworld.com
2020-03-27 21:25:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark, Devon
That's what these were doing they were taking the opportunity for a day out and using the dog as an alibi. TV showed packed car parks up here in North Yorkshire, Peak District, Cumbria and coastal resorts. All of these people we were told should have been in their own homes or at work with or without their dogs.>>
I suppose you think BonZo has shown a responsible attitude to social distancing and handshakes?
I don't know why or how Boris became infected, neither do you and probably neither does he.

What I do know is that the very nature of his job will take him to a multitude of locations and into interactive contact with a lot of people. The same goes for Prince Charles. Likewise Matt Hancock. It's hardly surprising therefore that the became infected.
abelard
2020-03-27 22:24:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 14:07:02 -0700 (PDT), "Mark, Devon"
Post by Mark, Devon
That's what these were doing they were taking the opportunity for a day out and using the dog as an alibi. TV showed packed car parks up here in North Yorkshire, Peak District, Cumbria and coastal resorts. All of these people we were told should have been in their own homes or at work with or without their dogs.>>
I suppose you think BonZo has shown a responsible attitude to social distancing and handshakes?
he'll be at great advantage...he will have
a very low likelihood of getting it again
anytime soon

while those around remain on edge
--
www.abelard.org
Col
2020-03-28 04:13:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by MM
On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 10:46:38 +0000, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
The obvious problem is that if someone decides to drive to a normally
totally remote spot to take a walk, they then find that hundreds of
others have decided to go there too. This morning, a police spokesman
said on LBC that "The Law is The Law" - and they will crack down on
anyone driving unnecessarily long distances to exercise.
What's an "unnecessarily long" distance in order to find a remote spot
to walk one's dog.
Nope. It's the police being heavy-handed, as per usual.
My experience of dogs (and I've had one or two of them) is that a walk is a walkies. You don't have to take a dog tens of miles or more from its home to exercise it. Once or twice round the block will usually suffice. Of course in normal times if you go out on a days jolly you may well take the dog with you but to him it's still a walkies.
That's what these were doing they were taking the opportunity for a day out and using the dog as an alibi. TV showed packed car parks up here in North Yorkshire, Peak District, Cumbria and coastal resorts. All of these people we were told should have been in their own homes or at work with or without their dogs.
But the people in the Peak District walking their dog were in the middle
of nowhere, nobody else around.
Given that you are allowed out for exercise/dog walking, surely that is
better than a couple of laps around your local park, which is likely to
be significantly more crowded?
--
Col
Ian Jackson
2020-03-28 08:41:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Col
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by MM
On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 10:46:38 +0000, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
The obvious problem is that if someone decides to drive to a normally
totally remote spot to take a walk, they then find that hundreds of
others have decided to go there too. This morning, a police spokesman
said on LBC that "The Law is The Law" - and they will crack down on
anyone driving unnecessarily long distances to exercise.
What's an "unnecessarily long" distance in order to find a remote spot
to walk one's dog.
Nope. It's the police being heavy-handed, as per usual.
My experience of dogs (and I've had one or two of them) is that a
walk is a walkies. You don't have to take a dog tens of miles or more
from its home to exercise it. Once or twice round the block will
usually suffice. Of course in normal times if you go out on a days
jolly you may well take the dog with you but to him it's still a walkies.
That's what these were doing they were taking the opportunity for a
day out and using the dog as an alibi. TV showed packed car parks up
here in North Yorkshire, Peak District, Cumbria and coastal resorts.
All of these people we were told should have been in their own homes
or at work with or without their dogs.
But the people in the Peak District walking their dog were in the
middle of nowhere, nobody else around.
Given that you are allowed out for exercise/dog walking, surely that is
better than a couple of laps around your local park, which is likely to
be significantly more crowded?
One of the police justifications for not allowing you to drive to
remote, deserted places is that you might have an accident en route,
which could mean that others will be obliged to come into close - and
even intimate - contact with your possibly virus-ridden body.

A more-sensible reason might be "If we allow you to do it, then we'll
have to allow everyone else to do it - and then the deserted spot will
no longer be deserted".

I've heard that the RoI has passed a law which limits your travel to you
place of recreation to 2km.
--
Ian
Col
2020-03-28 09:59:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Col
But the people in the Peak District walking their dog were in the
middle of nowhere, nobody else around.
Given that you are allowed out for exercise/dog walking, surely that
is better than a couple of laps around your local park, which is
likely to be significantly more crowded?
One of the police justifications for not allowing you to drive to
remote, deserted places is that you might have an accident en route,
which could mean that others will be obliged to come into close - and
even intimate - contact with your possibly virus-ridden body.
A more-sensible reason might be "If we allow you to do it, then we'll
have to allow everyone else to do it - and then the deserted spot will
no longer be deserted".
There is enough open space out there for everyone, surely?
I know we saw crowded scenes in the sunshine last weekend which were
much criticised, but if people headed off for the less well known spots
perhaps and spaced themselves out?
Though of course as an individual it is impossible to know how how the
group as a whole will behave.
Post by Ian Jackson
I've heard that the RoI has passed a law which limits your travel to you
place of recreation to 2km.
So cram everybody in to their local parks & streets for their state
regulated exercise, rather than letting them disperse further afield?
Don't think that is a good idea.
--
Col
Pancho
2020-03-28 11:27:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Col
There is enough open space out there for everyone, surely?
I know we saw crowded scenes in the sunshine last weekend which were
much criticised, but if people headed off for the less well known spots
perhaps and spaced themselves out?
Though of course as an individual it is impossible to know how how the
group as a whole will behave.
Post by Ian Jackson
I've heard that the RoI has passed a law which limits your travel to
you place of recreation to 2km.
So cram everybody in to their local parks & streets for their state
regulated exercise, rather than letting them disperse further afield?
Don't think that is a good idea.
Yes. This has been confusing me. I have seen the police repeatedly go on
about how people aren't getting the "message". However, I'm at a loss to
know what the message is.
Pamela
2020-03-28 12:47:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Post by Col
There is enough open space out there for everyone, surely?
I know we saw crowded scenes in the sunshine last weekend which were
much criticised, but if people headed off for the less well known spots
perhaps and spaced themselves out?
Though of course as an individual it is impossible to know how how the
group as a whole will behave.
Post by Ian Jackson
I've heard that the RoI has passed a law which limits your travel to
you place of recreation to 2km.
So cram everybody in to their local parks & streets for their state
regulated exercise, rather than letting them disperse further afield?
Don't think that is a good idea.
Yes. This has been confusing me. I have seen the police repeatedly go on
about how people aren't getting the "message". However, I'm at a loss to
know what the message is.
Surely these people had passed enough open space for a bit of personal
exercise before getting to the Peak District.
Pancho
2020-03-28 13:03:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Surely these people had passed enough open space for a bit of personal
exercise before getting to the Peak District.
Sure, but what is the problem with driving in a car
Pamela
2020-03-28 13:40:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Post by Pamela
Surely these people had passed enough open space for a bit of personal
exercise before getting to the Peak District.
Sure, but what is the problem with driving in a car
From a personal point of view it seems sensible to drive to a distant
destination for exercise but from a public halth point of view, innumerable
others would feel justified in doing the same and the numbers there could get
uncontrollable.

Better prevent this in advance (which is the story of Covid) than later try
to chase people out of the countryside.
Col
2020-03-29 05:32:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Pancho
Post by Pamela
Surely these people had passed enough open space for a bit of personal
exercise before getting to the Peak District.
Sure, but what is the problem with driving in a car
From a personal point of view it seems sensible to drive to a distant
destination for exercise but from a public halth point of view, innumerable
others would feel justified in doing the same and the numbers there could get
uncontrollable.
Better prevent this in advance (which is the story of Covid) than later try
to chase people out of the countryside.
So chase them out of those wide open spaces and herd them back into
their local parks?

I don't see that it matters how you travel to your destination or how
far you travel, it's how responsibly you behave when you get there
that's important.
--
Col
Mark, Devon
2020-03-29 05:41:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Col
Post by Pamela
Post by Pancho
Post by Pamela
Surely these people had passed enough open space for a bit of personal
exercise before getting to the Peak District.
Sure, but what is the problem with driving in a car
From a personal point of view it seems sensible to drive to a distant
destination for exercise but from a public halth point of view, innumerable
others would feel justified in doing the same and the numbers there could get
uncontrollable.
Better prevent this in advance (which is the story of Covid) than later try
to chase people out of the countryside.
So chase them out of those wide open spaces and herd them back into
their local parks?
I don't see that it matters how you travel to your destination or how
far you travel, it's how responsibly you behave when you get there
that's important.>>
Absolutely. Also, as the police are obviously within metres of government ministers most of the time, they should obviously intervene when those ministers breach the 2m social distancing, with cautions/fines/arrests/public shaming etc.....so, police, do the job you're there for.
abelard
2020-03-27 13:03:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 10:46:38 +0000, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Pamela
Post by Mark Devon
I mean, I get it that people going to remote places for a few days
holiday is frowned upon.....staying at campsites with others and all
that. But that's not what this is about. People having a day out in some
remote location are being responsible! Honestly, have the police got
nothing better to do in this time of national crisis than play with
drones and persecute people who are being more sensible than many
others? Pathetic.
If a family in a remore location keeps it itslef then there's no problem.
The problem seems to be transission between one family and another.
Whilst a family keeps isolated then transmission is restricted to it's own
members, but as soon as one member mixes outdoors with a member from another
family then the opportunities for transmission multiply.
The obvious problem is that if someone decides to drive to a normally
totally remote spot to take a walk, they then find that hundreds of
others have decided to go there too. This morning, a police spokesman
said on LBC that "The Law is The Law" - and they will crack down on
anyone driving unnecessarily long distances to exercise.
it is my eternal practice to park up in the far beyond...
no-one else around...i habitually avoid the gregariarty!

i've asked my local flicks and they've told me that they
will cause me no strife for doing that
--
www.abelard.org
MM
2020-03-27 12:41:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Mark Devon
I mean, I get it that people going to remote places for a few days
holiday is frowned upon.....staying at campsites with others and all
that. But that's not what this is about. People having a day out in some
remote location are being responsible! Honestly, have the police got
nothing better to do in this time of national crisis than play with
drones and persecute people who are being more sensible than many
others? Pathetic.
If a family in a remore location keeps it itslef then there's no problem.
The problem seems to be transission between one family and another.
Whilst a family keeps isolated then transmission is restricted to it's own
members, but as soon as one member mixes outdoors with a member from another
family then the opportunities for transmission multiply.
The people I saw in the drone footage were isolated individuals in
ones and twos, the latter most likely being those they lived with
anyway.

MM
Ophelia
2020-03-27 21:32:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"Mark Devon" wrote in message news:7a688fd9-bee7-4594-8ad1-***@googlegroups.com...

I mean, I get it that people going to remote places for a few days holiday
is frowned upon.....staying at campsites with others and all that. But
that's not what this is about. People having a day out in some remote
location are being responsible! Honestly, have the police got nothing better
to do in this time of national crisis than play with drones and persecute
people who are being more sensible than many others? Pathetic.

===

Agreed!!
m***@btopenworld.com
2020-03-27 21:47:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Devon
I mean, I get it that people going to remote places for a few days holiday
is frowned upon.....staying at campsites with others and all that. But
that's not what this is about. People having a day out in some remote
location are being responsible! Honestly, have the police got nothing better
to do in this time of national crisis than play with drones and persecute
people who are being more sensible than many others? Pathetic.
===
Agreed!!
The police have lots of other things to do and that includes protecting the Queens peace. That means enforcing the laws that the Queen's Parliament has passed even the day before.

Persecution doesn't come into it. Do you wish H.M. constables to defy her Parliament? It is after all the only role so far that police have been *required* to play in this matter.
Joe
2020-03-28 08:16:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 14:47:41 -0700 (PDT)
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Mark Devon
I mean, I get it that people going to remote places for a few days
holiday is frowned upon.....staying at campsites with others and
all that. But that's not what this is about. People having a day
out in some remote location are being responsible! Honestly, have
the police got nothing better to do in this time of national crisis
than play with drones and persecute people who are being more
sensible than many others? Pathetic.
===
Agreed!!
The police have lots of other things to do and that includes
protecting the Queens peace. That means enforcing the laws that the
Queen's Parliament has passed even the day before.
Persecution doesn't come into it. Do you wish H.M. constables to defy
her Parliament? It is after all the only role so far that police have
been *required* to play in this matter.
The police give priority to the activities which place them in least
danger.
--
Joe
Maxwell Boltzmann
2020-03-28 08:35:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Mark Devon
I mean, I get it that people going to remote places for a few days holiday
is frowned upon.....staying at campsites with others and all that. But
that's not what this is about. People having a day out in some remote
location are being responsible! Honestly, have the police got nothing better
to do in this time of national crisis than play with drones and persecute
people who are being more sensible than many others? Pathetic.
The police have lots of other things to do and that includes protecting
the Queens peace. That means enforcing the laws that the Queen's
Parliament has passed even the day before.
But AFAICS the laws passed the day before do *not* state that you can't
drive to a remote sport to have your walk. Not The Health Protection
(Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, anyway.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/made
--
Max
m***@btopenworld.com
2020-03-28 11:43:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Maxwell Boltzmann
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Mark Devon
I mean, I get it that people going to remote places for a few days holiday
is frowned upon.....staying at campsites with others and all that. But
that's not what this is about. People having a day out in some remote
location are being responsible! Honestly, have the police got nothing better
to do in this time of national crisis than play with drones and persecute
people who are being more sensible than many others? Pathetic.
The police have lots of other things to do and that includes protecting
the Queens peace. That means enforcing the laws that the Queen's
Parliament has passed even the day before.
But AFAICS the laws passed the day before do *not* state that you can't
drive to a remote sport to have your walk. Not The Health Protection
(Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, anyway.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/made
Not specifically but Section 6(1):

"During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse."
Ian Jackson
2020-03-28 11:55:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Maxwell Boltzmann
But AFAICS the laws passed the day before do *not* state that you can't
drive to a remote sport to have your walk. Not The Health Protection
(Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, anyway.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/made
"During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they
are living without reasonable excuse."
It all depends whether driving (say) 50 miles to a place where there is
absolutely no chance whatsoever of meeting a single soul is considered a
'reasonable excuse'. As the police say, what happens if there's an
incident or accident en route, and this brings you into close contact
with other people. Also, what happens if you need to fill up with fuel?
This is bound to entail you handling the nozzle and trigger of the pump
- an obvious way of getting or passing on the infection.
--
Ian
Maxwell Boltzmann
2020-03-29 12:58:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Maxwell Boltzmann
But AFAICS the laws passed the day before do *not* state that you can't
drive to a remote sport to have your walk. Not The Health Protection
(Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, anyway.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/made
"During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they
are living without reasonable excuse."
It all depends whether driving (say) 50 miles to a place where there is
absolutely no chance whatsoever of meeting a single soul is considered
a 'reasonable excuse'.
You've been misled by Mel's disingenuous omission of the s.6(2) list of
exceptions to s.6(1). That list specifically includes as a 'reasonable
excuse' the need to take exercise. No mention of whether you choose to
drive to do this, or how far; just as there isn't with any of the eleven
other "reasonable excuses".
Post by Ian Jackson
As the police say, what happens if there's an incident or accident en
route, and this brings you into close contact with other people. Also,
what happens if you need to fill up with fuel? This is bound to entail
you handling the nozzle and trigger of the pump - an obvious way of
getting or passing on the infection.
These concerns are equally relevant to the eleven other reasonable
excuses, but nobody has suggested that they should be taken to apply to
them. No-one, for example, is suggesting that you can't go to your mum's
funeral if you have to drive there.

If parliament had wanted to restrict driving in this way it could have
done so when debating the SI. It didn't, and the government can't just
add ad hoc conditions to the legislation afterwards.

Of course it's possible to argue about what is and isn't "reasonable".
However, what we're arguing about on this sub-thread is specifically
what is and isn't forbidden by the law. That's what should concern the
police, who should be enforcing the law as it was made and not what they
wished it had been.

And this isn't only a matter for the people Mel calls "the awkward squad
who delight in playing up police officers". The more officious and
unnecessarily interfering the police are, the greater the risk that
ordinary people will openly disobey them, in some situations probably
leading to violent disorder.

I'd guess that some city areas must be getting close to civil
disobedience already, and it might take only one incident of police
officiousness or bullying to spark off a riot. And as we know, rioting
once begun can easily spread.
--
Max
Mark Devon
2020-03-29 13:10:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
So, can a window cleaner go to work?

Michael Gove spoke today, and quoting from the BBC...

"People were also told they should only leave the house for four reasons: shopping for basic necessities, exercise, any medical need and travelling to work if you cannot work from home."
Maxwell Boltzmann
2020-03-29 13:20:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Devon
So, can a window cleaner go to work?
According to the law, yes he can.
Post by Mark Devon
Michael Gove spoke today, and quoting from the BBC...
"People were also told they should only leave the house for four
reasons: shopping for basic necessities, exercise, any medical need and
travelling to work if you cannot work from home."
There are several others.
--
Max
Richmond
2020-03-29 15:24:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Maxwell Boltzmann
Post by Mark Devon
So, can a window cleaner go to work?
According to the law, yes he can.
Post by Mark Devon
Michael Gove spoke today, and quoting from the BBC...
shopping for basic necessities, exercise, any medical need and travelling to
work if you cannot work from home."
There are several others.
Paradoxically, although it is not acceptable (to the police) to drive to
the middle of nowhere, it is ok to stand outside a shop queuing with
other people, approximately 2 metres apart.
Roger
2020-03-29 20:38:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richmond
Post by Maxwell Boltzmann
Post by Mark Devon
So, can a window cleaner go to work?
According to the law, yes he can.
Post by Mark Devon
Michael Gove spoke today, and quoting from the BBC...
shopping for basic necessities, exercise, any medical need and travelling to
work if you cannot work from home."
There are several others.
Paradoxically, although it is not acceptable (to the police) to drive to
the middle of nowhere, it is ok to stand outside a shop queuing with
other people, approximately 2 metres apart.
Perhpas the problem was that last weekend there were millions of people simultaneously driving to the middle of nowhere ;-)
MM
2020-03-29 17:00:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 13:58:27 +0100, Maxwell Boltzmann
Post by Maxwell Boltzmann
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Maxwell Boltzmann
But AFAICS the laws passed the day before do *not* state that you can't
drive to a remote sport to have your walk. Not The Health Protection
(Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, anyway.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/made
"During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they
are living without reasonable excuse."
It all depends whether driving (say) 50 miles to a place where there is
absolutely no chance whatsoever of meeting a single soul is considered
a 'reasonable excuse'.
You've been misled by Mel's disingenuous omission of the s.6(2) list of
exceptions to s.6(1). That list specifically includes as a 'reasonable
excuse' the need to take exercise. No mention of whether you choose to
drive to do this, or how far; just as there isn't with any of the eleven
other "reasonable excuses".
Post by Ian Jackson
As the police say, what happens if there's an incident or accident en
route, and this brings you into close contact with other people. Also,
what happens if you need to fill up with fuel? This is bound to entail
you handling the nozzle and trigger of the pump - an obvious way of
getting or passing on the infection.
These concerns are equally relevant to the eleven other reasonable
excuses, but nobody has suggested that they should be taken to apply to
them. No-one, for example, is suggesting that you can't go to your mum's
funeral if you have to drive there.
If parliament had wanted to restrict driving in this way it could have
done so when debating the SI. It didn't, and the government can't just
add ad hoc conditions to the legislation afterwards.
Of course it's possible to argue about what is and isn't "reasonable".
However, what we're arguing about on this sub-thread is specifically
what is and isn't forbidden by the law. That's what should concern the
police, who should be enforcing the law as it was made and not what they
wished it had been.
And this isn't only a matter for the people Mel calls "the awkward squad
who delight in playing up police officers". The more officious and
unnecessarily interfering the police are, the greater the risk that
ordinary people will openly disobey them, in some situations probably
leading to violent disorder.
I'd guess that some city areas must be getting close to civil
disobedience already, and it might take only one incident of police
officiousness or bullying to spark off a riot. And as we know, rioting
once begun can easily spread.
The latter point is already happening in some parts of Italy as more
and more citizens suffer from cabin fever. But in Britain, too, there
has been a surge in the number of cases of people coughing or spitting
on to strangers, including the police.

As for the "reasonable excuses" list, what the Act does not appear to
say, though I haven't read every dot and comma, is what is classed as
"basic necessities". Different people have, natureally enough,
different ideas of what constitutes "basic" in this context and the
letter of the law seems very woolly here, perhaps deliberately so, in
order to give the police the power of "interpreting" the Act in
whatever way they choose, hence drones over Derbyshire.

MM
m***@btopenworld.com
2020-03-29 21:55:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Maxwell Boltzmann
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
"During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they
are living without reasonable excuse."
It all depends whether driving (say) 50 miles to a place where there is
absolutely no chance whatsoever of meeting a single soul is considered
a 'reasonable excuse'.
You've been misled by Mel's disingenuous omission of the s.6(2) list of
exceptions to s.6(1). That list specifically includes as a 'reasonable
excuse' the need to take exercise. No mention of whether you choose to
drive to do this, or how far; just as there isn't with any of the eleven
other "reasonable excuses".
Hold hard!

You quote the word 'reasonable'a word that crops up often in legal argument. What 'reasonable excuse' is *not* intended to do is provide a get out clause to enable someone to do something that the law proscribes.

Reasonableness in law involves an element of judgement. In this context the primary purpose of the action is to exercise a dog nothing more nor less. In law one should ask how would a normal Clapham omnibus type man (or woman) would interpret exercising a dog? He would probably accept something like walking along the High Street as far as the post box and back. However in this case he would be expected to accept a journey miles out into the countryside as being necessary for such an operation. I would suggest that any arbiter who said that is wasn't would be acting in a reasonable manner.

Exceptions as opposed to excuses, involve surely an element of extenuating circumstance. I have in mind, merely as an example the proprietor of a commercial dog kennels returning a dog to its rightful owner who lived some distance away. If, on the way, he pulled up and took the dog for a short walk, perhaps to avoid an 'accident' in the car then the same arbiter as before would regard such action as reasonable. I would argue that it is circumstances such as this that the *exceptions* listed in 6(2) are intended to accommodate.

There can never be an exhaustive list of such exceptions whereas the term 'reasonable excuse does have its limitations.
Maxwell Boltzmann
2020-03-30 15:46:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Maxwell Boltzmann
You've been misled by Mel's disingenuous omission of the s.6(2) list of
exceptions to s.6(1). That list specifically includes as a 'reasonable
excuse' the need to take exercise. No mention of whether you choose to
drive to do this, or how far; just as there isn't with any of the eleven
other "reasonable excuses".
Hold hard!
You quote the word 'reasonable'a word that crops up often in legal
argument. What 'reasonable excuse' is *not* intended to do is provide a
get out clause to enable someone to do something that the law proscribes.
The above sentence, and everything you write below, is invalidated by
the fact that the s.6(2) list specifically states that the need to take
exercise is a 'reasonable excuse' for leaving your home. No
qualifications are stated, no judgements needed. No definitions of
'reasonable', no Clapham omnibus, no primary purposes, no lengths of
journeys, no arbiters, no extenuating circumstances. The law simply says
that if you need to take exercise, then you are justified in leaving
your home.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Reasonableness in law involves an element of judgement. In this context
the primary purpose of the action is to exercise a dog nothing more nor
less. In law one should ask how would a normal Clapham omnibus type man
(or woman) would interpret exercising a dog? He would probably accept
something like walking along the High Street as far as the post box and
back. However in this case he would be expected to accept a journey
miles out into the countryside as being necessary for such an
operation. I would suggest that any arbiter who said that is wasn't
would be acting in a reasonable manner.
Exceptions as opposed to excuses, involve surely an element of
extenuating circumstance. I have in mind, merely as an example the
proprietor of a commercial dog kennels returning a dog to its rightful
owner who lived some distance away. If, on the way, he pulled up and
took the dog for a short walk, perhaps to avoid an 'accident' in the
car then the same arbiter as before would regard such action as
reasonable. I would argue that it is circumstances such as this that
the *exceptions* listed in 6(2) are intended to accommodate.
There can never be an exhaustive list of such exceptions whereas the
term 'reasonable excuse does have its limitations.
--
Max
m***@btopenworld.com
2020-03-30 21:43:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Maxwell Boltzmann
The above sentence, and everything you write below, is invalidated by
the fact that the s.6(2) list specifically states that the need to take
exercise is a 'reasonable excuse' for leaving your home. No
qualifications are stated, no judgements needed. No definitions of
'reasonable', no Clapham omnibus, no primary purposes, no lengths of
journeys, no arbiters, no extenuating circumstances. The law simply says
that if you need to take exercise, then you are justified in leaving
your home.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Reasonableness in law involves an element of judgement. In this context
the primary purpose of the action is to exercise a dog nothing more nor
less. In law one should ask how would a normal Clapham omnibus type man
(or woman) would interpret exercising a dog? He would probably accept
something like walking along the High Street as far as the post box and
back. However in this case he would be expected to accept a journey
miles out into the countryside as being necessary for such an
operation. I would suggest that any arbiter who said that is wasn't
would be acting in a reasonable manner.
Exceptions as opposed to excuses, involve surely an element of
extenuating circumstance. I have in mind, merely as an example the
proprietor of a commercial dog kennels returning a dog to its rightful
owner who lived some distance away. If, on the way, he pulled up and
took the dog for a short walk, perhaps to avoid an 'accident' in the
car then the same arbiter as before would regard such action as
reasonable. I would argue that it is circumstances such as this that
the *exceptions* listed in 6(2) are intended to accommodate.
There can never be an exhaustive list of such exceptions whereas the
term 'reasonable excuse does have its limitations.
In that case does 6(2) include along with these other exceptions exercising a dog or is a dog a member of the household? When Parliament enacted this legislation was it its intent that dogs should be driven miles into the countryside to be exercised?
Farmer Giles
2020-03-30 21:56:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Maxwell Boltzmann
The above sentence, and everything you write below, is invalidated by
the fact that the s.6(2) list specifically states that the need to take
exercise is a 'reasonable excuse' for leaving your home. No
qualifications are stated, no judgements needed. No definitions of
'reasonable', no Clapham omnibus, no primary purposes, no lengths of
journeys, no arbiters, no extenuating circumstances. The law simply says
that if you need to take exercise, then you are justified in leaving
your home.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Reasonableness in law involves an element of judgement. In this context
the primary purpose of the action is to exercise a dog nothing more nor
less. In law one should ask how would a normal Clapham omnibus type man
(or woman) would interpret exercising a dog? He would probably accept
something like walking along the High Street as far as the post box and
back. However in this case he would be expected to accept a journey
miles out into the countryside as being necessary for such an
operation. I would suggest that any arbiter who said that is wasn't
would be acting in a reasonable manner.
Exceptions as opposed to excuses, involve surely an element of
extenuating circumstance. I have in mind, merely as an example the
proprietor of a commercial dog kennels returning a dog to its rightful
owner who lived some distance away. If, on the way, he pulled up and
took the dog for a short walk, perhaps to avoid an 'accident' in the
car then the same arbiter as before would regard such action as
reasonable. I would argue that it is circumstances such as this that
the *exceptions* listed in 6(2) are intended to accommodate.
There can never be an exhaustive list of such exceptions whereas the
term 'reasonable excuse does have its limitations.
In that case does 6(2) include along with these other exceptions exercising a dog or is a dog a member of the household? When Parliament enacted this legislation was it its intent that dogs should be driven miles into the countryside to be exercised?
Oh gawd, what an idiot. This stupid Government of ours is still allowing
flights in from every corner of the diseased world, and this clown is
getting worked up about people walking a dog in the Peak District.
Keema's Nan
2020-03-31 09:04:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Maxwell Boltzmann
The above sentence, and everything you write below, is invalidated by
the fact that the s.6(2) list specifically states that the need to take
exercise is a 'reasonable excuse' for leaving your home. No
qualifications are stated, no judgements needed. No definitions of
'reasonable', no Clapham omnibus, no primary purposes, no lengths of
journeys, no arbiters, no extenuating circumstances. The law simply says
that if you need to take exercise, then you are justified in leaving
your home.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Reasonableness in law involves an element of judgement. In this context
the primary purpose of the action is to exercise a dog nothing more nor
less. In law one should ask how would a normal Clapham omnibus type man
(or woman) would interpret exercising a dog? He would probably accept
something like walking along the High Street as far as the post box and
back. However in this case he would be expected to accept a journey
miles out into the countryside as being necessary for such an
operation. I would suggest that any arbiter who said that is wasn't
would be acting in a reasonable manner.
Exceptions as opposed to excuses, involve surely an element of
extenuating circumstance. I have in mind, merely as an example the
proprietor of a commercial dog kennels returning a dog to its rightful
owner who lived some distance away. If, on the way, he pulled up and
took the dog for a short walk, perhaps to avoid an 'accident' in the
car then the same arbiter as before would regard such action as
reasonable. I would argue that it is circumstances such as this that
the *exceptions* listed in 6(2) are intended to accommodate.
There can never be an exhaustive list of such exceptions whereas the
term 'reasonable excuse does have its limitations.
In that case does 6(2) include along with these other exceptions exercising
a dog or is a dog a member of the household? When Parliament enacted this
legislation was it its intent that dogs should be driven miles into the
countryside to be exercised?
Oh gawd, what an idiot. This stupid Government of ours is still allowing
flights in from every corner of the diseased world, and this clown is
getting worked up about people walking a dog in the Peak District.
That is because the Derbyshire police are getting worked up about people
walking a dog in the Peak District.

Rowing is a fawning police state supporter. He sees it as a way of getting
his narrow minded fascist views onto the statute book by the back door. What
he would really love is his own private security force, who would clear a
path for him by beating up anyone who was in the way.
m***@btopenworld.com
2020-03-31 09:11:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Maxwell Boltzmann
The above sentence, and everything you write below, is invalidated by
the fact that the s.6(2) list specifically states that the need to take
exercise is a 'reasonable excuse' for leaving your home. No
qualifications are stated, no judgements needed. No definitions of
'reasonable', no Clapham omnibus, no primary purposes, no lengths of
journeys, no arbiters, no extenuating circumstances. The law simply says
that if you need to take exercise, then you are justified in leaving
your home.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Reasonableness in law involves an element of judgement. In this context
the primary purpose of the action is to exercise a dog nothing more nor
less. In law one should ask how would a normal Clapham omnibus type man
(or woman) would interpret exercising a dog? He would probably accept
something like walking along the High Street as far as the post box and
back. However in this case he would be expected to accept a journey
miles out into the countryside as being necessary for such an
operation. I would suggest that any arbiter who said that is wasn't
would be acting in a reasonable manner.
Exceptions as opposed to excuses, involve surely an element of
extenuating circumstance. I have in mind, merely as an example the
proprietor of a commercial dog kennels returning a dog to its rightful
owner who lived some distance away. If, on the way, he pulled up and
took the dog for a short walk, perhaps to avoid an 'accident' in the
car then the same arbiter as before would regard such action as
reasonable. I would argue that it is circumstances such as this that
the *exceptions* listed in 6(2) are intended to accommodate.
There can never be an exhaustive list of such exceptions whereas the
term 'reasonable excuse does have its limitations.
In that case does 6(2) include along with these other exceptions exercising a dog or is a dog a member of the household? When Parliament enacted this legislation was it its intent that dogs should be driven miles into the countryside to be exercised?
Oh gawd, what an idiot. This stupid Government of ours is still allowing
flights in from every corner of the diseased world, and this clown is
getting worked up about people walking a dog in the Peak District.
I'm not getting excited about anything. I don't!

I was just providing an answer to a point of law raised by comeone else.

According to this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52098430

Passenger air traffic is 95% down.

Those aircraft are will flying are essentially cargo carriers and government charted flights carrying UK passport holders left stranded abroad by the crisis. The FO is under legal obligation to help any UK passport holder under these circumstances. No Border agent can prevent the bearer of a UK passport allowing residential rights from entering the UK.

I would presume that internal flights are flying normally.

If you really want to know how many commercial aircraft are flying just look into the sky. I haven't seen one in yonks and I live right under an international air lane. Alternatively look at the TV news and all those aircraft standing parked on airports

Why are they there and not in the sky earning money for their operators?

You ae one of those who should be socially isolated. Permanently!
Keema's Nan
2020-03-31 09:18:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Maxwell Boltzmann
The above sentence, and everything you write below, is invalidated by
the fact that the s.6(2) list specifically states that the need to take
exercise is a 'reasonable excuse' for leaving your home. No
qualifications are stated, no judgements needed. No definitions of
'reasonable', no Clapham omnibus, no primary purposes, no lengths of
journeys, no arbiters, no extenuating circumstances. The law simply says
that if you need to take exercise, then you are justified in leaving
your home.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Reasonableness in law involves an element of judgement. In this context
the primary purpose of the action is to exercise a dog nothing more nor
less. In law one should ask how would a normal Clapham omnibus type man
(or woman) would interpret exercising a dog? He would probably accept
something like walking along the High Street as far as the post box and
back. However in this case he would be expected to accept a journey
miles out into the countryside as being necessary for such an
operation. I would suggest that any arbiter who said that is wasn't
would be acting in a reasonable manner.
Exceptions as opposed to excuses, involve surely an element of
extenuating circumstance. I have in mind, merely as an example the
proprietor of a commercial dog kennels returning a dog to its rightful
owner who lived some distance away. If, on the way, he pulled up and
took the dog for a short walk, perhaps to avoid an 'accident' in the
car then the same arbiter as before would regard such action as
reasonable. I would argue that it is circumstances such as this that
the *exceptions* listed in 6(2) are intended to accommodate.
There can never be an exhaustive list of such exceptions whereas the
term 'reasonable excuse does have its limitations.
In that case does 6(2) include along with these other exceptions
exercising a dog or is a dog a member of the household? When Parliament
enacted this legislation was it its intent that dogs should be driven
miles into the countryside to be exercised?
Oh gawd, what an idiot. This stupid Government of ours is still allowing
flights in from every corner of the diseased world, and this clown is
getting worked up about people walking a dog in the Peak District.
I'm not getting excited about anything. I don't!
I was just providing an answer to a point of law raised by comeone else.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52098430
Passenger air traffic is 95% down.
Those aircraft are will flying are essentially cargo carriers and government
charted flights carrying UK passport holders left stranded abroad by the
crisis. The FO is under legal obligation to help any UK passport holder under
these circumstances. No Border agent can prevent the bearer of a UK passport
allowing residential rights from entering the UK.
I would presume that internal flights are flying normally.
If you really want to know how many commercial aircraft are flying just look
into the sky.
Or better still - look at
https://www.flightradar24.com/multiview/54.39,-1.55/9
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
I haven't seen one in yonks and I live right under an
international air lane. Alternatively look at the TV news and all those
aircraft standing parked on airports
Why are they there and not in the sky earning money for their operators?
You ae one of those who should be socially isolated. Permanently!
Farmer Giles
2020-03-31 09:49:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Maxwell Boltzmann
The above sentence, and everything you write below, is invalidated by
the fact that the s.6(2) list specifically states that the need to take
exercise is a 'reasonable excuse' for leaving your home. No
qualifications are stated, no judgements needed. No definitions of
'reasonable', no Clapham omnibus, no primary purposes, no lengths of
journeys, no arbiters, no extenuating circumstances. The law simply says
that if you need to take exercise, then you are justified in leaving
your home.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Reasonableness in law involves an element of judgement. In this context
the primary purpose of the action is to exercise a dog nothing more nor
less. In law one should ask how would a normal Clapham omnibus type man
(or woman) would interpret exercising a dog? He would probably accept
something like walking along the High Street as far as the post box and
back. However in this case he would be expected to accept a journey
miles out into the countryside as being necessary for such an
operation. I would suggest that any arbiter who said that is wasn't
would be acting in a reasonable manner.
Exceptions as opposed to excuses, involve surely an element of
extenuating circumstance. I have in mind, merely as an example the
proprietor of a commercial dog kennels returning a dog to its rightful
owner who lived some distance away. If, on the way, he pulled up and
took the dog for a short walk, perhaps to avoid an 'accident' in the
car then the same arbiter as before would regard such action as
reasonable. I would argue that it is circumstances such as this that
the *exceptions* listed in 6(2) are intended to accommodate.
There can never be an exhaustive list of such exceptions whereas the
term 'reasonable excuse does have its limitations.
In that case does 6(2) include along with these other exceptions exercising a dog or is a dog a member of the household? When Parliament enacted this legislation was it its intent that dogs should be driven miles into the countryside to be exercised?
Oh gawd, what an idiot. This stupid Government of ours is still allowing
flights in from every corner of the diseased world, and this clown is
getting worked up about people walking a dog in the Peak District.
I'm not getting excited about anything. I don't!
I was just providing an answer to a point of law raised by comeone else.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52098430
Passenger air traffic is 95% down.
Those aircraft are will flying are essentially cargo carriers and government charted flights carrying UK passport holders left stranded abroad by the crisis. The FO is under legal obligation to help any UK passport holder under these circumstances. No Border agent can prevent the bearer of a UK passport allowing residential rights from entering the UK.
I would presume that internal flights are flying normally.
If you really want to know how many commercial aircraft are flying just look into the sky. I haven't seen one in yonks and I live right under an international air lane. Alternatively look at the TV news and all those aircraft standing parked on airports
Why are they there and not in the sky earning money for their operators?
You ae one of those who should be socially isolated. Permanently!
You are a nutter.

Get some facts:

Twenty flights a day coming in from New York.

Planes coming in from Italy.

Planes coming in from Tehran.

Planes even coming in from China.

And no-one being tested who gets off them.

Meanwhile the police harass people going for a walk in the Peak
District. Stalk people with drones and put indelible dye in lakes to
stop anyone from going near them. And you support them doing it. You are
a madman, no mistake.
Keema's Nan
2020-03-31 10:43:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Maxwell Boltzmann
The above sentence, and everything you write below, is invalidated by
the fact that the s.6(2) list specifically states that the need to take
exercise is a 'reasonable excuse' for leaving your home. No
qualifications are stated, no judgements needed. No definitions of
'reasonable', no Clapham omnibus, no primary purposes, no lengths of
journeys, no arbiters, no extenuating circumstances. The law simply says
that if you need to take exercise, then you are justified in leaving
your home.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Reasonableness in law involves an element of judgement. In this context
the primary purpose of the action is to exercise a dog nothing more nor
less. In law one should ask how would a normal Clapham omnibus type man
(or woman) would interpret exercising a dog? He would probably accept
something like walking along the High Street as far as the post box and
back. However in this case he would be expected to accept a journey
miles out into the countryside as being necessary for such an
operation. I would suggest that any arbiter who said that is wasn't
would be acting in a reasonable manner.
Exceptions as opposed to excuses, involve surely an element of
extenuating circumstance. I have in mind, merely as an example the
proprietor of a commercial dog kennels returning a dog to its rightful
owner who lived some distance away. If, on the way, he pulled up and
took the dog for a short walk, perhaps to avoid an 'accident' in the
car then the same arbiter as before would regard such action as
reasonable. I would argue that it is circumstances such as this that
the *exceptions* listed in 6(2) are intended to accommodate.
There can never be an exhaustive list of such exceptions whereas the
term 'reasonable excuse does have its limitations.
In that case does 6(2) include along with these other exceptions
exercising a dog or is a dog a member of the household? When Parliament
enacted this legislation was it its intent that dogs should be driven
miles into the countryside to be exercised?
Oh gawd, what an idiot. This stupid Government of ours is still allowing
flights in from every corner of the diseased world, and this clown is
getting worked up about people walking a dog in the Peak District.
I'm not getting excited about anything. I don't!
I was just providing an answer to a point of law raised by comeone else.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52098430
Passenger air traffic is 95% down.
Those aircraft are will flying are essentially cargo carriers and
government charted flights carrying UK passport holders left stranded
abroad by the crisis. The FO is under legal obligation to help any UK
passport holder under these circumstances. No Border agent can prevent the
bearer of a UK passport allowing residential rights from entering the UK.
I would presume that internal flights are flying normally.
If you really want to know how many commercial aircraft are flying just
look into the sky. I haven't seen one in yonks and I live right under an
international air lane. Alternatively look at the TV news and all those
aircraft standing parked on airports
Why are they there and not in the sky earning money for their operators?
You ae one of those who should be socially isolated. Permanently!
You are a nutter.
Twenty flights a day coming in from New York.
Planes coming in from Italy.
Planes coming in from Tehran.
Planes even coming in from China.
And no-one being tested who gets off them.
Meanwhile the police harass people going for a walk in the Peak
District. Stalk people with drones and put indelible dye in lakes to
stop anyone from going near them. And you support them doing it. You are
a madman, no mistake.
Not only that, but there are a number of jet flights which show flight
details as “blocked”. The only way to find out where their destination
might be is to track them continuously.

It would appear that everyone is in lockdown, apart from those rich enough to
afford a private jet but want no one to know where they are going.
Keema's Nan
2020-03-31 10:55:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Maxwell Boltzmann
The above sentence, and everything you write below, is invalidated by
the fact that the s.6(2) list specifically states that the need to take
exercise is a 'reasonable excuse' for leaving your home. No
qualifications are stated, no judgements needed. No definitions of
'reasonable', no Clapham omnibus, no primary purposes, no lengths of
journeys, no arbiters, no extenuating circumstances. The law simply says
that if you need to take exercise, then you are justified in leaving
your home.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Reasonableness in law involves an element of judgement. In this context
the primary purpose of the action is to exercise a dog nothing more nor
less. In law one should ask how would a normal Clapham omnibus type man
(or woman) would interpret exercising a dog? He would probably accept
something like walking along the High Street as far as the post box and
back. However in this case he would be expected to accept a journey
miles out into the countryside as being necessary for such an
operation. I would suggest that any arbiter who said that is wasn't
would be acting in a reasonable manner.
Exceptions as opposed to excuses, involve surely an element of
extenuating circumstance. I have in mind, merely as an example the
proprietor of a commercial dog kennels returning a dog to its rightful
owner who lived some distance away. If, on the way, he pulled up and
took the dog for a short walk, perhaps to avoid an 'accident' in the
car then the same arbiter as before would regard such action as
reasonable. I would argue that it is circumstances such as this that
the *exceptions* listed in 6(2) are intended to accommodate.
There can never be an exhaustive list of such exceptions whereas the
term 'reasonable excuse does have its limitations.
In that case does 6(2) include along with these other exceptions
exercising a dog or is a dog a member of the household? When Parliament
enacted this legislation was it its intent that dogs should be driven
miles into the countryside to be exercised?
Oh gawd, what an idiot. This stupid Government of ours is still allowing
flights in from every corner of the diseased world, and this clown is
getting worked up about people walking a dog in the Peak District.
I'm not getting excited about anything. I don't!
I was just providing an answer to a point of law raised by comeone else.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52098430
Passenger air traffic is 95% down.
Those aircraft are will flying are essentially cargo carriers and
government charted flights carrying UK passport holders left stranded
abroad by the crisis. The FO is under legal obligation to help any UK
passport holder under these circumstances. No Border agent can prevent the
bearer of a UK passport allowing residential rights from entering the UK.
I would presume that internal flights are flying normally.
If you really want to know how many commercial aircraft are flying just
look into the sky. I haven't seen one in yonks and I live right under an
international air lane. Alternatively look at the TV news and all those
aircraft standing parked on airports
Why are they there and not in the sky earning money for their operators?
You ae one of those who should be socially isolated. Permanently!
You are a nutter.
Twenty flights a day coming in from New York.
A BA flight has just left Heathrow for LA (1150 this morning)

Who the f*** is on that? Harry and Meghan?
Post by Farmer Giles
Planes coming in from Italy.
Planes coming in from Tehran.
Planes even coming in from China.
And no-one being tested who gets off them.
Meanwhile the police harass people going for a walk in the Peak
District. Stalk people with drones and put indelible dye in lakes to
stop anyone from going near them. And you support them doing it. You are
a madman, no mistake.
Farmer Giles
2020-03-31 11:56:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Maxwell Boltzmann
The above sentence, and everything you write below, is invalidated by
the fact that the s.6(2) list specifically states that the need to take
exercise is a 'reasonable excuse' for leaving your home. No
qualifications are stated, no judgements needed. No definitions of
'reasonable', no Clapham omnibus, no primary purposes, no lengths of
journeys, no arbiters, no extenuating circumstances. The law simply says
that if you need to take exercise, then you are justified in leaving
your home.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Reasonableness in law involves an element of judgement. In this context
the primary purpose of the action is to exercise a dog nothing more nor
less. In law one should ask how would a normal Clapham omnibus type man
(or woman) would interpret exercising a dog? He would probably accept
something like walking along the High Street as far as the post box and
back. However in this case he would be expected to accept a journey
miles out into the countryside as being necessary for such an
operation. I would suggest that any arbiter who said that is wasn't
would be acting in a reasonable manner.
Exceptions as opposed to excuses, involve surely an element of
extenuating circumstance. I have in mind, merely as an example the
proprietor of a commercial dog kennels returning a dog to its rightful
owner who lived some distance away. If, on the way, he pulled up and
took the dog for a short walk, perhaps to avoid an 'accident' in the
car then the same arbiter as before would regard such action as
reasonable. I would argue that it is circumstances such as this that
the *exceptions* listed in 6(2) are intended to accommodate.
There can never be an exhaustive list of such exceptions whereas the
term 'reasonable excuse does have its limitations.
In that case does 6(2) include along with these other exceptions
exercising a dog or is a dog a member of the household? When Parliament
enacted this legislation was it its intent that dogs should be driven
miles into the countryside to be exercised?
Oh gawd, what an idiot. This stupid Government of ours is still allowing
flights in from every corner of the diseased world, and this clown is
getting worked up about people walking a dog in the Peak District.
I'm not getting excited about anything. I don't!
I was just providing an answer to a point of law raised by comeone else.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52098430
Passenger air traffic is 95% down.
Those aircraft are will flying are essentially cargo carriers and
government charted flights carrying UK passport holders left stranded
abroad by the crisis. The FO is under legal obligation to help any UK
passport holder under these circumstances. No Border agent can prevent the
bearer of a UK passport allowing residential rights from entering the UK.
I would presume that internal flights are flying normally.
If you really want to know how many commercial aircraft are flying just
look into the sky. I haven't seen one in yonks and I live right under an
international air lane. Alternatively look at the TV news and all those
aircraft standing parked on airports
Why are they there and not in the sky earning money for their operators?
You ae one of those who should be socially isolated. Permanently!
You are a nutter.
Twenty flights a day coming in from New York.
A BA flight has just left Heathrow for LA (1150 this morning)
Who the f*** is on that? Harry and Meghan?
Well I don't object to those two flying out to LA, just as long as they
don't come back.

Mark, Devon
2020-03-31 10:02:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I'm not getting excited about anything. I don't!>>
LOL, oh you are!

Had it been a government in power instead of your beloved Tories, and doing the same thing, you'd soon be singing a different tune. LOL
Mark, Devon
2020-03-31 06:37:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<<In that case does 6(2) include along with these other exceptions exercising a dog or is a dog a member of the household? When Parliament enacted this legislation was it its intent that dogs should be driven miles into the countryside to be exercised?>>

Yes....so, a retired doctor took his wife and dog into the countryside. A man who's Mum suffers with depression thought to cheer her up he'd send her a photo on Instagram, from a beautiful location and on a beautiful day.

And the Derdyshire police persecuted these innocent law-abiding and socially conscious individuals, with lazy and arrogant policing playing around with a drone all afternoon, while sitting right next to each other in their van, arguing about who can have a try with the remote. And you support such lazy persecution of the innocent.

This action is an embarrassment to every police officer up and down the country. It does absolutely nothing to contain the spread of COVID-19. Their time would be far better spent in cities and towns, where thre real infringements of social distancing occur. But you, clearly knowing absolutely nothing of effective policing, support this pathetic attempt by a few idiots of Derbyshire police.
Mark, Devon
2020-03-28 10:16:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The police have lots of other things to do and that includes protecting the Queens peace. That means enforcing the laws that the Queen's Parliament has passed even the day before.>>
Your time issues are highly questionable, as you and the police make things up as you go along. One thing that has been the case though for longer than a week is the need to be apart by at least two metres. Everyone knows this. I expect the vigilant police to step in immediately now if they witness any government minister failing to adhere to this.....the police are always present whenever a minister is around....so should be very quickly on the scene. No excuses.
Persecution doesn't come into it. Do you wish H.M. constables to defy her Parliament? It is after all the only role so far that police have been *required* to play in this matter.>>
Persecuting innocent law-abiding responsible citizens, that is what this was. While not stepping in to question government ministers, including the PM, when they breach the 2metre 'rule'.....pathetic, and the fact that you defend the people who really, openly and flagrantly breach the rules is also pathetic, but typical and predictable.....especially if they're Tories.
MM
2020-03-27 12:35:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 11:24:51 -0700 (PDT), "Mark, Devon"
Post by Mark, Devon
So, what do people reckon to the police clamping down on people who are doing activities remotely? Such as going out of the way for an Instagram snap. Walking the dog etc. Where the people are well away from anyone else.
I reckon it's amazing just how quickly we're descending into a police
state after watching the drone controllers warning isolated people in
the Peak District. Give the police an ounce of extra laws and they'll
take it to extremes, as per usual.

I saw a picture of North Yorkshire police directing motorists to a
roadside check and the bullneck in charge (view from the rear only)
looked every inch as belligerent as they come. Papiere bitte?

I wonder when we'll see the first innocent dog walker tasered?

Other forces are behaving more reasonably.

What we need is another clapathon at 9 pm to Thank Plod.

MM
Richmond
2020-03-27 18:00:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
From what I have read, the issue is not the social distancing, but the
fact that in an unecessary journey to a remote place, there is
opportunity for things to go wrong, i.e. there might be a breakdown, car
accident, or some accident while walking, and then the emergency
services will be called out. Probably what we should be considering is
that there won't be any ambulances, paramedics etc, they will all be
pre-occupied. There may be a limit on emergency services of all types,
due to staff sickness etc.
abelard
2020-03-27 18:11:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richmond
From what I have read, the issue is not the social distancing, but the
fact that in an unecessary journey to a remote place, there is
opportunity for things to go wrong, i.e. there might be a breakdown, car
accident, or some accident while walking, and then the emergency
services will be called out. Probably what we should be considering is
that there won't be any ambulances, paramedics etc, they will all be
pre-occupied. There may be a limit on emergency services of all types,
due to staff sickness etc.
a germane response...mark, what is your response colonel?
--
www.abelard.org
Mark, Devon
2020-03-27 20:22:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richmond
From what I have read, the issue is not the social distancing, but the
fact that in an unecessary journey to a remote place, there is
opportunity for things to go wrong, i.e. there might be a breakdown, car
accident, or some accident while walking, and then the emergency
services will be called out. Probably what we should be considering is
that there won't be any ambulances, paramedics etc, they will all be
pre-occupied. There may be a limit on emergency services of all types,
due to staff sickness etc.>>
I remember many years ago I was sent on a First Aid course....a pretty mundane subject in many ways, and not necessarily 'gripping'.....half way through I chatted with the Instructor, and he said that when he saw people sort of losing interest and nodding off, he reminded them of the fact that most accidents occur....yes, you guessed it....at home. That woke people up.

Car break downs....yeh, they happen....but the vehicle rescue services are still operating! They're hardly gonna be busy! As an aside in all this, crime has gone down apparently, leaving some police plenty of time to have a play with their drones.

So....more accidents at home, greater chance of NOT social distancing in towns/cities. Even the pictures of the vehicles.....lots of space between them....pathetic.
Mark, Devon
2020-03-27 21:10:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8160807/Scores-people-flout-coronavirus-lockdown-stripping-sunbathe-sea.html
Mark, Devon
2020-03-28 10:23:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
This sort of police laziness means that now if people witness any police officers driving in their vans, two in the front, or walking/standing close together, or approaching people and invading their 2 meter space etc. the public may video it, and post it all over social media.

And if that is so, then the police only have themselves to blame.
Farmer Giles
2020-03-28 11:00:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark, Devon
This sort of police laziness means that now if people witness any police officers driving in their vans, two in the front, or walking/standing close together, or approaching people and invading their 2 meter space etc. the public may video it, and post it all over social media.
And if that is so, then the police only have themselves to blame.
It pains me to say it, because I've always supported them, but the
police are now the enemies of the people.
Mark, Devon
2020-03-29 13:56:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
And, or course, Farage breaks the 'going-out' rules, supposedly. (not that it sounds to me that it's an issue, by the way....so long as he observes the 2 metres).
Mark, Devon
2020-03-30 20:55:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Lord Sumption on Derbyshire force.

“The behaviour of the Derbyshire police in trying to shame people in using their undoubted right to take exercise in the country and wrecking beauty spots in the fells so people don’t want to go there is frankly disgraceful,”
Loading...