[Cardinal Sin]

Here’s how the anglers managed to persuade the government that standing or sitting by a lake is exercise. https://linesonthewater.anglingtrust.ne ... got-there/

[Cessna571]

The reason they were able to go for a walk on their own at a beauty spot, was because everyone else was following the guidance, rather than being selfish.

Then 2 selfish brats pop up, say “it’s only guidance” and go and enjoy the empty outdoors, because everyone else is following the spirit of the guidance.

What would be selfish would be going somewhere to exercise, finding a crowd, and not leaving immediately.

I find it very hard to accept that somebody finding some empty space is selfish. It's entirely within the spirit of the rules and the guidance to find somewhere to exercise that is empty.

I reserve my judgemental attitude for people actually in crowds, or in close contact with other random people (outside the "1 other person outdoors for exercise" explicitly permitted within the guidance). Because that's what causes infection. Because infection is what we actually need to reduce. Fun, recreation, entertainment...these don't factor into it at all, except where they result in infection risk.

Those defending the girls are missing my point.

It would be risk free for me to go to the pub, or a restaurant, on my own or with my wife. (or indeed anywhere at the minute, as it is all handily empty)

So why should I be fined if I do?

That was the concept of the two girls. The beauty spot was empty wasn’t it.

Same as beaches, parks, roads, etc.

They’re all empty, same as that beauty spot.

The key point is, why did the girls find it empty?

Because the rules don’t apply to them.

They only applied to everyone else.

So why should they apply to me?

Why were the 2 people fined for driving to see the seals? The beach was empty, there was no risk.

So, I presume you all agree they shouldn’t have been fined either, by your standards that too was acceptable.

Or is it just those 2 girls who can drive around “because it’s no risk, as everywhere is deserted”

[JAFO]

@Cessna571 - the reason the girls shouldn't have been fined is that they didn't break the law.

The law does apply to them and they didn't break the law.

The job of the police is to uphold and, where necessary, enforce the law.

[Lockhaven]

@Cessna571
You are allowed to travel a reasonable distance to conduct your 1 hour of exercise, as the girls had only driven 4-5 miles in separate cars exactly what law did they break ?

Had they actually broken a law I very much doubt that the fines would have been cancelled.

[skydriller]

Those defending the girls are missing my point.

Thats because I for one dont get what point you are trying to make...

So you go to a Pub or Restaurant because they are empty... well that might be because they are closed, so...???

Parks, Beaches, Roads, beauty spots...they are not closed. Please explain why it is better for a city dweller to go to the tiny local park 1km away together with 3 or 4 thousand other people who have the same idea rather than drive 10 km to a deserted lake in the countryside to go for a walk? I said it before, is "lockdown" supposed to be about reducing the transmission of C19 or is it supposed to be about making everyone suffer and be miserable?

[Cardinal Sin]

@Cessna571 They’re not girls. They’re adult women who went for a walk together (or intended to). It doesn’t matter whether the place they drove to was empty or not. What matters was intention. They had clearly planned to meet in a lawful fashion at a public place available for exercise. That’s not against the law. Had they found when they got there that it was crowded and they were unable to distance socially the guidance says they should not go for a walk. But even then it would not have been against the law.

@Lockhaven there is no “one hour” stipulation in either guidance or law so far as I can see. Also there is nothing in the law to determine how far you may travel. The law does permit you to leave home for exercise, it says nothing about distance. I suppose the people who were fined for going 130 miles to see some seals were either not intending to take exercise when they got there, or the police judged that the balance of seal watching vs exercise fell to the former rather than the latter, or (most likely) that the distance they travelled was unnecessary for them to take their reasonable exercise and so while seal-watching and walking at the same time 5 miles from home would have been reasonable, the 130 mile journey to do so was unreasonable in the circumstances and hence unlawful.

Amateur Photographer magazine recently advised against taking a tripod with you when out walking since stopping to take a photo would probably not compromise the exercise “reasonable excuse” but deliberately going out intentionally to stand around behind a tripod would not constitute exercise and hence no reasonable excuse. Unless you’re fishing at the same time.

[Lockhaven]

@Lockhaven there is no “one hour” stipulation in either guidance or law so far as I can see. Also there is nothing in the law to determine how far you may travel. The law does permit you to leave home for exercise, it says nothing about distance.

The 1 hour thing is the last lot of restrictions, can't keep up with changes
The only thing it states about how far you may travel is to stay within your local area for exercise, what is the definition of a local area ? The women travelled approx 4-5 miles in separate cars to exercise, how do you know if that is not within their local area ?

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-lo ... exercising

Exercising
You should minimise time spent outside your home, but you can leave your home to exercise. This should be limited to once per day, and you should not travel outside your local area.

You can exercise in a public outdoor place:

by yourself
with the people you live with
with your support bubble (if you are legally permitted to form one)
in a childcare bubble where providing childcare
or, when on your own, with 1 person from another household
This includes but is not limited to running, cycling, walking, and swimming. Personal training can continue if participants are from the same household or support bubble. It can also continue if it is one-on-one, although this should only take place in a public outdoor place, and not in someone’s private home or garden.

Public outdoor places include:

parks, beaches, countryside accessible to the public, forests
public and botanical gardens (whether or not you pay to enter them)
the grounds of a heritage site
public playgrounds
Playgrounds are primarily open for use by children who do not have access to private outdoor space, like their own garden. Although you can take your children to a playground for exercise, you must not socialise with other people while there.

Outdoor sports venues must close, for example:

tennis courts
golf courses
swimming pools
Allotments remain open, but you cannot meet with someone outside your household or support bubble there unless another exemption applies.

Children under 5, and up to 2 carers for a person with a disability who needs continuous care, are not counted towards the gatherings limits for exercising outside.

If you (or a person in your care) have a health condition that routinely requires you to leave home to maintain your health - including if that involves travel beyond your local area or exercising several times a day - then you can do so.

When around other people, stay 2 metres apart from anyone not in your household. This includes the person you are exercising with, unless they are from your household - meaning the people you live with - or your support bubble.

[Cardinal Sin]

Interesting that the once a day has crept back in. It is not part of the law.

[JAFO]

@Lockhaven - and even then, the local part is only in the guidance, not the law. I presume that as the law says "reasonable excuse" and the guidance says local then a 130 mile trip might be seen as unreasonable. There's nothing in the law to say local, though and nothing in either that gives a clue as to what local might be.

The test would be if a court of law felt that a reasonable person thought that the distance involved was reasonable.

[Flyingfemme]

Stupidly vague. You may take your children to a play area but you must not “socialise” with other people. Say hello? Hold a conversation from 10 feet away?
Or must we now cut everyone dead and refuse to meet their gaze?
What on earth is wrong with golf? Singles tennis?
It’s no wonder people are interpreting the rules.

[IMCR]

The reason they were able to go for a walk on their own at a beauty spot, was because everyone else was following the guidance, rather than being selfish.

Then 2 selfish brats pop up, say “it’s only guidance” and go and enjoy the empty outdoors, because everyone else is following the spirit of the guidance.

What would be selfish would be going somewhere to exercise, finding a crowd, and not leaving immediately.

I find it very hard to accept that somebody finding some empty space is selfish. It's entirely within the spirit of the rules and the guidance to find somewhere to exercise that is empty.

I reserve my judgemental attitude for people actually in crowds, or in close contact with other random people (outside the "1 other person outdoors for exercise" explicitly permitted within the guidance). Because that's what causes infection. Because infection is what we actually need to reduce. Fun, recreation, entertainment...these don't factor into it at all, except where they result in infection risk.

Those defending the girls are missing my point.

It would be risk free for me to go to the pub, or a restaurant, on my own or with my wife. (or indeed anywhere at the minute, as it is all handily empty)

So why should I be fined if I do?

That was the concept of the two girls. The beauty spot was empty wasn’t it.

Same as beaches, parks, roads, etc.

They’re all empty, same as that beauty spot.

The key point is, why did the girls find it empty?

Because the rules don’t apply to them.

They only applied to everyone else.

So why should they apply to me?

Why were the 2 people fined for driving to see the seals? The beach was empty, there was no risk.

So, I presume you all agree they shouldn’t have been fined either, by your standards that too was acceptable.

Or is it just those 2 girls who can drive around “because it’s no risk, as everywhere is deserted”

They shouldnt have been fined because they did not break the law.

It really is this simple.

[Dominie]

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-lockdown-stay-at-home#exercising

But that link is GUIDANCE, it is not the LAW. You cannot correctly be prosecuted for breaching the guidance; they need to write it into the Statutory Instruction, that makes it law and you can be prosecuted/fined.

Nevertheless, in the spirit of what is good for the country, we should abide by the guidance, much as I think some of it is misinformed, like stopping leisure flying, i.e. me going flying on my own without getting close to anyone else at all.

[malcolmfrost]

I've just checked and there is nothing about a 1 hour advisory limit!
It originally came about because Gove did one interview where he said "I think that 1 hour cycling or walking, 30 min running should be enough for most people" That was it!!

[proteus]

There are a lot of people here who don't seem to get the difference between guidance and the law.

There is guidance on how much alcohol one should drink a day / week. but not following this does not make it illegal.

As has been mentioned, looking at the scientific information we have and making our own decisions seems very sensible. As far as I can tell if you're outside and suitably distanced the risk of infection is vanishingly small to nil. The risk of going to fly your own aircraft if you don't need to interact with anyone is also next to nil.

It does seem to be that attitude of some that "we're not happy until you're not happy"

[JAFO]

Or must we now cut everyone dead and refuse to meet their gaze?

Been doing that for fifty-odd years now.

What on earth is wrong with golf?

Where shall I start?