Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, John Richmond said:

I wouldn't persistently argue my case on an open forum and establish premeditation should I then travel out and run afoul of the law.

I did think of that.

Geog, you could just get on with it and hope the Feds don't tune in here😉

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, spacecadet said:

I did think of that.

Geog, you could just get on with it and hope the Feds don't tune in here😉

 

 

I am interested in the discussion. 

 

I am surprised by the discussion. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

From an article I read earlier.

 

'Suddenly, exercising more than once a day is against the rules - so, too, gatherings of more than two people (unless all from the same household). Police have been given the authority to issue fines, as well as additional powers to arrest anyone making non-essential journeys by car. '

 

It can only be up to you Ian to decide if your journey is essential but I wouldn't rely on the police being sympathetic.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

One could argue that travelling, ie driving, to photograph churches is not necessary to Ian’s work. He could be taking photos at home or on his daily (permitted) walk?

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gnans said:

Unfortunately that is the reality. These actions are more by lower grade officers who are annoyed by people who do not respect lock down.

 

There are a quite number of good police who talk and try to explain things to people. Police and fireman perform a dance explaining the importance of hand wash to avoid virus spread (sorry no sub titles)

 

 

 

That's reassuring to hear. Bad cops/good cops -- it's the same story all over the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BobD said:

From an article I read earlier.

 

'Suddenly, exercising more than once a day is against the rules - so, too, gatherings of more than two people (unless all from the same household). Police have been given the authority to issue fines, as well as additional powers to arrest anyone making non-essential journeys by car. '

 

It can only be up to you Ian to decide if your journey is essential but I wouldn't rely on the police being sympathetic.

 

 

Bob, all I asked about is the REASONING for this. I am not challenging it. 

 

And to be honest all that has come back is heaps of emotion. I understand and share the emotion but would still like to know the justification as to how restricting access to the countryside saves lives. I would think quite likely it will help keep people sane and save lives.

 

 

Edited by geogphotos
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

Bob, all I asked about is the REASONING for this. I am not challenging it. 

 

And to be honest all that has come back is heaps of emotion. I understand and share the emotion but would still like to know the justification as to how restricting access to the countryside saves lives. I would think quite likely it will help keep people sane and save lives.

 

 

 

A couple of days ago I made the same point to my wife. It would seem to make sense to drive out, rather than for example, walk around a crowded park. But this has been frowned upon in the last couple of days, mainly by farmers and rural inhabitants worried that outsiders will bring the virus with them.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

Bob, all I asked about is the REASONING for this. I am not challenging it. 

 

And to be honest all that has come back is heaps of emotion. I understand and share the emotion but would still like to know the justification as to how restricting access to the countryside saves lives. I would thin quite likely it will help keep people sane.

 

 

 

British Columbia hasn't reached the "non-essential journeys" point yet (touch wood). However, my guess is that there isn't much reasoning behind prohibitions like these. The powers that be must realize that they have to make a blanket law that covers all possible situations, even if there are journeys (like the one you have in mind) that have little or no chance of infecting anyone. Looking at outings on a case-by-case basis just wouldn't be feasible.

Edited by John Mitchell
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BobD said:

 

A couple of days ago I made the same point to my wife. It would seem to make sense to drive out, rather than for example, walk around a crowded park. But this has been frowned upon in the last couple of days, mainly by farmers and rural inhabitants worried that outsiders will bring the virus with them.

 

 

But I live in the countryside already. I am not driving out to it from a town. 

 

And if urban parks are crowded and dangerous why shouldn't people drive out to the fresh air and space of the countryside.

 

You could say that they have paid enough over the years in taxes to farmers and landowners. 

 

The virus is everywhere by now. People out walking aren't a danger. 

 

So back to my question - why are police stopping people accessing the countryside  and how does it save lives?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BobD said:

 

A couple of days ago I made the same point to my wife. It would seem to make sense to drive out, rather than for example, walk around a crowded park. But this has been frowned upon in the last couple of days, mainly by farmers and rural inhabitants worried that outsiders will bring the virus with them.

 

And then the more people will visit the gas station . Are gloves supplied in the UK? Here in the states I see people bring their own gloves. The other problem and we don't have all the answers for is coronavirus aerosol transmission they are saying the virus can stay in the air for up to 2hrs. So much for the stay 6ft away from each other. The bottom line is we don't know so we are asked to overreact and stay home. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

But I live in the countryside already. I am not driving out to it from a town. 

 

And if urban parks are crowded and dangerous why shouldn't people drive out to the fresh air and space of the countryside.

 

You could say that they have paid enough over the years in taxes to farmers and landowners. 

 

The virus is everywhere by now. People out walking aren't a danger. 

 

So back to my question - why are police stopping people accessing the countryside  and how does it save lives?

So back to my question - why are police stopping people accessing the countryside  and how does it save lives?

 

Because if we don't the countryside will become so busy we have to stop them and tell them to stay home.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shergar said:

And then the more people will visit the gas station . Are gloves supplied in the UK? Here in the states I see people bring their own gloves. The other problem and we don't have all the answers for is coronavirus aerosol transmission they are saying the virus can stay in the air for up to 2hrs. So much for the stay 6ft away from each other. The bottom line is we don't know so we are asked to overreact and stay home. 

 

 

I get over 500 miles from one trip to the 'gas station'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shergar said:

And then the more people will visit the gas station . Are gloves supplied in the UK? Here in the states I see people bring their own gloves. The other problem and we don't have all the answers for is coronavirus aerosol transmission they are saying the virus can stay in the air for up to 2hrs. So much for the stay 6ft away from each other. The bottom line is we don't know so we are asked to overreact and stay home. 

 

I've heard the 2hr number as well. However, most infections seem to result from prolonged contact with an infected person. I guess the only real way of being 99.9% safe is to stay home and barricade the doors and windows. I know someone who has almost gone that far. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The truth is that the innocent and law flouters are all being included in a catch all approach.

 

For instance Victoria park in London, an enormous open space where I spent morning to night as a child in the school holidays, and my brother still walks his dog there, has been closed indefinitely today because people have been ignoring the rules about social distancing and sunbathing. 

Now countless responsible people have been denied the opportunity for fresh air and exercise.

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, geogphotos said:

I'm a bit puzzled by this. I can understand that National Parks are twitchy but do not fully understand why the police are so upset that a relatively small number of people have driven there to exercise.

 

One news report said that if their cars broke down it would place a burden etc. If my car broke down I would phone the RAC who presumably are having a quieter time that normal though no doubt with some staff off sick - but surely not a police matter as I would just have to wait longer.

 

On a personal level all I want to do is drive out to rural churches and take photos get back in car and repeat with next church. Is this now a punishable offence? 

 

Genuine question no loaded undertones.

 

This is my understanding, posted to make up for my oringinal flippant post.

 

The rule is stay home.  Thats the thing, stay home. Going for a walk, a trip to the chemist or market are the exceptions;  concessions to avoid insanity and starvation.

 

 If you let the Great British public take a non essential trip for a walk in another place, then after a few a few short trips, the excursions get longer, after a few days the walks become picnics, then cricket on the beach with a few friends who they know are ok, and then given time the quarantine is largely disregarded. Each small relaxation over time will build and build; each subsequent relaxing of the standard will negate the effect of the quarantine.  Concessions to movement will lead to people stretching the rules, best to keep it simple, with a simple rule, welcome or not and that is stay home.

 

Stay safe peeps,

 

James

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shergar said:

So what?

 

 

So all your questions about whether I wear gloves at the gas station or not strike me as unimportant. 

Edited by geogphotos
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

So all your questions about whether I wear gloves or not strike me as unimportant. 

I don't think you do wear gloves when you pump the petrol Ian.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

I think that there is a real danger of people talking themselves into making this a bigger thing that it is. 

 

Blinkered, selfish, ******

This is the biggest ‘thing’ that has happened in our life time. 

I want my son in law to be safe patrolling the streets of London. I want a future for my children and my grandchildren.

This is not about me so I am doing what is right for them. 

What you are doing is all about you. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 7
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.