Loading Notifications...

Harrison's Rocks this weekend - a heads-up...

 Graham Ad 15 May 2020

Climbed at Harrison's today - socially distant but it was tricky to stay 2m away from even my climbing partner, let alone anyone else climbing - and there weren't that many out - 4 pairs on the Isolated Buttress was enough. There are also walkers and others along the crag to consider.

The Police turned up and warned everyone about social distancing, not surprisingly, giving a strong message with a clear threat of enforcement measures - I guess that means fines/being sent home??

Particularly, as Bowles is presently closed to climbers, Harrison's is likely to be rammed tomorrow and Sunday and the Police will be back to see what's going on... 

If you can't stay away, consider going to another of the sandstone crags...

Cheers,

Graham.

Report
 Oceanrower 15 May 2020
In reply to Graham Ad:

Being blunt, the police can do one! 

1. The College for Policing has already said they can't enforce the two metre GUIDELINE as it's not law.

2. Harrison's is private property (the BMC) so the police have no right to remove anyone.

Report
 Neil Williams 15 May 2020
In reply to Oceanrower:

They can't enforce the two metre rule per se, but the Regulations do say that if they ask you to go home or disperse not doing so is an offence - so that effectively does give them carte blanche.

Post edited at 22:06
Report
 brianjcooper 15 May 2020
In reply to Oceanrower:

> Being blunt, the police can do one! 

> 1. The College for Policing has already said they can't enforce the two metre GUIDELINE as it's not law.

> 2. Harrison's is private property (the BMC) so the police have no right to remove anyone.

Coronavirus infection 'R' rate in UK creeps up.  33,998 deaths. And we climbers find it hard to obey the advice of two metre distancing to prevent another 1918 nightmare. Staggering.  

Post edited at 22:21
Report
 Hooo 15 May 2020
In reply to Graham Ad:

I was at Harrisons today, rope soloing. I have to say I was a bit disappointed. I thought I'd see a bunch of other soloists and boulderers, but it was all pairs and groups. I don't know anyone's circumstances, but I reckon most of them weren't people who live together. Especially the group of two women, two men and at least four children who weren't making any effort to distance. 

By about 11am it was all getting too busy so I left. I imagine it will be like pre-lockdown this weekend, so I'll be staying away.

Report
 Oceanrower 15 May 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> They can't enforce the two metre rule per se, but the Regulations do say that if they ask you to go home or disperse not doing so is an offence - so that effectively does give them carte blanche.

You're in luck. I've made it my mission to educate the world one person at a time and today is your day. Now, here are the regulations...

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/contents/made

Assuming I'm climbing with one other person and showing no signs of being infected, could you tell me which law I'm breaking please. Paragraph and number if you will...

Post edited at 23:50
Report
In reply to Oceanrower:

> Assuming I'm climbing with one other person and showing no signs of being infected, could you tell me which law I'm breaking please. Paragraph and number if you will...

Report
 Oceanrower 16 May 2020
In reply to FactorXXX:

"could you tell me which law I'm breaking"

I'll take that as a no then, shall I?

Report
In reply to Oceanrower:

> "could you tell me which law I'm breaking"

Blimey, we're quoting laws to justify our actions as a climbing community.
Up until Tuesday evening everyone was seemingly mega supportive of the NHS and in the case of climbers, equally supportive of Mountain Rescue, etc. in their request to curtail all 'risky' activities so as to limit impact on them.
A simple announcement about slightly relaxing the lockdown seems to have triggered a response whereby climbers have suddenly decided that it is actually alright to climb and adopted an approach where everything climbing related is OK and pretty much kicked the views of Mountain Rescue into touch.
Ah well, that's the way it goes...





 

Report
 Oceanrower 16 May 2020
In reply to FactorXXX:

I haven't gone climbing and certainly won't this weekend. What does concern me, though, is a general creeping of authority to enforce what they think we should be doing rather than what the legislation states.

Rightly or wrongly the law is there for a reason. If they wanted it to mean something else then there is a process to do so.

For the police to enforce the government's opinion on the law rather than what the actual law is, or to make laws up on the hoof is, quite literally, the beginning of a police state!

Post edited at 01:52
Report
 krikoman 16 May 2020
In reply to Oceanrower:

> Being blunt, the police can do one! 

> 1. The College for Policing has already said they can't enforce the two metre GUIDELINE as it's not law.

> 2. Harrison's is private property (the BMC) so the police have no right to remove anyone.


So f*ck them eh?

Never mind that it might be spreading the virus around of helping us towards a second peak., are you sure you're not American?

Report
 krikoman 16 May 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> They can't enforce the two metre rule per se, but the Regulations do say that if they ask you to go home or disperse not doing so is an offence - so that effectively does give them carte blanche.


They shouldn't need to FFS!

Report
 Oceanrower 16 May 2020
In reply to krikoman:

Your opinion is well known. Please see my reply to FactorXXX above.

Post edited at 01:51
Report
 Oceanrower 16 May 2020
In reply to krikoman:

> So f*ck them eh?

> Never mind that it might be spreading the virus around of helping us towards a second peak., are you sure you're not American?

Yes. If they're going to make up the law then you're quite right. F*ck them!

Report
 krikoman 16 May 2020
In reply to Oceanrower:

> Yes. If they're going to make up the law then you're quite right. F*ck them!


You don't think people should take some responsibility themselves? Should you really need to be told you're doing something that isn't in the best interests of you or the people around you?

This is exactly the same sort of reasons people us in the US to invade town halls with automatic weapons, isn't it. Sometimes you don't NEED laws to see that something is a bit daft.

Post edited at 02:21
Report
 Oceanrower 16 May 2020
In reply to krikoman:

Yes I do. However I don't feel that inventing or misrepresenting laws is the best way of getting the message across...

We have a judiciary for that sort of thing with scrutiny and due process. Not PC Smith coming along and making it up as he goes along!

Report
In reply to Oceanrower:

> Assuming I'm climbing with one other person and showing no signs of being infected, could you tell me which law I'm breaking please. Paragraph and number if you will... <

OK, just a try, purely for "fun". Obviously I'm missing something. From your link if one is climbing (exercise) with someone outside the household then that is not a reasonable excuse (judging from other threads I think the regulations may have been altered so one can exercise if separation is maintained but I may have missed that in the link).

Incidentally I'm going for a regular, routine hospital checkup on Monday to ensure I'm not developing glaucoma. I assume that's OK though its not really "assistance".

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

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—(b)to take exercise either alone or with other members of their household; (c)to seek medical assistance, including to access any of the services referred to in paragraph 37 or 38 of Schedule 2;

Report
 jimtitt 16 May 2020
In reply to Oceanrower:

> Being blunt, the police can do one! 

> 1. The College for Policing has already said they can't enforce the two metre GUIDELINE as it's not law.

> 2. Harrison's is private property (the BMC) so the police have no right to remove anyone.


The ownership is irrelevant, it is whether the public have access at the time in question (payment is irrelevant). Harrisons is a public place as defined in the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 and the Criminal Justice Act 1972.

Report
 Oceanrower 16 May 2020
In reply to oldie:

Yes. There is actually no mention whatsoever of separation but...

Regulation 6(2)(b)(iii) now states

"To take exercise (with one member of another household)

And it would be reasonable to assume that any genuine hospital appointment would be classed as medical assistance.

Post edited at 07:53
Report
 Oceanrower 16 May 2020
In reply to jimtitt:

Yes. I should have said they do not have the right to remove someone for no reason. I.e. no crime is being committed. 

In this country even trespass is not a crime and only aggravated trespass can be acted upon. That would be refusing to leave after being asked to by the landowner which, in this case, being the BMC is unlikely...

Report
 Neil Williams 16 May 2020
In reply to Oceanrower:

It's more tenuous than I thought, but section 8 (enforcement) provides that if someone with powers to enforce "reasonably believes" the person is contravening section 6 (sorry, I had the reference wrong), then they can insist on the person going home.  Failure to do so once so instructed is a separate offence.  This is a bit like public drinking laws - in most case it's not the drinking that's unlawful but the failure to cease doing so when told by a Police Officer.

So you can't argue with a misinformed Police Officer, basically.

Post edited at 08:08
Report
 Oceanrower 16 May 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

Agreed. You can't! That's been my whole point along. You're not breaking any law but some police are enforcing laws that don't exist. And as 6(1) states

"6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave [F1or be outside of] the place where they are living without reasonable excuse. "

And as exercise is a reasonable excuse it would be hard to understand how climbing is contravening Section 6

Report
 jimtitt 16 May 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

Or he decides that it COULD be an illegal gathering and allow a court to decide later, after he's thrown everyone out. Might even go for conspiracy if he can be bothered!

Report
 Oceanrower 16 May 2020
In reply to jimtitt:

Again, as with Neil Williams above, laws being made up on the hoof. Its not the restrictions i mind so much is the inventing of new restrictions that do not exist. 

My question was if I'm climbing with one other person what law am I breaking. Section 7 clearly says "more than two people". Two people is clearly not more than two people...

Hmmm, a thought. Unless the copper includes himself in which case it's now three people. But that would be bizarre!

Also, "gathering" has been defined and however you stretch it I can't see how it would apply to unorganized climbing at a venue. 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/7/schedule/22/part/2/crossheading/power-to-prohibit-or-otherwise-restrict-events-or-gatherings-in-england

Post edited at 08:51
Report
 cpowell 16 May 2020
In reply to Graham Ad:

I too was climbing at Harrisons, but in the late afternoon/early evening.
There was more people than I naively expected, busier than a 'normal' weekday at least, with lots of pairs and even what appeared to be a few groups on the unclimbed wall and isolated buttress.

We therefore avoided those areas until most people had gone home and climbed less trafficed routes.

I think people need to get out of the mindset that just because people are there does not mean it is not socially distanced. Its easy to look along the base of a crag and see lots of people climbing, but unless you are hugging, kissing, shaking hands or being in close proximity for extened periods social distancing can be maintained. Its going be cafes, bars and nightclubs where people are indoors that will be the real spreading environments.

No sign of the Police, but any interference with my 100% lawful activity would have been met with silence as there is no complusion under the law to 'stop and account' unless they have reasonable suspicion of breaking the law, so being outside with one other person is not breaking the law.

Report
 Oceanrower 16 May 2020
In reply to cpowell:

Welcome! I thought I was alone on this thread in my attempt to get the police to interpret the law correctly!

Report
 lorentz 16 May 2020
In reply to Oceanrower:

> Hmmm, a thought. Unless the copper includes himself in which case it's now three people. But that would be bizarre!

Schroedinger's Crime?

Report
 off-duty 16 May 2020
In reply to Oceanrower:

> I haven't gone climbing and certainly won't this weekend. What does concern me, though, is a general creeping of authority to enforce what they think we should be doing rather than what the legislation states.

> Rightly or wrongly the law is there for a reason. If they wanted it to mean something else then there is a process to do so.

> For the police to enforce the government's opinion on the law rather than what the actual law is, or to make laws up on the hoof is, quite literally, the beginning of a police state!

This is why I am rapidly moving to the feeling that society can just take a flying f##k. This has never ever been a policing or legislative problem.

The legislation itself is poorly written and difficult to actually enforce.

A wistful hope that people could actually use common sense and follow the guidance has been replaced by a resignation that when faced with the choice, people will interpret the guidance with their own selfishness as the priority, and then fall back on trying to examine the law for loopholes. 

It's reminiscent of burglars claiming they didn't commit a burglary because when they broke in they only TWOC'd a car rather than actually stole it.  Except on this occasion we are talking about burgling our own homes.

Report
 cpowell 16 May 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> of burglars claiming they didn't commit a burglary because when they broke in they only TWOC'd a car rather than actually stole it.  Except on this occasion we are talking about burgling our own homes.

Respectfully, comparing the entire uk population to car thiefs does not do you personally, or as a representative of the police force, any favours.

Report
 off-duty 16 May 2020
In reply to cpowell:

> Respectfully, comparing the entire uk population to car thiefs does not do you personally, or as a representative of the police force, any favours.

My point being demonstrated - I'm not complaining them to car thieves. The legal argument is whether they are or aren't burglars.

Obviously for the victim the definition is pretty irrelevant. 

A point to ponder from a ventilator in an ICU, perhaps.

Report
 Oceanrower 16 May 2020
In reply to cpowell:

I've got to go out for a bit. Would you mind taking over for an hour or two?

Report
In reply to cpowell:

> I think people need to get out of the mindset that just because people are there does not mean it is not socially distanced. Its easy to look along the base of a crag and see lots of people climbing, but unless you are hugging, kissing, shaking hands or being in close proximity for extened periods social distancing can be maintained.

Exactly.  Unfortunately, a lot of the publicity has focused on the wrong things (driving to honeypots, picnicking, sunbathing, car parks with cars in them), when these are not the problem.

The important thing is the social distancing, the lack of close-range interactions (where "close" is of order a metre or so), and lack of touching things that are commonly touched.

Report
 cpowell 16 May 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> My point being demonstrated - I'm not complaining them to car thieves. The legal argument is whether they are or aren't burglars.

I don't understand your point. I'm fully aware TWOC'ing was legislated to prevent car thiefs using that as an excuse, but car thiefs, whether TWOC'ing or not, have the intent to break the law. Saying everyone is like this maybe highlights your contempt for Joe Public as a whole.

Report
 off-duty 16 May 2020
In reply to cpowell:

> I don't understand your point. I'm fully aware TWOC'ing was legislated to prevent car thiefs using that as an excuse, but car thiefs, whether TWOC'ing or not, have the intent to break the law. Saying everyone is like this maybe highlights your contempt for Joe Public as a whole.

This is what happens when you start arguing points of law. A burglary isn't a burglary unless you steal. A TWOC isn't a theft.  Oddly I've never heard those arguments as passionately waged as on the steps of the courtroom, when the law that has previously been ignored or sneered at is now being pored over.

So if I break into your house and TWOC your car I am not an evil burglar, I am just petty joyrider.  Hoorah!

Maybe just don't do it in the first place - because the victim in this case is our friends, colleagues, society.

And I refer you to my OP:

This is why I am rapidly moving to the feeling that society can just take a flying f##k. This has never ever been a policing or legislative problem.

Post edited at 09:48
Report
 cpowell 16 May 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> And I refer you to my OP

> This is why I am rapidly moving to the feeling that society can just take a flying f##k.

Continued contempt for the public then.

Report
 off-duty 16 May 2020
In reply to cpowell:

> Continued contempt for the public then.

That'll be filed alongside "Officer when I said crack down on speeders, I didn't mean ME"

Slightly below "I pay your wages" but above "You should be out there catching burglars and rapists".

Report
 cpowell 16 May 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> That'll be filed alongside "Officer when I said crack down on speeders, I didn't mean ME"


I find it interesting that you are now implying I am breaking a law as you are filing my reply alongside one used by speeders who you have stopped.

Edit: And if anything, it gives further weight to my point that you see no problem comparing the UK population as a whole with law breakers.

Post edited at 10:02
Report
 off-duty 16 May 2020
In reply to cpowell:

> I find it interesting that you are now implying I am breaking a law as you are filing my reply alongside one used by speeders who you have stopped.

I find your jump to implications and sensitivity to my comments interesting as well.

I'm sure I've seen behaviour like that before somewhere...

Report
 cpowell 16 May 2020
In reply to off-duty:

Don't worry, there is no sensitivity, with respect, I don't particularly mind what you happen to think about me personally, we have never met, nor are we likely to and I'm sure if we did it would all be nice and civil (except of course if you were nicking me for TWOC'ing ).

But your blatant contempt for Joe Public is clear and your rush to compare me with criminal behaviour again does you, in your personal capacity and as a representative as the police force no favours.

Cheers

Post edited at 10:11
Report
 off-duty 16 May 2020
In reply to cpowell:

> Don't worry, there is no sensitivity, with respect, I don't particularly mind what you happen to think about me personally, we have never met, nor are we likely to and I'm sure if we did it would all be nice and civil (except of course if you were nicking me for TWOC'ing ).

I'm sure we would.

> But your blatant contempt for Joe Public is clear and your rush to compare me with criminal behaviour again does you, in your personal capacity and as a representative as the police force no favours.

> Cheers

If that's what you have chosen to extract from my comments, then there isn't much I can do other than file your complaint as discussed and refer you to my original post:

This is why I am rapidly moving to the feeling that society can just take a flying f##k. This has never ever been a policing or legislative problem.

The legislation itself is poorly written and difficult to actually enforce.

A wistful hope that people could actually use common sense and follow the guidance has been replaced by a resignation that when faced with the choice, people will interpret the guidance with their own selfishness as the priority, and then fall back on trying to examine the law for loopholes. 

It's reminiscent of burglars claiming they didn't commit a burglary because when they broke in they only TWOC'd a car rather than actually stole it.  Except on this occasion we are talking about burgling our own homes.

Post edited at 10:16
Report
 cpowell 16 May 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> I'm sure I've seen behaviour like that before somewhere...

Again quick to compare my behaviour to criminal behaviour, or at least that is what the clear implications is.

I have been forthcoming and clear in my perception of your posts, maybe you could try doing the same?

Report
 off-duty 16 May 2020
In reply to cpowell:

> Again quick to compare my behaviour to criminal behaviour, or at least that is what the clear implications is.

> I have been forthcoming and clear in my perception of your posts, maybe you could try doing the same?

Yes. I'll agree my last comment was perhaps a bit close to the bone. Unintentionally or not, your comments are similar to those who would rather discuss police behaviour, police comments and police actions on being penalised, rather than examine their own behaviour and whether perhaps that feeling of guilt and frustration at being caught is being misdirected externally rather than internally.

And I'm speaking as someone who has had to attend a speeding awareness course...

Report
 cpowell 16 May 2020
In reply to off-duty:

>This has never ever been a policing or legislative problem.

I think there is a need for policing as there has been a large change in what is acceptable in society and what is not.

> The legislation itself is poorly written and difficult to actually enforce.

As a person who does not enforce the law on a regular basis I would normally defer to your better experience, but based upon your continued contempt for Joe public I won't in this case. The law may be hard to enforce but it was created in haste (probably appropriate in light of the fast evolving situation) and ties to balance public health and personal freedom, which are on conflict in this instance.

It clearly relies on most people doing the right thing most of the time, which I'm sure most people want to.

However, when behaviour is fully within the law, like a bit of tope roping in a public place, then any police interference is likely to be seen as unwanted and overbearing.

Report
 GrahamD 16 May 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Actually all these things contribute to 'the' problem. 

> Exactly.  Unfortunately, a lot of the publicity has focused on the wrong things (driving to honeypots, picnicking, sunbathing, car parks with cars in them), when these are not the problem.

Report
 off-duty 16 May 2020
In reply to cpowell:

> >This has never ever been a policing or legislative problem.

> I think there is a need for policing as there has been a large change in what is acceptable in society and what is not.

This is a public health crisis. The policing approach has been engage, explain , encourage and only at the extreme end - enforce.

This should never be a police Vs public issue, because a)we are the public, b)we police with consent and c)it ends up with battle lines being drawn and a descent into a "nasty oppressive police" narrative which helps no-one, and avoids the actual public health issue. A bit like this discussion has become.

This is public health, not public order 

> As a person who does not enforce the law on a regular basis I would normally defer to your better experience, but based upon your continued contempt for Joe public I won't in this case. The law may be hard to enforce but it was created in haste (probably appropriate in light of the fast evolving situation) and ties to balance public health and personal freedom, which are on conflict in this instance.

> It clearly relies on most people doing the right thing most of the time, which I'm sure most people want to.

> However, when behaviour is fully within the law, like a bit of tope roping in a public place, then any police interference is likely to be seen as unwanted and overbearing.

I'm genuinely surprised if you honestly think I have some sort of general contempt for the general public. My OP was conditional, caveated and used analogy.

People on this thread are turning up at a honeypot venue that is crowded, are approached by police who have a polite conversation about social distancing and crowding. The responses have included 2nd Amendment style "how dare you infringe my civil liberties you'll have to prise my gun from my cold dead hands".

The commendable few have said, "You know what, I turned up, thought it looked busy and went home".

This is not a policing problem, much as many would prefer to make it all about problematic policing. The only time I have been policing in a hospital recently has been to deal with deaths.

Report
 cpowell 16 May 2020
In reply to GrahamD:

> Actually all these things contribute to 'the' problem. 

I'm not sure that they do. The problem is virus transmission, which sunbathing and picnicing with household members will have little effect.

There was a virologist on BBC news just now saying that unless you are touching a surface right after someone virus laden has, and then touch your eyes/nose, the outside is pretty safe as there is too much air circulation and UV.

Unless 'the' problem is this new found localism where people who live in outdoor spaces want to keep it for themselves. They don't seem to be realising that they rely on all the benifits these outsiders provide, such as economic activity and population density to provide food, transport, healthcare, infrastructure that otherwise would not exist.

Report
 cpowell 16 May 2020
In reply to off-duty:

I think we are probably in agreement

> This is a public health crisis. The policing approach has been engage, explain , encourage and only at the extreme end - enforce.

> This should never be a police Vs public issue, because a)we are the public, b)we police with consent and c)it ends up with battle lines being drawn and a descent into a "nasty oppressive police" narrative which helps no-one, and avoids the actual public health issue. A bit like this discussion has become.

I think the issue I had is the idea of 'threats' of enforcement in the OP- why am I being threatened if I am within the law? Admittedly the OP may have added that term himself.

> I'm genuinely surprised if you honestly think I have some sort of general contempt for the general public. My OP was conditional, caveated and used analogy.

I saw your OP with expletives aimed at society as a whole, followed by a comparison with TWOCers. Clearly a difference in perception. Judging the likes and dislikes its slightly in your favour, but I stand by my view. You are well known as being a copper on these forums, and I would, rightly in my opinion, be wary if you turned up for a polite 'chat' if I knew you had previously expressed these opinions.

Report
 off-duty 16 May 2020
In reply to cpowell:

> I think we are probably in agreement

Always nice. ;-)

> I saw your OP with expletives aimed at society as a whole, followed by a comparison with TWOCers. Clearly a difference in perception. Judging the likes and dislikes its slightly in your favour, but I stand by my view. You are well known as being a copper on these forums, and I would, rightly in my opinion, be wary if you turned up for a polite 'chat' if I knew you had previously expressed these opinions.

To be honest that last sentence really disappoints me. In part because you appear happy to disregard many other comments I have posted that you may have read, based on your perception (as you yourself indicate that may well not be shared by others) of a post I made.

It does reinforce my desire for a degree of anonymity on this forum, as well as reconsider whether I should even bother posting at all.

Report
 deepsoup 16 May 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> This is a public health crisis. The policing approach has been engage, explain , encourage and only at the extreme end - enforce.

> This should never be a police Vs public issue, because a)we are the public, b)we police with consent and c)it ends up with battle lines being drawn and a descent into a "nasty oppressive police" narrative which helps no-one, and avoids the actual public health issue. A bit like this discussion has become.

> This is public health, not public order 

Exactly as it should be.  It's really heartening to read this, thanks for posting it.

Report
 cpowell 16 May 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> Always nice. ;-)

> To be honest that last sentence really disappoints me. In part because you appear happy to disregard many other comments I have posted that you may have read, based on your perception (as you yourself indicate that may well not be shared by others) of a post I made.

Honestly - normally when reading your comments whilst I may not always agree they do make me think and reflect. In this case, the no doubt off the cuff comment, quickly making comparisons of my comments with criminal behaviour makes me hold your opinions with a little less weight.

In these COVID times, I think the public and policy makers seem to be panicking. As a little aside about myself, I studied physics and biological sciences at some reasonably rated universities, and then worked as a data analyser for a number of years. As such I am reasonably confident that I fall in the upper half of the public in my ability to interpret and understand the data surrounding COVID-19, and base my decisions and beliefs off the data, rather than the majority opinion. Quite simply I do not allow the number of likes or dislikes to unduly sway my opinion on this issue, but I can recognise it is there.

Climbing outside is an obvious example. Based on what I have read and using my prior experience and knowledge, I am of the opinion that climbing outside, providing some minor adjustments are made, does not substantially increase the risk of spreading the infection, even if I am doing it somewhere that a layperson may conclude is 'too busy'.

> It does reinforce my desire for a degree of anonymity on this forum, as well as reconsider whether I should even bother posting at all.

Anonymity is probably not a bad shout - you are known as a copper, and people have looked to you for your opinion on policing matters and the law.

Report
 Dell 16 May 2020
In reply to cpowell:

> Unless 'the' problem is this new found localism where people who live in outdoor spaces want to keep it for themselves. 

Nobody lives in outdoor spaces,  unless you are referring to the homeless.

Unless you mean that there are communities that live in rural areas, and beauty spot that attract a lot of tourism? 

 People that live, work, raise their children and look after their elderly relatives and neighbours in towns and villages close to popular outdoor leisure areas. 

> They don't seem to be realising that they rely on all the benifits these outsiders provide, such as economic activity and population density to provide food, transport, healthcare, infrastructure that otherwise would not exist.

Why do you think they don't realise this? Are they stupid, ignorant, or both? Do they not understand how an economy works because they are just simple straw chewing country bumpkins? 

​​​

Report
 off-duty 16 May 2020
In reply to cpowell:

> Honestly - normally when reading your comments whilst I may not always agree they do make me think and reflect. In this case, the no doubt off the cuff comment, quickly making comparisons of my comments with criminal behaviour makes me hold your opinions with a little less weight.

To be blunt, your reaction (in conjunction with some stereotyping based on your self pen picture below) is one I am not unfamiliar with.

Other than my final comment, which was a bit snide - the closest I have come to suggesting you are a criminal is to say I am filing your complaint along with those caught speeding. Criminality that I will admit to myself. The analogy with burglary was to highlight the issues with focussing on nit-picking legislation. Not to mention the guilty consciences of those that are often found doing it. I could have used the a similar analogy of road traffic offences and accidents and the argument about what is or isn't a road, or a "motor car".

What is interesting is that, whilst you might not agree with previous comments you always consider them. The fact that now those comments are directed at you and suddenly the person making the comment must be at fault - because you clearly "can't" be wrong. 

You may be perfectly justified in that belief, however, in my experience, it is also the reaction when, professionally, police focus turns on people who might not normally be involved with the police, and there is a realisation that they won't necessarily act to your benefit. Whether that is as speeders, suspects, or sometimes sadly victims.

It's a perfectly normal human reaction to try and find an external fault rather than confess to an internal one.

> In these COVID times, I think the public and policy makers seem to be panicking. As a little aside about myself, I studied physics and biological sciences at some reasonably rated universities, and then worked as a data analyser for a number of years. As such I am reasonably confident that I fall in the upper half of the public in my ability to interpret and understand the data surrounding COVID-19, and base my decisions and beliefs off the data, rather than the majority opinion. Quite simply I do not allow the number of likes or dislikes to unduly sway my opinion on this issue, but I can recognise it is there.

A reasonable position. It does however lend itself to direct conflict with generic guidelines designed for "society". A bit like speed limits, but in this case the limits are far from clear, made worse by clear unequivocal guidance - like for example the 2m rule, that are not backed up by law (in England at least).

Report
In reply to GrahamD:

> Actually all these things contribute to 'the' problem. 

I don't actually think they do. 

The problem is that, if the guidance focuses on the wrong things, then, when it gets relaxed, people tend to think that everything is being relaxed. But that's not the case, the "social distancing" aspects of the guidance are as important as ever. 

So, we now have a relaxation to "you can go out to play" (likely those restrictions never acheived much anyhow), but should not treat that as saying that social distancing is less necessary. 

Report
 cpowell 16 May 2020
In reply to off-duty:

I'm not the one whose job it is to interact with members of the public to enforce the law whilst saying society can take a 'flying f**k'.

I'm also not the one, who when someone points out this may not be the best thing for a serving police officer to say on a public forum, starts saying they have seen this behaviour before and implying it is criminal. You may have been caught speeding, but I have not so please do not tar me with your brush.

In my opinion this behaviour comes across as unprofessional, all I have done is call it out.

If you want to you can have the last word, but I won't be replying to you in this thread any more.

Nonetheless I wish you a safe and pleasant Saturday and sympathise with you in this current position as society charters this un-navigated waters.

Report
 Oceanrower 16 May 2020
In reply to cpowell:

Wow. Tough shift! Well done, I'm back now if you need a hand...

Report
 cpowell 16 May 2020
In reply to Dell:

> Unless you mean that there are communities that live in rural areas, and beauty spot that attract a lot of tourism? 

Exactly what I mean

>  People that live, work, raise their children and look after their elderly relatives and neighbours in towns and villages close to popular outdoor leisure areas. 

> Why do you think they don't realise this? Are they stupid, ignorant, or both? Do they not understand how an economy works because they are just simple straw chewing country bumpkins? 

The problems these places are facing are the same as everywhere else, but with a lower population density there is more green space. The lockdown would be a very ​​​different experience for a family in a 2 bed flat in an inner city compared to that same flat but with the peak district on its doorstep.

Outdoor space clearly as a premium on it in these current times, but those who have it are trying to keep away those who don't, in effect keeping it for themselves.

The scientific consensus is that transmission of the virus when people are outdoors is low provided simple steps such as washing hands and not touching your face are followed. The message should be 'wash your hands think about what you touch' compared to 'stay away'.

There would be uproar if those who lived near hospitals tried to keep away those who don't live near hospitals and most people treated panic buyers with contempt as they hoarded away precious bog roll and pasta. I don't see how this is different.

Report
 off-duty 16 May 2020
In reply to cpowell:

It was an interesting discussion. I'm sorry if you feel I "accused" you of anything more serious than speeding. 

(Edit to add - on rereading, I don't think I even did that - other than suggesting your compaint would be filed in the same draw, and some behaviour that has parallels perhaps)

I've happily retracted my final, more snide comment. 

I'm a bit disappointed by your selective reading and quoting of what I've posted and your final post, but hey-ho. 

Post edited at 13:11
Report
 cpowell 16 May 2020
In reply to Oceanrower:

No worries, I'm ducking out - my forehead has worn a nice dent in the brick wall and you're free to carry on, but I'm not sure I can recommend it

Report
 Wilderbeest 16 May 2020
In reply to off-duty:

Thank you for taking the time to reply...

I used to be a regular at Harrison’s...as you say if it was busy... well I’d be heading up the road to Eridge rocks. Common sense and not something people should get uptight about if a Policeman comes along and points it out.

Report
 ChrisLeigh19 16 May 2020
In reply to Graham Ad:

> The Police turned up and warned everyone about social distancing, not surprisingly, giving a strong message with a clear threat of enforcement measures - I guess that means fines/being sent home??

I was also at Harrison's for quite a while yesterday, and I just thought it is worth mentioning that I only ran into a park warden-not a police officer. Although he did look like a police officer, he had a park warden patch on the top left of his jacket. He was walking up and down and talking to climbers, and mainly just wanted people to stop mingling outside of their families/pairs of two, and warning people to try not to come on the weekends when it will be especially busy.

Report
 elliott92 16 May 2020
In reply to krikoman:

You mean semi automatic weapons. Granted some may have been auto, but contrary to popular belief, it's quite lengthy, Intrusive and very costly to apply for an automatic weapon in most American states.

I know I'm being a pedantic idiot, and the people overtly carrying arms and tactical gear at a protest are complete bellends, but I hate people talking about firearms when they don't know what they're talking about 

Report
 Dell 16 May 2020
In reply to cpowell:

> The scientific consensus is that transmission of the virus when people are outdoors is low provided simple steps such as washing hands and not touching your face are followed. The message should be 'wash your hands think about what you touch' compared to 'stay away'.

And where are people going to wash their hands?  And who is going to keep the handwashing facilities clean? And who's going to replace the paper towels, repair the broken hand drier, unblock the toilets, refill the bog roll, replace the soap, fix the broken lock on the door? 

Can you see where this is going?

> There would be uproar if those who lived near hospitals tried to keep away those who don't live near hospitals and most people treated panic buyers with contempt as they hoarded away precious bog roll and pasta. I don't see how this is different. 

Of course it's different.

I would regard hospitals, bog roll, and pasta, as essentials.

'Going on holiday' or even taking a day trip isn't. 

Not during times like this anyway. 

Report
 cpowell 16 May 2020
In reply to Dell:

> And where are people going to wash their hands?  And who is going to keep the handwashing facilities clean? And who's going to replace the paper towels, repair the broken hand drier, unblock the toilets, refill the bog roll, replace the soap, fix the broken lock on the door? 

Well they can take hand sanitiser for one, but one would hope the local council would continue to play their role in society and I think keeping sanitation facilities open is even more important in the midst of a public health crisis.

> Can you see where this is going?

Not really.

> I would regard hospitals, bog roll, and pasta, as essentials.

So would I (my point in fact), and denying access to others is rightly seen as wrong.

The role of outdoor space has been recognised as important since the beginning of this outbreak and furthermore the restrictions have been relaxed so that 'non essential' travel can take place. Why should it be denied to others?

Report
 Jim Hamilton 16 May 2020
In reply to ChrisLeigh19:

> I was also at Harrison's for quite a while yesterday, and I just thought it is worth mentioning that I only ran into a park warden-not a police officer.

I did wonder why the police would bother with a 1/2 hour walk through the woods to a sandstone outcrop to check whether social distancing rules were being observed.  

Report
In reply to Dell:

> And where are people going to wash their hands?  And who is going to keep the handwashing facilities clean?

Many outdoorsey people have thermos flasks. Fill one with hot water and a squirt of washing-up liquid.  

Report
In reply to Coel Hellier:

It's amazing that you're the only person to mention this obvious tactic (plus of course a clean towel or a roll of kitchen roll), for something that's more important than anything else. Everyone's saying what a 'low risk' it is, but if someone is a carrier, which is certainly not beyond the bounds of possibility, and does a succession of very popular climbs like Isolated Buttress and Unclimbed Wall, which have quite polished holds, then it seems to me to become quite a high risk, if you haven't brought those washing facilities with you. I.e so that you can wash your hands straight after you do each climb.

As I've said before, many classic outcrop climbs are likely to have rather unhygienic holds at the best of times. My brother, John, reminded me last night how just about everybody in the Leeds Univ CC in about 1970 got warts on the back of their hands because one of their members had very bad warts and many of the jamming cracks had become contaminated.

Post edited at 15:10
Report
 tonyaitch 16 May 2020
In reply to Oceanrower:

Quoting your post:

"You're in luck. I've made it my mission to educate the world one person at a time and today is your day. Now, here are the regulations..."

Well, wow! I'm guessing you're not having a problem with people staying socially distanced from you huh?

Post edited at 16:46
Report
 Oceanrower 16 May 2020
In reply to tonyaitch:

Never did before. Don't now.

Report
 Pinga 16 May 2020
In reply to Graham Ad:

Had a similar experience in the Peak today. Deliberately chose a 'quiet crag' and the lack of social distancing disturbed myself and my partner (from same household) so we went home after 2 routes. A group of 3 turned up (not sure if they were from the same household) and they put their rope pretty much over my partners climbing shoes and then got mad when we asked them to climb the next route over as they were not 2m from us. I love climbing and have climbed for years but after today I'm putting it on hold until the virus (and people's ignorant behavior) is under control. I don't know much about the virus but what I do know is that many have died and many have lost theyre livelihoods. Yes there's a strong chance those people were not infected but their behaviour and ignorance peed me off and I don't want to be around people like that. Climbing should be a fun sport, but today didn't feel right. There are regulations regarding playing tennis and golf but nothing for climbing. If you're soooo desparate to climb stick to the 2m rules and don't upset others. It's really really really not that hard right 😁

Report
L TomD89 17 May 2020
In reply to Graham Ad:

Still says access banned for Harrison's and Stone Farm on the crag map. Is this not the case?

Report
 didntcomelast 17 May 2020
In reply to Oceanrower:

Whilst it could and probably would be argued in court, there is the potential that a group of climbers in close proximity to each other but not necessarily with each other, climbing adjacent routes on a small crag could be construed as being gathered together as per sect 7. and whilst the crag is owned by the BMC the definition of a public place can include private space to which the public have access, the police could deal with everyone gathered at the crag and then let a court decide whether they were right or wrong. New legislation is put in place and courts are used to test the boundaries of that legislation. It can be great fun but also frustrating working it out.  

Report
In reply to didntcomelast:

Fun?

Report
 didntcomelast 17 May 2020
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Aye, a good day out in court was always great fun. Not quite as good if the case was thin though!! Crown court judges are formidable beasts when annoyed. 

Report
 Haynesdavid 18 May 2020
In reply to Graham Ad:

Really Poor Atitude from @oceanrower

who cares about the legal implications. its social responsibility. the fact we are paying billions in tax money for people to stay home. Taking the national debt levels to that of post word war two. By flaunting the rules and looking for loop holes, your A prolonging this shit storm, wasting the efforts of the Good people that follow the rules and probably are paying for these nob heads pizza / takeaway bills and will do for years to come.

As Many people loose there jobs and struggle for years to come. and for what, a days climbing at harrisons, although i love climbing there, in reality its a pretty shit crag. Is it really worth it?

Report
 krikoman 18 May 2020
In reply to elliott92:

> I know I'm being a pedantic idiot, and the people overtly carrying arms and tactical gear at a protest are complete bellends, but I hate people talking about firearms when they don't know what they're talking about 

Then why reply? "guns" is good enough, automatic, semi-automatic, bumper stocks, rifles, assault rifles, shotguns, pistols, what's really the difference in the context of their actions? What in the "free" world are the point of guns at a demonstration at a town hall?

Report
 Oceanrower 18 May 2020
In reply to Haynesdavid:

Christ on a bike some people are thick.

I'm not flouting the rules (I think that's what you meant, not flaunting) or looking for loopholes. I'm stating the law. I know that might be a hard concept for some to follow but there it is.

The record for a vaccine is currently four years and the average is ten. Are you staying home for 10 years? No? Why not?

There might well never be a vaccine. Then what?

That leaves herd immunity. The government recognise that fact. The ONLY reason for the initial lockdown was so as not to overwhelm hospitals. That hasn't happened. ICU and emergency have never been so quiet and the temporary Nightingale hospitals sit empty and unused. Which is why the legislation has been slightly relaxed. The powers that be want, nay need, people out and about.

And I reiterate what I posted above. 

"Rightly or wrongly the law is there for a reason. If they wanted it to mean something else then there is a process to do so.

For the police to enforce the government's opinion on the law rather than what the actual law is, or to make laws up on the hoof is, quite literally, the beginning of a police state!"

Post edited at 15:14
Report
 Haynesdavid 18 May 2020
In reply to Oceanrower:

Yes, however we are in a lockdown now, the end of the lockdown relies on bringing the infection rate down. That is affected by our actions. Couldnt care less about vacines and all the other crap you want to go on about. i want to get the economy going and a successful end to all this crap, not potentially open the wounds of a bleeding animal.

That involves keeping a cap on this crap, which is completley unnessasary.

Social Responsiblity is Key! 

Report
 Oceanrower 18 May 2020
In reply to Haynesdavid:

> the end of the lockdown relies on bringing the infection rate down.

 And how do you think that's going to happen without a vaccine or building up immunity?

Again. You planning on waiting 10 years?

Report
 Haynesdavid 18 May 2020
In reply to Oceanrower:

Until the crags become quieter or restrictions are lifted and households can mix without the detriment of our piers, society or the economy.

i intend to work with, not against. not least so i can get a few shit climbs in.

Post edited at 15:39
Report
 off-duty 18 May 2020
In reply to Oceanrower:

> "Rightly or wrongly the law is there for a reason. If they wanted it to mean something else then there is a process to do so.

> For the police to enforce the government's opinion on the law rather than what the actual law is, or to make laws up on the hoof is, quite literally, the beginning of a police state!"

Continually chuntering on about a "police state", isn't really doing your argument many favours.

As I've repeatedly said, this is not a policing problem. This is a public health crisis.

There is some really clear guidance - about not camping, about 2m distancing for example which is not supported by decent legislation.

I get that you intend to work to the extent of the law, based on your own personal judgement about risk. As part of that judgement you are assuming responsibility for the risk to everyone else, including the consequences of you simply choosing to do stuff that others less "well informed" might see and copy, not to mention providing articulate advocacy that might encourage those who are unsure to do as you are saying.

I and my colleagues don't often get accused of implementing a police state when we are preventing people jumping of bridges, hunting for missing adults, or doing our best to work with mental health services to persuade mentally ill people to go for treatment. None of which are adequately covered by legislation or clearly mandated by law.

Post edited at 16:23
Report
 Oceanrower 18 May 2020
In reply to off-duty:

And, (whilst you are stopping people jumping off bridges, hunting for missing adults or, doing your best to work with mental health services to persuade mentally ill people to go for treatment), how many FPN's do you issue to members of the public that have broken no laws?

None? Sounds about right.

Surely you can see the difference?

Report
 Oceanrower 18 May 2020
In reply to Haynesdavid:

> Until the crags become quieter or restrictions are lifted 

Well. F*ck me, it's your lucky day.

Crags ARE quieter and restrictions HAVE been lifted...

Report
 off-duty 18 May 2020
In reply to Oceanrower:

> And, (whilst you are stopping people jumping off bridges, hunting for missing adults or, doing your best to work with mental health services to persuade mentally ill people to go for treatment), how many FPN's do you issue to members of the public that have broken no laws?

> None? Sounds about right.

> Surely you can see the difference?

Just like at Harrison's Rocks. 

Report
In reply to ChrisLeigh19:

did he have an accent? I was also there on Friday. I’d just topped out on a route on the Pig Tail Slabs and what looked like a policeman, along with another non uniformed chap (I assumed a warden) asked my wife a bunch of questions (were we keeping our distance, do we live together, etc).

 She said the uniformed fella had a french sounding accent.

It was relatively quiet but as others have mentioned there were a few 5+ groups (climbers and non climbers).

 Was back again today and only saw pairs.

Post edited at 19:43
Report
 willpitt07 18 May 2020
In reply to BattyMilk:

From what I saw there was a 'Police Community Support Officer' followed by who I presume was the park warden. He reminded us to maintain the 2m distance, but as the OP alluded to I didn't feel he gave the impression there was a 'clear threat of enforcement measures', he simply asked us to maintain our distance. 

Report
 ChrisLeigh19 19 May 2020
In reply to BattyMilk:

Yes I believe he did.

Report
 krikoman 23 May 2020
In reply to Oceanrower:

> That leaves herd immunity. The government recognise that fact. The ONLY reason for the initial lockdown was so as not to overwhelm hospitals.

Where's you evidence there is such a thing with CV-19

Report
 Oceanrower 23 May 2020
In reply to krikoman:

The exact same place as your evidence that there'll ever be a vaccine...

Report
 Neil Williams 23 May 2020
In reply to Oceanrower:

> The exact same place as your evidence that there'll ever be a vaccine...

Well, quite.  If there isn't lasting immunity there won't be a vaccine either (though if you get 12 months' immunity an annual vaccine with the flu jab may work).  And if that is the case (no evidence of that, but *if* it is) then we are potentially literally talking an extinction event, or at the very least a mass extinction of over-70s and those with serious medical conditions, so a significant reduction in long-term life expectancy.  So basically throwing medicine 200 years into the past.

Vaccination and natural herd immunity are two means to exactly the same end.  With the former you do it by introducing a fake version of the virus that doesn't make you ill (or makes you only slightly ill as per the first vaccine, which gave people active cow-pox to stop them getting smallpox, which is not an overly dissimilar concept to having chickenpox parties if anyone still does that), with the latter you let them catch the actual thing and hope not too many die.  One is more scientific (and less deadly) than the other, but they both do the same thing in basically the same way.

Post edited at 13:44
Report