UKC

Both women charged with culpable and reckless conduct.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19035043.ben-lomond-rescue-two-walkers-...

Trial by media? Nah... I don't need to know; neither am I interested.

Enjoy your isolation xx

Aha! But the 'dislike' was not from me.

And I didn't read the article which all goes to highlight how remotely judging people on second hand accounts is firstly fraught with inaccuracies and secondly, somewhat voyeuristic.

I haven't read it and now I don't have the time to either. Good luck with the thread

I didn't dislike your OP, one thing does perturb me a bit though - will the fines being issued put people off calling for rescue when they really need to? Or worse still someone exercising >5 miles from home comes across a casualty / accident and doesn't call 999 for fear of being fined?

Have a dislike for whinging on about dislikes!

I'm not sure we should be discouraging people from calling out MRT by insta fining them or shaming them on social media. Sure there are idiots every year that get into trouble on the hills and a good chunk of them really actively got themselves into trouble by dint of their own stupidity but I'd really rather they were rescued safe and sound rather than found later dead and frozen.

Save your bile for the f*ckwits at parties

Up here in Scotland you have to stay in your local Council area & are allowed to drive upto 5miles into the neighbouring Council area to start exercise. They are from the Fife Council area & Ben Lomond is in the Stirling Council area, & the Ben Lomond car park is 44miles from the nearest Fife Council boundary (Kincardine bridge). In simple terms what they did is called "taking the p155"...

People dislike the fact that people are breaching covid restriction. If you post bad news, people dislike it. Its not some referendum on you as a person. Don't worry about it.

Over 100,000 dead and you think we should avoid fining flagrant disregard for the lockdown rules, to avoid the possibility that some idiot would rather die than call a rescue and receive a fine????

It's not that simple though, is it? There's a reason why MR teams rarely criticise even the most egregious of ill-equipped idiots that they rescue, and why when the occasional team does so, it causes a stir.

I'll happily say it publicly: it doesn't sit well with me regardless of my opinion on the pandemic, the restrictions or the people involved. And no, I don't know what the answer is.

As a member of an MRT it worries me. The outcome is usually better if the call for help is made earlier. If the casualty is reluctant because they think they might get a fine then they might wait till it's dark, conditions are worse and their condition has deteriorated. All round that adds up to a more difficult and dangerous situation for us to deal with.

Yes it is good that they were led to safety and yes people get into trouble all the time on the hills. Sometimes, it is just an unfortunate accident, sometimes lack of knowledge, but this is different.

No rule says don't g on a hill because you might have an accident, no rule says don't go on a hill if you don't have enough knowledge. There is, at present, a rule that says don't exercise more than 5 miles from the the boundary of your local authority area.

I too can't understand the dislikes to the first post. About time the forum got rid of the dislike button IMO - if someone dislikes a post, say why.

Dave

If only to stop every other discussion degenerating into a playground argument about them. It ha to be the most distracting feature to conversation ever implemented.

Maybe a rebrand, at least? 'Disagree', perhaps?

Is it any different to a bank robber crashing the getaway car and being reluctant to call the AA, the police or whatever? Should hillwalkers be exempt from fines if they get lost or have an accident?

Our police officer neighbour describes her saturday night Glasgow shifts as mostly talking patiently to very unreasonable people, pleading with them to go home so that she doesn't have to arrest them. In my experience there is often a somewhat equivalent story behind these headlines, that doesn't make it into the news article...

But I agree with you that the thought of putting people off from calling for help is a worry - especially good samaritans as another poster mentioned further up the thread.

Or show the name of who ‘liked’ or ‘disliked’?

I've switched mine off, and I’m all the happier for it.

Reminds me of a night I spent, sober, in Sauchiehall Street. Drunk bloke talking to cops in car...

“awright, there?” 

“great, thanks”

”cracking night, eh?”

”yeah, wanna move on”

”whit man, I’m just saying hello”

Etc etc etc

5 minutes later bloke is over the car in cuffs.

One thing I notice about the story is that, whilst they were in very clear breach of the coronavirus restrictions, they were charged - "in connection with culpable and reckless conduct".

My legal knowledge is extremely limited, but that doesn't sound to me as if they've been charged under the coronavirus legislation, but rather under a 'normal times' law.

Is that right? And might it have consequences that could last beyond the coronavirus restrictions?

My knowledge is equally limited but I interpreted it as the covid legislation makes unnecessary travelling reckless conduct.

Once the covid legislation is repealed or expires then traveling beyond 5 miles from your council area boundary is no longer considered reckless.

Just my take on it.

Agree. 'Disagree' might work but I would still like to see folks saying why they disagree. Some might have a valid point that others have not considered.

Dave

Yes.

Dave

Yes, I think it's different. Their actions were inconsiderate and selfish and also against the law, but not nearly in the same category as robbery or dangerous driving in my opinion. Driving 45 miles to go for a walk is against the rules and if everyone did it there would be serious consequences. However, the only actual additional covid risk I can see for a single instance (minus mrt involvement of course!) is an extra trip to a petrol station.

I live in Wales and the rules here are different. A colleague and fellow team member was cautioned by the police a couple of weeks ago for driving 5 miles to go for a walk and meanwhile we are driving all over the country to do non-essential work. Next week I have to go to Kendal and stay in a hotel so I can recertify a climbing ticket. I'm following the rules despite thinking they're absurd but I can't blame others for not doing so.

If the rationale behind the charge of reckless conduct was endangerment of the MRT then I think that's a very slippery slope. Literally every single call out involves some risk to team members, even if they're just driving to a car park only to get stood down.

On the other hand, they knew the rules and chose to break them. It is not a good situation, but I don't think there is an easy solution. Should they have been let off? If so, what message does that send to others?

Isn't the "reckless" thing used to cover all covid breaches?

I'm seriously thinking of illegally driving ten miles down the road to save £10 on filling my car with diesel (my local filling station is a motorway service station with rip off prices). I would not expect any exceptions to be made if I had an accident. I shall probably drive particularly carefully.

Death is a strong punishment for what is a minor, if very topical, misdemeanour.

Taking the argument to the fringes of reason; should someone be beaten senseless after inviting someone back to their home [a date, a friend, whoever], should they too be fined when they call the police?

Access to the hills or climbs under Covid guidelines is quite literally a postcode lottery. I'm equidistant from Lochnagar and the Northern Corries, for example,  but one is in my local authority area and the other isnt. Aberdeenshire is a huge "local authority" area with loads of climbing, walking, ski and bike trails, extending beyond Braemar, while Aberdeen City is a tiny one.

Playing by the letter rather than the spirit of the rules I'm relatively unrestricted, so I have sympathy for my city-bound neighbours to whom I would willingly extend the spirit rather than the letter of travel restrictions.

​​​​​​I think the 'boundary' parameter adopted to restrict  social contact is simply too arbitrary and hence fundamentally unfair. So I can fully understand folk being prepared to deviate from compliance with it. Choosing to do so and then needing rescued, and then being fined, is just a bad combination of circumstances I hope most hillwalkers won't experience.

Death is not the punishment; the fine is. If they choose death, that is up to them.

I'm not sure your example of getting beaten senseless is comparable because they would have had no way of anticipating this. Everyone knows that an accident is a small but real possibility whenever they drive or go hill-walking.

Everyone sensible knows that inviting dates back to your house for the first time has a small but real possibility of having a bad outcome (though I didn't envisage that they were beaten to death). I don't think they're that dissimilar — they're both activities currently frowned upon that involve the emergency services having to attend.

It's not a minor misdemeanor right at this time though, is it?

If we all make these little exceptions for ourselves, the NHS will be overwhelmed, and tens of thousands more unnecessary deaths will occur. 

Of course it is. If we all make the little exception to go hillwalking, I imagine the outcome will be lost in the noise of the thousands of people still going to B&Q, Decathlon and other non-essential shops that are still open. I'm not arguing that it's right, I'm arguing that it does not occupy the same category of crime as robbery, as rape, or as anything that would see you rightly serving prison time. As I said, it's a very topical misdemeanour, but it occupies the same level of criminality as driving without insurance or being a public nuisance on a Friday night. Considering it in any other way is just emotional and banal.

Sorry, beaten senseless, not to death (had "cake or death" stuck in my head!). Put like that, yes they could be seen as comparable and I stand by my point - they broke the law and took the risk, they deal with the consequences. Does the involvement of a third party change things? Would it in a road accident?

I don't think we'll fully reconcile our opinions on this (and that is perfectly okay). From my point of view, the consequences of being dissuaded from calling the emergency services in these scenarios are high enough that it is not clear cut. As I said originally, I don't know what the answer is, but I shudder to think that someone in genuine need on the hill might make a poor decision, not call for help and subsequently end up 10' under. And as pancakeandchips highlights, their reluctance to call for help at the appropriate time might actually further endanger those who do eventually respond. Hillwalker lost in fog, decides to chance it, and has to subsequently be rescued from steep ground? Or expires and causes a massive S&R operation?

It's not as black-and-white as the baying mob would like it to be

friend of mine lives just on the Aberdeen city side of the boundary (maybe a 100 m inside) - he's not too happy although he accepts the reasoning. He's a keen skier but has been restricted to the odd outing in Kirkhill forest while near neighbours can head for the southern Cairngorms, Lochnagar etc.

I actually think we are in agreement - they should get help. But do you think they should be fined, or should it be waived?

It is worth bearing in mind that nobody is likely to be caught unless something does go wrong.

I think that fining people and making it a prominent news article will have undesired consequences. I think that people who break the law should be reprimanded,  but I don't think that splashing it across the tabloids will do anyone any good. But of course, deliberately keeping things out of the news is also not ideal, and the news will potentially deter many others from doing the same and causing the same problem.

I have no idea how to reconcile those things in a fair manner.

I agree it's not nearly as simple as is being made out, personally I'd far rather walk them off the hill early than stretcher them off later with all the additional personnel, close contact, manual handling, further definitive care needs implied (before you consider the worse outcome for them) because they were scared of being charged if they called for help. 

in reply to thread.

This is where the rules in Scotland make little sense currently; they have traveled c.45miles and are now being charged under a stupidly severe (for the offense) law rather than the actual covid regs (£30 fine).  Equally folk large local authorities e.g. Aberdeenshire, Highland etc are free travel double, triple, quadruple that distance and are doing so perfectly legally as they happen to be living in a massive local authority.  It's the definition of postcode lottery.  The previous regulation of 5 miles from home/local community made more sense and was at least equal in it's application, though I can see that some kind of consideration should be given to those living in cities etc so that they can access open space.

The arbitrary nature of the restrictions makes it hard to be annoyed with people breaking the rules to access the hills atm. 

I'm really uncomfortable with the use of the reckless and culpable charge - what was reckless?  The fact that they traveled across an arbitrary line on a map - in which case why have the hundreds of other people caught doing so not been similarly charged?  Why aren't those ignoring the line in the regulations saying travel no further than nearest place to home you can safely exercise outdoors being charged?  If it's to do with needing rescued its a very scary precedent; when does adventure become reckless? and who decides??  When does taking a light pack become ill equipped and reckless (fell running?) and again who decides? 

The idea that folk could come to harm as they're scared of calling for help due to a serious criminal charge being levied is awful.  If they need help, they need help - fear of criminal prosecution shouldn't be part of the decision.

A £30 fine and hopefully a hefty donation to the MRT involved sounds a lot more reasonable.

Cheers!

Stu

I definitely share your discomfort over the implications of the charge, and tehmarks' comments on the dilemma over publicising the fining, or not. 

But, having some knowledge of this and a number of other similar incidents that have made the news over the last year, I think it's fair to say there is often more to the "culpable and reckless" stories than makes the papers.

This is a valid point. However if people are somewhere they should not be during lockdown, then they will need to asses and deal with the situation they have put themselves in, at the time.  That goes for the persons in difficulty and those who may come across such a situation.

So for all of us.  We either stick strictly within the rules laid down or we each deal with any situations on the ground that we find ourselves in.

That would be my concern too. As far as I understand it (being a compliant soul vis a vis the current travel restrictions)is that the normal thing if you’re caught transgressing would be a Fixed Penalty ticket, not a fairly serious sounding criminal charge and a court appearance. So this very much has a look of criminalising the fact of needing a rescue. The Stirling part of Police Scotland have got form for this, though, they chucked this one at someone in the springtime but the charge was dropped by the PF I believe.
 

Not that I’ve got any sympathy for the rescuees, I’m marooned in South Lanarkshire with no decent days out available to me but the public interest dictates that I have to stay local. But a fine and a couple of days in the Daily Record stocks seems more proportional.

As a Stirling resident (very eastern edge of the town itself), this aspect of it worries me in terms of my own activities. In theory I could trundle off to Ben Lomond or Vorlich/Stuc or Ledi without fear of fines or charges, but I'm wary of doing so because the police in these parts do seem to be acquiring a reputation. It's not on the Derbyshire police level (funnily enough I'm from Derbyshire originally so all this stuff interests me), but it does feel like there's a level of uncertainty. Having said that, I've not had any great urge to head for even the nearish bigger hills such as those mentioned, and at present I certainly wouldn't go to the hills in the far west of the Stirling council area, 50 miles away, as that does seem to contravene the general "stay local" message.

This links with another aspect of what's being discussed, namely the postcode lottery. Stirling is on the winning side of this and I've been able to make good use of the "five miles beyond" thing by having loads of outings to the near and middle sections of the Ochils, which are in as good winter nick as they've been in a decade. Have thus far had ten outings this year above 2000ft, all of them in the Ochils and all of them starting in the Clackmannanshire council area rather than in Stirling council - and all perfectly legal. December was similar - I've not been west of the M9 since a Stuc-from-Braeleny outing in late November. I guess the way I'm handling the restrictions fits with "stay local" aspect in that I've thus far not driven ten miles from the house (whereas going to Ben Ledi, say, is 19 miles, and Braeleny is 18), but it is all a bit odd and, like others, I have sympathy for the keen hill people locked up inside small urban council areas and basically stuck whereas I'm wandering around on the Ochils to my heart's content.

I'm in a very similar position to you, but with the whole of Perth and Kinross to play in legally but so far restricting myself this year to the Ochils using the 5 mile thing to mostly start from Ckackmannanshire. The Lomond hills are closer, but I hear there have been issues with parking being mobbed, so it makes sense to leave them to Fifers who have no other legal options, until there is enough daylight for after work trips. I am tempted but so far undecided about heading to the Perhshire Highlands and, if so, how far. 

The postcode lottery sucks. I'm in Glasgow, and I'm tempted to unfollow the British Backcountry  and ground conditions Facebook pages, because it's depressing seeing all these people skiing, climbing, and hillwalking. At least the five-mile rule from last year was a bit more egalitarian, making everyone equally (ish) as miserable.

It would be sweet to have a Stirlingshire or Perth and Kinross postcode.

It definitely was before the lockdown was tightened, but I don't feel comfortable using it fully just now, we've been asked to stay local, and Tyndrum probably doesn't count!

We did have a great day out on Uamh Bheag on Saturday, though - not technically the Highlands but attached to them and still definitely feels local - if the days were a bit longer we might have cycled to the start of the walk.

Glasgow's particularly unfortunate, being 'walled in' by better council areas. You could use the 5 miles leeway to get about as far as Mugdock reservoir, and walk in the West end of the Campsies starting there, Earl's Seat would still be a reasonable walk from there. OK, it's not Torridon, but it's better than nothing!

Yes, for those of us in the big councils with hills, it's little different from last Spring; then we were asked to stay within 5 miles, now 'local' and both guidance rather than legally enforceable. Before the lockdown it was very different.

I feel like I live in Mugdock Park. My horse lives at the stables near the park, so I know every inch of every trail in Mugdock and the nearby forestry, both on horse and on foot.

Horse being lame at the moment isn't helpful.  It was easier to be cool with the lockdown and ignore not being able to go up mountains when I could ride. Currently not leaving sofa (I work from home) except to play nursemaid to horse.

Eh? Surely, if it's a real possibility, then there's an anticipation. Especially during covid, this possibility, should be acted upon, and stay the f*ck at home.

How low risk would an activity have to be for you to consider it acceptable? Or do you "stay the f*ck" in bed all day?

Ha! Mugdock's nice (although very busy) - but I was more suggesting it as the launch point for a walk somewhere a bit quieter and hillier. Where it sits, it's accessible from Stirling, Glasgow or East Dunbartonshire councils within the law (maybe West Dunbartonshire too, I'm not sure) - it seems a valid escape route if you're trapped in the city!

The Campsies aren't the most exciting of hills, but at least they're snowy just now, and anywhere along the northern scarp has beautiful (if frustrating) views of the Highlands. The sunrises and sunsets are particularly spectacular.

What are you waffling on about?

Yeah, I just feel Campsie'd out. Went up there quite a few times during Travel Ban 1.0 and I have been a couple times during Travel Ban 2.0. When I was at the stables today, they looked pretty scoured.

There's always the north face of Jura. And I don't mean the mountains on the island.

I do have a P&K postcode and Kinross is my posttown. However, the county boundary is on my drive, so my house is in Clacks and dustbin in P&K. Very conflicted by the rules! Still, Kingseat this morning was glorious.

The solution is clear.

Yep - it was glorious on Sunday too. Did a King's Seat - Tarmangie - Whitewisp round from Tilli given that I can't drive to Dollar for such things at present. Great conditions right round, including the walk back through Dollar and Harviestoun.

On Saturday I did Ben Cleuch for sunrise and then down over Ben Ever. On Sunday, just for a change, I did...... er........ Ben Cleuch for sunrise and then down over Ben Ever. Amazing conditions both days

Gorgeous shots!

Here's much later on Saturday, and about half way into your first pic.

Which way did you go into Uamh Bheag? I had a really good long summer's day in June walking in from the Milton of Cambus side by the windfarm tracks. Don't think I saw anyone apart from two mountainbikers near the end. It's a big bit of country in there.

Great Ochil pictures, Robert.

We went up from Dalvorlich, and it was a good approach - the track takes you up to where it starts getting hilly, and the views into the southern corries of Beinn Each, Stuc a'Chroin and Ben Vorlich really open up. We went up to the summits directly from the SW side, and had a bit of ice-axe arrest practise with the kids on the way, then came down over Uamh Mhor (with a bit of quality bumsliding on the way, the girls even went part way back up to do that again!)

We've been up it before about ten years ago from the Glen Artney side (carrying the kids, as they were too wee to walk it), so it was good to do a completely different route.

Sounds good - I've never gone in that way. Are the two Brackland houses occupied? I've gone in from Artney a few times and also over Meall Leathan Dhail, plus last year's Milton of Cambus route. The main summit is a great viewpoint for the "wrong" side of Vorlich etc as you say.

Easter Bracklinn is a working farm with a fair bit of activity (including a passing Morrisons delivery van on our way down).

Middle Bracklinn is well-maintained and looked like someone's home, but we didn't see anyone as we passed.

I fancy a walk in to Beinn Each and Stuc a'Chroin from Bridge of Keltie if the current lockdown extends into the spring, I haven't been up them from the south - but I'll need a long day for it, I'm struggling a wee bit, at the moment.

Ta. I once met an Asda van a long way up the private Glen Tilt road.

I've done them as a round from Braeleny quite a few times, although not since the bridge(s) went back in after the 2004 cloudburst. It's a 6 or 7hr day round them both from there - I tend to do Vorlich first then amble back down the long ridge off Stuc. Have however in recent years done several Stuc-only outings from Braeleny, and also a very good circuit of the Corbett and its SE tops followed by Stuc from there as well - again easier since the new bridges and tracks went in. Given that Braeleny is the closest sensible start-point for Vorlich/Stuc from Stirling, if we were to get into trouble for doing that it'd be worrying.

Probably worth noting that the rules are pretty clear up here and Ben Lomond is one of the most popular, busy and accessible hills from Glasgow. Add to this they decided to ignore the rules on a Sunday with blazing sunshine and perfect winter connies.

Given that they'd driven across the country plus the above I don't think the police could have NOT done anything about it.

Difficult times.  I would argue that, if you are playing the numbers game, it is more important to reinforce the "stay at home" message and actively discourage mass travel.  We've already seen on this forum how people latch onto any excuse (such as guidelines issued to police officers) as a green light.  These are not normal times. People flouting the rules are not only increasing personal danger but danger to others.  Knowing that fines are imposed, imo, will save more lives than the worry of receiving a fine if MRT are called.

Maybe some reporting restrictions might have helped i.e. "2 women travelled x miles for exercise, got caught and fined." No mention of the rescue required really.

Reporting restrictions of rescues is a whole other can of worms, though. For a start there's public money in it in Scotland these days, plus as someone who has worked as both a journalist and researcher on hill matters it's been noticeable how reporting of accidents/rescues has become less good in recent years, and it wouldn't be ideal to see things murkified further.

(Snow down to road level this morning in the Stirling/Ochils area, by the way.)

In terms of policing the pandemic, the fact that they called MRT is irrelevant. They travelled further than allowed for their exercise and got caught. It's the travelling that is the issue, in a public health context (and most of the population don't want to climb mountains, thankfully)

I agree re the pandemic/travel aspect - but the MRT was involved and when it comes to compiling/publishing rescue stats they should still be in there.

Agree, given all of mainland Scotland is in the same tier I think the Scottish Government to change the rue to something like, you can travel up to 10 miles to exercise to alleviate the clear unfairness of the current system.

Dave

What's 'fairness' got to do with travel restrictions? They are primarily there to try to minimise travel.

Because if they're not fair, people will be less likely to adhere to them when they see their neighbour, 50m on the other side of the LA border, able to drive 50 miles to the Cairngorms to go walking or climbing.

Rules are bugger all use if people are disinclined to follow them. It's not exactly the cutting edge of behavioural science we're talking about.

In my post way above, I stated:-"Up here in Scotland you have to stay in your local Council area & are allowed to drive upto 5miles into the neighbouring Council area to start exercise. They are from the Fife Council area & Ben Lomond is in the Stirling Council area, & the Ben Lomond car park is 44miles from the nearest Fife Council boundary (Kincardine bridge). In simple terms what they did is called "taking the p155"...

Loch Morlich, the north side of Cairngorms, & Ben Wyvis, are all a short drive (within 30miles radius) from Inverness & are all IN the Highland Council area. However, I have been reluctant to go for an easy ski/walk well within my capabilities. The main reason being the Police, as although I bought my car in Inverness in not on a local (SV, SY) plate. Yes, my car is registered to my home address in the Highland Council area, but I don't want to have an argument at the side of the road with the Police as to the definition of "Local area"...& no I don't want a £200 fine.

I contacted the Police up here & as far as they are concerned its 5miles from your home & no more, even if within your Council area. I asked them where they got that info from & they stated its on the Scot Gov website. Well its not & the 5miles radius was way back in the first lockdown, & is not mentioned in the current tier 4 restrictions!!

Basically loads of confusion & if the Police want to have a go they will..."do you feel lucky punk?"

I have emailed the relevant dept at the Scot Gov. & no reply as of yet...!!

A friend had an encounter with an officer beneath Ben More and Stob Binnein a couple of weeks ago which boiled down to the same thing: a resident of Stirlingshire getting bother because he is exercising on hills well inside Stirlingshire, as legally allowed.

The friend had copied all the relevant guidance from Scotgov website to show. I gather the officer didn't like this and, by the sounds of it (second hand info) genuinely sounded offended he did not get the upper hand.

My feeling is if an officer is going out their way to patrol laybys used exclusively recreationally (both north and south of these hills) it would take them five minutes to check up the guidance on the government website as I did no problem. Whoever this was, went looking for confrontation without having done that.

My experience of police on Highland roads after years living there is they do go out their way to look for action, much more aggressively than in the Lowlands. Maybe because everyone typically travels on one long road and is easier to police.

I think it's important to keep in mind that while the law allows us to travel anywhere in, or up to 5 miles beyond, our council areas to start exercise, the guidance also asks us to stay as local as possible.

The police shouldn't be harassing, fining or charging anyone who's within the law, but I don't see a problem with them having a word with people to remind them about this (not being party to your friend's encounter, I don't know why or how badly it escalated - so I can't comment on that, certainly you can get overly-zealous officers, but the public don't always handle it perfectly either).

I live in Stirling, which has some great hills a lot nearer than Crianlarich. I'm taking 'local' to mean anything I could reasonably get to without using the car; if I had nothing worthwhile within that range I'd allow myself to go a bit further. Do people need to get out and up into bigger hills? Well, maybe, I think it's very important to many and it's not high risk anyway. Do we need to get to specific hills, though? Probably not.

I don't think people travelling further afield, legally or otherwise, to do distanced exercise outdoors, and not car sharing or stopping at shops and petrol stations while they're away, are likely to cause any significant spreading of covid. But there is some risk (breakdowns, rescues, and there's probably still a small chance of outdoor spread in busier places) - so I think we should be at least be asking ourselves whether we really need to drive past more local options, even if we're legally allowed to. But people have to make their own assessments (and your friend may well even be local to Crianlarich, I don't know).

That kind of thing has been my worry too. I've similarly been carting around a printout (regularly updated!) of the current travel laws and guidance, and thus far haven't had need to dig it out of the glove compartment. But then I've only been going local-Ochil and not risking even the nearer Munros/Ledi etc. Certainly wouldn't risk going as far as BMore/StobB just now even though it's technically legit from Stirling. January is going to be another Munroless month but I'll see what's what come mid-Feb - Braeleny for Stuc is always a good standby if the roads aren't icy, and it'd be a surprise to find the polis going up that road beyond the Bracklinn Falls car park. Various local friends have been going to Ledi without a problem, and I also know of a couple of trouble-free outings to Vorlich, but I'm in cautious mode just now and operating out of Menstrie/Alva/Tilli all the time.

(Also went to the Tappoch/Torwood broch yesterday for the first time while on a delivery run to the hospital at Larbert - an interesting mini legstretch.)

Is the gate definitely not locked just now, Dave? I thought it was locked a month or two back when we were doing a Callander Crags circuit - but I could be mistaken. Obviously there's alternative parking at the Falls car park (often gets full), or by where the A84 crosses the Keltie Water (makes for a longer day).

Tappoch Broch is surprisingly good, isn't it? I've yet to go find the 'blue pool' near there, too: https://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/denny/bluepool/index.html

It was closed but unlocked the last time I was there (25 Nov) - I parked at Braeleny no problem that day. Since then (early Jan, I think, not sure of the exact date), a couple of Stirling friends tried the same outing but couldn't drive up the road due to ice (despite one of them being in a Land Rover), so parked lower down and walked up. They eventually retreated from high on the Stuc ridge with daylight getting a bit short, but there was no mention of the gate having been locked when I was told the story, so I'm assuming it was OK then too.

Interesting corner generally. I liked the ruined castle - where a large ginger cat appeared, mouse dangling from its mouth! The various paths were all a bit soggy/icy yesterday - glad I took a stick - but it was a good pottering-about hour. The actual broch is really good, as you say.

Nowt to do with that, it was about the tautology of the sentence, and of course the logic.

How many people had to do something different because these people couldn't do what might be considered the right thing?

Sorry, I have absolutely no idea what you are on about. 

Exactly what I feared. 

Thing is I would be doing easy ski touring on my own (I been in these hills for the past 26yrs) &  I can see Ben Wyvis & its in good condition.....& as for Cairngorm.......I could cry....

I don't think you will get lifted going to Ben Wyvis. 

I think Cairngorm is within the law but pushing the spirit. Plenty disagree with me and have been going there from Inverness throughout lockdown. Again I doubt you'll get lifted. If you did I am confident that there's a good defence. 

There's always Slochd and the Strathnairn hills. 

The middle-distance stuff seems to be quite a tricky dilemma for a lot of people. From my Stirling perspective, I've come to realise that I've basically divided things into three categories: A is Munro/Corbett etc outings deep into Stirlingshire - around Crianlarich/Killin and effectively anywhere beyond Lochearnhead; B is similar in terms of type of day but nearer - Vorlich/Stuc/Ledi and into the Trossachs; and C is very local-Ochil outings (Blairlogie/Sheriffmuir etc) and using the five-miles-beyond thing to start from Menstrie, Alva or Tillicoultry, all of which are considerably closer than any of the B options, and are very familiar hills where I feel at home.

I've ruled out any A outings for the foreseeable - at least until the restrictions ease and we get back into the earlier Levels, probably Level 3 rather than Level 4. I'm doing C things all the time - eg have had ten days above 2000ft this year and they've all been along the Hillfoots, plus there have been various lower Dumyat and Colsnaur raids too. It's the B category that feels like the debatable area. As yet (since late Nov) I've not done anything of that sort, even though I think I'd not be at much risk of being stopped and I'd certainly be able to argue my corner if I was. Various friends - as mentioned upthread - have been going to B category hills without a problem. I don't see that kind of outing as any more Covid-risky than the C ones (whereas A feels like it would be - further, and slightly less familiar / more serious hills). But I don't want to be stopped, so at present I'm not taking the B risk and am getting by, hillwise, entirely on a diet of C. But the B category hills are tempting me, for sure, and if restrictions (and weather/road conditions) ease by mid-Feb then I'll start doing that again. I can well imagine that other people in other large council areas, eg folk based in Inverness and Perth, are going through similar thought processes.

There is a disconjuction between law, guidance, intention and personal interpretation that is hard to navigate. 

They were fined for breaking Scottish Covid rules which, unlike England's, are very precise. They got caught because they were not up to the walk they took on and had to call the MRT. Fair enough I think.

Unfortunately the present travel restrictions for exercise do not minimise travel. Under the current rules someone living in Durness could travel to Ardnamurchan to exercise. Anyone doing that is not following the guidance and I would condemn then for do it, but they would be within the law.

If the Scottish Government want to minimise travel a simple no more than X miles form home would be easier. It would not be fool proof as there would be good and lawful reasons why someone needed to travel more than the X miles but it would help to reduce unnecessary travel.

Dave 

You're right - they don't minimise travel. But they are a fairly practical, rough-and-ready way of reducing it significantly, and of limiting mixing in different parts of the country, and of splitting the country into chunks to allow different restriction levels to be applied as required. Each council area does contain the facilities most people need to carry on their lives (you're still allowed to travel elsewhere to work if you need to), they allow most a few options as to where to go, and they're already defined as areas. Yes, some are better than others - at least from an 'outdoors person' point of view, it isn't perfect.

Highland council really is a bit of an exception, being much bigger than the rest. It also has much lower population density - and less of a covid problem than many areas.

We've also been asked to stay local. It may legal to take a day trip from Balnakeil to have a stroll on Sanna Bay, but we've very clearly been asked not to do such things - and I think it's quite unlikely that many people will!

There's no ideal solution, but I think that limiting people to a specific number of miles from home is at least as much a 'postcode lottery' as giving us the freedom of a council area (plus five miles more). Remember, access to the hills matters a lot to us - but most people have other wishes and concerns. And being stuck in a 10 even 20 mile radius in Durness, or Campbelltown, or Westray is extremely restrictive, with the same distance in the Central Belt allowing huge amounts of mixing and potential covid-spreading between major towns.

In hill terms - be it walking or climbing or whatever - the people who seem best equipped to cope with the ongoing restrictions are those who happily stay local anyway and are largely content to cover the same ground again and again. A ten- or even five-mile limit is likely to keep them reasonably content and gives them an endless supply of stuff to do. I'm like that - I tend to think of it as still having the "runner's mentality" even though my running days are long gone (local, regular, out in all weathers regardless, slotting exercise into bits and bobs of normal life), and with having the Ochils pretty much on the doorstep I've been able to keep fit and more or less sane. Was up Ben Cleuch 82 times last year (most I've ever done) and had 144 Ochil outings overall, and didn't at all feel Ochiled-out by the end of it - only mild hankerings to go elsewhere, and even then not particularly far. I did miss the Lakes, though - that's kind of a home from home and 2020 was the first year without at least one visit - usually multiple - since 1995.

By contrast, I've seen comments by one or two of the serious serial baggers - who routinely travel 100 or more miles for some small new hill - that the hills are effectively closed. Clearly they're not, not in Scotland at least just now, but if all you want is new stuff then it must be quite hard. I'm regarding myself as quite lucky in all this.

Yeah, I think that's probably right - and I'm somewhere in between those two.

I think that when I was seriously into bagging (obsessed is a reasonable word), I'd have found this very hard - but raising kids has mellowed that enormously, and while I'm still ticking off the Grahams it's only a few a year just now.

But I do really love going new places, planning trips, chasing the weather to make the most of it, and seeing new things - and it's really hard to do much of that just now; the loss of the ability to make those plans and have those things to look forward to is what's hitting me hardest in lockdown.

I've always just loved getting out, though, and I still very much have that. And there's a lot to be said for being forced to explore the local area, finding places I haven't been to, and approaches I haven't been on, before. And I know we're very lucky living where we do.

But it will be wonderful when we can get back to what we used to have, or at least something more like it!

I think I would have done too - say this had happened 15 or 20 years ago, when like you I was chasing down various lists and travelling much more, I would have found it much harder to cope with. I tidied up the Wainwright loose ends in the middle part of last decade, but that was closely linked with Lakes family stuff - I've not really properly hunted down a hill list since finishing the Munros in 2007. I know what you mean about going to new places, but for me that's outweighed by simply wanting to get out regardless (the "go outside just once" thing in the initial lockdown panicked me, and pretty much immediately I decided to ignore it in terms of local pottering). I've steadily become more stay-at-home-ish over the past decade or more, though - to the extent that I now regard it as a form of homesickness and, as my better half would tell you, I find it quite a wrench to go anywhere very far at all, certainly anywhere that involves an overnight stay. So the current situation sort of lets me get on with what I like doing locally anyway, and I'm happy enough - although clearly I'm fairly unusual in this and there's nothing at all wrong with people having an urge to travel and explore further afield in normal times.

Funnily enough the thing I'm finding hardest - apart from the lack of general going-to-the-pub sociability - is the absence of league chess matches. I've played competitive chess (not very well) since I was a boy, but of course everything just stopped last March. There was quickly an alternative online structure established - online chess was already a thing, so it was easy enough to get people such as me to start playing it - but it's almost all been individual tournaments rather than team stuff. I've come to realise that I like nothing better than a B team match away at Grangemouth on a wet November night! Funnily enough we did have an online match last night - the Stirling club vs Stirling University - first time I've played in any kind of match for ten months. It was good fun - and my lot won, hooray - but it still wasn't the same as being in an actual room with actual real opponents and moving actual pieces around on an actual board.

5 or 10 miles means zero hills of any kind for many of us. Might just get Arthur's Seat on 10 miles and I am better off than many.

There was a report yesterday of another Crianlarich incident - four men from Midlothian having been charged after getting into trouble on Ben More in mid-January - I don't think I'd seen mention of that before:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-55860877

I admire your dedication to the Ochils, but, like last June, after a month now of going nowhere else, I am beginning to get very twitchy with longing to go further afield; the Ochils are nice, but one can have too much of a good thing, especially when there are better legal and arguably local things not all that far away. I've got a week's half term coming up and I think I am going to venture further afield midweek while being careful about parking sensitivities.

Anyway, off up Ben Cleuch this afternoon for the sunset. Probably again tomorrow........