I assume everything is covered with sh1t. Focusses the mind!
Printable View
I assume everything is covered with sh1t. Focusses the mind!
That was the case yesterday a "muck spreader" has just been working in a field and the gate was completly covered in sh*^%$£"!tQuote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
Inside the average house, it is! Swabs from many places in the home grow faecal organisms. Some years back a chap where I was working gave a talk about Pakistan, his home country. To try and avoid traveller's diarrhoea he said assume everything is covered in faeces. Very honest of him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
To try and avoid Covid 19 we not only have to be aware of where others have touched, but where they have coughed/sneezed or even breathed or spoken over. There seems little doubt Covid 19 is in exhaled breath. The harder the exhalation - coughing for example - probably the bigger the infection risk, but I doubt it is just coughing/sneezing/touching that results in transfer of infection.
An argument that will be fought out in the courts I suspect.
Here is the law. See section 6
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/...0200350_en.pdf
Yet police in south west are enforcing a none existent law ,by not allowing travel to dog walk or exercise.
A criminal prosecution QC on Twitter, said they will get thrown out of court, that he has no case he can bring on the polices behalf. Rightly so.
Why is CPS not banning such cases?
Is it too much to hope the police involved will be prosecuted for wasting police time?
As an infringement of civil liberty, this should be appealed to the top.
If the government wants to ban drive to exercise, or put limits on it, it could easily amend the law.
Use your left hand tp open gates/get over stiles and your right hand to wipe your face/pick your nose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stagger
Isn't there a danger that this will encourage sections of society to push things as far as they can and try to find / exploit loopholes in the law. I think people on here broadly agree on what is sensible and lawful but there is alway those that know better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oracle
This is not a loophole, there isnt a law! a prosecution barrister says he has no case to prosecute those the police are summoning.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfella
The statute declares reasons for leaving home ie exercise, not location duration or frequency.
How is driving 5 minutes to an empty off road place a violation of letter or spirit? It’s a health law, not public order in a time of unrest. So it should be viewed in the context of whether a breach reduced social distancing, or was for other than stated reason. That is all.
Yet a Cheshire man is summonsed for driving a couple of minutes to exercise a dog on his own land. Which is what I do to run. Do you support a fine for me?
The difference between Russia and free countries is supposedly the police cannot make it up as they go along.
The thing is people do disagree on what is sensible and interpret things differently. I read a long Facebook thread the other night where a load of sanctimonious runners were castigating a bloke, who had driven a short distance to a park to walk his dog in south Leeds. Yet the man will likely have been coming into contact with far less other people than the runners, who were all starting and finishing from their homes.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfella
Now regardless of who you think is right, the fact is there is no law currently prohibiting you from driving a short distance in order to exercise. So the police should not be harassing people who do so. There is no case to answer.
Yep...Quote:
Originally Posted by Oracle
It’s refreshing to see that most people appear to now be exercising directly from home, far less cars yesterday evening filling the local beauty spot car parks.
On what basis? (quote law or social distance compromise please)Quote:
Originally Posted by Daletownrunner
I run on the way or way back from shopping.
None of the "holier than thou" based only on how lucky you are to have alternatives from home, ( so thank your lucky stars), which seems to be the essence of the argument for those now moralizing to others. Everything is easy for those who do not have to do it.
DT, Oracle has no irony mode!;)
Oracle it clear that you would argue the alternative no matter what the issue was, the majority of people think that running from home is the right thing to do, the Police have asked that this is what people do, we’re all in this together, if everyone drove to wherever they felt like driving, to do whatever they wanted then again the Lake District/ Peak District/ Snowdonia etc etc would be rammed full of visitors who think that they have the right to do whatever they feel like doing just because it suits them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oracle
This isn’t about the law, it about being a decent person, acknowledging the need to stay in the local area and helping to take the burden off our emergency services in a time of crisis. It’s not against the law to not shut a gate or not climb over a wall or to let our dogs run riot among farm animals or to not f*rt in someone’s face in a restaurant but we don’t do these things because we’re decent people.
I fully expect you to tear this apart as is your way, some of the above things probably are illegal to be honest I don’t know.
[QUOTE=Oracle;659142]On what basis? /QUOTE]
Because you can be so exasperating...?
:)
[QUOTE=Graham Breeze;659147]If that was a crime, you, sir, are a recidivist!Quote:
Originally Posted by Oracle
I’m also intrigued, surely the outside of where you live actually has an outside?? I can’t see how it’s impossible to run from your front door without the need to drive somewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oracle
I'm staying out of this!! Mr Oracle obviously has the eloquency (and time) to defend himself to the full!
But I don't necessarily think his example of driving a mile or two to a quieter area, quite corresponds with "ramming the Lakes/Peaks/Snowdonia with visitors".
An Edit of Your post.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Daletownrunner
" the majority of people" insert / "who can run from home, including ALL of those living in beauty spots, but excluding those who cant run from home"/ "think running from home is a good idea"
Another edit " a decent person" insert "ie someone who lives in a nice place to run"
Final edit "helping to take the burden of emergency services" insert "/ " but note that is only for non locals coming, we those who live in high country will continue to run in such places so risking mountain rescue" /.
Its the hypocrisy I dont like daletown. The people I follow that live in the lakes continue to run the high fells unabated. In fact they are running more.
I have never defended transients making long trips to lakes. It is unlikely they can do so without unnecessary people contact. Indeed, there is a question of what happens if there is a problem. But then the AA have very little to do and are still opertaing.
I do defend the rights of owners of second homes there to live out this period in those homes in national parks. The resources of the lakes are underutilized, and I defend all making a short journey to exercise if it makes them more isolated - which it will for most who would otherwise run on pavements - or indeed to make a short journey to a better place to run.
[QUOTE=Oracle;659148]Oh I do so admire someone with a broad vocabulary...Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
:)
My thoughts precisely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Travs
I run on pavements from home, I don’t live on the edge of a Lakeland mountain, I avoid others by stopping/ crossing the road, I can like most people I would imagine be in a semi rural area within 10 minutes of running If people like you continue to bend the advice then we’ll be completely locked down, all because of the selfish ‘I know my rights’ brigade.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oracle
[QUOTE=Graham Breeze;659152]Sadly I am not in Boris's league. On the other hand, I do know some of the semantics and origin of words.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oracle
So todays useless piece of information:
When Boris used the word " piccanninies" it is the affectionate diminutive form of the portuguese word "pequena" which means small . So "pequeninas" is an affectionate diminutive reference to (plural) small children of the portuguese nations, which has then been adopted phonically into the English language. It was never racist, and certainly not West Indian in origin or specifically used of those peoples , despite our lefty media hoping to claim that is so. There were of course portuguese explorers going west who perhaps used that of the children of west indies, but they would have used the same word of their own children! Criancas if they were not so affectionate!
You did appear to observe the "car parks of local beauty spots" were empty. Perhaps I wrongly assumed you had been there!Quote:
Originally Posted by Daletownrunner
Hi Pat, we have lots of normal gloves that we go for a run/walk in if we are off road. Left hand I use to touch gates, stiles, walls. I don't touch anything except my (face, phone)with my right hand. As soon as I get home gloves are thrown in the washer machine ready for next time it's on. Straight to the sink to wash my hands. Wipe down any door handles/gates on the way into home then wash hands again.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
I'm not saying it's perfect but I feel safer for it.
I ran through there from home, the beach not the fellsQuote:
Originally Posted by Oracle
And if I couldn’t run there from home, I wouldn’t drive there or closer to there, to run there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daletownrunner
I'm with Oracle.
Ones car is as safe a space as any and to drive up to 15 minutes to enjoy green space for exercise is not a crime at this moment in time.
As long as we are all sensible, what's the problem.
Driving a long distance I don't see as being in keep with recommendations.
Don't forget we are still paying road tax and insurance premiums.
It's also ok to have differing opinions gentlemen.
The car parking area at Burnbanks (Haweswater) was coned and taped off when I ran through today and there was a polite notice asking people to use the path on the hill behind and above the houses rather than running along the road through them. I've no problem with that. Only saw one other runner on a road I crossed near Rosgill and two MTB riders on the backside of Haweswater. There were two or three cars at Mardale Head but I saw nobody else until I was nearly home.I usually do the skyline, parking at Burnbanks but stayed low today and ran from home instead. More miles but less elevation, obviously, but still a nice run in very dry conditions.
Seconded :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Stagger
On the issue of 'risking' Mountain Rescue. It's easy to be complacent but I suppose the reality is that almost any run or exercise anywhere could lead to some sort of injury. Stating the obvious, at the moment it's not a good time to be needing an ambulance or attending A and E. MR is different again as it involves volunteers turning out and potentially exposing themselves to risk on your behalf. The current actual risk to them from this virus is unknown. As I've said in the post above, I chose a low level route today which is comparatively'safe' instead of heading for the tops. Was this irresponsible? I argue that it wasn't. I never, ever base my decisions on what I do on the hill on the assumption or expectation that someone will rescue me if I get in to difficulties. My first thought is to avoid the need by being careful about route choice, kit, weather, etc. If I did encounter problems, as I have occasionally over the years my approach is 'How do I get myself out of this?' not 'how do I get MR?' and that's always worked for me in the past in over 50 years of running and walking about the lakes and other areas and over 30 years fell running. Speaking as someone who has spent more than a few years in MR myself, in various capacities I'm aware that many call outs in 'normal' times expose team members to a degree of risk from a variety of sources - how much that degree of risk is increased in the current circumstances is unknown. But I think that by being careful, reasonable and sensible, by making sound decisions on the hill and by being as self reliant as we possibly can it's possible to reduce the risk to them to what I hope is an acceptable level - and I will respect the current wishes of the teams in making my route choices and decisions.
A gagging order will be sufficient.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oracle
Have a Like! Is anyone else sick of Oracle monopolising threads?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrump
To be fair, he only really turns up on the General threads, and then only on a few subjects...
At the risk of launching a love-in; I don't have a problem with Oracle. Every mill needs some grist.
Although I like TheGrump even more!
Narcissist ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
7.25 miles, 965ft, 2:15 on the Beamers Trail section of the Witton Weavers Way.
On a side issue, there is a better tone of late on these threads even when we are disagreeing. Quite refreshing and hopefully it will continue.
Has he ever done a Fell Race?Quote:
Originally Posted by Travs
In Greek mythology, Narcissus was a hunter from Thespiae in Boeotia who was known for his beauty. According to Tzetzes, he was a Laconian hunter who loved everything beautiful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
So thank you!
:)
Do you mean tautology?Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park