[abarro81]

Bit tight labelling anyone working as greedheads is it not a case of most people are just trying to keep earning a living as they need to, and are doing so within guidelines as best as they can.

We are all getting a bit tetchy but that comment got my back up especially when in the same post as you trying to justify something you do that clearly is not within the very guidelines you quoted. Going to work for a majority is a million times more important than your walk in the peak or us going climbing.

This is an interesting one, because when I read your post it comes across in a very certain way - noble people just trying to earn a living to get by, whilst the middle classes worry about whether they can climb and play golf. I'm sure there's an aspect of truth to that, but I wonder how much? I wonder what % of people couldn't take an economic hit in return for more freedom in other areas, and how many just wouldn't want to? I'm not implying that I know the answer here, but I undoubtedly am making judgements about people who spend money on a nice car, nice clothes, drinking loads or a big TV. I certainly don't view earning more money to buy nice stuff as somehow more moral or noble than earning less money to "buy" more freedom. Also entirely possible I misunderstood what you're driving at.

[abarro81]

One for Ru, on the same theme as I was originally complaining about w.r.t. the BMC article but with a bit of a legal Q attached...

Presumably as lockdown rules change, the legislation doesn't change, just the advice and the advice is used to help police and courts define "reasonable", with "reasonable" being very time dependent. In this regard, it would/will be v hard for a court as they will be looking back to a time and deciding what was reasonable then, not what's reasonable at the time they're looking at it. To do that with something niche like climbing, would there be a strong risk they'd look at statements by the likes of the BMC to help with this? If so, is there a risk that that BMC article actually makes it more illegal to go climbing, i.e. directly influences the law rathe than just attempting to summarize it? Or is my logic off somewhere? If it's not, the BMC article was even more of a scew up then I originally thought

[tomtom]

I’ll not comment on this thread - but there’s a microcosm if views and comments on the Lancashire Rock revival Facebook page - after a pair were spotted doing some trad at Egerton yesterday... some stuff in there about the BMC too. Hundred odd posts and replies...

[Johnny Brown]

Bit tight labelling anyone working as greedheads

Apologies Gav, that wasn't aimed at you at all.

I've been very disappointed by the lack of clear government guidance or enforcement of 'essential' work. We shut down, you shut down, but anyone carrying on regardless was left to do so. With the recent government statement that they 'were guided into the lockdown by public opinion' or somesuch, I'm increasingly of the opinion that they had no intention of stopping anyone working if they wanted to, while relying on decent people to take the hit and protect the majority from the disease. This is also influencing the rapid drift back to normality, which I suspect may be too quick.

Whether working hard to consume harder is more moral or noble than not is a big question and best discussed elsewhere, but I will say that that is the driving force behind the destruction of the planet. But that's not really relevant right now.

Whereas working less for some months to save lives is unarguably more moral than cracking on regardless isn't it? Nobody dies due to government bonds piling up (unless austerity follows etc).

Should probably be on the other thread anyway!

[gme]

Bit tight labelling anyone working as greedheads is it not a case of most people are just trying to keep earning a living as they need to, and are doing so within guidelines as best as they can.

We are all getting a bit tetchy but that comment got my back up especially when in the same post as you trying to justify something you do that clearly is not within the very guidelines you quoted. Going to work for a majority is a million times more important than your walk in the peak or us going climbing.

This is an interesting one, because when I read your post it comes across in a very certain way - noble people just trying to earn a living to get by, whilst the middle classes worry about whether they can climb and play golf. I'm sure there's an aspect of truth to that, but I wonder how much? I wonder what % of people couldn't take an economic hit in return for more freedom in other areas, and how many just wouldn't want to? I'm not implying that I know the answer here, but I undoubtedly am making judgements about people who spend money on a nice car, nice clothes, drinking loads or a big TV. I certainly don't view earning more money to buy nice stuff as somehow more moral or noble than earning less money to "buy" more freedom. Also entirely possible I misunderstood what you're driving at.
[/Your

I have removed my comment as it was ott.

In a pissed off mood today so need to stay off here.

[Ru]

Presumably as lockdown rules change, the legislation doesn't change, just the advice and the advice is used to help police and courts define "reasonable", with "reasonable" being very time dependent. In this regard, it would/will be v hard for a court as they will be looking back to a time and deciding what was reasonable then, not what's reasonable at the time they're looking at it. To do that with something niche like climbing, would there be a strong risk they'd look at statements by the likes of the BMC to help with this? If so, is there a risk that that BMC article actually makes it more illegal to go climbing, i.e. directly influences the law rathe than just attempting to summarize it? Or is my logic off somewhere? If it's not, the BMC article was even more of a scew up then I originally thought

The courts should interpret the legislation from first principles and should not interpret the law as changing over time, especially over the course of a few weeks. If the government had intended the law to mean different things at different times, it could have changed the law. The courts shouldn't rely upon any guidance or advice apart from, possibly, to consider that produced by government, as that may give an indication of the intention behind the legislation. Usually you would gather intention from looking at Hansard - the record of parliament's debates about the legislation - but this legislation wasn't debated. Government guidance should not be considered determinative. However, the courts are unlikely to impose a more strict interpretation than the government's guidance, as that would be unfair.

[abarro81]

So do they modify legislation as and when they wish to turn restrictions on and off?

[TobyD]

Those numbers are massively disease specific. Studies with covid-19 specific parameters suggest between 3 and 10 lockdowns with gaps between of between 3 weeks and 3 months! This from London school of tropical medicine, but other studies are similar.

The uncertainty is caused by difficulty in knowing things like R0 and hospitalisation rate precisely, and questions about seasonality etc.

All those numbers in turn assume that contact tracing is not very effective.

So basically who knows?

My guess is either second waves will be much less in badly hit countries like the UK (better prepared responses and some significant immunity that albeit well below herd immunity will have taken out the risk of most of the biggest fuckwit spreaders) or it will be obvious there is not enough immunity (mutations or whatever) and a really hard lockdown will be needed to ensure test, trace contacts, and isolate has worked.  I really can't see big wave after big wave after big wave....

Although one might see that as a rather bold assertion given that noone actually knows yet whether having had CV19 confers immunity, or if if does for how long.

[spidermonkey09]

Those numbers are massively disease specific. Studies with covid-19 specific parameters suggest between 3 and 10 lockdowns with gaps between of between 3 weeks and 3 months! This from London school of tropical medicine, but other studies are similar.

The uncertainty is caused by difficulty in knowing things like R0 and hospitalisation rate precisely, and questions about seasonality etc.

All those numbers in turn assume that contact tracing is not very effective.

So basically who knows?

My guess is either second waves will be much less in badly hit countries like the UK (better prepared responses and some significant immunity that albeit well below herd immunity will have taken out the risk of most of the biggest fuckwit spreaders) or it will be obvious there is not enough immunity (mutations or whatever) and a really hard lockdown will be needed to ensure test, trace contacts, and isolate has worked.  I really can't see big wave after big wave after big wave....

Although one might see that as a rather bold assertion given that noone actually knows yet whether having had CV19 confers immunity, or if if does for how long.

On that note...conclusion seems to be no as it stands.

https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/immunity-passports-in-the-context-of-covid-19

[Ru]

So do they modify legislation as and when they wish to turn restrictions on and off?

Sort of. It's done by means of a "direction" under reg 2 (of the restrictions regulations):

(3) As soon as the Secretary of State considers that any restrictions or requirements set out in these Regulations are no longer necessary to prevent, protect against, control or provide a public health response to the incidence or spread of infection in England with the coronavirus, the Secretary of State must publish a direction terminating that restriction or requirement.

(4) A direction published under this regulation may—

(a) terminate any one or more requirement or restriction;

(b) terminate a requirement or restriction in relation to a specified business or service or a specified description of business or service.

(5) In this regulation, “specified” means specified in a direction published under this regulation.

[Ru]

Interestingly, apparently there has been a surge in outdoor climbing in Sweden as the climbing walls are shut and lots of gym-only climbers have ventured outside. That would (potentially) be an own goal if it happened here.

[Stu Littlefair]

My only relevant factoid is that Matilda Soderlund has apparently only just now discovered she can go bouldering near Stockholm....

https://www.instagram.com/p/B_C-ap3nbzN/?igshid=jt7iuprp4hb6

[Nemo]

I’ll not comment on this thread - but there’s a microcosm if views and comments on the Lancashire Rock revival Facebook page - after a pair were spotted doing some trad at Egerton yesterday... some stuff in there about the BMC too. Hundred odd posts and replies...

- tomtom

I'm surprised noone has picked up on this.
There's a letter from an MP in those comments which is well worth reading. 

[Oldmanmatt]

I’ll not comment on this thread - but there’s a microcosm if views and comments on the Lancashire Rock revival Facebook page - after a pair were spotted doing some trad at Egerton yesterday... some stuff in there about the BMC too. Hundred odd posts and replies...

- tomtom

I'm surprised noone has picked up on this.
There's a letter from an MP in those comments which is well worth reading.

Well, that was a lot of crap.
To save people having to read the comments:

“Thank you for your message. I have been passed your details from Jake Berry's office as your are a constituent of Hyndburn and Haslingden.

The government have been clear with their message to shut down leisure activities. This blanket policy is definitely more understandable for some activities than others. For instance, fishing, golf, bouldering or other individual sports whereas sports like football, rugby and cricket demand people to interact closely with one another. The difficulty is that many people have hobbies that they might be able to pursue safely but if every person found exception to leave the home we'd be in a difficult situation. To save lives the best course of action is to apply a blanket ban on activities.

If you are able to self isolate sufficiently and exercise correct health and safety as you would at a rock climbing centre then you should be able to carry on participating in one form of exercise a day in order to maintain your mental health.

I understand that the government's advice to stay home is unsettling for many people and there are many charities which offer support during this hard time. I'd be more than happy to suggest some if you feel like this might helpful for the members of the Anglers Association.

Thank you for writing instead of ignoring the government's advice. The more people that stay home the more lives we'll save.

Kindest regards,


Sara Britcliffe MP
Member of Parliament for Hyndburn & Haslingden

Had this via email from local mp“

[Will Hunt]

If anybody values their sanity I would recommend not getting stuck into the LRR thread.

[tomtom]

If anybody values their sanity I would recommend not getting stuck into the LRR thread.

Thought you'd like it!

[Oldmanmatt]

If anybody values their sanity I would recommend not getting stuck into the LRR thread.

Thought you'd like it!

It’s actually just Pete and Offwidth, under pseudonyms...

[petejh]

Cheeky git. I’m far above the level of pig-wrestling on FB.

[Will Hunt]

Party on, Scolds.

[Johnny Brown]

Ru, myself and 8 others attended the aforementioned meeting today, The idea is to guide BMC policy and communication over the next few weeks.

I don't think it would be possible to record or livestream without severely limiting the scope and openness of the discussion. But for those who requested here's a brief summary of the action points (NB scroll for all):

- It was agreed that the BMC’s current advice to climbers and walkers remains on message and relevant. Suggested this could be nuanced to make it clear to people that the BMC is not giving specific legal advice on the matter.

 - The pros & cons of developing separate advice for different disciplines (within the spectrum of activities the BMC represents i.e. hill walking, bouldering, trad climbing, sport climbing etc) was discussed; whilst there was a feeling this could be complicated and could create difficulties down the line, it was also noted that it may be an inevitable outcome once detailed social distancing considerations are factored in.

 - It was agreed that the BMC should write to senior government contacts in England and Wales to stress the health and well-being benefits of climbing and hill walking activities and (hopefully) to make the point that there is no scientific evidence suggesting these activities add to the transfer of C-19.

 - Members of the group to maintain an individual watching brief on developing at home and abroad – both with the climbing / walking sector and in other comparable activities e.g. fishing, surfing, paddling, outdoor swimming.

 - Noted that the BMC must maintain its reputation across government / external stakeholders and amongst the membership / wider outdoor community.

Some personal comment -

Access Officer Rob Dyer is back off furlough as of today so a good start.

Several police forces have contacted the BMC to ask them to tell people not to travel to hillwalk or climb. So there is good reason for the current stance and there is concern attempts to relax to early could be counter-productive in the long term.

As far as I could gather the only confirmed fines were those issued to boulderers on the Orme. When asked to clarify what is permitted under the regs the police just refer us back to the guidance we've all already seen. So there is absolutely no black-and-white clarity on what is activities are ok and what aren't, and it isn't likely to appear. Some are of the opinion that the regs are likely to change as we go forward. I tend to think they're deliberately vague so the guidance can be varied without changing the actual regs, but I'm not the legal expert.

The courts are not currently active so any caselaw is not likely to be established - by the time it might be both the regs and the public interest are likely to have moved on. Anecdotally it seems fines are being issued to those arguing the toss, usually on the basis of distance travelled rather than activity. I suspect the likes of the golf and fishing lobbies will get results soon which are impossible not to infer across. My own feeling is we really need to hammer the travel aspect not the risk or otherwise of the activity.

We've had some contact with a climber who is also a top epidemiologist. His contribution - that the current state of science is that we know next to nothing about the transmission of the virus - means that while common sense virology does still apply (i.e. risk increases with proximity, contact time and contained environment) it is impossible to quantify. Which may give you some sympathy for the policymakers but is not unhelpful. I do hope the picture will become clearer sooner rather than later but with the lack of track and trace in the UK it doesn't seem likely to happen locally.

There was also some discussion on pre-planning the BMC response should someone need a remote rescue and the subsequent media shitstorm. Seems sensible.

[Wil]

My own feeling is we really need to hammer the travel aspect not the risk or otherwise of the activity.

I think you're right. Thanks for your work.

[Ru]

The courts are not currently active so any caselaw is not likely to be established - by the time it might be both the regs and the public interest are likely to have moved on.

I need to clarify this as I think there might have been some crossed wires. Apologies to Adam if I was unclear. I'm unsure if Magistrates' are sitting, but I would assume that they are, even if that's at a reduced capacity. It would be very unwise to assume that cases will not be heard. It is right to say that caselaw is unlikely to be established before the end of, or modification of, the lockdown (if that's in the next few weeks) as binding caselaw can only be made on appeal to the divisional courts (or higher). Even if a case is heard at first instance, any appeal would usually take months to be heard unless there was an issue of extreme and urgent public interest to be decided.

[Bradders]

Swansea Magistrates Court appears to still be hearing cases. First story I've seen where someone has ended up in any court but assume there are others.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-52374414

[Johnny Brown]

Thanks Ru, my mistake.

[shark]

Live Q&A with Rob Dyer, BMC Access Officer (England) at 12.30 tomorrow via the BMC Facebook page

www.facebook.com/BritishMountaineeringCouncil/

Think you have to download the Facebook app to participate