Great Western Coffee Shop

The subject of this board


Well - things have gone spectacularly wrong, haven't they?  Never mind connections missed and overcrowded trains - we're only allowed to travel for essential purposes, and train frequencies have plummeted as have passenger numbers on them.

In these extraordinary times, 94% of us are following the lockdown rules which have trumped personal freedoms "most of the time", "nearly all the time" or "completely" and encouraging the remaining 6% to do better; asking, pleading, instructing ordering that minority of tw**s to do better.   For sure the rules were rushed through and there are inconsistencies - who would have thought it would be legal to order a takeaway by phone, online or post, but not by ham radio? And in amongst te vast majority doing there level best to make this work out for everyone, there's a minority looking to take advantage, and a minority enjoying being able to order others around.

From The BBC (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52228169)


Yeah, could have told them that without the survey.   Thats not the first time most of us will have looked at a survey or report and felt it has concluded with a blindingly obvious outcome, yet looking into and reading the detail there is much more in there / that article and valuable data supporting the survey and informing.


By nature, our forum attracts people who travel, so perhaps members of that 15% or the 14% on top are over-represented here?  Or perhaps we're typically the bright types who can cope with just about anything life throws at us?   I am resisting the temptation of adding a poll to ask you - but I am re-assuring members that the forum is here, the chat facility is here (though hardly used), the phone is here (I seem to be up from a daily average of 5 to 30 minutes on the phone!) and whether you're in the 15%, the 14% or the remaining 71% we can, should, and largely are all looking out for each other through this.

Quite. I may have got a bit of "bad press" around here just lately regarding the restrictions, and this might be a good thread on which to better explain my position.

In general I support the government’s plan of action and the restrictions, and I fully understand the need for them. So, in my view at least, not a “snowflake” (Christ how I detest dismissive pejorative slang like that...), but that isn’t going to stop me making observations on those restrictions or, more importantly, how they are being implemented.

There are far too many people trying to over-interpret the rules whilst perhaps losing sight of what the rules are for in the first place. They are there to reduce the chance if the disease spreading and they do that by reducing contact between members of the general public. But, in my view, one of the reasons that they have been left, shall we say, woolly, is to stop individual courses of action falling through the cracks.

I have had two relations, SWMBO and an uncle in Gloucester on the phone in the last few days, bending my ear about people they have seen buying things in supermarkets that in their opinion were not essential. Yesterday, we had the Chief Constable (I think) of Northamptonshire on radio and TV saying that (paraphrased) if people didn’t start behaving themselves his officers would start inspecting people’s shopping bags to make sure they weren’t buying non-essential items. There was also an item on the news a week or so ago where a Trading Standards Officer was telling stores in his area that selling Easter eggs was against the rules.

The Northampton senior bobby was shot down in flames later yesterday when some new government advice went out that if it was on sale in a shop that was still allowed to open, then you could buy it if you wanted it. And that is how it should be.

I can understand that making a special trip to a supermarket to buy Easter eggs would be a pretty stupid thing to do at the moment, but if you are already there and decide to buy a few? How is stopping that going to help to stop the spread of the infection? It isn’t, is it?

It’s nothing to do with me of course but I have some concerns over the police setting up “hotlines” for people to report rule-breaking. Whilst I can see some limited merit in that, I do wonder how much police time is now being wasted with neighbour disputes, where Mr Smith at no. 6 has fallen out with Mr Bloggs at no.8 and the police are being told that “Bloggs walked round the cul-de-sac once this morning and again this afternoon and you’re only allowed out once so that’s against the rules so you should come and nick him”

Personally I have no time at all for people who take the view that as certain people are breaking the rules we should tighten the rules. Firstly it smacks of collective punishment which, if it isn’t already illegal it damn well should be and, secondly, if you have rules that are being broken you enforce them properly, you don’t make another rod for your own back by making them stricter. That’s a bit like saying “nobody observes the 40 limit down this road so we’ll drop it to 30.” By doing that you probably won’t stop the people doing 50 from keeping on doing it, all you’ll do is criminalise the actions of some others who you didn’t consider were acting criminally beforehand.

These are just a few examples of what I mean when I say that  people perhaps not thinking these things through sufficiently well. I won’t bore you with any more  ;D

Be nice to each other and don't get needlessly wound up ;)

Words like "essential" and "basic" oil the wheels of controversy.

Easter eggs appear as an essential in a Network Rail Press release (https://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/supermarket-stock-takes-scenic-route-during-covid-19-lock-down) from yesterday:


On another thread, I noted one of our members re-assuring us that alcohol was not an essential. For him, maybe, but it would be for some - without it, they would be in the "find lockdown extremely difficult" group.  And for those with children at home for unexpectedly long periods, perhaps even the plastic cricket bat, stumps and ball are essential - as something to keep the children entertained in the garden during the long, hot days.  Even a game of Monopoly only takes *so* long, after all.

Personal view - if you're out to by the basic essentials, then - for goodness sake - you should be able to buy the other stuff that's around.  It may not be necessary for your physical well being, but my goodness it (or a substitute product) may be needed for your sanity.

An area fraught with difficulties to legislate, even were there time to do so.  I recall the old Sunday trading laws which were based on "dated / limited shelf life - OK;  does not expire - not on a Sunday". And that resulted in you being able to buy fresh carrots (but not tinned), and magazines such as Playboy (which are dated) but not a bible.

As Robin Summerhill says


 

Regarding the sale of alcahol, this is from the government website.

• Off-licences and licenced shops selling alcohol, including those within breweries

So thats allright then. I imagine going suddenly without smoking or drinking, when accostmed to doing so could be detramental to health.

There certainly seem to be elements within the police and other official bodies that are looking for ways to "gold plate" the emergency regulations, beyond what the intent was or what is reasonably required for public health.

Local examples include.

A view by the police that "barbecues" are illegal. On private property and only attended by those resident in that property. There is no such regulation.

A view by the police that "going to the beach" is illegal, even when the beach is within walking distance and almost empty.

A view that going outdoors but within your own property is illegal except for the permitted essential purposes. There is no such regulation that prevents use of ones own garden, courtyard, field or other outdoor parts of ones property.
The teenage daughters of a local farmer were warned by the police for sunbathing in a field owned by their father, with whom they live. "sunbathing is not exercise, therefore it is prohibited"

A view not based on any actual regulation, that outdoor exercise is limited to an hour. How long until parking wardens are re deployed to ticket people who have been out for 64 minutes ?

On the Gloucester Road in Bristol there is a wine merchant's and a homebrew / beer shop almost opposite each other. When I went shopping on Tuesday, the wine merchant's was closed but the homebrew place was open. I don't think this is the result of rules or enforcement but individual commercial decisions.

Clarification from the BBC (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52245937)


The government's own TV adverts don't help the "outside" message by telling you to stay indoors unless absolutely necessary. 

This news report suggests that HMG wish to reign in some excesses of some local police forces.
It is confirmed that people may use their gardens as normal, and anything sold by shops that remain open may be purchased.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52245937 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52245937)

If you go to the shops to buy items that are essential eg vegetables, fruit, milk, bread, then there has never been anything stopping anyone picking up some crisps, chocolate biscuits, or a pair of sock s at the same time.

I believe that the intention of the government is that people aren't going out to the shops all the time, but only when they need to replenish essential supplies. A further issue is that what might be essential to person A may not be viewed the same way by persons B, C and D.

At midday today, I was walking though a nature reserve about half-a-mile from a village of 500 people, with any other habitation being a couple of miles away. I met two police officers  who were investigating an increase in complaints about, ahem, "anti-social behaviour". The site has a reputation for "dogging" and "cottaging".

We chatted for a few minutes and they didn't seem bothered how I happened to be there, and obviously my air of respectability - and senility - convinced them that I was not there with impure intentions.

I'm pretty sure you're right, Nick Brown ... and welcome to the forum.   Are you "locked down" at present like most of us?  These are strange times indeed - the first Easter ever, I suspect where the message is not one f positive promotion of rail use.

A likely story!  ;)

Sadly, as a member of the organisation that owns the reserve in question, I know where Marlburian was - Moor Copse at Tidmarsh.

Odd how that "community" chooses its favoured locations.

Is there nowhere I can hide? ;D

I haven't worked there on Sundays this past winter but have done so for some years before. I was in the habit of getting a Sunday paper and driving down there early to read itin the somewhat secluded car park. But ever since a burly guy tried to speak to me through the window, I've parked  in the approach road. (One reason for my not going there much is driving out onto the main road has become trickier, with an eroded trench of a pothole alongside the main road. Doesn't do the car tyres any good as one accelerates into a gap in the traffic.)

At the risk of seeming an expert on such sites, there appears to be another one on the north-south stretch of the "modern" Ridgeway route north east of Ogbourne St George - judging from the council signs warning against antisocial behaviour. Rather more remote.

If you were thinking of me in the above, ISTR that I only stated that I did not consider alcohol to be essential, I fully accept that some would find it essential. And I would mis it.
And anyway the government have said that we can still buy drink, no doubt much to the disgust of some police men.

I seem to recall reading - for I wasn't around - that during the last global disagreement (RAF Germany refered to it as the Second Great Misunderstanding) beer was never on the ration, nor was it ever in short supply. There are some things that society expects to continue. Ladies and gentlemen - I raise my glass - Good health!!

Beer was indeed not rationed during the last war, but it was at times in short supply. Some pubs had to close for several days a week whilst awaiting deliveries.

Spirits were "sort of" rationed. Retailers of spirits such as pubs and wine merchants could only obtain limited supplies known as their quota. Such retailers tended to restrict sales to regular or favoured customers.
Retailers or consumers with pre-war stocks were in a most favourable position.

...or you could see if Private Walker might be able to help, at a price...

Beer was rationed from 1939 to the standard barrelage to the year ending September 1939. A standard barrel was defined as having an original gravity of 1055, around 5.5%. Realising, as they also did in WWI, that people wanted beer, the brewers simply reduced the gravity of their beers, diluting them down to 3 to 4%, or 1030 to 1040. This allowed them to brew a larger volume of weaker beer.
There were further restrictions on the use of sugar and some brewers played around with malt substitutes

Beyond following the Government's advice on social distancing and hand-washing, the best thing any smoker can do right now to protect themselves is to quit. Not easy if you're feeling cooped up and testy though!

There might be an interesting historical side shoot here.

If we go back before piped “Council” water was in general use (and in truth that is only pre-1930 or thereabouts, especially for rural areas), beer was safer to drink than water. Water came from streams and wells, and no-one was ever quite sure what was in it.

If we go back say 200 years, which I know from my recent genealogical research that our great³ grandparents were alive back then (add a “great” to that if you’re under 40  ;D ), everybody drank beer – even for their breakfast (does anybody else remember the ad with Peter Cook advertising Witney’s Brown!?). It was a quite weak brew but still safer than the water that was then available.

Perhaps old habits die hard, and even by the outbreak of WW2 there may have been some people who still relied on the “old ways?”

I accept that its an old comedy sketch from 1969, but the first minute or so perhaps encapsulates how things were back then  ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hb7x4Y-7pOQ

There was ‘small beer’ at about 3% that everyone, including children, drank back then, because the water having been boiled was safe to drink. The standard beers of 200+ years ago ran at around 10%! They were winter brewed and placed in huge vats to mature for a year. Brewing used to cease in the summer months as contamination from the rudimentary coolers was too great. It restarted in October.
In Bridport, brewing all year round was in place by 1825 but was for the lighter beers not the stock, vatted ones.

I agree. These include Northamptonshire and Derbyshire constabularies, and my wife. The latter scares me more than the whole of the combined resources of the former. However, these are challenging times. Political spin doesn't work, and even President Trump will realise (eventually) that you can't hide a death toll with a few angry tweets. I am a bird in a gilded cage at the moment, feeling more that fit enough to brave the rigours of the outside world, but knowing that some of the people who have died of this illness are young and healthy, neither of which boxes I can tick with honesty. If someone decides to take their constitutional in a park or on a beach rather than their living room, I say let them so long as they follow the contact rules, but I don't want them round at mine, thank you. If they choose to deny the risk and flout the regulations, then a plague on their houses, I say, but they are increasing the risk to all of us, not least the health and public service workers who are already paying a heavy price.

With my wife's support and threats of retribution in forms that include The Ultimate Sanction, I am following the letter of the recommendations as well as the spirit. I look forward to a resumption of what passes for normal life, and I want to still be around to enjoy it.

I doubt it. If calling it a hoax doesn't succeed, or misleading the American public doesn't succeed, he'll just lie about it so often that people believe him anyway. Some of our politicians use the same trick (no names mentioned but I know who I'm thinking of...)


I don't tick those boxes either!


Hopefully no non-family member will be coming round to yours anyway, whether or not they are obeying the rules! But we have to remember that all people's circumstances are different.

I don't know about you, but the term I believe they use for people like me is an "empty nester." I still live in the same house that I bought in 1987 when my 4 sons were between 3 amd 14. Needless to say I have plenty of room and a garden back and front, and open countryside that I can walk in not ten minutes stroll away, and I'll only pass 3 other houses on the way there. Others are not so fortunate.

Having spent a lot of my working life clambering over council houses and flats to see what was wrong with them, I am well aware that many of the less fortunate do not have such luxury. Imagine if you were a family of five on the 18th floor of a tower block in a 2-bed flat, with next door's front door perhaps 3 feet away from your front door. There are other peoplr going up and down in the lift or in the stairwell all the time. You can't escape them. The kids, being kids, are bored out of their tiny minds, falling out with each other, having fights, creating general bedlam and driving you and the wife up the wall. Meanwhile, somebody else in the block  likes his rap music so much he's turned the volume up to maximum and the only saving grace is that at least it drowns out some of the squawking from the kids. I think in that position many of us would be running to the park, or rather we would be if the council hadn't locked it up "for the duration."


Don' we all. But as you will see from my example, things aren't always black and white. There is a hell of a lot of grey too.

Elsewhere, I stated that conditions are unduly onerous for families confined to small homes without gardens, and I publicly proposed the following very slight relaxation.

"Any person may visit public open spaces for rest, relaxation, or exercise, without limit on the number of such visits or the duration thereof. Subject to the following conditions.

1) Social distancing of at least 2 meters to be maintained, except between members of the same household.
2) Travel to and from the public open space must be on foot, by cycle or by other human powered transport. Use of motor vehicles or public transport is prohibited for visits to public open spaces.
3) Any pre-existing rules, regulations or byelaws applicable to the public open space remain unaltered.

Please limit the number of trips that you make, so far as is reasonable, perhaps by combining trips to public open spaces with other permitted reasons to leave you home."

Guidance notes and clarifications for pedants, police officers, and lawyers.
Public open spaces includes private property to which the public are admitted by permission. Examples include National Trust parks and gardens.
Public open spaces include beaches, foreshores and similar spaces to which the public customarily have access.
Public open spaces includes small structures therein such as bandstands or weather shelters, 2 m social separation applies within any such.
Public open spaces do not include buildings such as railway stations to which the public customarily have access.

I grew up with spring water in the 50s (S Somerset), we moved to another house (W Dorset) in 1963 and mains water had only just arrived.

Still on spring water here in West wales although I have UV filters, filtration units and a whole shed dedicated to the water supply.

I knew that the war was pretty tough, but I had no idea that it was so bad. My goodness!

That is unarguably true, on both counts! You will always have some damage, but it stops getting worse, and most of it goes away, straight after you stub the last smoke out.

If I could explain how I did, overnight with no support or aids of any kind after an addiction of over 20 years, I would be a very wealthy man.

My Guinness!..

According to a report by the Guardian, NHS staff have been told by the police that an NHS ID card is not "sufficient proof" that their journey is essential.

Neighbours of mine have been prevented by the police from travelling to work at a supermarket, a company ID card again not acceptable as proof. Fortunately the employees  know the area well and were able to find an alternative route that avoided the police road block.

A freight train driver whom I know was turned back at a police road block despite having ID, they also had to find another route to evade the police. Apparently the police wanted to know what the freight train would be carrying, information not usually known in advance by the driver. Perhaps they were concerned that Easter eggs might be included.

The police have suffered a number of defeats recently and seem to be looking for new ways to exert power.

Perhaps a bit of a sweeping generalisation?  Just like there’s a small minority of people acting against the rules, I’m sure there’s a small number of police officers doing the same.  Neither is to be condoned of course.

I’m surprised the freight train driver didn’t just phone his/her control and say they weren’t able to come in for duty due to being stopped by the police.  I think that’s what most would do.

Quite. I was just about to reply on similar lines.

The problem with some of those examples is that they are essentially 3rd hand ie. "someone I know said." I'd want more solid evidence before I passed comment.

As far as I understnd things, the emergency regulations have not changed the basic premise that people are innocent until proven guilty, and not the other way around.

Police officers in the course of their duties have every right to be suspicious - that is their job, after all. However, in all the circumstances cited there will be others to back up their story. All the officer has to do is radio in so that someone can ring the supermarket or the TOC to check the story/ "alibi." The job could be done and the person allowed to go on their way within a few minutes.

And I am afraid I just don't believe the story, as it currently stands, about a freight train driver being asked what his train will be carrying. Either the police officer was being unbelievably thick to epic proportions if he/she didn't actually understand how such things work (after all, if he himself was stopped in civvies on his way to work could he tell his colleague who he'd be nicking that day?) , and in any case the decsion isn't down to him/her over what freight gets carried by rail. There are others, far higher up the food chain than a copper on a roadblock, who decide those things.

And as regards being turned back at a road block and finding an alternative route - I can't think of a dafter course of action to take. What if you get stopped again? That would make you look more guilty than anything else in the eyes of the police. Once again, this appears to be a story that doesn't pass the reality test.

Of course, even key workers have spare time during which they need to abide by the rules like everyone else.  So having an NHS card, supermarket ID or some other proof of ID isn't a guarantee that the holder is on essential duties when stopped. 

And I'd agree that third hand stories are to be taken with a pinch of salt.  There are enough stories of people breaking the rules that I get that the police have a very difficult job at the moment trying to enforce the rules in a way that is effective but not too heavy handed.   

Indeed, what a daft comment about the Police suffering "defeats", it's not a football match, we are, after all, all in this together, and the challenge facing front line Police is a daunting one, which I am sure few of us sitting comfortably (if a little bored) at home would trade places with.

Incidentally, there is a rather sickening trade going in fake NHS ID cards, someone was caught with one just in front of me at Sainsburys during the week, unfortunately for the person concerned, the chap just in front of her was a Policeman! I can't imagine it was a pleasant experience for her when she got to the station, I hope she is fully held to public disgust.

The term "police defeats" has been fairly widely used in reference to statements by HMG that People CAN buy what they want from shops that are allowed to open. This was reasonably considered to be "defeat" for Northamptonshire police who had "warned they would soon be checking shopping trolleys for non essential items"
And another police force said to have been patrolling the "non essential aisles" in supermarkets.

There was a well reported case, with home video, of police telling a family that they could not use their front garden. The subsequent statement by HMG that people COULD use their gardens as normal, was considered by many to be a defeat for the police.

Likewise the recent government statement that outdoor exercise is NOT limited to one hour, was also regarded as a defeat.

A popular target at present for the police is people in parks and similar places, who are sitting down and "not exercising"

I'm in two minds about this.

On the one hand there are many people, perhaps especially the elderly, who might need regular rests as they "lap" their local park.

On the other hand, you could argue that as other people have recently used that park bench before you, you never know what invisible things they might have left behind on it.

Agreed.

There also seems to be a lot of stories around which (if we are kind) have got embellished in the telling.   Some things don't add up ... the report of a "3 miles of caravans into Cornwall" was - when the webcam was looked at - apparently referring to a near-empty road. I suspect it was "three caravans" not "three miles of caravans"


The police (or is this a government or BBC message) do seem to have some things wrong too ... I would question even the background to that .. except as part of a BBC news article (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-52261055):



Now - I am pretty convinced I'm allowed outside into my garden - and not as this article carried by the BBC reporting the police and the government says.  Sure - I'm luckier than many.  Or perhaps not lucky - rather by choice that Lisa, Billy and I have chosen to live in a house with a garden.    Sadly, by having their name attached to this statement the Devon and Cornwall police appear to be implementing a "stay indoors" rule which is not the law.  Had they not said "go outside" but "leave your home or current abode" I would have been happier. 

Odd officer making a mistake? Yes - it happens.  Statement in an article carried by the BBC - mistake, intentional or stretching the law on purpose?

Now - I need to go and mow the lawn.   It's outside.   It's legal and honest, and I will be keeping myself decent too.

A neighbour visited me yesterday, briefly, outdoors only and maintaining two meters social distancing.
Reason was to collect groceries that I had ordered from Tesco for them, to collect toilet rolls from my strategic reserve, and some hand sanitiser made from supplies stockpiled in advance.

Does this count as "buying essentials" which is allowed but does this have to be buying have to be from a shop ? Or does it count as a prohibited social visit.
They took care to avoid police patrols in case.

On another forum I subscribe to, someone would have posted a photograph of a man in a tin foil hat by now... ;)

Tin foil hats are now in short supply. People may have to make their own.

Your own garden is 100% OK, Graham. The Statutory Instrument expressly says the place where you are living includes its garden etc.

Ham radio is OK for pork products, surely? There might be a lot of crackling on the line, of course.

If an NHS ID card is not proof of being a key worker, where does that leave a police warrant card?

That said, the Guardian is not known for championing excessive zeal in the exercise of authority, and they may have had to do in depth investigations to come up with those examples (looking through twitter, in other words.)

I would assume that once government reopens after the Easter break, someone at the Home Office will be looking into any daft examples and issuing guidelines. Hard cases make for bad law, and I am sure that a lot of the things that are said and done by those in authority over the course of the lockdown will be challenged after the crisis is over, by anyone with more money than sense and/or sufficient over-estimation of their own importance to obliterate in their own minds the fact that this is a national emergency (no, not just Chris Packham).

The regulations have been imposed by statutory instrument (SO), in this case the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/made). The preamble to the regulations tells us that
so the first argument will be whether he was entitled to that, or acting ultra vires, or beyond his powers. More than a few Statutory Instruments have fallen at this first hurdle. Assuming that it passes that test, there may well be arguments about section 6:


In my previous career, one of my favourite answers to anyone asking if what I was doing was allowed was "Headquarters have raised no objection", meaning that it might look risky, but nobody has thought to expressly forbid what I am doing. Because the list in the SO doesn't preclude something, is it lawful, and if it can include something, how does one decide whether a particular activity is lawful?  Exercise is permissible, but what are the limits to that? Does seeking medical assistance mean just GP or hospital, or could it include an acupuncture clinic? Is attending a protest against HS2 to stop trees being felled a reasonable excuse if it is likely to save the world as we know it, and if so, is that measured against the belief of the person attending the protest, or the belief of any reasonable person - the "man on the Clapham omnibus" referred to by Master of the Rolls Sir Richard Henn Collins in a 1903 judgment? Legal text books are written on points like these, and I am sure someone will be daft enough to try a few of them on.

There's a fairly long (about 20 pages) essay here about how pandemic situations can accelerate but do not create a tendency towards social control that goes back, with mostly good and occasionally bad intentions, at least as far as Plato.
https://charleseisenstein.org/essays/the-coronation/?_page=10

It depends. The regulations say:


So if they are vulnerable, you can leave the house to buy their groceries, but they might not be allowed to come to yours to collect them. This seems to be a case of no-one having considered that a person might buy shopping for a neighbour for them to collect from their home, rather than dropping them off.

It’s fine, Tony. You - as you say - are “obtain[ing] basic necessities... for vulnerable persons”. The vulnerable person - in collecting those supplies from you - is “obtain[ing] basic necessities”. The use of the word “obtain” makes it clear that no purchase is necessary.

Besides which, the overriding wording in Regulation 6(1) is “without reasonable excuse”. Reg 6(2) outlines a number of things that are definitely reasonable excuses, but the fact that something is not mentioned in 6(2) doesn’t preclude it from being a reasonable excuse. This last point is the one that has more than anything else got the police into difficulties.

Which leads us to the essential question: Is everything forbidden unless it is expressly allowed, or is everything allowed unless it is expressly forbidden?

In the end, it will all be down to the British public rather than these regulations. People are dying, and most would prefer not to join them. The extremes of idiotic behaviour by sections of a bored populace and over-enthusiastic application of the rules by some police and others aside, I reckon it will not be a big issue come the aftermath.

Exactly that. We hear that about 1,000 fines have been issued - an incredibly small number really - and both the public and the police should take that fact as a compliment.

English law - I must declare an interest here! - loves words like “reasonably” because you don’t have to say where the line is, as long as you can say which side of the line a given situation lies. Hence the rare extremes have been obvious cock-ups rather than conspiracies.

Certainly, enforcement styles vary a lot, more I suspect than the degree of compliance. Looking for some recent figures, I can find a couple: In Italy, by 4th April, 176,767 people had had some action taken against them, presumably fixed fines. And in France, from 18th March to 8th April, 530,000 fines had been issued!

Different people react differently to the current strange situation. A friend told me yesterday (face to face, but it's all legit: we were several metres apart and he lives on a street near me on which I was taking my daily mandated exercise – run) that his mum, very gregarious, is finding it tough, whereas his stepfather, solitary by nature, would like it to go on for ever... Both in self-isolation together due to age and poor underlying health.

I believe we can blame Michael Gove for that. Responding to a question on the Andrew Marr Show on 5th April. To be fair to Mr Gove he did make it clear it was a suggestion only, and that it depended on one's level of fitness. Sadly the 'suggestion' has been repeated in the media as a 'rule' and has been used as stick to beat others by social media busybodies.

I have fallen victim to this. Yesterday, bored with laps of the local recreation ground, I decided to take Finn on a 3 mile circular walk around Templecombe and the neighbouring countryside, using lanes and public footpaths. I'm not that fit so I took a few rests en route. I took photographs of things that caught my eye on the walk. I got home 90 minutes later.

I posted pictures on the Templecombe Village Facebook page, which generally received a positive response. There were some minor concerns that there may have been livestock in fields that the public footpath crossed, but that's a perennial issue, and not an issue specific to Coronavirus. I followed the Countryside Code with regard to walking with dogs, and, as it happens, there were no farm animals in the fields I crossed.

Someone asked me in the comments how long my walk took. I replied honestly that it took 90 minutes and that I was taking it easy.

Later that evening I got a personal message from the Facebook page's administrator. Saying:



I could've let that slide, but I felt that if the administrator wanted to be informative he should know the actual guidelines. I declined to edit my post explaining why I was refusing.



My answer to the question of how long my walk took remains in place on the Facebook page. No one else has batted an eyelid.

As can be inferred from my previous posts, I do longer walks than that, having been used to them for many years. Now I plan them very carefully to avoid sensitive spots and set off very early in the morning and taking care with stiles and gates. In six hours the other day I met just five or six joggers and dog-walkers (before I encountered the two police I mentioned the other day).

Far safer than doing the same old walks of an hour or so, mostly on urban paths, dodging other people, not least cyclists who still opt for pavements even though there's hardly any traffic on the roads.

It looks as if people of my age may be expected to more or less safe-isolate for another 18 months - not an appealing prospect for an outdoor type such as myself, who finds 16 hours inside the house makes for a very long day.

I suspect they did not challenge you based not so much on your age, but on the time of day.  From The Metro (https://metro.co.uk/2018/07/12/public-sex-and-voyeurism-why-do-people-go-dogging-7704398/)


Back to quoting Marlburian


I am ... relieved that is "dodging" - 2 x d and 1 x g, and not 1 x d and 2 x g ... something I wouldn't have thought of in Berkshire.


Yeah - it ain't going to open up quickly, is it - and as Lee was commenting about France earlier this morning (I think that was on a public board) it looks like it will be by age and vulnerability bands.  Probably tomorrow, I'll looking to write a "and so for the rest of 2020" planning thread.    May slip a day or two; while time is no longer so much of the essence, I'm not short of things to do.  But, dear reader, I appreciate the interaction in places like this far more than I can say - THANK YOU for being here and posting.

The one thing that is starting to grate with me is being implored to “Stay home”.  To my mind it should be “Stay at home”.

Interesting that you should say that, as only this afternoon I was listening to Stephen Fry on R4 having a discussion about language in general and English in particular. One item that sunk in longer term was his ssertion that, rather than being simpified by shoddy grammar etc, the language actually gets more complicated down the generations, as words hitherto thought uneccesary become estabished grammar.

So I'm just curious - what in your view does the phrase "stay at home" convey that the phrase "stay home" doesn't?

(With a spot of luck we could get a whole new sub-thread out of this  ;D )

Perhaps "stay (at) home" is undergoing a process similar to that previously seen in "go (to) home".

I don't ever recall seeing the phrase 'go to home' used as an instruction except perhaps on a game board - or should that be 'board game board'? Common usage would I think be either 'go home' or 'go to your home'.

Just returned from an exemplary one-hour of exercise, that took in pavements and a couple of parks. I met far more people in that hour than I did in my seven hours out on Good Friday, and several had obvious infirmities. After wandering around one park and heading for an exit, I realised it had a gate that needed unlatching and re-latching; as I approached, someone opened and closed it with bare hands, so I used another, ungated, exit.

I resisted the temptation to buy milk and a newspaper, and my eyebrows flickered when I passed a couple of people who looked as if they were returning from the newsagents with just a paper, the purchase of which presumably required an exchange of coins. (I gather that shop staff do not appreciate people who go in just for a lottery ticket.)

Then I popped into a deserted Tilehurst Station and pulled out a Metro from halfway down a small untidy heap. (So presumably untouched by human hand.) Self-consciously I carried it home, fearful that people might think that I too had been to a newsagent.

Home is the only noun used directly following go without a preposition. Why? Presumably because 'go home' (or 'I'm going home' etc) is such a common phrase. So I'm surmising, without having actually researched ( ::)  :facepalm:) that originally – probably very early in the development of English – there was an intervening 'to', which it has become normal and correct to omit.

Romanes eunt domus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_ite_domum) Romani ite domum !!  ;D



Just realised, it might look like Scunthorpe in there. There isn't - honest!!

Russian has a single word домой 'domoi' meaning 'go(ing) home(wards)'. I dare say some other languages do too. There might be a language somewhere which has a single word meaning 'stay(ing) (at) home'. And doesn't French have a specific verb 'rentrer' meaning 'go home' (as opposed to 'retourner' = 'go back, return')?

It is one of those many features that makes English a difficult language for non-native speakers to learn, as there are no completely logical rules to follow.

To is also not used with "here", "there", "somewhere", "anywhere", and "away". Or with gerunds (go shopping etc)

In some dialects it also isn't used with some other nouns, such as "town". This is even analogous with "home" as the word originally in Old English (then spelt hām) also meant a settlement. (The word 'hamlet' is related to this but not directly as it was re-borrowed from Norman French.)

In the phrase “go home” the word “home” is an adverb of place, not a noun.

This is making my head hurt  ;D ;D
However, our daughter, Father & Father in Law would love this discussion!

Please feel free to invite your daughter, father, father in law (and cousins too) to join the forum and contribute, provided they have some interest in public transport too.   But, please, don't extend that suggestion to them if you come here for a bit of friendly pedant-escapism!

The Pedants Revolt Mk II

Prepositions are notoriously tricky idiomatic little things - I had a quick look at the language primers on my bookshelf, and the first two both said exactly that about them and how hard they are to translate as a result. And as preposition+noun=adverbial phrase, and the choice of preposition can depend idiomatically on both noun and verb, it often looks as if "no preposition" is just another preposition to choose idiomatically. I'd be happy to let linguists puzzle over how to analyse such usages, but their (multiple) suggestions probably won't make any difference to anyone's usage.

I remember my brother had a book to learn Danish, in which there was a table cross-referring all the common prepositions, about 20 in each language. Every square had an example in it! I can't now remember whether it had "no preposition" as a row or column, but I suspect it did.

In the case of "home", however, calling it an adverb does make sense. It's used with other verbs too in the same way - e.g. drive home, slot home (of inanimate objects like cotter pins and footballs) or slouch home, rush home.  Of course that's a description, and not prescriptive.

Fair call on home being an adverb in this case. My mistake earlier.

I remember reading a few years in a language blog (it might even have been Language Log, (https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/) though I can't remember for sure now) a claim that there was now a second word functioning with no preposition after to, albeit only in one variety of English. It was the Australian phrase 'go bush'. Unfortunately the examples given were clearly in the sense 'go crazy' rather than movement into the bush.

A quick comparison within a few other languages indicates this is a formation common in Northern but not Western Germanic languages which retain the equivalent of 'to'. So blame the Vikings for causing the problem in the first place :)

Which Tyler?

Reading station tribute to NHS (https://www.getreading.co.uk/news/reading-berkshire-news/reading-stations-stunning-tribute-nhs-18107579)

On a vaguely related topic...in this neck of the woods we have a company called Plants Galore, with branches in Exeter, Newton Abbot & Plymouth, which continues to trade despite being issued with prohibition notices - on the 27th & 28th March and with subsequent duplicates - by the relevant local authorities. The owner has essentially told the councils to take him to court if they think they have a case because that is the only way he will be stopped. The apparent daily visits from the 'boys in blue' have obviously not dissuaded the large number of customers, judging from the full car park every time I cycle past, who might surely be 'nicked' for making unnecessary journeys.  :)

I know there are people on this forum whose understanding of law is better then mine, but on the face of it this is an interesting situation.

This is the time of year for planting. Our local supernarkets and Farm Shop, all of which usually sell seeds and seedlings at this time of year, are still allowed to open. Presumably Plants Galore also sell the same products. Where is the logic in one being able to buy a packet of seeds or a tomato plant seeding in Morrison's when you can't buy them at a Garden Centre?

We are told that we can buy anything in a shop that is still allowed to open, whether or not it is "essential." Furthermore, nobody has ever defined what "essential" is and rightly so, because each person's essential purchases may vary depemding on their own circumstances. As was pointed out recently, a bat and ball set might be seen as "essential" if it is the only way to entertain the kids/ keep 'em quiet.

We should also not lose sight of what the regulations are for in the first place. They are to avoid the spread of this virus, not to punish the population.

Having done no further research on this particular case, it strikes me that a pig-headed local authority might have come across a pig-headed trader and neither of them want to be seen to back down (Substitute "principled" for "pig-headed" if you prefer because the use of the term was rather subjective!)

For the avoidance of doubt I have not concluded who is right or who is wrong in my opinion in this case, I am simply trying to look at the wider issue (added in case someone posts the term "snowflake" again... ;) )

Plants Galore, unsurprisingly, is primarily a retailer of house & garden plants but also sells garden tools & pet food. As one of the justifications for his approach the owner has pointed out that the Aldi store 300 yards away also sells all these things and are (legally) permitted to trade normally.

I guess this comes down to "letter" and "spirit"?

My understanding is that people are allowed to go shopping for basic necessities: “as infrequently as possible” - I think most people would have a pretty good understanding of what constitutes "basic necessities" without it having laid out on tablets of stone for them...………...whether that includes tomato seedlings?...….well I must admit that whilst picking up basic necessities I have also picked up a newspaper, wine and chocolate, which I guess are luxuries, but if anyone wants to challenge the essential nature of the latter two with Mrs TG, I admire their courage.

 Latest guidance re shopping to English police forces (https://www.college.police.uk/What-we-do/COVID-19/Documents/What-constitutes-a-reasonable-excuse.pdf): Likely to be reasonable: Buying several days’ worth of food, including luxury items and alcohol. There is no need for all a person’s shopping to be basic food supplies; the purchase of snacks and luxuries is still permitted. In general terms, a person has a reasonable excuse to visit the shops which remain open to customers under the Regulations. If a person is already out of the address with good reason, then it would not be proportionate to prevent the person from buying non-essential items. Food could include hot food from takeaways. ‘Obtain’ includes purchasing, but could include collecting or sharing items, provided this is genuine.Buying a small amount of a staple item or necessity (eg, a newspaper, pet food, a loaf of bread or pint of milk)

And as I've previously pointed out, now deemed acceptable in England is "Driving to countryside and walking (where far more time is spent walking than driving)".

Spoken like a true lawyer! There are many debatable and arguable points of interpretation in a short statutory instrument, and the shop selling things other than their primary line is just one of many. It seems to be accepted that if it sells something on the list of useful necessities, it can sell pretty much everything else on its shelves. One store chain selling general household goods in large quantity has been accused by some of having installed freezers to sell frozen food in order to get around the rules. The store denies this and says the idea was drawn up before the pandemic. So would it be acceptable for someone to buy a new barbecue and sunloungers if the shop also sold pizza and ice cream? Or would it have to be tinned beans? Does the shop have to have a local authority food hygiene certificate as a condition of being able to sell a lawn mower? Questions like this have earned fortunes for lawyers if they won the argument, and lost fortunes for their clients if they didn't.

The coronavirus emergency legislation is working because not many people seem to want to breach it. Seeing reports of young healthy people dying is having more effect than the threat of a fine.