Thank you for your comments. It does seem odd that people are travelling many miles for relaxing!, and having a caravan behind would still seem to be in align with the rules providing you do not stay inside overnight. Just recently because we have been in lockdown apart from this trip relatives have been keeping us up to date what is happening. One instance is one of their neighbours who only the husband goes out for shopping decided to take the family to Hasting , this was a round trip of 180 miles.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Prime Minister's statement
Page 4 - Passionate about caravans & motorhome? Join our community to share that passion with a global audience!
The rights and wrongs of the way the government has approached dealing with the C19 pandemic will always be challenged in time but with the benefit of hindsight. But that is for the future. We are presently still fighting the pandemic and all of us are beholden to minimise the transmission of the virus. That must entail a reduction of some liberties to minimise unnecessary contacts.
Understandably no one likes to be told to stop doing things they might normally do, but these are not normal times, and it's time to put the wants of self behind and to think of the needs of greater society, to give everyone the best chance they can.
The government has made a series of regulations which have received approval by parliament, which are regulations. I would certainly agree they are not always clear and some are open to wide interpretation, but given that we should all be concerned with minimising the spread of the virus its good sense to apply the least contentious interpretation of the regulation, and advice.
We will constantly hear or read of people who have bent the rules and got away without being challenged. It does not mean its a green light for everyone to do it.
The last government statement
People with symptoms of a respiratory infection including COVID-19
Guidance for people with symptoms of a respiratory infection including COVID-19, or a positive test result for COVID-19.
Published 12 May 2020, say's
"Stay alert
We can all help control the virus if we all stay alert. This means you must:
- stay at home as much as possible
- work from home if you can
- limit contact with other people
- keep your distance if you go out (2 metres apart where possible)
- wash your hands regularly
People with symptoms of a respiratory infection including COVID-19
Guidance for people with symptoms of a respiratory infection including COVID-19, or a positive test result for COVID-19.
Is your journey necessary?
To help keep yourself and your fellow passengers safe, you should not travel if you:
- are experiencing any coronavirus symptoms
- are self-isolating as a result of coronavirus symptoms or sharing a household with somebody with symptoms
- are clinically extremely vulnerable
- working from home where possible
- shopping less frequently and shopping locally"
I am not intending to make a political statement:-
There have been a series of high profile personalities who have taken decisions to act against the spirit, if not the law of the lock down regulations. Some have paid the price for their actions.
Whilst some of the actions may have been technically legal, they may not have been prudent given the position the person holds, and the public's sense of decency.
Headline titles of regulations give the flavour what whats contained in the regulation, and for most casual users that will be enough, but if you dig down into regulations you will often find there are certain limits, exceptions or loopholes. Often it is only the people who have time or enough money to spend to find these loopholes that can use them and by doing so they look conspicuous and apparently breaking the spirit of the regulation.
Until you have all the specific information (and I'm not claiming that public statements give all the exact information) you cannot judge if their actions are permitted given the specific conditions.
Edit 29th May
We now know the police have reviewed the latest high profile persons actions and on the count of driving 250 odd miles to provide child care and self isolate was not illegal, but the 60 mile round trip to verify eye sight was a minor infringement and not going to be taken further.
In the public's eye view which is fuelled by some of the media seeking "stop press" headlines, the credibility of the government has been dented.
In relation to this pandemic, the big problem now will be a significant number of people who becasue they have seen high profile people apparently breaking the regulations and safety advice, they take actions but for perhaps the wrong reasons.
We have already heard of large gatherings of people in excess of the Government guidelines, and who are ignoring safe distancing advice. I can see their self gratification actions putting more "at risk" people in greater danger of catching the virus.
This is another classic example of how inadequate "common sense" really is and how selfishness is rife despite us all facing this pandemic.
There have been a series of high profile personalities who have taken decisions to act against the spirit, if not the law of the lock down regulations. Some have paid the price for their actions.
Whilst some of the actions may have been technically legal, they may not have been prudent given the position the person holds, and the public's sense of decency.
Headline titles of regulations give the flavour what whats contained in the regulation, and for most casual users that will be enough, but if you dig down into regulations you will often find there are certain limits, exceptions or loopholes. Often it is only the people who have time or enough money to spend to find these loopholes that can use them and by doing so they look conspicuous and apparently breaking the spirit of the regulation.
Until you have all the specific information (and I'm not claiming that public statements give all the exact information) you cannot judge if their actions are permitted given the specific conditions.
Edit 29th May
We now know the police have reviewed the latest high profile persons actions and on the count of driving 250 odd miles to provide child care and self isolate was not illegal, but the 60 mile round trip to verify eye sight was a minor infringement and not going to be taken further.
In the public's eye view which is fuelled by some of the media seeking "stop press" headlines, the credibility of the government has been dented.
In relation to this pandemic, the big problem now will be a significant number of people who becasue they have seen high profile people apparently breaking the regulations and safety advice, they take actions but for perhaps the wrong reasons.
We have already heard of large gatherings of people in excess of the Government guidelines, and who are ignoring safe distancing advice. I can see their self gratification actions putting more "at risk" people in greater danger of catching the virus.
This is another classic example of how inadequate "common sense" really is and how selfishness is rife despite us all facing this pandemic.
Last edited:
I think people have already started voting with their feet and have decided that the lockdown is, effectively, over. From personal experience, here in the Cotswolds, I am seeing much heavier traffic and an increase in daytrippers.
I have a service (re)booked in for next week. I haven't heard anything to the contrary from the dealers, but will check before the end of the week.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
Mandatory eye tests for drivers over 70 being proposed by HMG. Good or bad?
- Started by Dustydog
- Replies: 201
-
-
-
