@unhurt: "No non-essential travel into or out of the level 3 area... Exemptions for essential travel for work, education, shopping health etc; outdoor exercise..."
Apparently Nicola has since 'clarified' that the reference to outdoor exercise as an exception means only if you can't do said outdoor exercise within your own local authority's area*. But of course you'd only know that if you were watching, or had seen reports of, the press conference or debate in which that statement was made. I haven't managed to track it down online yet, and the government's own web page hadn't been updated last time I looked. It would not be unreasonable IMO to take the position that if it's not set down in writing then it's left to the judgement of the individual citizen (which means, inevitably, that some will end up doing whatever they feel like regardless).
I stand by my opinion that the communications are disappointingly poor.
I also stand by my opinion of the contact sports advice in particular. It's ungrammatical (a critical verb is missing) and poorly expressed. Yes, it's possible to infer what it means, but why should that be necessary when it would have been much clearer and simpler to say "contact sports not permitted except for under-18s and professional sportspeople"? As it's been published it looks like a hastily-taken meeting note that's been transcribed directly on to the web page without even being reviewed or proof read. It's just shoddy.
* The nuances of this could also be open to debate. For example, if one's chosen form of outdoor exercise would be to ride Spooky Wood then you could only do that by going to Glentress. I suspect that it means something like if you want to go kite surfing and your LA area is wholly inland then it's OK to travel to the nearest suitable beach to do it. But it's far from clear from what's [apparently] been said so far that such an interpretation would actually be correct.
posts
