Stay Alert

[RingoMcCartney]

No, you know I didn’t say that.

Until now, we’ve not been allowed to meet family members or friends from other households.

Now, we’re allowed to meet one family member from another household at a time in a public place.

Paul and Kate both thought that we could meet two family members from another household in a public place. Kate even thought we could visit a family member at their house.

Paul and Kate misunderstood the rule, ergo the communication was unclear.

Just to clarify your understanding on this.
Are you saying that not only have we not been able to just meet family and friends from another household. But family and friends havent been allowed to enter another household too?

[Rileybobs]

Well you didn’t say that, perhaps you should be clearer.

‘ It was a surprise yesterday when the discussion around it's one parent at a time immerged and yes slightly different to my thinking but in reality I don't think a huge issue in terms of clarity and one that got clarified Monday, at least hopefully it is clear enough by Monday evening. Also I would say I don't agree with the seeing one at a time and I would predict people will be tempted not to adhere to that, but they have not adhered on many other things, you can also decide on the penalties to be applied in this and other regards. ’

It’s called backtracking because she’s been proven wronf but hasn’t got the decency to admit it.

[martin_p]

Just to clarify your understanding on this.
Are you saying that not only have we not been able to just meet family and friends from another household. But family and friends havent been allowed to enter another household too?

Are you saying that hasn’t been the advice during lockdown?

[RingoMcCartney]

Crikey, Wrongo, I know you were upset about that post being removed but I thought you'd have gotten over it by now.

But, let's imagine that's all you said in that post, you may recall that the mods removed it. Therefore, I cannot be the only poster who thought it was inappropriate can I?

Hope this helps.

Upset?

Dont flatter yourself!



Up the Regime eh Comrade!

[RingoMcCartney]

Are you saying that hasn’t been the advice during lockdown?

I'm simply asking if this is his understanding?

[Rileybobs]

Just to clarify your understanding on this.
Are you saying that not only have we not been able to just meet family and friends from another household. But family and friends havent been allowed to enter another household too?

Yes, unless for extenuating circumstances such as caring for someone/working etc. Why, have you interpreted the communication differently?

[ksrclaret]

Upset?

Dont flatter yourself!



Up the Regime eh Comrade!

Glad you've finally come to terms with it, Comrade Wrongo.

Now, I've kept you from the pub 'work' for long enough now. Don't forget your butties.

[KateR]

That’s it - move the goalposts. Very clever. Just admit you misunderstood the message, why is that so difficult? You started using 1+1 and 2+1 type examples - don’t back track now that you’ve read the government text.

And Paul clearly thought that I couldn’t meet my parents but to circumvent the rules they could meet me as they would be meeting one person.

I’m perfectly capable of thinking for myself thanks, it’s such a pathetic and childish response to this whole saga. This isn’t about thinking for ourselves, this is about following a strict set of rules which will help us to save lives and begin a return to normality. Are the British public really supposed to use their common sense to do so? Because I have a funny feeling that not everyone would behave in the same way and the whole thing would be a disaster.

7 pages of ample proof that you have posted on numerous time clearly showing the world you have been telling the world you are simply incapable of thinking for yourself. Now that you see what we have been saying I would say your doing your best Trump deflecting tactic, people always say the best form of defense is attack. You always try to end your attacks with the same line in regard to how clever you are and capable of thinking for yourself, it's kind of lost it's appeal now with you clearly proving you are not clever or capable of thinking, but don't worry your claret family will help you, just don't ask to meet any of us.

Don't be to embarrassed with being found out, we knew all along you weren't that thick, well some of us did and you just wanted an argument to try and prove a point. regarding your attacks on Paul it works just as well the other way round but I would say it is safer 99% of the time if people meet there parents rather than having parents visit them except in the case of where children might have symptoms that are considered dangerous. If these symptoms that can be considered dangerous to you are not clear, just let everyone know and we will clear it up for you.

[RingoMcCartney]

Yes, unless for extenuating circumstances such as caring for someone/working etc. Why, have you interpreted the communication differently?

Yes. Under 18s who's parents live in separate homes can leave and enter both households.

[nil_desperandum]

Yes. Under 18s who's parents live in separate homes can leave and enter both households.

So extenuating circumstances then, as the previous post stated.

[Paul Waine]

I didn’t say that ‘can I meet’ was the most important question, and I think you know I didn’t. I said for me, it was probably the most important rule change that I was interested to hear. Because I’d like to see my family and I know my family would like to see me and my son. Surely that was one of the things most people were interested in hearing about?

Hi Rileybobs, how on earth do you expect me to know what you said, except you've just said "I didn't say that and I did say that?"

No worries.

Yes, I agree, I'd like to see my daughter and give both my two granddaughters very big hugs. We will both be able to do this in time.

Stay safe.

[martin_p]

7 pages of ample proof that you have posted on numerous time clearly showing the world you have been telling the world you are simply incapable of thinking for yourself. Now that you see what we have been saying I would say your doing your best Trump deflecting tactic, people always say the best form of defense is attack. You always try to end your attacks with the same line in regard to how clever you are and capable of thinking for yourself, it's kind of lost it's appeal now with you clearly proving you are not clever or capable of thinking, but don't worry your claret family will help you, just don't ask to meet any of us.

Don't be to embarrassed with being found out, we knew all along you weren't that thick, well some of us did and you just wanted an argument to try and prove a point. regarding your attacks on Paul it works just as well the other way round but I would say it is safer 99% of the time if people meet there parents rather than having parents visit them except in the case of where children might have symptoms that are considered dangerous. If these symptoms that can be considered dangerous to you are not clear, just let everyone know and we will clear it up for you.

At least he’s capable of reading guidance and understanding what it means. Odd that it’s the ‘think for yourself’ crew on here that were thinking the guidance was something else. And that’s the underlying point that I continue to make, if the guidance is open to interpretation and ‘people thinking for themselves’ the people will think and interpret in different ways, some in ways that will put people at risk.

[Rileybobs]

7 pages of ample proof that you have posted on numerous time clearly showing the world you have been telling the world you are simply incapable of thinking for yourself. Now that you see what we have been saying I would say your doing your best Trump deflecting tactic, people always say the best form of defense is attack. You always try to end your attacks with the same line in regard to how clever you are and capable of thinking for yourself, it's kind of lost it's appeal now with you clearly proving you are not clever or capable of thinking, but don't worry your claret family will help you, just don't ask to meet any of us.

Don't be to embarrassed with being found out, we knew all along you weren't that thick, well some of us did and you just wanted an argument to try and prove a point. regarding your attacks on Paul it works just as well the other way round but I would say it is safer 99% of the time if people meet there parents rather than having parents visit them except in the case of where children might have symptoms that are considered dangerous. If these symptoms that can be considered dangerous to you are not clear, just let everyone know and we will clear it up for you.

I’m losing the will...

Please understand this point - we cannot VISIT family. We can meet a SINGLE member of our family from another household in PUBLIC. Meeting somebody isn’t a mutually exclusive occurrence. By default both people meet, therefore Paul’s suggestion was against the rules. And I didn’t attack Paul. We disagreed but he spoke to me politely and I reciprocated. Maybe you should try it.

[Rileybobs]

Yes. Under 18s who's parents live in separate homes can leave and enter both households.

Thanks. This has nothing to do with the two posters misunderstanding the rules.

[martin_p]

So extenuating circumstances then, as the previous post stated.

He thought he’d tripped him up (with something that clearly wasn’t the intent of the original post anyway). Although the child would be considered part of both households, so it wouldn’t break the guidance anyway. Bit embarrassing.

[Swizzlestick]

Yes. Under 18s who's parents live in separate homes can leave and enter both households.

Maybe you can use your ‘late for work’ excuse again now? I feel it’s a good time.

[ksrclaret]

He thought he’s tripped him up (with something that clearly wasn’t the intent of the original post anyway). Bit embarrassing.

I think it was Wrongo's best impression of a pound shop barrister.

[RingoMcCartney]

Glad you've finally come to terms with it, Comrade Wrongo.

Now, I've kept you from the pub 'work' for long enough now. Don't forget your butties.

Oh dear

Bars restaurants and pubs have been shut, due to lockdown , for quite some time now, KSR Claret.

Yet again, you've failed to Keep & Stay Relevant.

[Rileybobs]

Hi Rileybobs, how on earth do you expect me to know what you said, except you've just said "I didn't say that and I did say that?"

No worries.

Yes, I agree, I'd like to see my daughter and give both my two granddaughters very big hugs. We will both be able to do this in time.

Stay safe.

Hi Paul. Thanks for a civil reply, it’s getting quite difficult having differing opinions to some people on here without them getting toxic.

I said that it was probably the most important question for me, meaning the question that had the most direct impact on my life. But it clearly wasn’t the most important question globally.

I may not be explaining very well, but clearly questions about the death toll, PPE, job security etc are far more important than ‘can I meet my family’. But from a personal perspective I was waiting to hear about the change in measures for meeting family - as it sounds like you were.

[ksrclaret]

Oh dear

Bars restaurants and pubs have been shut, due to lockdown , for quite some time now, KSR Claret.

Yet again, you've failed to Keep & Stay Relevant.

Oh no! Really?

Say it ain't so Wrongo!!

So out of interest, where have you actually been going these past 8 weeks or so when you've said you were off to 'work' ?

[Rileybobs]

He thought he’d tripped him up (with something that clearly wasn’t the intent of the original post anyway). Although the child would be considered part of both households, so it wouldn’t break the guidance anyway. Bit embarrassing.

It was a very obvious Ringo trap that even I’m not thick enough to fall into. It was totally irrelevant but I’m sure he would have claimed it as a virtual victory rather than debating the actual point. Classic tactics. Weird how difficult some find it to admit they’re wrong. It’s a weak characteristic.

[KateR]

Rileybobs wrote: ↑
Sun May 10, 2020 6:15 pm
So people can go to visit loved ones now?

Sunday evening you wrote above and I responded with below having no details from the Monday written document to back up what was in the speech, I told you then you could go meet loved ones, not because I am smart but simply that you could drive, a fact you did not know, a fact you later admitted you had not read anything so didn't know, facts from this thread anyone can check. Safe, the message has not changed, the more detailed info on Monday clarified you could indeed arrange to meet people one on one in a safe arrangement and that because you could drive further you could meet loved ones to. 7 pages of you trying to make a point which was clear to most on Sunday night and Monday we got the details around, trying to blag about you knowing and being clever clearly just wrong, time after time. Your mate Marin offered nothing though in fairness.

I don't think I really said that but if I did I apologise. What I heard was that people can go further afield now so that indeed means you can go and see someone but under the same safe conditions outlined and what I said, no hugging, no kissing, since you need things very clear no touching no getting closer than the safe distance.

The this where the bit about waiting for details tomorrow and using your brain comes in, if you have someone in a care home, elderly then the care home might (I hope) not let you in, but if they did I would expect you to realise the danger to them and not go anywhere close but you could hopefully see them through a window.

I recently saw a video of where a care home on a nice day let residents out, in gloves and masks, sat apart and relatives were able to slowly drive past, windows open, with masks on and talk to loved ones, carers where on hand to police all this.

you've been told by others not just me, on every single objective you bring up in terms of it's not clear, stop trying to justify yourself it's embarrassing

[RingoMcCartney]

Sorry boys and girls, huff and puff as much as you like. It's a stone cold fact that under 18s who's parents live in separate homes, have been able to leave and enter both households.

Now I know that the government has saved the jobs of millions of workers , the length and breadth of the county. Thanks to its job retention scheme. But , believe it or not there are still millions of working. Increasingly so, if the last couple of days traffic is owt to go by.

So I'll bow out at this point , as I'm up for work in the morning ( apparently the Ringophiles think its controversial! I know, dont ask me!)

But I'm glad to help clear up the misunderstanding of the rules regarding people being able to go into other households.

Stay safe and keep well one and all

[KateR]

At least he’s capable of reading guidance and understanding what it means. Odd that it’s the ‘think for yourself’ crew on here that were thinking the guidance was something else. And that’s the underlying point that I continue to make, if the guidance is open to interpretation and ‘people thinking for themselves’ the people will think and interpret in different ways, some in ways that will put people at risk.

YAWN, I mean really Martin, what do lawyers do in court every bloody day of the week the "interpret the law" your arguments are just so weak, leave it to your buddy, that way you wont look as stupid as your making yourself look on here.

[ksrclaret]

So I'll bow out at this point , as I'm up for work in the morning

Wink wink nudge nudge

[KateR]

I’m losing the will...

Please understand this point - we cannot VISIT family. We can meet a SINGLE member of our family from another household in PUBLIC. Meeting somebody isn’t a mutually exclusive occurrence. By default both people meet, therefore Paul’s suggestion was against the rules. And I didn’t attack Paul. We disagreed but he spoke to me politely and I reciprocated. Maybe you should try it.

trying to politely explain things to you over 7 pages, now 8 is just frustrating, I tried numerous times but you are adamant it's not clear to you, so please live your life, it has been continually emphasized since page one, meet safely, same point is being made time and time again ad nauseum. But you come continually back to the same point, yes we agree it's a single member, in public but there are also extenuating circumstances as you point out. So let's be very clear and you tell me, your mother is in a care home, can't walk, in a wheel chair or even same in her own home, can I go meet her in the drive way or a garden under the same conditions as meeting in a park if she can walk?

You are playing with semantics now, I've clearly explained I can Visit my family, perhaps you are confusing that with I can not meet my family at my families home which is not what I have been saying or said since the 50 page details came out, I can VISIT with them in a park, or even a promenade as long as it is a public place.

[KateR]

Time for dinner so I am also out of here.

[Rileybobs]

Rileybobs wrote: ↑
Sun May 10, 2020 6:15 pm
So people can go to visit loved ones now?

Sunday evening you wrote above and I responded with below having no details from the Monday written document to back up what was in the speech, I told you then you could go meet loved ones, not because I am smart but simply that you could drive, a fact you did not know, a fact you later admitted you had not read anything so didn't know, facts from this thread anyone can check. Safe, the message has not changed, the more detailed info on Monday clarified you could indeed arrange to meet people one on one in a safe arrangement and that because you could drive further you could meet loved ones to. 7 pages of you trying to make a point which was clear to most on Sunday night and Monday we got the details around, trying to blag about you knowing and being clever clearly just wrong, time after time. Your mate Marin offered nothing though in fairness.

I don’t understand where you’re going with this. I watched the PM’s speech and he didn’t mention being able to see loved ones. On the news following the speech it was revealed that you could meet a single person from another household in a public place. I didn’t see the news because I had switched the channel, expecting commentary about the address but no revelations.

Later in the evening you, and maybe others claimed that we could meet family. I claimed you were wrong. It wasn’t in the PM’s address so to my knowledge it was wrong. Turns out the press had been briefed after. I hadn’t read any news following the address, just what was on here.

The next day we’re told by Raab that we could meet two people from another household provided this was in public and with 2m separation. Great news eh? Then the government redacted Raab’s comment.

So I was initially incorrect because the PM’s address for some strange reason didn’t mention being able to meet other family’s members. I fell foul of the poor communication.

You called me, and others who shared a similar view, sheep for being critical. Then today you have posted about meeting more than one family member at a time and you’ve even posted about visiting them at their homes. Both of which are not permitted. So you too have fallen foul of the poor communication.

I don’t know why you need to argue with me. Everything I’ve posted is in black and white above. No doubt you’ll come back with loads of irrelevance in an attempt to muddy the waters, or failing that some toxicity. Or maybe you will just have the decency to agree that this particular issue could have been communicated much more clearly, and holding such a view doesn’t make somebody a sheep.

[aggi]

That's got to be Ringo's hollowest "victory". I'm a bit disappointed that he didn't go for a more esoteric example though. Being able to visit your parents if they run a B&B and they're hosting a blood doning session for homeless people and you are homeless and donating blood. That kind of thing.

[HunterST_BFC]

Having read many / most of the posts - and all the recent ones...

Having to suffer daily with this and being on the brink of calling for the blue lights being sent to take me in (more than once) I urge you all to not to increase interactivity.
Don't believe we are in any way on top this or the "curve" (infact false curve) that has been continually touted.
Don't believe the two week isolation and after this you're ok to carry on as before.

I could go on further.................

Stay as safe as you can. I'd not be told when to send kids from safety until I'd seen evidence anything being proposed is proven safe over weeks. If you can't avoid public transport or don't honestly think you are not at more risk back at work - I'd say find any way to swerve doing so.
There will be an increase in cases.

Don't shoot me for this - and no it's not political.
Trust me you don't wan't to get this whatever you think your chances are of surviving it are.

More importantly you risk others.

Personally I don't believe quite a lot of the hamfisted Gov's advice / stats / claims. I am so angry how bad it has been allowed to become. We are so far further from back to norm' because of it.

[Siddo]

We will have to disagree, Rileybobs. Did you know that you'd typed "mid-spoke" rather than "mis-spoke?" Have you ever used an autocue? Did you get the impression that Johnson was only reading from his autocue? I''d suggest that the only reason you think "can I meet..." was the most important question was because that was what was in the forefront of your own mind. It was also important for me, but not so that that was all I was listening for Johnson to say.

Not sure if anyone else mentioned this but the announcement on Sunday was recorded. I find this almost unbelievable that he could have made such a mess of it knowing it could be edited or filmed again.
Johnson and Trump in charge of a pandemic. Dumb and Dumber just doesn't come into it.
And I'm not talking about the political side of it, I am looking at ability, integrity and the wherewithal to manage a nation through incredibly difficult times.

[beddie]

Well my neighbours in their 70s but very active have decided to drive from Skipton to Lytham today, going to their static home on a park site, they are not meeting anyone or have any friends or relatives there, just the two of them and the dog, no doubt in and amongst having a walk around. I can't decide if that's acceptable or not, I'm edging on the side of it not being. Thoughts?

[Greenmile]

...Nice of you to resort to type by calling me a sheep though. You seem to have this victim complex that you’re being attacked by other posters, yet you’re always the one to lower the tone.

^ this

I can live with Kate’s habit of being wrong a lot and never admitting it (we’re all guilty of that, to some extent). I can live with her being invariably rude to anyone who doesn’t agree with her.

It’s the hypocrisy that really gets to me though. To pick out just one example, her first post on this thread was a fairly lengthy diatribe accusing everyone who has criticised the govt of being sheep. Her third post was accusing someone of being “pathetic and argumentative”.

[evensteadiereddie]

No problem, beddie, hope they have a good day.

[Grumps]

Well my neighbours in their 70s but very active have decided to drive from Skipton to Lytham today, going to their static home on a park site, they are not meeting anyone or have any friends or relatives there, just the two of them and the dog, no doubt in and amongst having a walk around. I can't decide if that's acceptable or not, I'm edging on the side of it not being. Thoughts?

As I understand it, the over 70s are in the vulnerable group, and shouldn't be going out.

[evensteadiereddie]

"Shouldn't " be - so it's their decision . If they are definitely not meeting anyone, there can be no danger to themselves or others.

[Eloise Laws]

Lytham have posted a 'Don't come here we are closed' notice on other Social Media.
Wouldn't the site be closed to non permenant residents?

[evensteadiereddie]

Lytham's posting is meaningless.
I can't imagine the couple going if there's no access to their van.

[Grumps]

"Shouldn't " be - so it's their decision . If they are definitely not meeting anyone, there can be no danger to themselves or others.

Just read the new guidelines, and the advice is they shouldn't go out, but if they do, minimise contact with others. So like you say it's OK, as long as they don't have to stop for petrol, then the risk would heighten

[claretonthecoast1882]

Well my neighbours in their 70s but very active have decided to drive from Skipton to Lytham today, going to their static home on a park site, they are not meeting anyone or have any friends or relatives there, just the two of them and the dog, no doubt in and amongst having a walk around. I can't decide if that's acceptable or not, I'm edging on the side of it not being. Thoughts?

The sun is already out in Lytham, they are keeping themselves to themselves and not meeting anybody else so don't see an issue with it. People need to start facing the outdoors again and not living a life indoors.

[evensteadiereddie]

Correct. There's no problem and if they do stop for petrol, they observe social distancing, all in all , a nice, safe day out for them.

On a personal note, my local fly fishery reopens today, you put your money in an envelope, stick it through the door and, by its very nature, fly fishing is a perfect example of s d. God knows why they banned it anyway.
Happy days !

[Grumps]

Correct. There's no problem and if they do stop for petrol, they observe social distancing, all in all , a nice, safe day out for them.

It was more the touching of things as opposed to meeting people.
But if I was them I'd probably risk it

[Devils_Advocate]

They can go to their Static home as long as they come home the same day and dont stay there

1.7 Are there restrictions on how far I can travel for my exercise or outdoor activity?
No. You can travel to outdoor open space irrespective of distance. You shouldn’t travel with someone from outside your household unless you can practise social distancing - for example by cycling. Leaving your home - the place you live - to stay at another home is not allowed.

1.9 Are day trips and holidays ok? Can people stay in second homes?
Day trips to outdoor open space, in a private vehicle, are permitted. You should practise social distancing from other people outside your household.

Leaving your home - the place you live - to stay at another home for a holiday or other purpose is not allowed. This includes visiting second homes.

Premises such as hotels and bed and breakfasts will remain closed, except where providing accommodation for specific reasons set out in law, such as for critical workers where required for a reason relating to their work.

[Paul Waine]

Not sure if anyone else mentioned this but the announcement on Sunday was recorded. I find this almost unbelievable that he could have made such a mess of it knowing it could be edited or filmed again.
Johnson and Trump in charge of a pandemic. Dumb and Dumber just doesn't come into it.
And I'm not talking about the political side of it, I am looking at ability, integrity and the wherewithal to manage a nation through incredibly difficult times.

Hi Siddo, yes, that is a relevant point. I used to record a few videos for work. I'd often have to say "stop, let me say that again.... I don't think I said that right." We tried to record a Q&A discussion between me and a colleague, he was in New York and I was in London. The connection wasn't operating correctly. After several attempts we gave up and shot the two parts separately. I was recorded, with a prepared autocue in London. He did the same in NY. The studio technicians then did their "magic" to create our single Q&A sequence.

As for Boris Johnson, I think I know why he spoken of "tomorrow" rather than "Wednesday" - and it wasn't corrected in edit. When he recorded the video the team in charge of the video content would have understood that the video would have been broadcast the day before return to work was planned. Maybe there were other "imprecise" statements, because these other things also hadn't been worked out at the time the video was recorded. Then there is Johnson's desire to be "in the moment and spontaneous" rather than "rigidly scripted."

I wonder if it was Sturgeon's announcement that moved Downing Street along a little faster than they had planned? or maybe they were also waiting for the best available info from the scientists and new stats before the "green light" to go to Stage 2.

[martin_p]

Well my neighbours in their 70s but very active have decided to drive from Skipton to Lytham today, going to their static home on a park site, they are not meeting anyone or have any friends or relatives there, just the two of them and the dog, no doubt in and amongst having a walk around. I can't decide if that's acceptable or not, I'm edging on the side of it not being. Thoughts?

Trouble is, heading out to a tourist spot the second the restrictions are lifted isn’t really the common sense that a lot of this depends on. If everyone decides to do the same then Lytham will be packed and social distancing difficult.

[martin_p]

Hi Siddo, yes, that is a relevant point. I used to record a few videos for work. I'd often have to say "stop, let me say that again.... I don't think I said that right." We tried to record a Q&A discussion between me and a colleague, he was in New York and I was in London. The connection wasn't operating correctly. After several attempts we gave up and shot the two parts separately. I was recorded, with a prepared autocue in London. He did the same in NY. The studio technicians then did their "magic" to create our single Q&A sequence.

As for Boris Johnson, I think I know why he spoken of "tomorrow" rather than "Wednesday" - and it wasn't corrected in edit. When he recorded the video the team in charge of the video content would have understood that the video would have been broadcast the day before return to work was planned. Maybe there were other "imprecise" statements, because these other things also hadn't been worked out at the time the video was recorded. Then there is Johnson's desire to be "in the moment and spontaneous" rather than "rigidly scripted."

I wonder if it was Sturgeon's announcement that moved Downing Street along a little faster than they had planned? or maybe they were also waiting for the best available info from the scientists and new stats before the "green light" to go to Stage 2.

The announcement had been trailed as being on the Sunday for about a week! So by your logic Monday was always the intended return to work date.

[evensteadiereddie]

I don't think their caravan is likely to attract more than the two "tourists" owning it....

[martin_p]

I don't think their caravan is likely to attract more than the two "tourists" owning it....

Well yes, that’s why it’s the ‘in and amongst having a walk around’ bit that I meant.

[SalouClaret]

I hate you all equally, so there!

[TheFamilyCat]

They can go to their Static home as long as they come home the same day and dont stay there

1.7 Are there restrictions on how far I can travel for my exercise or outdoor activity?
No. You can travel to outdoor open space irrespective of distance. You shouldn’t travel with someone from outside your household unless you can practise social distancing - for example by cycling. Leaving your home - the place you live - to stay at another home is not allowed.

1.9 Are day trips and holidays ok? Can people stay in second homes?
Day trips to outdoor open space, in a private vehicle, are permitted. You should practise social distancing from other people outside your household.

Leaving your home - the place you live - to stay at another home for a holiday or other purpose is not allowed. This includes visiting second homes.

Premises such as hotels and bed and breakfasts will remain closed, except where providing accommodation for specific reasons set out in law, such as for critical workers where required for a reason relating to their work.

Surely they can stay the night in their caravan if they use some common sense?