Double standards or do we just not count?

WHEN asked why Canal & River Trust closed the towpaths for foot-and-mouth in 2001, but are not doing so now. we are told, John Coxon, quotes:

'Unlike during the foot-and-mouth crisis nearly 20 years ago, use of the towpath doesn’t directly contribute to the spread of disease, provided people follow the Government’s advice around social distancing'.

What utter rubbish

What utter rubbish.  How do people social distance by six feet on a towpath that's often only four feet wide?  How do they social distance from boaters when they pass  only inches away?

Also do they really think we will be taken in by a statement such as: 'We’ve set out why it is neither practical or desirable to close towpaths, particularly in urban areas where a huge growth in residential boating requires access for boaters as well as for our employees, in case of an emergency, and as routes for local people...'

Too close

'Neither practical or desirable'?  If the will was there and some effort was to be put into it and it is certainly most desirable to protect the boaters living there and others on the towpath as they are getting too close to each other as well as getting too close to boaters trying to distance themselves from strangers.

This sentence, from the CaRT piece says it all really:

'Given their [the towpaths] role in providing some local access to the outdoors in many places where there are few alternatives for daily exercise it is not desirable to close them'.

Come and join us

So Canal & River Trust is are saying to all the locals 'as your normal exercise place is restricted then come on down to the towpaths where you can mix with all and sundry in close proximity with no restraint whatsoever.  Oh! and while you're at it spread the coronavirus amongst yourselves and anyone else you come into contact with, even though they may be a high risk category'.

Two metres apart...