Huh, predictably if you search for “suitable for bikes” almost nothing comes up, the trail past bore stane in the pentlands is in here but apparently not for the likes of us. Still, if you ignore all that crap it looks pretty excellent- good link!

it doesn’t differentiate MTB and road/hybrid bikes. In my experience most (probably all) of the paths Scotways list would be suitable for MTB use provided they are used sensibly and responsibly.

At that age we only used a trailer for the reasons others mention. Chariot is the best option with the baby insert/hammock thing – but we couldn’t justify the cost – so used a car seat securely strapped into the trailer – for the type of traffic free, nice smooth paths we were going on with it, this was a measured but acceptable risk.

Trust me Poly ringing 999 and asking for Ambulance will get you the same resources and have the ambulance on it’s way immediately as long as when you make the call you give them details that it’s remote. Yes in ares of Scotland it’s very remote and they’re going to be limited as how to get there but they will provide the right service.

Drac – if I need an MRT then I don’t need an Ambulance “yet” – if it responds immediately it will be waiting a long time for the MRT to respond, mobilise and recover the casualty to an accessible point; i’m not disputing that if you call an ambulance you should get the help you need, just trying to point out that the “correct” way of initiating MRT assistance is via the police (in Scotland at least). By missing out a step in the process you remove the potential for miscommunication. If I should need their assistance I will continue to follow the advice from all the Scottish Police Forces, MR Teams and the Scottish Ambulance Service – and make my 999 call to the POLICE.

Drac:
Can you tell me why you think the Police can help?

The following information applies in Scotland – I have always assumed the same applied in the rest of the UK – but I may be wrong (which would explain your confusion – hopefully your “controller” knows the required channel for contacting the relevant MRT if necessary!).

(Within Scotland) responsibility for initiating, organising, mobilising and conducting land (and incidentally inland water) based search and rescue falls to the police. Almost all public advice in Scotland says if you need mountain rescue call 999 and ask for the police then explain problem to police operator who can mobilise appropriate resources. I am sure if you dialed 999 and asked for Mountain Rescue that the BT operator would direct your call correctly – but why run the risk. MRTs don’t have people waiting to handle incoming 999 calls the way that Police/Fire/Ambulance/Coastguard do – the police provide that function.

The police forces have at their disposal – civilian, RAF, the police’s own teams, SARDA and access to the ARCC at Kinloss.

I’m sort of up with the KISU/bothy bag idea – but my one is a 4-person and it’s a bit too much to handle if there are just two of you [:-)]

Druidh – just got the 2-3 person one from TK Max this week, and I would say its just about perfect size for riding with. I can actually just fit it in my saddle bag (which is quite big) with not much room for anything else. In a backpack it would take up no more space than a standard survival bag. I think it was £16.99. Three people would need to be very friendly! Seems well made for the price.

Call an Ambulance FFS! But give a location of where you are and the terrain you in the control room and responding vehicle will supply the required support if it’s needed.

Is that the official position? I read something very recently which said “if you get hurt and are not close to road access call 999 and ask for the Police (mountain rescue), rather than ambulance”. Now that would have been in Scotland. I guess the point being that if I call the ambulance service (1) Your operator can’t call out the MRT and then needs to relay all the information to the police (with the the potential for miscommunication) (2) “I” may fail to get “my” message across as to how far I am from the nearest road (most 999 calls are not the most calm clear cut communication) (3) I may be not that far on a map from the road – but its going to take more than two paramedics and a carrychair to get my mate out because of either the ground conditions or his injuries – but I have to wait for a road crew to respond and assess that problem for themselves.

However, assuming you are in the mountains/arse end of nowhere (and if the thread is all about blankets and bivi bags thats reasonable) and had a serious walking/climbing accident – you would call the Police (for MTR) so why “Call an ambulance FFS”?

I always think of boredom as a personal failing, unless one is actually trapped

I think that depends what you mean by “trapped”. If trapped includes mental/emotional restrictions on freedom (as well as the obvious physical ones) then OK. To my mind (and I ain’t no expert!) its very easy to see how boredom could spiral to create an emotional state that makes you less likely to bother doing anything and then more bored and so on. Perhaps ultimately that leads or contributes to (clinical?) depression. Certainly cracking that cycle is important. I’m not sure that the best way to fix the problem is to tell someone they are a “failure” though. Although I do take your point – your own boredom is the one thing you can do something about (p1ss1ng away your life on internet forums is probably not the best way!)

As others say most first aid kits that you can sensibly carry on a ride will be little use for anything serious or life threatening – but a bandage or plaster can make the difference between a smallish cut, bad graze etc ruining a ride (keeps it clean, stops blood trikling down leg annoyingly, stops sweat getting in little nicks etc). That sort of “reassurance” and niggle avoidance not only helps stop a minor incident ruining a ride – but potentially makes you a bit less likely to have a second accident on the way home.

I’ve been on the recieving end of both foil blankets and survival bags in training exercises and a user of both in real life. Quite frankly even though foil blankets are tiny and lightweight they are not worth the weight or space for cycling with. Claims about 90+% heat retention are only about radiated heat which is a small part of how we freeze to death!

Survival bags are a bit better – but still aren’t ideal: head will normally still be exposed; protecting casualties with leg/pelvis/spinal fractures involves cutting up the bag negating much of the benefit; maximum benefit from sharing one – but very uncomfortable with 2 inside – so normally left too late to use; often used lying down – but this looses most heat to ground. If you have a sleeping bag – and even better a thermarest with you – these are a good option, but the bag alone will only have a partial benefit.

My personal preference would be a KISU/Bothy Bag/Storm Shelter [TK Max have some for < £20 at the moment!] a small one weighs no more and takes up no more space than a survival bag but will keep 2-3 people out of the elements very effectively and amazingly warm. Can also be used easily for a lunch stop in crap weather, to map read etc – and so tend to get used earlier/sooner and therefore before a bad situation starts to deteriorate. Main criticism would be that the smallest (1-2 man) shelters will be difficult to completely protect a casualty lying down.

Don’t rule out just using a good quality bin bag either – cheap, light weight and can be worn (with holes cut for arms) whilst walking/cycling off the mountain – offering added rain and wind protection.

probably the most irritating thing is not having a “show new posts only” option (for logged in users). Or jump to 1st new post link. Wading through the waffle on here to get to page 3 of a discussion to pick up where you left off is pretty inefficient.

PM’s not essential. Email notification not essential – but might be nice especially for threads you have started. The current system only works if you check it very regularly, and/or read every thread. Otherwise there are several pages of new threads. Which just get skimmed.

If I was the admin here – I think some photohosting would be the simplest/most important upgrade though; unless off site hosting is intentional to make it just inconvenient enough that people have to think about it. If I want to post a pic – I want to do it with one click not open a different window, upload it, copy the address over etc.

I’m not a fan of avatars, signatures etc – but those are not pre-requisites of a new format – they can all be turned off. I moderate another forum (vBulletin based) which has the default option almost as clean and simple as this – but which allows members to turn on showing avatars, etc for themselves if they wish – a privildge that they are required to pay for – which funds the site hosting etc.

I would say opening external links over the top of the current window is annoying and is not a great idea – as it makes people navigate away from the site. OK I can right click if I remember that this site is different from the 20 other sites I use from time to time.

Not refering to the original source of the quote is irritating – I often see a quote and want to see who said it, in what context, and if say it was a reply to something else. IMHO quote tools should include an automatic citation back to the source.

All the its free so who cares stuff? Just because something is free doesn’t mean there can’t be room for improvement. Its not totally free – I am being continually advertised to and buy STW so feel I am entitled to express an opinion on a forum intended to foster discussion. Most internet fora are free, at least for the basics, so why should it not be reasonable to suggest features that people believe add to the user experience.

the other question i’ve got is does really rain every day in Northern Ireland?

It has done every time i’ve been there!

OMG – I didn’t realise people liked it like this – I assumed everyone just tolerated it. Its just a glorified chat room – there is the potential for useful info – but you’ll never find it…

You seem to be judging them on one weeks worth of data, at a single location though.

When analysing forecast performance bear in mind that when they get it wrong that this is a “noticable event”, when they get it right we don’t even think about it. So if he gets the weather spot on 300 days a year, not quite right 33 days of the year, and way off 32 days of the year – we moan its useless…

is there really a problem with the current system? it picks up the same concept from Skiing, where it seems to work – but people will refer to things as a hard blue or an easy black when they disagree a bit with the ratings.

Compare that to say rock climbing where there are at least 3 different systems used none of which seems to have global acceptance, and agreement.

I would agree that distance and technical skill could be separated so e.g. you might call a route a Red-10 to say its 10 km long which inevitably makes it harder that a Red-5. But then if the Red 5 is a bloody hard climb – some people will find that much “tougher” than a longer ride over more gentle terrain that might have more technical features. But you can read the distance from the map easily (and if the map is good – have an idea of climbing).

The other issue is that routes become easier the more you do them, but also the more you do similar routes. So e.g. it seems like an easy red if you have done it 10 times or 10 routes with similar design/construction. But if its your first time it might still be a genuine red – and for repeat “users” ratings are not that important.

Gradings are only really tools of the trail centres – and are as much a way of them covering themselves as anything (new guy tries a black and gets hurt its his own fault). Plenty of MTB riders manage without gradings when riding in the rest of the country.

unless you have any experience reading/writing patents don’t try to write a £400 do it yourself application; you will almost certainly not cover all the possible applications/uses in the way that is required to truely gain value from it. Most patent attorneys will have an initial discussion free of charge (beware most will be happy to file a patent for just about anything even if its not worth it) then it will cost you probably about £2000 to get them to take your information and present that in a robust patent with the necessary drawings etc. That buys you about a year before you need to spend even more to get protection in other countries etc. I would suggest unless you have £10,000 to spend (and therefore expect to make in extra profit/royalties or however you plan to exploit it) then its not worth even filing. Patent strategy is more complicated than that and there are all sorts of reasons for and against filing.

One thing you probably should do is document what you have done; take all your drawings, sketches, calculations etc and product photos – add pages describing what it is and what it does. Make a copy and seal it in an envelope (use a type that is tamperproof). Post it to yourself by recorded delivery (actually even 2nd class is OK but you don’t want your secrets going missing). Don’t open it when it arrives. If you ever need to prove that you invented it first (or independently) you have a record with an official frank on it certifying the contents were created on or before that date (you would seek legal advice about how/when to open).

I would suggest its just as important to do is ensure its documented between the “inventors” as to who owns it and how any proceeds will be shared etc. A simple letter signed by both of you will do to start with. It should also cover confidentiality and that you won’t disclose it to others without agreement first. And how you will make decisions about its technical development and commercial exploitation. Then you want a non-disclosure agreement (you should be able to get one online) that anyone who might make, market, test prototypes etc signs before they see anything clever.

Doing this buys a little time as well whilst you work out your strategy. There are two schools of thought (1) get your patent in early (2) put it off as long a you can. Discuss it with your patent attorney etc – but question whatever they say. Only file fast if you think there is a real risk someone will try to beat you to it and you can afford to get all the way through the process; only file late if you are sure you are already unique and you want to save money in the meantime or extend the effective life of your protection.

Things to watch for – mark any design drawings as (c) copyright Mr XXX, 2009. There is no need to register copyright and any reputable engineering company will not rip you off anyway as they need to be trusted. BUT beware they might “claim” to own any new intellecual property (sometimes called foreground IP) if they help you to debug / improve / modify your original design. How reasonable that is will depend what you pay and the expertise involved.

Given consideration to other protections too: e.g. will there be any “sexy design” then you will want to think about registered/unregistered design rights; trademarks if it has a marketable name (probably not worth registerring yet); etc.

You’re right to trust no one – but bear in mind that any big company you might think about “partnering” with will not be interested in signing agreements until they at least know what you are trying to sell.

Personally not many MTB products are going to make you obscenely rich so patents are probably unnecessary.

Finally one word of warning – whilst you are paranoid that Mr Big Company will shaft you its probably more likely that you will fall out with your mate over this and that will end up being the problem that stops one or both of you making any money from this!

OH – and remember you’ll never be able to afford to sue anyone anyway so Patents and Contracts are nice to have to remind people to “behave” but generally my rule is if I don’t like someone or don’t trust them I don’t do business with them. .

TJ,

From your first reference:

…fell so short of scientific standards that it was “completely irresponsible” to suggest they “constitute evidence of anything.”

which was coming from a supposedly independent report commission by the UCI.

Cost to you £17.99 consists of:

typically something like (this is not unique to bike bits)-

VAT £ 2.35
Shipping/postage £ 2.00 (maybe a bit more a bit less depending on how its sent)
Margin for retailer £ 4.00 (ish)
Margin for UK ‘master’ distributor £ 4.00 (ish)
Import duty £ 0.50 (depending where it came from etc)
Cost of finished goods from ‘manufacturer’ £ 5.00 ish
From that fiver they have to fund tooling, R&D, marketing, packaging the product, getting the product made etc.

My understanding is:

Any extrapolation on erosion would only be valid for equine access – and would probably need expert witness input on the particular path design and construction etc. So in terms of MTB access there is no direct impact.

The appeal overturned the Sheriffs original decision as it appeared that he had relied on an interpretation of the expert witness report which may have been invalid – specifically that erosion would only be problematic if relatively high use of the path was made by horses, when even limited horses using the path would have a cumulative effect especially if used in periods of poor weather. Such access would not be considered responsible. Extrapolation to MTB access would require a case-by-case investigation to consider how MTBs would impact on erosion on that particular path – and whether that would happen with light usage in good weather also. I think most people would not want MTBs to cause excessive erosion and so would recognize that doing so is not responsible access.

Digging through the legalese I think the appeal also decided that it is not illegal to put physical barriers in place with main purpose to prevent or discourage irresponsible access even if that may have a consequential impact on people who wish to make responsible access. That potentially has more impact on MTBs as putting fences and signs up to restrict access may be legal if the main purpose is to prevent irresponsible access?

What is not clear to me from this case was if I had one horse and took it up there once a year on a dry day when my erosion was minimised would I be breaking the law if I used the path (my hypothetical horse is very good at jumping gates)? If I followed the logic correctly – there was no argument that a single horse on a single occasion in good conditions would cause damage and therefore be irresponsible access – so presumably responsible access, even by horse, is still a right?

I am quite impressed that Highland Council sought to take this test case as far as this. Do they have any right of appeal, or is this case now finalised?

Whilst it may seem fair that the landowner had made alternative provision to cross his land by other paths, to my mind the Act is not about a right to transit land it is about a right to roam. If provision of an alternate route were of itself sufficient defense – that would be very bad for cycle (especially MTB) access – use the road rather than the nice single track.

dannyboy – there is a contract which clearly stipulates how long the payments are taken off your salary and for how much etc. In that sense your concerns are unfounded. The technical downside is the resale value to you at the end as this cannot be pre-agreed; however I believe it would be acceptable for a company to publish its policy on how it disposes of and values its cycle assets. That policy could be changed in the interim – but if you don’t trust them that much – you probably want a new job… …But there is a topical concern with the scheme:

You should ensure that it makes clear what happens if (1) you are made redundant (2) you decide to leave the company for any reason (new job, sickness, look after the kids, etc)? And make sure you are happy with what happens, e.g. if you are made redundant and £400 of you redundancy is “gobbled up” to finish the lease then that might make life very difficult financially. On the otherhand if you’ve already paid them £400 and then it all ends with “no penalty” and no bike for you [in the worst case the reciever may have a different attitude to that asset than your boss] then you’ll have no job, no bike and paid a lot to rent a bike for a short period!

TJ – We are using blackhill (from Linlithgow) despite on the map having better line of sight to fife! However we find that we get the opposite problem good Dave Ja Vue but bad Dave. Although sometimes Dave is good.

I’m with TJ on this. The Highway Code may refer to lights not working – but neither the RTA or TSRGD refer to “not working” in the sections you cited or elsewhere. What they do refer to is defines the correct character, size etc of traffic signs/lights (but not how they are triggered). Therefore what it seems to say to me is if its not illuminated it is no longer a valid traffic sign.

Drac,

You what? Where did I quite you?

I assume you meant where did I quote you – Top of P3 of this thread. Just in case you are in any doubt my post was intentionally “ironic” to draw attention to the fact that its not what you are asked to do – but how you are asked that matters.

geoffj – well done you have obviously managed to find the current park regulations (or someone who had them) which was the stumbling block.

So where is “responsible” to ride is the only debate. This may preclude large groups of riders, riding in conditions where you are likely to cause significant erosion etc. TJ also makes a fair point that responsible access would mean not causing alarm or hazard to other people responsibly excercising their access rights – so busy days are out unless you are happy to go at walking pace! To MY mind responsible in this particular context (i.e. the park) probably means sticking to existing paths and trails rather than wearing new paths across fresh surfaces (i’m not saying tarmacked surfaces, but responsible access has to take account of erosion risk. However there is interesting case law from Highland Council, where a land owner tried to prevent access to horses on the basis that if “10 horses road along the path that would cause such damage that others (e.g. walkers) could not access the land due to the condition/erosion. The court found that such unilateral decisions were not acceptable since an occasional lone horse would not cause the same damage.

Drac,

How ironic, it would seem someone else has a bit of an attitude.

I’m glad you understood the point I was making!

:roll:

Am I missing something… if the roads are all bidirectional (not one way) then they all have to stop to enable the green man to come on – thats the way it has always been unless there have been complicated left/right filter lanes or large (usually staggered barrier) pedestrian islands…

when they said it was “in stock” what they probably actually mean is it is available for “immediate shipment” because it is “in stock” at the distributor and so he can get it in 24 hrs – very few online retailers actually hold much stock of anything unless it is a high turnover product.

Was it such a ball ache to do what they asked they must have had a reason to stop people going through.

No it wouldn’t – but read the f***ing post and you might understand that the f***ing problem was the f***ing attitude not the fact that the police has closed the f***ing road.

http://www.imba.com/resources/trail_building/

I have a wall ‘hoop’ (came from B&Q I think?) which is a bit like a ground anchor (might even have been sold as a ground anchor?) It simply screws to the wall with 4 large screws, which are then covered by a plate – the plate cannot be removed when there is anything locked to the hoop. Can’t see why that wouldn’t work screwing to the sleepers.

edit – like this one: http://www.diy.com/diy/jsp/bq/nav.jsp?action=detail&fh_secondid=9284312&fh_view_size=10&fh_location=%2f%2fcatalog01%2fen_GB&fh_search=security&fh_eds=%c3%9f&fh_refview=search&ts=1240250033301&isSearch=true

Almost all trailers will have 5 point harness.
You will be surprised how much you can squeeze in the “boot”.
Your kids should be fine in one of these until school age. I would suggest that a 5 yr old and a 3 yr old might start to be hard work but good muscle building!

Druidh

But public access isn’t “prohibited, excluded or restricted”.

of course it is thats your complaint.

I haven’t read the Holyrood Park Regulations (as they aren’t available online) – but I presume they say “no cycling except on roads” or words to that effect. That is a restriction on public access. That restriction is made be Regulations which are under an “Enactment other than [the LR(S)A]”

I asked what particular piece of legislation applied, in order that I might then locate it / read it.

OK so they met there obligations under the Freedom of Information Scotland Act, and told you where to find the legislation to read. I am sure if you have a problem finding the notice boards the rangers will be able to direct you to them. The other “park” in the same boat is Linlithgow Loch and Peel – and there are 3 such notice boards on display. Historic Scotland have recently put up signs saying the cycling is permitted ON THE PATHS. There is no real off path riding in this case, and it would probably not be “responsible access” in this situation to be riding off the paths.

I would argue that the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 has now superseded the 1926/1971 legislation. Part 1, Chapter 1, Section 6 of LRSA2003 lists all the exceptions. Holyrood Park is not covered by any of those exceptions.

Well before you go to court you might want to re-read 6.1(d). The LRA did not repeal existing legislation.

incidently, im no hippy either.

any tree hugger, who ignores polite requests to “cease being a prick” by a policeman with a shield and a stick, and poses a threat to anyone, police or other protestors, be it directly, or by causing an increase in unrest in an already fragile situation, deserves a thump on the head with a baton.

but only in the understanding that they got it because they were creating an undue risk to other people, not because the copper thought it would be funny, or was showing off to his mates.
So are the officers involved not allowed to put their side of the story, present their defence and have a jury decide if with all the facts as they have been presented they are guilty rather than base your decision on what you saw on the telly?

I know its a very bad idea to complain about the police and I fully expect to get stopped for various trivial and non existent reasons for the next year

I think you are probably wrong. If it were ever proven that an officer were targeting you as a result of a complaint then they would probably loose their job, pension etc!

Druidh,

When you say H.S. / Their rangers have not provided you with a “link” to the legislation:

(1) did you make your request in writing (or by email)
(2) did you make is more than 21 working days ago?
(3) have they replied?

Did you specifically request a hyperlink – or simply a copy of the legislation, or details of which legislation?

Its obviously not possible for them to provide a hyperlink if the relevant legislation is not published on-line. Just because information is not on the web does not make it less valid!

I’m not sure if they can legally supply you with a photocopy of the legislation either – since it is probably crown copyright – but they should be able to tell you how to obtain a copy from e.g. HMSO.

I believe you will find that the law you are seeking is:

The Holyrood Park Regulations 1971 (as amended).

These regulations were made under the Parks Regulations (Amendment) Act 1926 which you can read here: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1926/cukpga_19260036_en_1

I would expect copies of the current Holyrood Park Regulations to be displayed on notice boards in the park itself.

report him. Even if you don’t have his number they will know which bike officer was posted there at that time. You can get charged for swearing at a police officer therefore its unacceptable for them to swear at you. When you make your complaint (there is probably an email link so you don’t need to go to the station) you should be given the information about how the police handle complaints, and if you are not satisfied with the outcome where you can go (higher up the chain of command first – and then the IPCC).

Dangriff,

I think BluePalmino has assumed you were talking about a tag-a-long style trailer, but you wouldn’t get too kids on that especially nursery age. So I assume you mean a trailer with 2 wheels side by side and a cover over the top.

I have an Edi Bike (revolution) one and would have no problem fitting laptop bag, clothes, and sarnies in assuming you don’t need to take bags for the kids going to nursery.

If I understood correctly you are planning a sensible ride to the nursery with the kids and then some more extreme riding with the now child free trailer to your work.

With a 2 child trailer you need to be aware of the width. My experience is it will fill the whole of a canal towpath – so you need to assess if it will make it along your single track (bear in mind that with generally less chunky tyres it will pick up punctures easier. We’ve just moved to slime tubes because we found it picking up thorns on the verges of paths too easily.

A little drop off (say 6 inches) will be fine. Not sure about strairs – in principle it should be but you might get some sort of horrible bounding about behind you that might flick you off.

Bear in mind also that they add rolling resistance (2 extra wheels on the road) and in a head wind extra drag.

Does the nursery have a pram storage area? Could you leave it there?

TJ,

Here you are, the Land Reform Act 2003:

6.1 The land in respect of which access rights are not exercisable is land—
…
(d) to which public access is, by or under any enactment other than this Act, prohibited, excluded or restricted;
…

I believe it is the Holyrood Palace Regulations 1971 as amended which are the rules which exclude cycling other than on the roads in the park.

However I have checked and Historic Scotland are the Land Manager at Holyrood too. Certainly with Linlithgow Loch and Peel (which is the other park in Scotland falling under the same sort of legislation) they have indicated that they are trying to manage access as though the LRA did apply. Of course they may not consider that off path cycling is responsible access – which is a whole different debate!

This is an interesting one that really needs to be tested in court. Does the land reform act take precedence over the archaic bylaws that cover the park? No one knows.

TJ, doesn’t need tested in court at all. The LRA does not apply. If I get time I’ll look up the relevant clauses for you later. Not sure if this was 100% by design or was a loophole that no one foresaw. It strikes me as a stupid anomoly that H.M. would probably prefer not to have – as it makes them appear not to be in touch with even other land owners never mind the populus.

Devs:

They shouldn’t have been there and were not acting responsibly. That’s in breach of the land access laws IMHO. Idiots. People go flying down that trail. It’s a good job there is good visibility. I’d have given them a mouthful

I think you’ll find that this is at least a bit of a grey area. They probably were not “responsible” if their dog was in the way, but if you can argue that MTB trails are specifically closed to cyclists you have to expect Walking only, and horse only trails to emerge which would be bad for everyone. e.g. Footpath signs are being phased out – as they suggest we are not welcome. The walkers could just as easily have been a fallen rider so actually pose no real risk that you wouldn’t expect on an MTB trail. IMHO abusing anyone on the trail, even if they are doing something niave is not exercising your rights to access responsibly.

Mr Aggreeable: Time for a Geography Lesson

You’ve put across a point of view, but one which is not shared by most of the people who determine access rights in the UK.

Scotland has a much more open approach to responsible access. Scotland is part of the UK. Your statement may apply to England, Wales and NI but not to the whole of the UK.