• Dear Guest, and welcome to RailUK Forums. Our non-railway discussion forums are currently restricted until members have five or more posts, and you will not be able to make a new thread or reply to an existing one in this section until you have made five or more posts elsewhere on the forum.

Businesses in England that will still restrict entry (via face masks) after July 19th

Status
Not open for further replies.

52290

Member
Joined
23 Oct 2015
Messages
273
Oh dear, she really has made a rod for her own back hasn't she? Before I continue I will point out that I do not support some of the kinds of threats that have been made, they should be dealt with as all threats made online.

However most of the rest of the criticism this shop owner has attracted is well justified. One sign during the mandatory period would have been more than enough, but this owner has decided to go full loco with it, made all the worse for having dummies alongside "for those that want to argue". It does make me wonder if there is something more going on here, and a couple of points I picked up on make me think there is. Firstly
Now while it was true that supermarkets did run out of things briefly where some smaller stores didn't, making the claim that she could get stuff that supermarkets couldn't, hmmmm. This makes me think that she has a bit of an axe to grind. I wouldn't be surprised to find that there has been a dispute with the local council over planning for a supermarket in the area, or with another local business. But what really stands out is this:


Ah ha! So its not the locals, its the not-locals, coming to their shop, touching the precious things.... (For those unaware, this is a reference to a couple of characters from the BBCs dark comedy League of Gentleman)

Maybe the signs aren't there for the locals, I'm sure if Mavis from down the road walked in having forgotten her mask would not be marched out by the owner. A stranger however.... Remind me never to go to North Cave!
It's a local shop for local people. There's nothing for you here.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

43066

On Moderation
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
2,798
Location
London
Borough Market has signs up outside and inside advising masks still required by guests. They are also a legal requirement due to the presence of byelaws.

Indeed, albeit the bylaws are essentially a carbon copy of the general regulations requiring masks in “relevant places”, and include the (entirely subjective) severe distress exemption. So I’m not sure how enforceable the requirement is. I’ve been in there a few times over the last few months (always maskless) and had no issues at all.

3. For the purposes of paragraph (1), the circumstances in which a person (“P”) has a reasonable excuse include those where:

(a) P cannot put on, wear or remove a face covering—

(i) because of any physical or mental illness or impairment, or disability (within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010), or

(ii) without severe distress;
 

Ediswan

Member
Joined
15 Nov 2012
Messages
1,117
Location
Stevenage
Indeed, albeit the bylaws are essentially a carbon copy of the general regulations requiring masks in “relevant places”, and include the (entirely subjective) severe distress exemption. So I’m not sure how enforceable the requirement is. I’ve been in there a few times over the last few months (always maskless) and had no issues at all.

To quote those rules " “the Expiration Date” means 30 July 2021 or such other date as the Trustees may determine." I can't find any mention that a different date has been determined.
 

Philip

Established Member
Joined
27 May 2007
Messages
2,418
Location
Manchester
Well, almost. The Premier Inn I'm at tonight (in Kent) still has the pre-July signs on the front door saying that masks are required unless exempt, and they may contact the local authorities if you don't comply (!). I suspect they haven't got around to changing the sign, though you'd hope they'd have got around to it by now.

(I didn't 'comply', of course :)

Anyway, the room is nice and cool, which is more important to me right now, so I won't hold it against them :)

Are you not complying because wearing one causes you discomfort or stress of some kind, or because you feel they're ineffective, or are you doing it just to rebel and annoy others?
 

farleigh

Member
Joined
1 Nov 2016
Messages
1,027
Are you not complying because wearing one causes you discomfort or stress of some kind, or because you feel they're ineffective, or are you doing it just to rebel and annoy others?
What sort of person would get annoyed by another person choosing not to wear a mask???
 

Philip

Established Member
Joined
27 May 2007
Messages
2,418
Location
Manchester
What sort of person would get annoyed by another person choosing not to wear a mask???
The owner or staff in a premises who ask kindly if members of the public who enter wear a face covering, when a member of the public ignores this.
 

farleigh

Member
Joined
1 Nov 2016
Messages
1,027
what sort of person would get annoyed by people choosing TO wear one? Seems there are plenty of those on here.
I certainly would not get annoyed by somebody choosing to wear a mask. If they feel they are of any use then that is up to them.

That was not the question I was asking.

The owner or staff in a premises who ask kindly if members of the public who enter wear a face covering, when a member of the public ignores this.
If they are asking kindly then why would they get annoyed if somebody kindly declined?

Seems irrational to me
 

Philip

Established Member
Joined
27 May 2007
Messages
2,418
Location
Manchester
I certainly would not get annoyed by somebody choosing to wear a mask. If they feel they are of any use then that is up to them.

That was not the question I was asking.


If they are asking kindly then why would they get annoyed if somebody kindly declined?

Seems irrational to me

Because the customer or member of the public is refusing to adhere to the premises rules; they'd be within their rights to ask someone to leave who isn't complying.
 

farleigh

Member
Joined
1 Nov 2016
Messages
1,027
Because the customer or member of the public is refusing to adhere to the premises rules; they'd be within their rights to ask someone to leave who isn't complying.
I thought it was a kind request??

I am confused
 

Philip

Established Member
Joined
27 May 2007
Messages
2,418
Location
Manchester
I thought it was a kind request??

I am confused

Yes out of politeness, but that doesn't make it any less sincere in its request. If you enter a store, pub, public transport system, place of worship, then you should adhere to any requests/rules they have unless you have good reason not to; and rebelling isn't a good reason.
 

farleigh

Member
Joined
1 Nov 2016
Messages
1,027
Yes out of politeness, but that doesn't make it any less sincere in its request.
My point though is that it seems to me highly irrational to politely request something and then become annoyed if somebody declines the request. That does not seem like a polite request at all.
 

Philip

Established Member
Joined
27 May 2007
Messages
2,418
Location
Manchester
My point though is that it seems to me highly irrational to politely request something and then become annoyed if somebody declines the request. That does not seem like a polite request at all.

Well cut the word 'kind' out and let's just call it a stern request for those who prefer to go against it.
 

102 fan

Member
Joined
14 May 2007
Messages
533
Because the customer or member of the public is refusing to adhere to the premises rules; they'd be within their rights to ask someone to leave who isn't complying.

What a way to treat a customer!
 

Philip

Established Member
Joined
27 May 2007
Messages
2,418
Location
Manchester
What a way to treat a customer!

It works both ways; customers should respect the rules of the place they've gone into, whatever you think of the effectiveness of masks. If they don't like it then they can simply go elsewhere
 
Last edited:

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
2,669
Location
Ely
Are you not complying because wearing one causes you discomfort or stress of some kind, or because you feel they're ineffective, or are you doing it just to rebel and annoy others?

I assumed the sign was out-of-date, given the same signs were on every Premier Inn I stayed at earlier in the year when the law was still in place. The person checking me in had a very perfunctory attempt at mask wearing, it didn't cover her nose or indeed much of her mouth.

The Premier Inn I'm at tonight (also in Kent) has no such signs, just one very discrete sign in the lobby asking people to be considerate because people are of different degrees of comfort about the laws being removed. Which seems fair enough to me. (I've no idea if the staff here are masked or not, because I haven't seen any so far, thanks to the auto-checkin machines...)

Having said that, yes to all three points. When the laws were in place, I was medically exempt. And they're totally ineffective. And bad science, that has a significant negative effect on society and no particular gain, *ought* to be rebelled against.
 

102 fan

Member
Joined
14 May 2007
Messages
533
It works both ways; customers should respect the rules of the place they've gone into, whatever you think of the effectiveness of masks. If they don't like it then they can simply go elsewhere

That's not a way to build a business. Whatever happened to 'The customer is always right'?

They must have plenty of income to turn customers away.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
2,669
Location
Ely
That's not a way to build a business. Whatever happened to 'The customer is always right'?

They must have plenty of income to turn customers away.

Also, this doesn't really work for hotels, as you're often rather reliant on them giving you a room and don't have a great deal of alternative.

As such, any 'gold-plating' that a hotel wants to do above and beyond the law, should be made very clear at the time of booking.

(In this specific case, Premier Inn's website explicitly says that masks are optional, though 'encouraged' in crowded places).
 

RPI

Established Member
Joined
6 Dec 2010
Messages
1,541
The owner or staff in a premises who ask kindly if members of the public who enter wear a face covering, when a member of the public ignores this.
To play devils advocate then, you're saying that anyone using a certain business should respect their rules? So during the 1960's its claimed certain hospitality businesses had disgusting signs in the windows saying "No blacks, no dogs, no Irish", should that request be honoured?
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
12,766
Location
0036
Heathrow Airport is still requiring face coverings to be worn throughout the airport as a condition of entry.

If one was bloody-minded, one could refuse to wear one in the immigration queue. As it’s not a breach of any laws, the worst they can do is escort you off the airport, which is probably what you wanted…
 

Essan

Member
Joined
22 Feb 2017
Messages
371
Location
Evesham / Lochailort
Employers have a legal (and moral) respsonsibility towards the safety of their staff. As such, it is (IMO) perfectly acceptable for them to continue to ask anyone entering their busness premises (to which no-one has a legal "right" to enter) to wear masks.

Being a sole propreitor, I do not make any such stipulations. If I go into another shop, however, I continue to wear a mask out of respect for the employees there.

If I do not wish to wear a mask in a shop, and the owners specifies that I should do so, I go somewhere else. Simples.
 

Philip

Established Member
Joined
27 May 2007
Messages
2,418
Location
Manchester
To play devils advocate then, you're saying that anyone using a certain business should respect their rules? So during the 1960's its claimed certain hospitality businesses had disgusting signs in the windows saying "No blacks, no dogs, no Irish", should that request be honoured?

No, because that is discrimination. The exemption easement in the requiring/guidance on the wearing of face coverings means this isn't discrimination. If you don't have a medical exemption and you enter a shop, pub or church for example which asks customers or worshippers to wear face coverings, then you should respect the wishes of the shopkeeper, landlord or priest and wear one. It is a step towards anarchy otherwise, particularly when people aren't abiding because they want to rebel.
 

Green tractor

Member
Joined
30 Aug 2019
Messages
216
Location
Lancaster
To play devils advocate then, you're saying that anyone using a certain business should respect their rules? So during the 1960's its claimed certain hospitality businesses had disgusting signs in the windows saying "No blacks, no dogs, no Irish", should that request be honoured?

You have no choice in your ethnic origin or skin colour. You do have a choice whether you wear a face mask (or visor)
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
7,600
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
No, because that is discrimination. The exemption easement in the requiring/guidance on the wearing of face coverings means this isn't discrimination. If you don't have a medical exemption and you enter a shop, pub or church for example which asks customers or worshippers to wear face coverings, then you should respect the wishes of the shopkeeper, landlord or priest and wear one. It is a step towards anarchy otherwise, particularly when people aren't abiding because they want to rebel.
How is it anarchy? In England masks are no longer mandated indoors, merely advised in certain scenarios. Businesses can request their use, but not enforce at least not legally.
 

Philip

Established Member
Joined
27 May 2007
Messages
2,418
Location
Manchester
How is it anarchy? In England masks are no longer mandated indoors, merely advised in certain scenarios. Businesses can request their use, but not enforce at least not legally.

I said a step towards anarchy. You are going against someone else's wishes and (at least in some cases) with the main purpose being to rebel. If someone wasn't 'medically exempt' but for whatever reason the wearing of a mask caused them stress, then I would have more sympathy; it is doing it to prove a point which I have a problem with.
 

jumble

Member
Joined
1 Jul 2011
Messages
777
Are you not complying because wearing one causes you discomfort or stress of some kind, or because you feel they're ineffective, or are you doing it just to rebel and annoy others?
I assume MikeWH is not complying as Premier inn had disgracefully sold them what might be a non refundable room on the basis of their website which states "Face coverings are now optional"
Having taken their money they then tell them it is mandatory.
Why in your wildest dreams do you think this is acceptable and why would anyone comply with such absurd behaviour?
Why do you dramatise the fact that MikeWH is sticking to the agreement they made with Premier Inn on booking ( and I imagine in their confirmation email) by categorising their failure to wear a mask as rebelling?

No, because that is discrimination. The exemption easement in the requiring/guidance on the wearing of face coverings means this isn't discrimination. If you don't have a medical exemption and you enter a shop, pub or church for example which asks customers or worshippers to wear face coverings, then you should respect the wishes of the shopkeeper, landlord or priest and wear one. It is a step towards anarchy otherwise, particularly when people aren't abiding because they want to rebel.
There is no such thing as an exemption easement as there is no requirement to wear masks
Any talk of medical exemption is figment of your imagination
The sooner you realise that we are grown up and not 12 years old and the government have allowed us to make up our own minds the better
We do not need you to lecture us.
 
Last edited:

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
5,523
Location
Nottingham
No, because that is discrimination. The exemption easement in the requiring/guidance on the wearing of face coverings means this isn't discrimination. If you don't have a medical exemption and you enter a shop, pub or church for example which asks customers or worshippers to wear face coverings, then you should respect the wishes of the shopkeeper, landlord or priest and wear one. It is a step towards anarchy otherwise, particularly when people aren't abiding because they want to rebel.
I wasn't aware that before the mask mandates we were an anarchic-syndicalist commune..

You have no choice in your ethnic origin or skin colour. You do have a choice whether you wear a face mask (or visor)
You have a choice in religion, but discrimination on such fronts in ostensably banned.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
55,832
Location
Yorkshire
You have no choice in your ethnic origin or skin colour. You do have a choice whether you wear a face mask (or visor)
People do not have a choice about how they feel, for example if they suffer from anxiety.

Once again, you make false equivalence arguments that are either disingenuous or based on fundamental misunderstandings.

I said a step towards anarchy.
That's an absurd claim.

You are going against someone else's wishes and (at least in some cases) with the main purpose being to rebel.
People who attempt to force standard flimsy face coverings on others are going against someone else's wishes with the main purpose being to impose authoritarianism and wind others up.

If someone wasn't 'medically exempt' but for whatever reason the wearing of a mask caused them stress, then I would have more sympathy; it is doing it to prove a point which I have a problem with.
This sort of attitude will only serve to make me and others push back against authoritarian measures even more. We do not consent to the fundamental changing of our society that some are attempting to impose on us and we will resist.

This was a news item in the local rag's website

I hope they go bust quite frankly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top