• 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.

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
5,425
Location
Nottingham
Well their website certainly doesn't make that clear. Not that it really matters as a shall not be travelling with them until they stop forcing people to wear masks.
Alas, I booked a skiing trip last march with the idea that "now we have a vaccine there's no possible way that we'll have any restrictions next year'; unfortunately I underestimated the pro-restriction lobbys insatiable thirst for pointless human suffering.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
1,910
The law tells them that masks are not compulsory in shops. Is that not the "authority" that they need to follow?
“Not compulsory” means that they are not legally obliged to compel people to wear masks. “Not compulsory” does not mean that they are obliged to permit people to enter their premises without masks.
 

greyman42

Established Member
Joined
14 Aug 2017
Messages
2,890
small businesses don’t have time to read laws. They follow what they see elsewhere, or at best go on the government website which says “face coverings are expected and recommended in indoor crowded spaces”.
What a load of rubbish.
 

VauxhallandI

Established Member
Joined
26 Dec 2012
Messages
2,098
Location
Cheshunt
“Not compulsory” means that they are not legally obliged to compel people to wear masks. “Not compulsory” does not mean that they are obliged to permit people to enter their premises without masks.
They aren’t obliged to let people in to their shop wearing red shoes either.
 

RPI

Established Member
Joined
6 Dec 2010
Messages
1,422
Here we go, no doubt the RMT will start banging their chests even more now


All change on public transport as only 20pc of passengers wear masks​

The low figure, even on Tubes and buses in London, prompts union chiefs to express fears about the safety of public transport workers

ByIndia McTaggart22 September 2021 • 12:22pm
Passengers leave a busy underground train still wearing their facemasks in London

Only 20 per cent of people are still wearing face masks on public transport now they are no longer a legal requirement, official figures have revealed.
Network Rail said that one in five rail passengers were continuing to wear face coverings in England now that it was no longer compulsory, compared to 80 per cent before "Freedom Day" on July 19.
There is no legal requirement to wear one on public transport in England, although it remains the case in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Transport for London (TfL) has retained mask-wearing as a condition for travel on buses and Tubes in London.
A government statement said: "The guidance is clear that people are expected and recommended to wear a mask when they come into contact with people they don't normally meet in enclosed and crowded spaces."
"It is open to transport operators to decide if they want to implement their own policies, working within their particular environment."
Several union chiefs who represent transport workers have said they are concerned about the decrease in mask-wearing, even on TfL services.
TfL mask-wearing guidance on public transport in the capital

TfL mask-wearing guidance on public transport in the capital
The unions also fear it would be difficult to reintroduce the policy as mandatory if the Government decided fresh restrictions needed to be implemented.
Mike Lynch, the General Secretary of the RMT union, said members of his union had noticed the drop in mask-wearing since the Government eased Covid restrictions, including on TfL services.
He said: "The policy is coming apart at the seams and as more people see others failing to comply, the situation will escalate quickly over the autumn."
He added that there is a "serious issue over enforcement", meaning transport workers were "potentially put into the front line" ‎and were at risk of abuse if people confronted them.
"With the Government already making compulsory mask-wearing on transport a contingency if cases escalate in the coming weeks, there is a real danger they won't be able to get the genie back into the bottle," Mr Lynch said.
A spokesperson for Unite, which represents bus drivers, said: "Our members are reporting that mask-wearing on buses is collapsing and has gotten much worse in recent weeks.
"In some cases, there are very few passengers wearing masks on a bus, with those who tend to still wear a mask being older.
"For our members, while they are relatively safe when actually driving the bus because of the sealed cabs, there is growing concern that they are being placed in danger when they are required to board a bus at a depot to be taken to a rendezvous point to collect the bus they are allocated to drive."
The General Secretary of the train drivers' union Aslef, Mick Whelan, urged the Government to make mask-wearing mandatory on trains to "protect passengers and staff".
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
7,553
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Here we go, no doubt the RMT will start banging their chests even more now

OK, let's give the RMT what they want and stop using public transport. Let's see how long their members keep their jobs running fresh air around....

Seriously though, they need to start winding their necks in. If not wearing masks on public transport was so "dangerous" we would be seeing as massive increase in cases, not the fairly steady plateau that has been the case for over 2 months now. The RMT and other unions might do well remembering who pays the companies to pay for their members jobs.
 

initiation

Member
Joined
10 Nov 2014
Messages
385
Here we go, no doubt the RMT will start banging their chests even more now


Remember this Yougov survey from back in February?
83% of people in the UK think masks should be compulsory on public transport


Or this one from June
71% thinking mask rules on public transport and shops should remain in place after Jun 21st (pre-delay to July)


Great polling accuracy there. Focus groups and this sort of stuff will be influencing gov policy.
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
12,622
Location
0036
It’s the old classic, people want “rules for thee but not for me”.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
1,910
Remember this Yougov survey from back in February?
83% of people in the UK think masks should be compulsory on public transport


Or this one from June
71% thinking mask rules on public transport and shops should remain in place after Jun 21st (pre-delay to July)


Great polling accuracy there. Focus groups and this sort of stuff will be influencing gov policy.
Ah, the Holy Week fallacy. On Palm Sunday, the crowds sang "Hosanna"; on Good Friday, "crucify him". Nowhere does it suggest the composition of the crowd was the same. Likewise, on those polls, only a minority of people use public transport - yet those surveys were whole population surveys.
 

philosopher

Member
Joined
23 Sep 2015
Messages
711
The Serpentine Pavilion in Hyde Park, London yesterday was insisting that masks were worn when visiting. Here is a photo of the Serpentine Pavilion:

IMG_3590 - Copy.JPG
Image showing the Serpentine Pavilion being largely exposed to outside air, particularly around the sides.
 
Last edited:

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
55,238
Location
Yorkshire
I would advise people not to comply with any such request.

If someone tried to make me wear a mask at a venue I was not fussed about visiting, such as if there was a suitable alternative available, I would tell them my views. If there was no alternative I would say "I'm exempt"

What we must not do is continue to pander to these people. Give the pro-maskers an inch and they will take a mile; I have seen what has been happing in the US, where they commit child abuse on a massive scale. We are better than that here. We are pushing back. We must stand firm.
 

Class800

Member
Joined
5 Feb 2020
Messages
286
Location
West Country
It is interesting that my employer has said while it encourages people to wear masks, it says it is not legally allowed to mandate them.
 

adc82140

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2008
Messages
2,047
Red Funnel Isle of Wight ferries insist that everyone wears a face covering on board. I am currently sat on Red Falcon heading to East Cowes. Compliance is about 10%.
 

VauxhallandI

Established Member
Joined
26 Dec 2012
Messages
2,098
Location
Cheshunt
Not a biggie but a shop in St Ives lost our custom to another ten metres up the lane due to the rudeness of the owner
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
1,910
I would advise people not to comply with any such request.

If someone tried to make me wear a mask at a venue I was not fussed about visiting, such as if there was a suitable alternative available, I would tell them my views. If there was no alternative I would say "I'm exempt"

What we must not do is continue to pander to these people. Give the pro-maskers an inch and they will take a mile; I have seen what has been happing in the US, where they commit child abuse on a massive scale. We are better than that here. We are pushing back. We must stand firm.
One minor problem - with the change in restrictions of July 19th, the mask exemptions also went.
 

Busaholic

Established Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
10,531
What we must not do is continue to pander to these people. Give the pro-maskers an inch and they will take a mile; I have seen what has been happing in the US, where they commit child abuse on a massive scale. We are better than that here. We are pushing back. We must stand firm.
I'm not clear as to whether you are saying 'pro maskers' (whoever they might be, can't say I've come across any, but then I'm not out looking for them) in the US are the ones committing child abuse on a massive scale (citation?) or Americans in general?
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
1,910
On the contrary; everyone is now legally exempt.
No, and if this were on the Disputes sub-forum, you would be quick to correct anyone giving such incorrect advice. Up to July 18th, English law required individuals to wear masks in certain circumstances. That law included a number of exemptions, which were the basis for individuals to be able to assert that they were exempt from that legal requirement to wear a mask.

With the repeal of that legislation, the explicit exemptions were also removed.

In the context of this conversation, this has two important implications. The first is that the decision of building owners to require - or not - individuals to wear a mask is now at their discretion, and has the same legal standing as any other dress code that may be required to enter a building. The second is that any individual who would previously have laid claim to an exemption no longer has that legal exemption to rely on. They must instead rely on either the discretion of those managing the property (which may include acknowledgement of the continued admissibility of exemptions under the pre-July legislation), or assert a more general legal right - I would expect in most cases, a Protected Characteristic under the Equalities Act 2010, but there may be other routes open.

It is a common mistake and misrepresentation to assert that the change of law in England last July made all exempt from mask wearing requirements - it did no such thing, and you would have to go somewhere like Florida to find legislation explicitly barring mandatory mask wearing. It merely reverted England to the previous legal status quo.
I'm not clear as to whether you are saying 'pro maskers' (whoever they might be, can't say I've come across any, but then I'm not out looking for them) in the US are the ones committing child abuse on a massive scale (citation?) or Americans in general?
I think it would be fair to say that partisans of both sides on the mask and vaccine debates are free with accusations of child abuse (amongst other things) against those they disagree with, in what are increasingly polarised debates. Unfortunately, in that particular American race between the unspeakable and the uneatable, I would have to back the pro-maskers over the antis, because they tend to support rather than oppose vaccination.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
1,910
How does that work regarding TfL?
Exactly as I set out. In the language I used in my post, TfL are a property owner determining who may enter their premises; the Conditions of Carriage are how that is documented. Those Conditions of Carriage are a contractual condition, not a legislative power, and any enforcement of those Conditions of Carriage would be based on a mixture of the action of their staff enforcing those Conditions of Carriage, with police involvement arising from the specific legal positions that apply to railway personnel in the course of their work.

That would create no difference in principle from a shopkeeper imposing a mask requirement for entry to their shop.
 

big_rig

Member
Joined
21 Aug 2020
Messages
362
Location
London
No, and if this were on the Disputes sub-forum, you would be quick to correct anyone giving such incorrect advice. Up to July 18th, English law required individuals to wear masks in certain circumstances. That law included a number of exemptions, which were the basis for individuals to be able to assert that they were exempt from that legal requirement to wear a mask.

With the repeal of that legislation, the explicit exemptions were also removed.

In the context of this conversation, this has two important implications. The first is that the decision of building owners to require - or not - individuals to wear a mask is now at their discretion, and has the same legal standing as any other dress code that may be required to enter a building. The second is that any individual who would previously have laid claim to an exemption no longer has that legal exemption to rely on. They must instead rely on either the discretion of those managing the property (which may include acknowledgement of the continued admissibility of exemptions under the pre-July legislation), or assert a more general legal right - I would expect in most cases, a Protected Characteristic under the Equalities Act 2010, but there may be other routes open.

It is a common mistake and misrepresentation to assert that the change of law in England last July made all exempt from mask wearing requirements - it did no such thing, and you would have to go somewhere like Florida to find legislation explicitly barring mandatory mask wearing. It merely reverted England to the previous legal status quo.

I think it would be fair to say that partisans of both sides on the mask and vaccine debates are free with accusations of child abuse (amongst other things) against those they disagree with, in what are increasingly polarised debates. Unfortunately, in that particular American race between the unspeakable and the uneatable, I would have to back the pro-maskers over the antis, because they tend to support rather than oppose vaccination.
I would suggest before having a go at yorkie you make a brief visit to the relevant websites as your assertions while confidently expressed are inaccurate.


Gov.uk: https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ngs-when-to-wear-one-and-how-to-make-your-own


Exemption cards​

You are no longer legally required to wear a face covering in any setting. Therefore you do not need to rely on an exemption if you need one.

However, you may feel more comfortable if you can show something to reflect that you’re not able to wear a face covering. For example, in circumstances where the government recommends and expects you to continue to wear face coverings such as in crowded and enclosed spaces like public transport.

If you have an age, health or disability reason for not wearing a face covering you do not need to show
  • any written evidence of this
  • an exemption card

If you’re not able to wear a face covering​

Face coverings are expected and recommended in indoor spaces where you come into contact with people you do not normally meet. However, there are some circumstances where people may not be able to wear a face covering.

Please be respectful of these situations. Some people are less able to wear face coverings. The reasons for this may not always be visible.

This includes (but is not limited to):

  • children under the age of 11 (Public Health England does not recommend face coverings for children under the age of 3 for health and safety reasons)
  • people who cannot put on, wear or remove a face covering because of a physical or mental illness or impairment, or disability
  • where the putting on, wearing or removing a face covering will cause severe distress
  • instances where people are speaking to or providing assistance to someone who relies on lip reading, clear sound or facial expressions to communicate
  • to avoid harm or injury, or the risk of harm or injury, to yourself or others
  • police officers and other emergency workers – this may interfere with their ability to serve the public

TfL: https://tfl.gov.uk/campaign/face-coverings

Face coverings exemptions​

The requirement to wear a face covering on TfL's public transport stations, platforms and services does not apply to:

  • Children under the age of 11
  • Employees of, or persons providing agreed services to, TfL
  • Police constables (including British Transport Police officers) acting in the course of their duty
  • Members or employees of the emergency services responding to an emergency
You also do not need to wear a face covering if you have a good reason not to, such as if:

  • You have a physical or mental illness or impairment, or a disability that means you cannot put on, wear or remove a face covering
  • Putting on, wearing or removing a face covering would cause you severe distress
  • You are travelling with, or providing assistance to, someone who relies on lip reading to communicate
  • You are travelling to avoid injury or escape the risk of harm, and you do not have a face covering with you
  • You need to remove it during your journey to avoid harm or injury or the risk of harm or injury to yourself or others
  • You need to eat, drink, or take medication you can remove your face covering
  • You are asked to remove your face covering by a police officer or other official, for example to check your railcard
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
55,238
Location
Yorkshire
Yes
and if this were on the Disputes sub-forum, you would be quick to correct anyone giving such incorrect advice.
It is not me giving incorrect advice, it is you.
Up to July 18th, English law required individuals to wear masks in certain circumstances. That law included a number of exemptions, which were the basis for individuals to be able to assert that they were exempt from that legal requirement to wear a mask.
Indeed, but now that no longer applies, so there is no legal requirement for anyone to wear a mask.

I will also point out that people are able to certify themselves exempt and that the list of exemptions effectively allows for anyone to to declare themselves exempt and that included anyone who found wearing a face covering distressing.

With the repeal of that legislation, the explicit exemptions were also removed.
You are being disingenuous (and not for the first time); there is no need for exemptions for something that no longer applies! it is quite right to effectively say everyone is exempt because there is no legal requirement for anyone to wear a mask.

In the context of this conversation, this has two important implications. The first is that the decision of building owners to require - or not - individuals to wear a mask is now at their discretion, and has the same legal standing as any other dress code that may be required to enter a building.
This is not enforceable as there is no way for any building owner to determine if someone has a hidden disability or not.

The second is that any individual who would previously have laid claim to an exemption no longer has that legal exemption to rely on.
The idea that people can be more compelled to wear masks than when it was mandated is based on a misunderstanding and false premise. This is absolutely not the case. It's a deliberate attempt to be disingenuous and that's quite incorrect.

They must instead rely on either the discretion of those managing the property (which may include acknowledgement of the continued admissibility of exemptions under the pre-July legislation), or assert a more general legal right - I would expect in most cases, a Protected Characteristic under the Equalities Act 2010, but there may be other routes open.

It is a common mistake and misrepresentation to assert that the change of law in England last July made all exempt from mask wearing requirements - it did no such thing, and you would have to go somewhere like Florida to find legislation explicitly barring mandatory mask wearing. It merely reverted England to the previous legal status quo.
It is you who is guilty of misrepresentation. There is no legal requirement for anyone to wear a face covering in England. I will not be wearing one and I will make damn sure I am not prevented from exercising my rights to not wear one.

I think it would be fair to say that partisans of both sides on the mask and vaccine debates are free with accusations of child abuse (amongst other things) against those they disagree with, in what are increasingly polarised debates. Unfortunately, in that particular American race between the unspeakable and the uneatable, I would have to back the pro-maskers over the antis, because they tend to support rather than oppose vaccination.
It is the pro-maskers who are the cause of these woes. I will also point out that it is the pro-maskers who are overwhelmingly questioning the effectiveness of vaccines.

Anti-vaxxers are an absolutely tiny minority of people. I hardly know any anti-vaxxers. Yes they are very vocal but they are hugely outnumbered. Only around 10% of Over 16s have not been vaccinated and I firmly believe the majority are people who either have not got round to it, or simply don't see the benefit in it. Only a minority of this 10% are actually anti-vax.

Most people choose NOT to wear masks and obviously the vast majority have been vaccinated (given 90% of the population has been!).

It is therefore the norm to be a non-mask wearer (call it anti-mask if you want) and be vaccinated (again call this pro-vax if you want); this is an absolutely normal and expected position for our culture and should be of no surprise whatsoever.


I equate anti-mask and pro-vaccine as going together, as they always have done, and always will do, in our culture.

Those who are pro-mask are not "anti vax" per se, but they absolutely are against the vaccines allowing us to return to normal and they do not believe that vaccines are effective enough to allow us to lead our lives as normal.

It is the pro-maskers whose views are alien to our society and it is they who are denying and/or questioning the effectiveness of vaccines. It is they who are casting doubt on the value of being vaccinated. It is they who are convincing people that it's not worth being vaccinated. They are, quite frankly dangerous

Whenever I am arguing with people about the effectiveness of vaccines, it is overwhelmingly with pro-maskers denying the vaccines are as effective as they are.

Your argument to claim the opposite is highly disingenuous and a misrepresentation of the reality.

Exactly as I set out. In the language I used in my post, TfL are a property owner determining who may enter their premises; the Conditions of Carriage are how that is documented. Those Conditions of Carriage are a contractual condition, not a legislative power, and any enforcement of those Conditions of Carriage would be based on a mixture of the action of their staff enforcing those Conditions of Carriage, with police involvement arising from the specific legal positions that apply to railway personnel in the course of their work.

That would create no difference in principle from a shopkeeper imposing a mask requirement for entry to their shop.
Anyone can declare themselves exempt and TfL are unable to verify any exemption (there is no legal requirement to wear them anyway) and everyone who uses a paper ticket on London Overground services is completely unbound by TfL's conditions of travel as they are only bound by the NRCoT.

The requirement to stand on the right on escalators on the tube does have legal backing behind it, but there is no such legal backing behind wearing a face covering, and people are not in any way legally required to wear one. Most passengers choose not to, and they are not breaking any laws.

If this upsets pro-maskers, then I am happy with that.
 

big_rig

Member
Joined
21 Aug 2020
Messages
362
Location
London
Are they actively telling people not to or implying it by wearing masks?
My view would be people who say ‘get vaccinated but you still have to follow all sorts of rubbish rules’ are harming the cause of increasing vaccine coverage by both implying that vaccines don’t work hence the need for ongoing measures, and that there’s little personal benefit for people to do so if they still have to deal with restrictions. Likewise people who voluntarily insist on wearing masks etc despite having been vaccinated seem to believe more in pseudoscience than actual science.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
55,238
Location
Yorkshire
Are they actively telling people not to or implying it by wearing masks?
Certainly not the former; the latter is true, but they are also actively arguing against the effectiveness of vaccines, here are some examples from Twitter:

You may have no symptoms from a breakthrough #Covid19 infection but the person you infect at the grocery store, party, restaurant, coffee shop, bodega, elevator, & other public places may die from Covid. Wear a mask. Protect yourself and protect other people. This isn’t hard.
My response to the above quoted vaccine effectiveness denier is that the term "breakthrough" is false; vaccines are intended to prevent serious illness, not infections. The argument that someone may die does not make sense; the same theoretical argument could be made for any respiratory virus, especially influenza. If a vulnerable person is in any of these places, firstly they ought to be vaccinated (though we cannot mandate that; it is their personal choice) and if the vulnerable person wants additional protection of an effective FFP3/N99 mask, they do have that option.

Yes and I am still wearing mask, because of Delta Variant and breakthrough.
My response to the above quoted vaccine effectiveness denier is pretty much as above.

what’s up I have a covid breakthrough case that I am 100% certain I got at work and it really sucks! do not be feeling good! mask up y’all
My response to the above quoted vaccine effectiveness denier is again they are using misleading terminology; they cannot have any idea where they got the infection in reality. It may not feel great but it is inevitable that some people will feel pretty bad when they get the virus but the vaccine will do its thing. Masking up does not prevent these infections, which are part of the road to endemic equilibrium, whether people like it or not.

I’m in Texas. I’m vaxed and wear a mask. 90 percent of people I see inside stores here aren’t wearing a mask. I had Covid in August 2020 and I don’t want a breakthrough case. The country is so divided I’m not overly optimistic that we’re ever going to stop the pandemic.
My response again is similar to the above. I will also point out that a natural infection + 2 doses of vaccine offers absolutely excellent protection which means future infections are incredibility likely to be asymptomatic or extremely mild. Such pessimistic language does not encourage anyone to get vaccinated but the reality is people should be encouraged.

I don’t understand why it’s good that an 80 year old person is dancing indoors with a bunch of unmasked people. Yes I know she’s wearing a mask. Vaxxed, masked people get breakthrough covid all the time.
For this one, it's so crazy, I have no words.

Wear a mask, even if you're vaccinated, and avoid those people like the plague. They ARE the plague! There are breakthrough infections, even if you're vaccinated. You'll do well compared to someone not vaccinated, but covid can do physical damage even if it doesn't kill you.
The use of hyperbole is so strong I could have thought this is sarcasm, but no, it is actually real. Again, how on earth do you argue with such people that are this deluded?


People Are Still Walking Around Without Masks!!! It Does Not Matter Whether You Have Been Vaccinated!!!! You Can Get It Again!. Your Choice, If You Are Not Wearing A Mask Around Me!! My Suggestion Is You Better Fall Back!!!. I'm Not Going To Sick, Due To Your Negligence!
Keep Your Distance!!!
Respect Those Who Care About Their Life!!!Hundred points symbol
If You Choose Not To Wear A Mask And Someone Falls Sick Or Dies Due To Your Negligence That Is MURDER!!!!Public address loudspeaker. Its Time To Wake Up To Reality!!!Face with medical mask. You Don't Want To Wear Mask STAY HOME!!!FootprintsBroken heart
This Virus Has So Many Mutations Now!!! You Say Well Its My Choice!!!Nose Its Not Your Choice If Decide To Disregard Mandates And Be Around People That You Can INFECT!!!Eyes Show You Care!!! Show Respect!!! Show You Have A HEART!!Two heartsBlue heartGrowing heartSparkling heartGreen heartYellow heartHeart with ribbon
Yes, you can get an infection, but the chances of it being severe are very unlikely, the likehihood of hospitalisation is tiny. If you really distrust the vaccine that much then you can wear an effective FFP3 mask instead of complaining that other people are not wearing ineffective masks. Talk of murder demonstrates the person is not capable of rational thought. As for "respect", I see wearing an ineffective mask as a sign of disrespect towards the vaccine (if someone wears an effective FFP3 mask then I assume they are immunocompromised and taking a fair and reasonable precaution, even though the vaccine does still work well in that group)

I could go on, but that should provide an insight into how the most vocal pro-mask lobbyists are behaving and demonstrates how they are undermining confidence in the vaccines.

My view would be people who say ‘get vaccinated but you still have to follow all sorts of rubbish rules’ are harming the cause of increasing vaccine coverage by both implying that vaccines don’t work hence the need for ongoing measures, and that there’s little personal benefit for people to do so if they still have to deal with restrictions. Likewise people who voluntarily insist on wearing masks etc despite having been vaccinated seem to believe more in pseudoscience than actual science.
I completely agree.
 
Last edited:

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
3,174
One minor problem - with the change in restrictions of July 19th, the mask exemptions also went.

On the contrary; everyone is now legally exempt.
Yep, that's my view.
Regardless of whatt he law actually does or not say, 99% of the maskivist businesses with their rude shouty signs have small print saying "unless exempt".
As there is no longer any legal definition of exemption, my view is that everyone is exempt as of 19th July.
I take a very similar line to @yorkie - first choice is to take my business elsewhere. Second choice is to walk in anyway. If they immediately start down my throat "I'm exempt". If they ask me politely to wear a mask I say "I don't have one", if they persist from there "I'm exempt".
It's never gone further than "I'm exempt" as they'd rapidly start skating on very thin ice WRT equality if it did.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
1,910
I would suggest before having a go at yorkie you make a brief visit to the relevant websites as your assertions while confidently expressed are inaccurate.


Gov.uk: https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ngs-when-to-wear-one-and-how-to-make-your-own





TfL: https://tfl.gov.uk/campaign/face-coverings
Thank you for confirming that my interpretation is legally correct. What you quote is the revised advice following the change of law, but it is just that - advice.

Yes

It is not me giving incorrect advice, it is you.

Indeed, but now that no longer applies, so there is no legal requirement for anyone to wear a mask.

I will also point out that people are able to certify themselves exempt and that the list of exemptions effectively allows for anyone to to declare themselves exempt and that included anyone who found wearing a face covering distressing.


You are being disingenuous (and not for the first time); there is no need for exemptions for something that no longer applies! it is quite right to effectively say everyone is exempt because there is no legal requirement for anyone to wear a mask.


This is not enforceable as there is no way for any building owner to determine if someone has a hidden disability or not.


The idea that people can be more compelled to wear masks than when it was mandated is based on a misunderstanding and false premise. This is absolutely not the case. It's a deliberate attempt to be disingenuous and that's quite incorrect.


It is you who is guilty of misrepresentation. There is no legal requirement for anyone to wear a face covering in England. I will not be wearing one and I will make damn sure I am not prevented from exercising my rights to not wear one.


It is the pro-maskers who are the cause of these woes. I will also point out that it is the pro-maskers who are overwhelmingly questioning the effectiveness of vaccines.

Anti-vaxxers are an absolutely tiny minority of people. I hardly know any anti-vaxxers. Yes they are very vocal but they are hugely outnumbered. Only around 10% of Over 16s have not been vaccinated and I firmly believe the majority are people who either have not got round to it, or simply don't see the benefit in it. Only a minority of this 10% are actually anti-vax.

Most people choose NOT to wear masks and obviously the vast majority have been vaccinated (given 90% of the population has been!).

It is therefore the norm to be a non-mask wearer (call it anti-mask if you want) and be vaccinated (again call this pro-vax if you want); this is an absolutely normal and expected position for our culture and should be of no surprise whatsoever.


I equate anti-mask and pro-vaccine as going together, as they always have done, and always will do, in our culture.

Those who are pro-mask are not "anti vax" per se, but they absolutely are against the vaccines allowing us to return to normal and they do not believe that vaccines are effective enough to allow us to lead our lives as normal.

It is the pro-maskers whose views are alien to our society and it is they who are denying and/or questioning the effectiveness of vaccines. It is they who are casting doubt on the value of being vaccinated. It is they who are convincing people that it's not worth being vaccinated. They are, quite frankly dangerous

Whenever I am arguing with people about the effectiveness of vaccines, it is overwhelmingly with pro-maskers denying the vaccines are as effective as they are.

Your argument to claim the opposite is highly disingenuous and a misrepresentation of the reality.


Anyone can declare themselves exempt and TfL are unable to verify any exemption (there is no legal requirement to wear them anyway) and everyone who uses a paper ticket on London Overground services is completely unbound by TfL's conditions of travel as they are only bound by the NRCoT.

The requirement to stand on the right on escalators on the tube does have legal backing behind it, but there is no such legal backing behind wearing a face covering, and people are not in any way legally required to wear one. Most passengers choose not to, and they are not breaking any laws.

If this upsets pro-maskers, then I am happy with that.
A lot of words, but little detail. One question - under what legal basis is someone obliged to accept a self declared exemption? There are many assertions based on advice and guidance, but they are as far as I can tell inaccurate representations of the law.

Though it was utterly unlikely, a firm could legally impose a mask requirement before Covid, and no laws have been passed to make such a provision illegal. The exemptions were always provided for compliance with the Equalities Act, and the removal of the mandate means that the Equalities Act will prevail.

As it happens, I agree with your practical interpretation of how the law would operate, and that no sensible business would want to get caught up in the area of hidden disability. That does not mean, however, that it is illegal for them to do so.

I am open to the possibility that I am incorrect, but expect an apology for the defamatory assertions that I am either being disingenuous or guilty of misrepresentation.

As for our American cousins, I wish that the reality were as you assert. Given the behaviour of many on the Republican side of the fence, opposition to masks and vaccinations frequently combine.
 
Last edited:

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
13,199
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Yep, that's my view.
Regardless of whatt he law actually does or not say, 99% of the maskivist businesses with their rude shouty signs have small print saying "unless exempt".
As there is no longer any legal definition of exemption, my view is that everyone is exempt as of 19th July.
I take a very similar line to @yorkie - first choice is to take my business elsewhere. Second choice is to walk in anyway. If they immediately start down my throat "I'm exempt". If they ask me politely to wear a mask I say "I don't have one", if they persist from there "I'm exempt".
It's never gone further than "I'm exempt" as they'd rapidly start skating on very thin ice WRT equality if it did.

Mask use in shops does seem to be declining pretty fast now. I went into a couple of shops in my town earlier today, a town which is normally pretty hot on Covid measures, and didn't see a single person wearing one - staff and customers. This is perhaps the first time since July where this has been my experience. I did quietly sigh to myself upon stepping outside seeing a woman wearing one alone in her car though - I really don't get this at all.

Combined with the fact mask use on LU continues to hover at or below 50% despite all the aggressive encouragement measures, this is pretty promising.
 

Mag_seven

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
1 Sep 2014
Messages
8,159
Location
here to eternity
Mask use in shops does seem to be declining pretty fast now. I went into a couple of shops in my town earlier today, a town which is normally pretty hot on Covid measures, and didn't see a single person wearing one - staff and customers.

I was in a Waitrose in London today and expected 100% mask wearing given the area the store was located and the type of clientele that shop there - was pleasantly surprised that it was actually less than 40%.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top