LNER "requesting" people wear facemasks 100% of the time on their stations and trains

[yorkie]

At no point did I suggest anything. What I said was if a sign saying WEAR A MASK gets you all upset then signs saying NO SMOKING or NO ALCHOHOL must also have the exact same effect?

False equivalence; face coverings are a personal choice. It is not the same thing. You clearly misunderstand the concerns that have been expressed in this thread.

I wonder what percentage of posts made in this forum since it was created has been on the subject of face masks. Never a day goes by when there isn’t rage about a sign somewhere suggesting people where a mask.

People who want to wear a mask will wear a mask, and those who don’t want to, won’t, and we will all get on with our lives.

Indeed and as I've said before, the way to achieve that is for wording to be appropriate, for example "The wearing of face coverings is optional; please respect others' personal choice" and we could then, as you say, get on with our lives.

So, I wonder why won't LNER do this?!

About 90% these days I'd imagine. Mostly by people who will run away in hysterical fear because it says WEAR A MASK instead of Pwetty pwease wear a masky wasky.

That isn't acceptable either; see above.

Then if you don't agree with the sign on the trains then don't wear a sodding mask! Ignore the sign! Nobody is holding a gun to anyones head and saying you have to wear one no matter what.

No-one is suggesting that; you have misunderstood our concerns.

 

[GALLANTON]

False equivalence; face coverings are a personal choice. It is not the same thing. You clearly misunderstand the concerns that have been expressed in this thread.

So is smoking and drinking alcohol...

 

[yorkie]

So is smoking and drinking alcohol...

Can you give examples of where you are allowed to smoke in the presence of a "NO SMOKING" sign?

Are you suggesting it is good practice to have such signs where such activities are permitted?

 

[Dent]

About 90% these days I'd imagine. Mostly by people who will run away in hysterical fear because it says WEAR A MASK instead of Pwetty pwease wear a masky wasky.

I can't see a single post in this thread by anyone declaring that they will "run away in hysterical fear because it says WEAR A MASK instead of Pwetty pwease wear a masky wasky", that is yet another strawman.

 

[GALLANTON]

Can you give examples of where you are allowed to smoke in the presence of a "NO SMOKING" sign?

Are you suggesting it is good practice to have such signs where such activities are permitted?

You said wearing a mask is a personal choice, smoking and drinking are also personal choices. I never said that anyone was allowed to do it in the presence of any signs....

 

[yorkie]

You said wearing a mask is a personal choice, smoking and drinking are also personal choices. I never said that anyone was allowed to do it in the presence of any signs....

As I said, you have misunderstood our argument.

Our argument is against the existence of SHOUTY signs instructing us to WEAR A FACE COVERING despite there no longer being any requirement to do so and LNER admitting it is our personal choice.

You made a false equivalence argument, comparing these signs with signs stating NO SMOKING.

However, by your own admission, this isn't a valid comparison as it's equally inappropriate to have a NO SMOKING sign in places where smoking is permitted as it is to have WEAR A FACE COVERING signs where the wearing of face coverings is entirely optional and no longer mandatory.

 

[greatkingrat]

If there was a sign in the toilets saying "NOW WASH YOUR HANDS" would you object to that in the same way? As there is no legal requirement to wash your hands after going to the toilet, it is your personal choice.

 

[Freightmaster]

If there was a sign in the toilets saying "NOW WASH YOUR HANDS" would you object to that in the same way? As there is no legal requirement to wash your hands after going to the toilet, it is your personal choice.

Wow, the strawman arguments are coming thick and fast on this thread!




MARK

 

[yorkie]

If there was a sign in the toilets saying "NOW WASH YOUR HANDS" would you object to that in the same way? As there is no legal requirement to wash your hands after going to the toilet, it is your personal choice.

This is becoming silly.

The implication would certainly be that you are doing something wrong by not complying. However simply not wearing a face covering - a perfectly normal activity - should not be compared with not washing your hands after using the toilet.

The fact that perfectly normal behaviour is being frowned upon by LNER in this manner is unacceptable.

 

[bramling]

As I said, you have misunderstood our argument.

Our argument is against the existence of SHOUTY signs instructing us to WEAR A FACE COVERING despite there no longer being any requirement to do so and LNER admitting it is our personal choice.

You made a false equivalence argument, comparing these signs with signs stating NO SMOKING.

However, by your own admission, this isn't a valid comparison as it's equally inappropriate to have a NO SMOKING sign in places where smoking is permitted as it is to have WEAR A FACE COVERING signs where the wearing of face coverings is entirely optional and no longer mandatory.

Regardless of whether the sign is shouty or not, the wording is inducing conflict, as it invites potential vigilantism against someone who has quite legally chosen not to wear a mask. For me that situation is unsatisfactory.

 

[island]

Face masks have been proven to reduce the risk of spreading this awful virus.

Can you share evidence to support this claim, please?

 

[43066]

At no point did I suggest anything. What I said was if a sign saying WEAR A MASK gets you all upset then signs saying NO SMOKING or NO ALCHOHOL must also have the exact same effect?

Sorry but that is an absolutely ludicrous comparison. Smoking and drinking are both illegal in certain circumstances (drinking admittedly far more rarely than smoking, but there are dry trains, alcohol control areas in certain towns etc.). Mask wearing is no longer a legal requirement anywhere, so businesses have no business instructing people to wear them.

Then if you don't agree with the sign on the trains then don't wear a sodding mask! Ignore the sign! Nobody is holding a gun to anyones head and saying you have to wear one no matter what.

Absolutely, simply ignore it.

 

[GodAtum]

This is becoming silly.

The implication would certainly be that you are doing something wrong by not complying. However simply not wearing a face covering - a perfectly normal activity - should not be compared with not washing your hands after using the toilet.

The fact that perfectly normal behaviour is being frowned upon by LNER in this manner is unacceptable.

A better example would be NO EATING SMELLY FOOD sign on the train. It's not illegal to eat smelly food but socially frowned upon. Just like it's not illegal to not wear a mask (in England), but some people think that's socially unacceptable.

 

[greyman42]

I travelled from York to London yesterday and the lady who made the on board announcement on leaving York made it clear that mask wearing was not mandatory. A pleasant change to other announcements that i have heard recently.

 

[Huntergreed]

I find it shocking the variety of different personal views being imposed onboard services by passionate, biased train managers.

There should be a standard script for which all announcements follow, this way the risk of personal bias (and masks are one of the most divisive, passionate issues I’ve ever come across) is minimised.

 

[williamn]

The vast majority of the public continue to wear masks in indoor spaces. LNER are simply exercising good business sense by suggesting passengers continue to do so. I welcome their stance. I'd suggest that (as ever) the users of this forum are not representative of the travelling public.

 

[yorksrob]

The vast majority of the public continue to wear masks in indoor spaces.

That's not what I've experienced out and about.

50:50 at most.

 

[yorkie]

Regardless of whether the sign is shouty or not, the wording is inducing conflict, as it invites potential vigilantism against someone who has quite legally chosen not to wear a mask. For me that situation is unsatisfactory.

Indeed.

The vast majority of the public continue to wear masks in indoor spaces.

This is not true; I've been on several LNER trains lately and most people were not wearing them.

LNER are simply exercising good business sense by suggesting passengers continue to do so.

No they aren't as you are working on the false premise that this is what most people want. It isn't.

I welcome their stance. I'd suggest that (as ever) the users of this forum are not representative of the travelling public.

Feel free to report your observations in the relevant thread but I've posted mine as have many others and this shows a very different picture to what you portray.

I find it shocking the variety of different personal views being imposed onboard services by passionate, biased train managers.

There should be a standard script for which all announcements follow, this way the risk of personal bias (and masks are one of the most divisive, passionate issues I’ve ever come across) is minimised.

Indeed and from now on, if I find a TM being overly authoritarian I am going to challenge them; enough is enough.

I travelled from York to London yesterday and the lady who made the on board announcement on leaving York made it clear that mask wearing was not mandatory. A pleasant change to other announcements that i have heard recently.

That's excellent to hear.

 

[seagull]

The vast majority of the public continue to wear masks in indoor spaces. LNER are simply exercising good business sense by suggesting passengers continue to do so. I welcome their stance. I'd suggest that (as ever) the users of this forum are not representative of the travelling public.

No, they don't. Even on trains and in stations which always saw a much higher rate of compliance than most other venues while it was "compulsory", it is now quantifiably not more than half, and in recent days significantly less than half, who are wearing them (taking services by TfW, Avanti, WMT, LNWR, Northern, LNER, TPE as examples). As for pubs, restaurants, shops, even supermarkets, again, half or much less in recent days, with a few exceptions: and the further north one travels it seems the lower the percentage is, generally.

However you are free to welcome a stance which requests that people do something that is not necessary, that's your prerogative.

P.S: "Vast majority" = The phrase vast majority is rhetorical and impressionistic. It is not a quantifed measure of anything, except maybe more than half of something. As a nondescript term it is clichéd and more of a rejoinder than a purveyor of useful information.

 

[Green tractor]

Indeed and from now on, if I find a TM being overly authoritarian I am going to challenge them; enough is enough.

Really? Surely give what a big issue it all seems to be for you I presume you've made several complaints already, what response have you had? Or is it the same as the massive civil disobedience etc we have been told is just around the corner on this forum but has never happened?

 

[LowLevel]

"Face coverings are no longer mandatory on public transport but we recommend you wear them in busy places".

Job done. No whittling about respect like a crap teenager from 2005 who thinks they're a gangster. No guilt tripping. Just clear information in a concise sentence that gets across the message my employer requests, whether I happen to agree or not.

 

[Green tractor]

No chance. I would predict mass civil disobedience if mask mandates don't get dropped in four weeks time as planned.

Mask mandates are discriminatory and need to end. If need be, the people will make them end, mark my words.

There it is! https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...tancing-on-july-19.219009/page-3#post-5192082

No sign of riots in Wales or Scotland is there?

 

[Darandio]

There it is! https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...tancing-on-july-19.219009/page-3#post-5192082

No sign of riots in Wales or Scotland is there?

It's clear you don't know what civil disobedience actually means. Clue: not riots, it's not even violent.

 

[Green tractor]

It's clear you don't know what civil disobedience actually means. Clue: not riots, it's not even violent.

Whoops, point taken....

 

[Darandio]

Whoops, point taken....

It's worth noting that civil disobedience has taken place, look at people claiming mask exemption then openly stating they had no actual reason to do so. Or the fact that mask use was dwindling in some required settings well before wearing them became a matter of personal choice. It's just debatable whether this was actually on a mass scale.

 

[GALLANTON]

Indeed and from now on, if I find a TM being overly authoritarian I am going to challenge them; enough is enough.

Please define precisley what you mean by "overly authoritarian". I suspect if you challenge anyone on the railway with your attitude you'll swiftly find yourself on a platform accompanied by two of BTPs finest with some shiney silver braclets on.

 

[williamn]

No they aren't as you are working on the false premise that this is what most people want. It isn't.

ONS report that 65% intend on wearing them on public transport.

TBH I find your tone here more aggressive than that of LNER. Quite why people get so worked up over wearing a small piece of cloth over their face is beyond me.

 

[Darandio]

ONS report that 65% intend on wearing them on public transport.

More like 6.5% on public transport i'm using this week!

 

[yorkie]

ONS report that 65% intend on wearing them on public transport.

That hasn't been the reality. These polls are notoriously unreliable; they tend to ask people who have far too much time on their hands.

TBH I find your tone here more aggressive than that of LNER.

If you wish to find that to be the case, that is your choice.

Quite why people get so worked up over wearing a small piece of cloth over their face is beyond me.

It's not about wearing an ineffective small piece of cloth; I am not going to wear one and neither do most people. It's about the messaging. I refer you to previous posts, where our concerns are made clear. If understanding our concerns is beyond you, then so be it, but that doesn't make our concerns any less valid.

 

[Green tractor]

That hasn't been the reality. These polls are notoriously unreliable; they tend to ask people who have far too much time on their hands.

Or is it just you don't like the answer?

Anyway, I'm still waiting for you to share the responses you've had to all these complaints you've been threatening to make.

Quite why people get so worked up over wearing a small piece of cloth over their face is beyond me.

There is going to be a blood pressure pandemic at this rate....