• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Masks again

Status
Not open for further replies.

John Luxton

Established Member
Joined
23 Nov 2014
Messages
1,653
Location
Liverpool
I recall isolated incidents of people being dragged off trains/out of shops by police for not wearing the things. Yes you might eventually win the case but only after a lot of unpleasantness and hassle, which can be avoided if you keep one of the things in your back pocket.
There have been videos posted of these incidents last year and I saw several.

But in all those that I saw the person became confrontational and just refused - they did not give a valid reason.

The way some spoke to the PCs they deserved what they got.

Never lose your temper, never shout, never use bad language.

Be polite and courteous at all times. That is disarming in its own right.

There are many more people than there are PCs in particular BTP pcs.

Enough revolt and the system breaks as most police would rather be chasing real criminals rather than getting involved with people who probably in normal circumstances would be their traditional supporters.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Richard Scott

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
3,673
Is that down to poor vaccination rates, as for scarves etc, I think it has been known for sometime that they are not that good, maybe a good idea at the very start...have to be seen to be doing something quickly, but now 2 years on ...
I think Germany are someway behind on vaccinations bit don't have any statistics.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,382
Location
Ely
Without wishing to answer for them, I can only guess their answer is to reduce transmissions during the winter when the NHS is under pressure and to postpone those infections until the Spring/Summer. However hospitalisations have continued to decline for many weeks now, despite an increase in (mild or asymptomatic) 'cases', so this argument seems weak to me.

I agree that (a) I can't think of another argument and (b) it isn't a very good one!

I acknowledge this is a fast-moving thread, so things get left behind quickly, but I do find it interesting that no-one suggesting masks are useful at reducing the spread of Covid have addressed my question as to why we should actually be trying to do that now.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,430
Location
Yorkshire
The regime plans to fine mask "refuseniks" up to £200 on the spot. Article is behind a paywall.
The only people who could be fined are those who don't say 'im exempt'.

I see they are also telling secondary school kids to wear masks in corridors which is utterly pointless.

This authoritarianism just makes me more angry and makes me even more against these ludicrous policies. If anyone supports this crap I don't want to have anything to do with them.
 

John Luxton

Established Member
Joined
23 Nov 2014
Messages
1,653
Location
Liverpool
There are ways around the paywall.

"A union has warned, however, that public transport faces a "high degree of non-compliance" on masks.

Mick Lynch, the general secretary of the Rail, Maritime and Transport Union, said it would be train workers who would be left to deal with angry passengers who did not want to wear masks.

"We support the wearing of masks but there are major issues about enforcement and it is our members left in the front line with angry passengers who refuse to comply,” he said.

He called on the Government to make “resources available to police this reintroduction of masks”, and urged the Government to end its “disjointed approach and get some consistency that avoids the chaos and confusion that is a hallmark of this administration”.

Mr Lynch’s thoughts were echoed by Unite's national officer for passenger transport, Bobby Morton.

He said: "The Government's previous inconsistent messaging on face-mask wearing is almost certainly going to result in a high degree of non-compliance.

"Unite's advice to bus drivers is clear: it is not their role to enforce mask wearing, their responsibility is to safely drive and operate the bus. The job of enforcing mask wearing is that of the bus operator and the police."

Mr Morton added that Unite had previously said the requirement to wear face coverings "should never have been removed while rates of Covid-19 remained high" and said it was only the development of the new variant, omicron, that had "forced the Government to act".

Meanwhile shop workers are said to be "extremely concerned" about any abuse they might experience while trying to police the use of masks in store.

James Lowman, the chief executive of the Association of Convenience Stores, said: "We are helping retailers to prepare for the change in face-covering rules, but they are extremely concerned about abuse against their staff from customers who don't want to wear a face covering in a shop.

We will continue to urge stores to communicate the rules, but not to challenge those who refuse to abide by the rules."
The UK's supermarkets have said they are waiting for advice from the Government and will be keeping their staff and customers informed. "

Simple just claim exemption - that is legal
I find the RMT General Secretary's comments interesting. Whilst he may support the wearing of masks can he explain why so many guards / conductors / RPIs and station staff appear to have stopped wearing them. I have used Merseyrail, TPE and GWR in past few weeks and very few staff are wearing them.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,430
Location
Yorkshire
I find the RMT General Secretary's comments interesting. Whilst he may support the wearing of masks can he explain why so many guards / conductors / RPIs and station staff appear to have stopped wearing them. I have used Merseyrail, TPE and GWR in past few weeks and very few staff are wearing them.
Some unions have their own agendas and are not particularly interested in representing the views of their members.

I quit my union over exactly this issue.
 

martin2345uk

Established Member
Joined
21 Sep 2011
Messages
2,052
Location
Essex
The regime plans to fine mask "refuseniks" up to £200 on the spot. Article is behind a paywall.
I don't understand how ANY fines for this have ever been given when they've always said you don't have to say why you are exempt? How have people been fined?
 

NorthOxonian

Established Member
Associate Staff
Buses & Coaches
Joined
5 Jul 2018
Messages
1,483
Location
Oxford/Newcastle
I don't understand how ANY fines for this have ever been given when they've always said you don't have to say why you are exempt? How have people been fined?
I imagine there's an element of "attitude test" - if someone's response to being asked to wear a mask is aggressive then they'd probably be fined, whereas if someone just said they were exempt it's very unlikely.
 

Ediswan

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2012
Messages
2,842
Location
Stevenage
I imagine there's an element of "attitude test" - if someone's response to being asked to wear a mask is aggressive then they'd probably be fined, whereas if someone just said they were exempt it's very unlikely.
I am tempted to claim exemption, on the grounds of cognitive dissonance. Mental anxiety resulting from behaving in a manner which is contrary to ones beliefs.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
The regime plans to fine mask "refuseniks" up to £200 on the spot. Article is behind a paywall.

So a nice little threat, to add to the "behave or lose Christmas with your families" ultimatum.

I don't respond well to threats or ultimatums from a prime minister.
 
Last edited:

Ediswan

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2012
Messages
2,842
Location
Stevenage
Typically the standard is the 95% confidence interval, I think the most often cited number from that paper is something like 0-22% reduction; the zero being the important part.
I agree that the numbers do allow for the possibility that there is no effect. They also say that it is far more likely that there is some effect.
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
6,538
Location
UK
I agree that the numbers do allow for the possibility that there is no effect. They also say that it is far more likely that there is some effect.
Either way, it thoroughly debunks the mask 'infographics' that circulate of Facebook. Not that FB will do anything about them...
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
6,968
Location
Taunton or Kent
The regime plans to fine mask "refuseniks" up to £200 on the spot. Article is behind a paywall.
While it was not for all breaches, it's worth remembering the quoted figure on rail announcements was "up to £6400" up until July. Even if application is stricter, this latest proposal sounds less severe.
 

4-SUB 4732

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2018
Messages
2,150
So a nice little threat, to add to the "behave or lose Christmas with your families" ultimatum.

I don't respond well to threats or ultimatums from a prime minister.
I agree massively with this. It’s part of the reason some people still won’t have a vaccine - the first sign of coercion and talk of vaccine passports and what not and people become hermits. In this case, it’s obvious if they’re gearing up legislation and guidance to permit £200 fines that this is not just for 3 weeks.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,382
Location
Ely
In this case, it’s obvious if they’re gearing up legislation and guidance to permit £200 fines that this is not just for 3 weeks.

Hard to say - so far it sounds like they are just going to resurrect the old regulations and stick a new end-date on them. They have form for that - was pretty much what happened for lockdowns 2 and 3, they mostly reused the regulations that had expired for lockdown 1.

I do find it hard to believe this will be just for 3 weeks though. The expiry date on the new regulation, when it finally appears, may well be indicative.
 

4-SUB 4732

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2018
Messages
2,150
Hard to say - so far it sounds like they are just going to resurrect the old regulations and stick a new end-date on them. They have form for that - was pretty much what happened for lockdowns 2 and 3, they mostly reused the regulations that had expired for lockdown 1.

I do find it hard to believe this will be just for 3 weeks though. The expiry date on the new regulation, when it finally appears, may well be indicative.
It’s total nonsense to believe this all finishes in 3 weeks. Unless there’s mass disobedience. Too many people lack the critical thinking abilities to finally wake up and see all of this mind.
 

778

Member
Joined
4 May 2020
Messages
348
Location
Hemel Hempstead
Hard to say - so far it sounds like they are just going to resurrect the old regulations and stick a new end-date on them. They have form for that - was pretty much what happened for lockdowns 2 and 3, they mostly reused the regulations that had expired for lockdown 1.

I do find it hard to believe this will be just for 3 weeks though. The expiry date on the new regulation, when it finally appears, may well be indicative.
It would be worrying if it had no expiry date at all. Do you think if there was a vote in parliament to make masks permanent (unlikely I know) on trains and in shops, most MPs would vote yes? Don't think permanent masks will happen in the UK, but I would not be suprised at all if they became permanetly compulsory in some European countries, Australia and New Zealand. Not so sure about the US (maybe in some blue states).

I am not old enough to remember this but, when seatbelts were first introduced in 1983 were they intended to be permanent, or were they only meant to be temporary?
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,430
Location
Yorkshire
Seatbelts are akin to vaccines.

It's not any sort of equivalent to masks (if it was, we would have a choice of wearing flimsy string seatbelts for virtue signalling/box ticking purposes ;))
 

Annetts key

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2021
Messages
2,644
Location
West is best
We can never eliminate this virus, nor other Coronaviruses, Rhinoviruses and influenza viruses.
Not true. It is possible to eliminate the above mentioned viruses. It’s just not very practical without causing massive disruption to human society.

So saying ‘never’ is scientifically inaccurate.
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
5,996
Location
Surrey
I think Germany are someway behind on vaccinations bit don't have any statistics.
This is latest data for main economies in Europe
1638138635665.png
Then day cases of same countries
1638138774676.png
On the face of it some correlation but suspect this dataset isn't comparable between countries.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,430
Location
Yorkshire
Not exactly the one I was thinking of, but these sorts of things are fairly common.

View attachment 106252
Indeed; the key thing they want to bang on about is how masks do not protect the wearer but ostensibly offer excellent protection to others.

That's why they don't want to promote effective FFP2/3 masks; such masks destroy their flawed argument

Not true. It is possible to eliminate the above mentioned viruses. It’s just not very practical without causing massive disruption to human society.

So saying ‘never’ is scientifically inaccurate.
Ok it's not possible without the destruction of our society;)
 

Ediswan

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2012
Messages
2,842
Location
Stevenage
I am not old enough to remember this but, when seatbelts were first introduced in 1983 were they intended to be permanent, or were they only meant to be temporary?
Installation of (front) seatbelts was mandated from 1965. Compulsory use was new in law from 1983. I don't recall the slightest suggestion that this be anything but permanent.

I have a recollection that a house mate had a pre-1965 vehicle, with after-market seatbelts, which could legally be ignored. We preferred to wear them.
 

Cowley

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
15 Apr 2016
Messages
15,686
Location
Devon
Well I think it’s fair to say that everyone has had their say on the reimposition of masks in some settings. As said we’re going to lock this thread and probably for obvious reasons the other one too.
And relax… ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top