Police checking travel

[lkpridgeon]

From my experience the defacto standard of proof has become the lanyard scheme otherwise you don't get taken seriously. This seems to generally be as it looks like you've at least gone out of your way to claim the exemption instead of just making it up on the fly because you were challenged. I'm not okay with this however what is is.

Back on thread though as I fear we've drifted. I've been challenged on two occasions in the last year by BTP in a curtious manner and they just took it on face value. I've been asked once by one of them as I was having a chat with the officer anyway, so just general conversation really.

I've been challenged on numerous occasions by guards though, mainly on cross-country. Proof was asked for once and I showed the letter I wrote on behalf of myself on my companies letterhead.

 

[GB]

......

So who is going to look more like they're breaking the law than that?
Who are they actually supposed to be suspicious of?
Who are they actually supposed to be able to fine?
How are the police supposed to keep us safe if they're not allowed to enforce the law?

Not speaking or giving information to the Police when it is not legally required is not proof or suspected proof of breaking the law. Having a suspicion is not proof someone is or has broken the law.
Fine the people that have actually broken the law.

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

That isn't what the guidance says though, as it makes clear people should not be asked for reasons of their exemption. Certainly police officers should under no circumstances be delving into people's medical circumstances.

Which guidance?

 

[rail-god]

Apology issued over misunderstanding of face mask exemption in Sandwell store | News | West Midlands Police

Earlier today a video was shared of our officers challenging a man in Sainsbury’s, Oldbury, who was not wearing a face mask and he was asked to leave the store. We believe this happened sometime last month. We’re committed to keeping our communities safe from the deadly virus, however on this...

www.west-midlands.police.uk

 

[jumble]

You indeed don't need to prove it to a Police Officer, and so that Officer acted out of order if they did not take a verbal statement of exemption at face value. However, if you go to Court you are generally fairly well advised to present some evidence in order to ensure that you do actually win; your word against that of a Police Officer with no or thin evidence provided by either side will tend, generally, to result in you losing.

Proving you had a reason for an exemption in Court would result in you winning, and it's not really hard to prove, showing a prescription repeat slip for an inhaler or similar would be easy proof, though obviously it would depend on why an exemption was needed.

I am confused.
What value has a Policeman's word in determining if someone is exempt ?

I sometimes find a mask makes it hard and very uncomfortable to breath if I have run for a train or bus
If I considered myself exempt and were hauled up in court under such circumstances ( I am not exempt and would never pretend to be) I would be very tempted to borrow My Wifes inhaler and then make a big thing of taking it in court and breathing heavily.
Why did the Policeman issue a FPN by making assumptions? Because he can.
Why would I be tempted to let a court come to possibly erroneous conclusions by them making assumptions? Because I can.

I am so glad do not live anywhere where people have the attitude of @FGW_DID @Pit_buzzer
Fortunately their opinion is not in accordance with the law and so no one needs to take any notice of them

 

[Bikeman78]

No, the attitude of I can do what I like by the (not so) Great British public is the bain of 2020 and the reason why we are in such a state!

To be fair, the rest of Europe is in the same boat, with very different cultures, rules and enforcement of them. E.g. According to various gen groups, there is no attempt to stop people travelling by train in Belgium. Most of them are empty anyway so no doubt the majority are "being sensible" but they have one of the worst death rates in the world.

 

[RichardKing]

Good, well done BTP.

What a country we've become. As others have pointed out, a lot of reasons for not being able to wear a mask are not obvious. You're essentially congratulating the Police for fining people for hidden disabilities.

This is why so many can't wait to see the back of masks. They cause nothing but division.

 

[Turtle]

Good, well done BTP.

Are you for real?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Wouldn't be surprised if BTP were challenging any intending passengers wearing face coverings as neck warmers or with their noses protruding.

(Seen quite a few shoppers ineffectively wearing face coverings in supermarkets in recent months).

Can't be any legitimate grounds for exception there, can there?

 

[Cdd89]

Can't be any legitimate grounds for exception there, can there?

Yes - if someone really believes face masks work, but has difficulty wearing them, they might wear them for the minimum period they can handle in the most risky contexts and lower/remove them for reprieve. Exemptions aren’t binary in real life.

 

[Butts]

I was waiting to get a Train into Edinburgh at Falkirk Grahamston Station yesterday teatime.

There were 2 BTP Officers on the open platforms - a rare sight indeed.

Plenty of people awaiting services were mask less including me - I only put one on when boarding.

They didn't seem overly worried and I didn't see them questioning anyone about their lack of "regulatory apparel"

 

[Cdd89]

them. E.g. According to various gen groups, there is no attempt to stop people travelling by train in Belgium. Most of them are empty anyway so no doubt the majority are "being sensible" but they have one of the worst death rates in the world.

Yes, this is how lockdowns have worked in the Netherlands too. The reasons to travel, such as shops, restaurants, events and gatherings in homes, are removed; but there is no ban on leaving home per se.

Given that the U.K. has endless exemptions to the rules about being outside your home, you could argue that we are the same, but there is still the general undercurrent of authoritarianism and the risk of being questioned. Unless something is being obviously gained by that, then we should all be able to agree it shouldn’t be there.

 

[peters]

Just say you’re exempt and everybody has to believe you. No surprise then at the amount of people taking the p!ss.

Can you imagine if the same principle was applied elsewhere?

Blue Badges holders are exempt from certain parking regulations. To get one you have to prove you have a requirement. You have to display said blue badge to show your exemption.

Somehow I don’t think someone just saying, “I’m exempt” would really cut the mustard.

So once again, good on BTP for enforcement. If you do actually have a valid exemption, appeal the FPN, prove it and have it quashed.

Yes there's an issue with some people falsely claiming they are exempt but the solution isn't to fine those who are exempt and are actively complying with the COVID regulations.

You say people need a blue badge to get a disabled parking space. However, if you're in a wheelchair and want to board a train, the station staff wouldn't ask you to prove you are disabled, just in case someone being lazy has got themselves a wheelchair and the station staff did they did they would quite rightly be suspended for gross misconduct.

 

[SteveM70]

Whether you agree or disagree with wearing masks, whether you agree or disagree with the police being able to ask for proof of exemption, the whole piece of legislation is an absolute dog’s breakfast.

It ultimately comes down to people behaving responsibly. Which we know the majority will, but a sizeable minority won’t. No different to people flocking to Bournemouth beach in the summer, or the Brecon Beacons last weekend. And the fact that Michael Gove was quoted as saying how confident he is in the British public’s ability to behave responsibly proves what nonsense it is.

I can envisage a Covid-19 version of that scene from Spartacus. “No! I am exempt”

 

[peters]

There were 2 BTP Officers on the open platforms - a rare sight indeed.

Plenty of people awaiting services were mask less including me - I only put one on when boarding.

Unless you have more relaxed restrictions in Scotland, you are supposed to have one on from the moment you enter the station, whether the platform is enclosed or not.

 

[221129]

you are supposed to have one on from the moment you enter the station, whether the platform is enclosed or not.

That is the case in Scotland, however is NOT the case in England afaik.

 

[peters]

That is the case in Scotland, however is NOT the case in England afaik.

Northern's announcements say they are required on station platforms.

 

[221129]

Northern's announcements say they are required on station platforms.

That doesn't make it true.

 

[peters]

That doesn't make it true.

Checking gov.uk it's mandatory on board public transport and in indoor areas like ticket offices and it's advised in areas where social distancing is difficult like on busy platforms, so I can't see any evidence that they are required on outdoor platforms at rural village stations.

 

[Wychwood93]

Whether you agree or disagree with wearing masks, whether you agree or disagree with the police being able to ask for proof of exemption, the whole piece of legislation is an absolute dog’s breakfast.

It ultimately comes down to people behaving responsibly. Which we know the majority will, but a sizeable minority won’t. No different to people flocking to Bournemouth beach in the summer, or the Brecon Beacons last weekend. And the fact that Michael Gove was quoted as saying how confident he is in the British public’s ability to behave responsibly proves what nonsense it is.

I can envisage a Covid-19 version of that scene from Spartacus. “No! I am exempt”

Just an off-thread quibble with regard to Bournemouth beach - the media made a meal of it. You have low-level footage and pull the shot in and it looked 'rammed' - what the media wanted. You saw overhead shots and it was not actually the case - generally groups of people in a circle with a reasonable distance between each group - we may be social creatures, but there are limits - none of us want people too close.

 

[Jan Mayen]

That doesn't make it true.

Southern have a poster at some station ticket barriers saying you must wear a facemask from this point. Fine of up to £6,400 for failing to comply.

 

[FGW_DID]

Whether you agree or disagree with wearing masks, whether you agree or disagree with the police being able to ask for proof of exemption, the whole piece of legislation is an absolute dog’s breakfast.

Absolutely! It makes a mockery of having the regulation in the first place.

• You must do this!
• The penalty for not complying is………
• You don’t have to, if you have an exemption (but you don’t have to tell anyone what that is or prove it in any way!)

Absolutely ridiculous!

By the way, from the Govt webpage, it says:

• you do not routinely need to show any written evidence of this

You do not have to Routinely show any written evidence of this and you do not need to carry an exemption card.

But no where on that page does it say anything about the Police having to accept your given exemption at face value. So surely they are well within reason to issue the FPN and then person concerned appeals as the quoted excerpt above infers that at times you will need to provide written evidence.

 

[Ianno87]

Absolutely! It makes a mockery of having the regulation in the first place.

• You must do this!
• The penalty for not complying is………
• You don’t have to, if you have an exemption (but you don’t have to tell anyone what that is or prove it in any way!)

Absolutely ridiculous!

By the way, from the Govt webpage, it says:



You do not have to Routinely show any written evidence of this and you do not need to carry an exemption card.

But no where on that page does it say anything about the Police having to accept your given exemption at face value. So surely they are well within reason to issue the FPN and then person concerned appeals as the quoted excerpt above infers that at times you will need to provide written evidence.

Might it be reasoned that if, say, you failed the "attitude test" with the police if asked about not wearing a mask, then it would be "reasonable" of the police to request proof?

 

[RichardKing]

In my place of work, we were told to remind people to wear a face covering if they weren't. If they said they were exempt, we didn't question it...because asking people to prove their disabilities in 2020 (and treating them as criminals if they can't) is absurd.

 

[Jamiescott1]

Dear all

On the 27/12/20 I encountered a couple of BTP officers at High Wycombe platform 2 (northbound) asking everyone where they were travelling and for what reason. One young man was given a face mask as he didn’t have one. Both officers were courteous and polite and I assume they were making sure nobody was fleeing tier 4.

Just wondering if anyone else has had any similar experiences?

Travel to and from wycombe daily never been asked.
A chiltrrn employee did ask me to wear a mask whilst I was on the open air platform 3, but I told him there was no requirement to and that was the end of the matter

 

[MikeWM]

But no where on that page does it say anything about the Police having to accept your given exemption at face value. So surely they are well within reason to issue the FPN and then person concerned appeals as the quoted excerpt above infers that at times you will need to provide written evidence.

However the next sentence is

This means that you do not need to seek advice or request a letter from a medical professional about your reason for not wearing a face covering.

So under your logic someone *complying precisely* with both the law *and* the guidance could - perhaps should - be receiving multiple FPNs *every day* if the police they encounter don't 'accept' the fact they're exempt, because they don't have 'proof' - that they've been *explicitly* told they don't need.

Guilty until proven innocent. Is that really the sort of society we want? How far have we gone, in less than a year.

 

[FGW_DID]

In England you must wear a face covering in the following indoor settings (examples are given in brackets):

• public transport (aeroplanes, trains, trams and buses)
• taxis and private hire vehicles
• transport hubs (airports, rail and tram stations and terminals, maritime ports and terminals, bus and coach stations and terminals)

Are you actually exempt (not asking why) or just being awkward?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Wouldn't be surprised if BTP were challenging any intending passengers wearing face coverings as neck warmers or with their noses protruding.

(Seen quite a few shoppers ineffectively wearing face coverings in supermarkets in recent months).

Can't be any legitimate grounds for exception there, can there?

I'd imagine that those who are wearing masks incorrectly are more open to being challenged than those entirely without masks, simply because the fact they've obtained a mask in the first place would suggest they aren't medically exempt.
Provided it's done as politely as possible, there's also a greater case to be made for gently reminding people to make sure they wear their masks correctly. We're all human and can make mistakes, for example a couple of times I've entered a shop or station without my mask before realising my mistake and putting it on. Then again at other times I've also got so used to wearing the mask that I've forgotten to take it off when it is no longer required!

The heavy-handedness of the BTP as described on this thread does nobody any favours unfortunately. I don't doubt that there's a small minority of a***holes who are claiming exemptions when they shouldn't, but we shouldn't allow those individuals to dictate how society functions as a whole.

 

[FGW_DID]

However the next sentence is

This means that you do not need to seek advice or request a letter from a medical professional about your reason for not wearing a face covering.

So under your logic someone *complying precisely* with both the law *and* the guidance could - perhaps should - be receiving multiple FPNs *every day* if the police they encounter don't 'accept' the fact they're exempt, because they don't have 'proof' - that they've been *explicitly* told they don't need.

Guilty until proven innocent. Is that really the sort of society we want? How far have we gone, in less than a year.

No, it’s still Innocent until proven Guilty

Issue FPN (still innocent)

• Appeal with proof of exemption, FPN quashed, still innocent. (Hurrah)
• no proof, FPN stands = Guilty.

It is mad, as a previous poster has written, it’s a dogs breakfast.

 

[MikeWM]

I'd imagine that those who are wearing masks incorrectly are more open to being challenged than those entirely without masks, simply because the fact they've obtained a mask in the first place would suggest they aren't medically exempt.

Though as has been pointed out above, there is a category of people who may be able to wear a mask for a short period of time, some of the time, and wish to or feel a requirement to do so where possible. I am in that category, though partly for the reasons you mention (more likely to be challenged), I stopped even trying around the time the requirement was extended from transport to also include shops.

Provided it's done as politely as possible, there's also a greater case to be made for gently reminding people to make sure they wear their masks correctly.

Perhaps, but it can quickly get very tedious for those of us who can't wear one to be continually pestered about it, however politely.

Then again at other times I've also got so used to wearing the mask that I've forgotten to take it off when it is no longer required!

Maybe this ought to be the dividing line between the exempt and not-exempt There's no way I'd forget I had one on.