• 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.

Starcross ferry discrimination?

lkpridgeon

Member
Joined
30 Jan 2019
Messages
200
Location
Micheldever Station / Saxilby
Sorry my examples weren't the best.

Public and private transport providers

If you believe that you have been treated less favourably by employees of or the policy of a public/private transport provider (including train companies, bus companies, and private taxi firms), if you can prove that such treatment is by reason of your protected status, you may have a claim of discrimination.

Transport providers cannot refuse service or subject an individual to a poorer level of service on the basis of their race, gender, perceived sexual orientation, perceived marital status, pregnancy, perceived transgender status, perceived religious beliefs or their disability.

And https://www.stammeringlaw.org.uk/services/reasonable-adjustments-service-providers/ has some links to cases like
Roads v Central Trains, 2004, Court of Appeal.
A wheelchair user could not get from one platform of a station to the other. He argued a taxi would be a reasonable adjustment. The rail company said he could travel to another station, cross the tracks there and come back, adding about an hour to the journey time. His claim for the reasonable adjustment succeeded. The Court of Appeal confirmed that the reasonable adjustment duty is anticipatory, and said the policy is, so far as reasonably practicable, to approximate the access enjoyed by disabled persons to that enjoyed by the rest of the public. It was not necessarily enough that some alternative was available. If there was a better solution available, it may be reasonable for the service provider to provide the better solution.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
13,171
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
It's this sort of carry on that really disgusts me. I have a hidden (not so hidden if I wasn't wearing clothes) disability, called pectus excavatum - search it if you're not eating lunch... I am 30 years old and look quite healthy fitness wise with my clothes on. With the disability however I find some days taking a deep breath painful, and most days I tire really quickly, let alone wearing a mask and do the same. I get hounded and harassed everywhere I go and made to either go away or have my order taken from outside like I am a dirty and disgusting. I have read in books about our past histories, where we had signs that instead of "no service to people without masks", read "no negros, no dogs, no Irish"... Now I know how they felt as I have lived it and it is/was disgusting.

Very sorry to read this; completely agree that this disability apartheid is disgusting. The government should never have allowed it to arise.
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
3,583
Ridiculous little ferry. Wasn't even running the one time I turned up to use it - no kind of apology, or even notification except on their Facebook page. I wasn't best pleased having walked down from the airport to have to get the train all the way round.

Won't bother with them again masks or not
 

headshot119

Established Member
Joined
31 Dec 2010
Messages
1,969
Location
Dubai
I hope the forum moderators will allow me to leave this here,

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Please think about what you are perpetuating when you say it's okay to discriminate based on disability, race, or creed. All of this has happened before, and if we are not careful, all of this shall happen again.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
1,892
I hope the forum moderators will allow me to leave this here,



Please think about what you are perpetuating when you say it's okay to discriminate based on disability, race, or creed. All of this has happened before, and if we are not careful, all of this shall happen again.
Utter tosh, the comparison simply isn't true.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
55,132
Location
Yorkshire
Utter tosh
Again, the phrase 'Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones' seems rather apt here.
the comparison simply isn't true.
The irony here is that many of your comparisons are not 'true' (see posts above).
Very sorry to read this; completely agree that this disability apartheid is disgusting. The government should never have allowed it to arise.
Agreed.

It is also concerning that there are 'Covid Marshalls' who are keen to put companies out of business over allowing people to be humans, but no sign of any equivalent jobsworth position to police companies who carry out acts of discrimination.

If people want to defend rogue companies that's their choice, but no-one has provided any justification for what they are doing. The support for this company has consisted of false dichotomies, invalid comparisons, absurd and spurious claims and illogical arguments.

Therefore I propose to agree to disagree with those who support this company, as otherwise we are just going round in circles.
 

ExRes

Established Member
Joined
16 Dec 2012
Messages
3,647
Location
Back in Sussex
Ridiculous little ferry. Wasn't even running the one time I turned up to use it - no kind of apology, or even notification except on their Facebook page. I wasn't best pleased having walked down from the airport to have to get the train all the way round.

Won't bother with them again masks or not

Which, if you don't live in the area or require the ferry on a regular basis, is a perfectly reasonable response, if you rely on the service then it's rather different and the reason this ignorant man has got away with his type of 'customer service' since well before covid was ever thought of
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
12,599
Location
0036
That seems a fairly standard sign - several of them in my Cornish town, including a bakery (I think, I'll check when I call there tomorrow). Round here, the local unitary council is employing loads of people to hassle the small shops that remain open about signs of all kinds, as well as 'marshals' to attempt to dragoon unwary shoppers into some ridiculous one way system. In the case of the shops, because most have received amounts of government money administered through the council most are reluctant to rock the boat and tell the jobsworths where to get off.

Heaven forbid that small local shops need to obey the law?!
I hope they are carefully enforcing the law that requires shops etc. to display on their notice that exemptions apply to those incapable of wearing face coverings!

As to the original post, I think people referring to reasonable adjustments are looking at the wrong section of the Equality Act. The relevant section is section 15, stating that:

(1)A person (A) discriminates against a disabled person (B) if—

(a)A treats B unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of B's disability, and

(b)A cannot show that the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

(2)Subsection (1) does not apply if A shows that A did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that B had the disability.

The argument the provider would be likely to make is that failing to recognise exemptions from face-coverings is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, the legitimate aim being the protection of the public on board and/or staff members from the risk of COVID19 infection.

However, I think the provider would fail to win this argument on the balance of probabilities in court, as whilst the aim is legitimate, in my view the means is disproportionate.
 
Last edited:

scrapy

Established Member
Joined
15 Dec 2008
Messages
1,610
The Starcross ferry state that they are operating to 1m plus rule and masks allow this as the mask is the extra mitigation. Surely in the event of somebody not being able to wear a mask then allowing 2m around that person would be a reasonable adjustment.
 

RuralRambler

Member
Joined
7 Aug 2020
Messages
152
Location
Brentford
On a similar theme - there is this bakery (Rough Hand Made) in Liverpool who have had this sign up (as seen on Twitter)...

I wonder how people would react if a shopkeeper put a sign up that said "no walking, no entry. Apologies to those in wheelchairs".
An apology is not enough for open discrimination.

Presumably, they'll come to the door/window and serve you from there, without you having to go in, which qualifies as a "reasonable adjustment" under the disability discrimination laws. It's exactly the same with other small shops, etc. that have narrow doorways, steps from the pavement etc - they do the same and thus avoid discrimination claims.
 

lachlan

Member
Joined
11 Aug 2019
Messages
144
The Starcross ferry state that they are operating to 1m plus rule and masks allow this as the mask is the extra mitigation. Surely in the event of somebody not being able to wear a mask then allowing 2m around that person would be a reasonable adjustment.
The government has said from the start that disabled folks are exempt from mask requirements if their disability makes it difficult or impossible to wear one, or if they're deaf and rely on lipreading. I would presume the 1m and 2m distancing guidelines were created with this exemption in mind.
 

robbob700

Member
Joined
17 Aug 2009
Messages
95
The Starcross Ferry is still insisting on face coverings for all passengers over 6 with NO exceptions. There were a few posts on their Facebook page today (including from me) pointing out that this was contravening disability legislation, but the replies from the company insisted that as they were a private company they can make their own rules and if you didn't like it then you didn't have to travel with them. They also said that even if you had an exemption you could sit down and wear a face mask for 15 minutes. All the posts have now been deleted.
It appears that a lot of their customers support their stance.
As they have had this policy in place for over a year now, I assume the local authorities are also happy with these rules.
 

EssexGonzo

Member
Joined
9 May 2012
Messages
620
They use the term “face coverings” not face masks. For those that feel unable to wear a close fitting mask, the clear visors that sit away from the skin are available. Why would that not be possible, apart from for those that are opposed on an ideological basis?

Their house, their rules. And face visors would surely be an acceptable alternative?

I’m asthmatic and don’t feel that my disability rights have been infringed in any way during the pandemic. I also don’t believe that being asked to wear a mask in any way affects my life.

Some people need to grow up.
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
3,583
They use the term “face coverings” not face masks. For those that feel unable to wear a close fitting mask, the clear visors that sit away from the skin are available. Why would that not be possible, apart from for those that are opposed on an ideological basis?

Their house, their rules. And face visors would surely be an acceptable alternative?

I’m asthmatic and don’t feel that my disability rights have been infringed in any way during the pandemic. I also don’t believe that being asked to wear a mask in any way affects my life.

Some people need to grow up.
Scottish policy is that visors are generally not allowed because they make things worse rather than better. Asthma is not the only medical condition which can make facemask use difficult, and even the way people with asthma experience this is quite variable. Please don't assume that your ability to wear a mask gives you any insight into the difficulties faced by others.
 

robbob700

Member
Joined
17 Aug 2009
Messages
95
The government does not classify a visor as a face-covering.

A face visor or shield may be worn in addition to a face covering but not instead of one. This is because face visors or shields do not adequately cover the nose and mouth, and do not filter airborne particles.

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


Just because it does not affect you, does not mean it doesn't affect anyone. I doesn't affect me either, as I haven't got a disability but as I have grown up I have realised that everyone has different needs. It's not just asthmatic people that have exceptions to face covering requirements.
 

RPI

Established Member
Joined
6 Dec 2010
Messages
1,409
Just looked on their Facebook page and notice a picture of their skipper happily not wearing a mask! Double standards
 

EssexGonzo

Member
Joined
9 May 2012
Messages
620
Scottish policy is that visors are generally not allowed because they make things worse rather than better. Asthma is not the only medical condition which can make facemask use difficult, and even the way people with asthma experience this is quite variable. Please don't assume that your ability to wear a mask gives you any insight into the difficulties faced by others.


I've posted this article before, but do you think this lady who was raped should 'grow up' for not wearing a mask?

I think you need to read more carefully.

I said “some”people. Not all people. Please do not assume you understand my position until you’ve read my post properly.

Two things.

1. Close fitting masks and transparent visors are very different devices. To not be able to cope with both devices would be unusual.

2. My 75 yo mother (along with 2 others) was verbally abused at very close range in a supermarket by a dickhead objecting about wearing a mask. She also has an invisible disability - Parkinson’s. She was hospitalised with Covid. She was on a ventilator. She now requires full time care.

Do not lecture me about this subject. And do not claim that every person claiming to be unable to wear a mask has an invisible disability.
 

EssexGonzo

Member
Joined
9 May 2012
Messages
620
I’d accept less useful than useless. which is probably the fact.

And they are accepted by many businesses so why not just wear one if you really can’t wear a mask?
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
3,583
I think you need to read more carefully.

I said “some”people. Not all people. Please do not assume you understand my position until you’ve read my post properly.
Do not lecture me about this subject. And do not claim that every person claiming to be unable to wear a mask has an invisible disability.
I read your post properly, was not lecturing you, and didn't suggest for a second that *everybody* not wearing a mask has an invisible disability. What we are arguing about is the fact that *some* people do have invisible disabilities. Your suggestion that they wear a visor which serves no purpose except as some kind of ponderous badge of shame is not useful.
 

Merseysider

Established Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
22 Jan 2014
Messages
4,786
Location
Birmingham
I’d accept less useful than useless. which is probably the fact.

And they are accepted by many businesses so why not just wear one if you really can’t wear a mask?
Nobody is legally required to wear one as of today. Businesses, if they wish, can request their patrons wear a face covering, but cannot require it from those unable to for reasons due to disability/conditions etc.

Granted, the number of those unable to wear either a mask or a visor will be small, but these people should not be made to feel unwelcome or uncomfortable, and must not be refused service due to their disability or condition.

Requesting that people wear a face visor rather than nothing also appears to me to fall under the category of “covid theatre”. If a passenger has the virus, those around them will be susceptible and the visor will not prevent transmission, full stop.

If the passenger does not have the virus, the visor still achieves nothing.
 

EssexGonzo

Member
Joined
9 May 2012
Messages
620
I read your post properly, was not lecturing you, and didn't suggest for a second that *everybody* not wearing a mask has an invisible disability. What we are arguing about is the fact that *some* people do have invisible disabilities. Your suggestion that they wear a visor which serves no purpose except as some kind of ponderous badge of shame is not useful.

Well, it might actually serve the purpose of allowing the purpose on the ferry? You know, a practical purpose?

Nobody is legally required to wear one as of today. Businesses, if they wish, can request their patrons wear a face covering, but cannot require it from those unable to for reasons due to disability/conditions etc.

Granted, the number of those unable to wear either a mask or a visor will be small, but these people should not be made to feel unwelcome or uncomfortable, and must not be refused service due to their disability or condition.

Requesting that people wear a face visor rather than nothing also appears to me to fall under the category of “covid theatre”. If a passenger has the virus, those around them will be susceptible and the visor will not prevent transmission, full stop.

If the passenger does not have the virus, the visor still achieves nothing.

And the science for the “literally useless” visors is………?
 

robbob700

Member
Joined
17 Aug 2009
Messages
95
Close fitting masks and transparent visors are very different devices.
I agree, which is why transparent visors are not accepted as face coverings.
Businesses, if they wish, can request their patrons wear a face covering, but cannot require it from those unable to for reasons due to disability/conditions etc
This business appears to be requiring it (rudely according to some TripAdvisor reviews)
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
3,583
And the science for the “literally useless” visors is………?
Not being seriously questioned by anybody, apart apparently from you.

Visors don't show any promise whatsoever for preventing the spread of the virus, which is why none of the UK governments is suggesting them as an alternative for masks
 

Merseysider

Established Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
22 Jan 2014
Messages
4,786
Location
Birmingham
Well, it might actually serve the purpose of allowing the purpose on the ferry? You know, a practical purpose?



And the science for the “literally useless” visors is………?
5 second google search:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/09/200901112231.htm
Summary:If CDC guidelines aren't enough to convince you that face shields alone shouldn't be used to stop the spread of COVID-19, then maybe a new visualization study will. Researchers simulated coughing and sneezing from a mannequin's mouth using a laser light to visualize droplets expelled. They tested a plastic face shield and found that they block the initial forward motion of the exhaled jet, however, aerosolized droplets are able to move around the visor with relative ease.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24467190/
In the period from 1 to 30 minutes after a cough, during which the aerosol had dispersed throughout the room and larger particles had settled, the face shield reduced aerosol inhalation by only 23%.

https://www.bhf.org.uk/informations...ur-health/coronavirus-and-face-masks#Heading5

Is a face shield or visor a face covering?​

No, the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland governments have all said that a face shield or visor is not considered a face covering. Face shields or visors are not as effective as face masks.


Dr Kim Roberts of Trinity College in Dublin said that visors “do not protect people in any significant way” and are only useful if they are worn in conjunction with and not instead of face masks.
...

Studies​

International studies have shown that while high-grade N95 face masks blocked 99 per cent of aerosols and surgical mask blocked 59 per cent of aerosols, face shields or visors blocked only 2 per cent of potentially harmful aerosols.
 

Watershed

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
2,674
Location
UK
Their house, their rules
Would you consider it acceptable if they had "no Irish, no blacks, no [guide] dogs" as their policy? After all - it's their house, their rules.

Clearly you must recognise that there are limits to the ability of public service providers - such as the Starcross Ferry - to discriminate against certain categories of customer.

If not, I would suggest a quick Google of the Equality Act.
 

_toommm_

Established Member
Joined
8 Jul 2017
Messages
4,543
Location
Yorkshire
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again.. how do you expect someone who is severely autistic or someone with severe learning difficulties to understand why we need to wear face coverings, let alone wear one and tolerate it?

My brother has both, and he would never wear one, simply because he would take it straight off! And my brother definitely isn’t just one case, there’ll be lots of people in the same or a similar boat as him.

Similarly, should we expect attack, or rape victims, to wear one? If it’s going to bring back horrific memories of an attack which could cause them to panic, then definitely not! There are many legitimate exemptions, and I for one would never dare to say otherwise.
 

Top