We are discussing the question of an interpretation of risk that is very particular to that particular business, though. It is a business that uses one boat, and has little or no ability to enforce distancing because of the nature and design of that boat. The circumstances and operation of a business are a key consideration in the definition of “reasonable” when considering what reasonable adjustments can or cannot be made to bring the service into full compliance with the Equalities Act.
You are just using weasel words to justify a clear and obvious breach of the law.
This is a case where there are conflicting rights at work, and strict legalism does not help resolve the issue.
There is no 'issue' to be resolved; the ferry company simply needs to comply with the law.
The apparent justification for breaking the law is based on a complete and utter fallacy.
I happen to agree with you that the evidence of the last year shows that the risk in situations like that of the ferry is vastly lower than was assumed a year ago, and that the degree of concern for crew and households is in any case wholly disproportionate given the level of vaccine roll out.
I am glad you agree with me, which makes this whole charade pointless, but if you continue to mislead, I will continue to respond.
At the moment, while masking and distancing advice remains in force..
This is disingenuous; masking is neither enforced outdoors, nor is it enforced for 6-11 year olds, nor for anyone aged over 11 who is covered by an exemption.
Really doesn't count for anything, sorry.
... is that despite this they would be able to argue the restriction is proportionate, balancing perceived threat to life against tourists’ ability to pursue a leisure activity
This is an absurd argument. There is no threat to life, nor are the unlawful measures a proportional response to any erroneously perceived threat.
(its noteworthy that the ferry does not run in winter, and is therefore better considered part of the core local public transport, but a tourist atttraction).
By your logic, any form of public transport that operates a limited timetable can break the law, so that'll include Summer Saturday extras, DalesRail etc? This is a flawed argument which does your case no favours.
Furthermore, it is not correct to suggest that this allow the company to unlawfully discriminate.
After (hopefully) June 21st, it’s likely that defence based on government policy and pandemic status will be fatally undermined.
I would agree that their already untenable argument would presumably be dropped after 21st June.
It’s that disparity between impacts that makes me so uncomfortable about the targeting of this business.
They are not being "targeted"; they are targeting others. There are consequences for their choice. They have recieved many complaints and bad publicity and have chosen not to rectify their behaviour.
To suggest they are victims in this is at best disingenuous and arguably absurd.
Glancing at their Facebook page, my hunch is that they’ve barely changed last year’s posting, and given it relatively little thought, which makes me suspect that there should be room for reasonable engagement.
They appear to be making the same arguments today. I agree they should behave reasonably in their engagements with the public and they would be strongly advised to do so.
Instead of which, there are demands that they must change, backed by unproven assertions that they must be breaking the law, that do nothing to resolve a situation, and everything to encourage the bunker mentality.
They blatantly are breaking the law; to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.
I agree they have a "bunker mentality" and it is disappointing to see some people supporting such behaviour.
Their position is clearly based on fear, a fear which is now disproportionate;
I agree with you on this point and given you agree with me, I suggest we end this charade.
this is a family business, rather than a corporate and needs to be viewed in that light.
This is not a valid defence in law.
You will know from your work in schools that dealing with someone in a state of heightened fear and anxiety with reference to law and rules is of very limited effect, and tends to inflame, not solve a problem; likewise, that in that state of mind logic and facts come way below emotion and adrenaline. This issue will be solved with empathy, not conflict; conflict will harden barriers that empathy can soften.
With all due respect, it's not my job to emphasise with them and encourage them to act in a way that reduces the risk to their business. That's the job of friends and family and others who know them, who can see the damage they are causing.
Clearly the matter has been highlighted in the local press and through social media and yet there is no sign that the company will change its ways to comply with the law, so the matter needs to be pressed in my opinion. If you don't like that, then that's not my problem.
I am not stopping anyone having a conversation with the company but I don't see why you or anyone else should complain about my highlighting of this issue; if you want to reach out to them with empathy in order to convince them to see sense, no-one is stopping you doing so.
The irony is that the Starcross Ferry is only a 15 - 20 minute journey and the boats used have an open air section. So the risk of transmission of the virus by anyone using the ferry without a face covering is vanishingly small.
I agree and this demonstrates the argument that their unlawful behaviour is in any way proportionate to any perceived risk is completely unreasonable.