• 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!

TfL rules regarding face coverings and travelling round the Kennington loop

Status
Not open for further replies.

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,295
Just get a green sunflower lanyard. I understand that NO ONE is allowed to question you anyway what your conditions are, as others have mentioned, just saying "I'm exempt" ends the conversation straight away.
In practice, yes. I caught a bit of "File on 4 - Occupational Hazard: The Bus Drivers who died from Covid" the other day. In the section I heard, they were following the TfL enforcement team as they enforced the condition of carriage, and their rules of engagement were to back off immediately if someone claimed an exemption, much to the frustration of the team.

However, your understanding is not strictly correct in England. The mask requirements in England were never an absolute prohibition on challenging a claimed exemption, while the legal basis on which to claim exemption under English law was removed on July 19th along with the legal requirement to wear a mask in public places.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,213
Location
London
In practice, yes. I caught a bit of "File on 4 - Occupational Hazard: The Bus Drivers who died from Covid" the other day. In the section I heard, they were following the TfL enforcement team as they enforced the condition of carriage, and their rules of engagement were to back off immediately if someone claimed an exemption, much to the frustration of the team.

However, your understanding is not strictly correct in England. The mask requirements in England were never an absolute prohibition on challenging a claimed exemption, while the legal basis on which to claim exemption under English law was removed on July 19th along with the legal requirement to wear a mask in public places.

It was very clear from the guidance accompanying the legislation that it was never intended that the reasons for exemption should be probed, and in particular there was no requirement to carry any form of exemption certificate.

TfL enforcement officers might well find that position frustrating but there is good reason for this - they are not qualified to make judgement on exemptions which might be highly sensitive; victims of sexual assault, or complex mental health issues for example.

Morally anybody questioning anyone’s reason for an exemption deserves whatever they get, in my view!
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,668
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
It was very clear from the guidance accompanying the legislation that it was never intended that the reasons for exemption should be probed, and in particular there was no requirement to carry any form of exemption certificate.

TfL enforcement officers might well find that position frustrating but there is good reason for this - they are not qualified to make judgement on exemptions which might be highly sensitive; victims of sexual assault, or complex mental health issues for example.

Morally anybody questioning anyone’s reason for an exemption deserves whatever they get, in my view!
I was just about to ask why the officers felt frustrated. As you rightly say, they are not there to make medical judgments, it sounds to me like they were looking for an argument.
 

Cdd89

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2017
Messages
1,451
The role of a mask enforcement officer is a rather contradictory one. In that either they don’t really believe in their work (in which case they’re not going to be fussed either way), or they do believe in it (in which case they must believe they are putting themselves at risk by talking to unmasked passengers).
 

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
3,613
Location
First Class
The role of a mask enforcement officer is a rather contradictory one. In that either they don’t really believe in their work (in which case they’re not going to be fussed either way), or they do believe in it (in which case they must believe they are putting themselves at risk by talking to unmasked passengers).

In other words, it’s total nonsense!
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,213
Location
London
I was just about to ask why the officers felt frustrated. As you rightly say, they are not there to make medical judgments, it sounds to me like they were looking for an argument.

Indeed, I detected that too. I’m afraid that attitude underlines how important it was that exemptions were “self certifiable”, rather than subject to the whims of unqualified, overzealous enforcement staff.

Sadly throughout the pandemic a minority of staff (not just on the railway of course) have used their job roles as the basis for personal moral crusades, based entirely on their own views and prejudices: reference the highly inappropriate and OTT announcements made by certain TMs, for example.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,668
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Indeed, I detected that too. I’m afraid that attitude underlines how important it was that exemptions were “self certifiable”, rather than subject to the whims of unqualified, overzealous enforcement staff.

Sadly throughout the pandemic a minority of staff (not just on the railway of course) have used their job roles as the basis for personal moral crusades, based entirely on their own views and prejudices: reference the highly inappropriate and OTT announcements made by certain TMs, for example.
What's frustrating about it is that those folk working for TOCs being mask-militant seem almost to want to discourage passengers. Whereas when I flew recently with Jet2, although masks were mandatory the cabin crew used common sense, friendliness and zero aggression or rhetoric during both flights. If someone took their masks off to eat or drink there was no "enforcement" when people had finished. I completely forgot to replace it on one leg until we were almost on the ground and not a word was said.

I can't help but feel some TOC staff could learn from some airline staff (I say some because some airlines are not as passenger friendly as Jet2). These flight crews understand that their jobs rely on passengers actually using & filling their services, and that they can't carry fresh air around forever.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,295
I was just about to ask why the officers felt frustrated. As you rightly say, they are not there to make medical judgments, it sounds to me like they were looking for an argument.
From the short section I heard, the frustration was based on a mixture of a thankless job, working in an environment where too many colleagues had died, and finding 20% of passengers were "exempt" when the exemption conditions are estimated at covering about 10% of the population. I also got no sense of looking for an argument in what I heard.
It was very clear from the guidance accompanying the legislation that it was never intended that the reasons for exemption should be probed, and in particular there was no requirement to carry any form of exemption certificate.

TfL enforcement officers might well find that position frustrating but there is good reason for this - they are not qualified to make judgement on exemptions which might be highly sensitive; victims of sexual assault, or complex mental health issues for example.
For clarity, they didn't question exemptions and were quite explicit that if an exemption was claimed, they accepted it. I also agree with you that the intent of the legislation was that claimed exemptions would be accepted at face value. My observation to @james60059 was that there was and is a difference between legislation and practice, a difference that is worth being aware of.
Morally anybody questioning anyone’s reason for an exemption deserves whatever they get, in my view!
I wouldn't go that far, as I think some did take the proverbial - which is why the legislation left the door ajar to exemption claims being challenged. I also believe that staff are entitled to do the jobs they are asked to do without fear.
 

greyman42

Established Member
Joined
14 Aug 2017
Messages
4,894
I wouldn't go that far, as I think some did take the proverbial - which is why the legislation left the door ajar to exemption claims being challenged.
Why would they want to challenge a claim?
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,295
Why would they want to challenge a claim?
I can imagine it might depend on how they answered the question about whether they were exempt, or whether their other behaviour cast doubt on the honesty of their answers.
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,029
I wouldn't go that far, as I think some did take the proverbial - which is why the legislation left the door ajar to exemption claims being challenged. I also believe that staff are entitled to do the jobs they are asked to do without fear.
Quite. I know only that no-one is exempt from catching covid and neither are they exempt from passing it on. Exemption from wearing a mask in the U.K. is entirely a matter for the person claiming it, with no 'proof' required because, simply, there can be no 'proof' because there is no definition! It's really no different from someone declaring 'I am a woman' or even 'I am black' when it might just appear to a casual observer that was not the case.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,668
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
From the short section I heard, the frustration was based on a mixture of a thankless job, working in an environment where too many colleagues had died, and finding 20% of passengers were "exempt" when the exemption conditions are estimated at covering about 10% of the population. I also got no sense of looking for an argument in what I heard.
Its a thankless job because they were / are enforcing a rule that few particularly want, and that has no proven effectiveness.

For clarity, they didn't question exemptions and were quite explicit that if an exemption was claimed, they accepted it. I also agree with you that the intent of the legislation was that claimed exemptions would be accepted at face value. My observation to @james60059 was that there was and is a difference between legislation and practice, a difference that is worth being aware of.
Clearly they were not accepting it, just following the rules that said they were not allowed to challenge people.

I wouldn't go that far, as I think some did take the proverbial - which is why the legislation left the door ajar to exemption claims being challenged. I also believe that staff are entitled to do the jobs they are asked to do without fear.
A fear that was driven by a government messaging that implied that the very act of breathing close to someone else would kill them. This messaging was a sloppy & irresponsible method of forcing people through guilt to obey whatever rules they dreamt up at the time.

Quite. I know only that no-one is exempt from catching covid and neither are they exempt from passing it on. Exemption from wearing a mask in the U.K. is entirely a matter for the person claiming it, with no 'proof' required because, simply, there can be no 'proof' because there is no definition! It's really no different from someone declaring 'I am a woman' or even 'I am black' when it might just appear to a casual observer that was not the case.
And as above, there is no tangible proof that masks used in public settings without rigorous medical discipline have any effect on transmission levels.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,295
A fear that was driven by a government messaging that implied that the very act of breathing close to someone else would kill them. This messaging was a sloppy & irresponsible method of forcing people through guilt to obey whatever rules they dreamt up at the time.
No, the fear I refer to is of people attacking staff doing their job enforcing their employers’ policy. Whether it’s masks, tickets, smoking, feet on seats, or whatever else.

Regardless of opinion of masks, I found a post by one railwayman suggesting that his colleagues deserve what they get if they take one action he disapproves of deeply unpleasant.
And as above, there is no tangible proof that masks used in public settings without rigorous medical discipline have any effect on transmission levels.
Not really the thread for this, but the ONS put out a paper (entirely retrospective based on Covid patients surveyed between 29 August - 11 September ) that found based on those patients that there is a 50% increased probability that those routinely not wearing masks in crowded locations would suffer Covid.

It begs a load of questions, and I’m far from regarding it as proof, but struck me as an interesting and unexpected finding.
 

VauxhallandI

Established Member
Joined
26 Dec 2012
Messages
2,743
Location
Cheshunt
No, the fear I refer to is of people attacking staff doing their job enforcing their employers’ policy. Whether it’s masks, tickets, smoking, feet on seats, or whatever else.

Regardless of opinion of masks, I found a post by one railwayman suggesting that his colleagues deserve what they get if they take one action he disapproves of deeply unpleasant.

Not really the thread for this, but the ONS put out a paper (entirely retrospective based on Covid patients surveyed between 29 August - 11 September ) that found based on those patients that there is a 50% increased probability that those routinely not wearing masks in crowded locations would suffer Covid.

It begs a load of questions, and I’m far from regarding it as proof, but struck me as an interesting and unexpected finding.
Do you think it was their working conditions is what killed them? Do you think it was the exemptions that killed them?

Do you think it was directly following and confronting exempt people that killed them?
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,295
Do you think it was their working conditions is what killed them? Do you think it was the exemptions that killed them?

Do you think it was directly following and confronting exempt people that killed them?
I haven't a clue what killed the drivers, and need to listen to the programme to learn more - I only caught a few minutes, which are what I shared earlier about the TfL enforcement team. But I am sure - and pleased - that we haven't seen a noticeable increase in assaults on public transport workers, and disappointed that one of their colleagues might actually wish for it.

As for the ONS data that's the subject of what you quoted, I don't know what to make of it. It's counter-intuitive on a number of levels, but the nature of the way it's gathered makes it fairly proof against observational bias.
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,213
Location
London
But I am sure - and pleased - that we haven't seen a noticeable increase in assaults on public transport workers, and disappointed that one of their colleagues might actually wish for it.

To be fair, I said nothing of the sort. I certainly don’t condone assault on staff members. But I maintain that, if you go around making up rules and using your job to embark on your own personal power trip, it’ll be your own fault when you eventually pick on the wrong person.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,429
Location
Yorkshire
In practice, yes. I caught a bit of "File on 4 - Occupational Hazard: The Bus Drivers who died from Covid" the other day. In the section I heard, they were following the TfL enforcement team as they enforced the condition of carriage, and their rules of engagement were to back off immediately if someone claimed an exemption, much to the frustration of the team.
This says a lot about the sort of people in the team; people like that would not be able to cut it and would not be appropriate people at my workplace.
However, your understanding is not strictly correct in England. The mask requirements in England were never an absolute prohibition on challenging a claimed exemption, while the legal basis on which to claim exemption under English law was removed on July 19th along with the legal requirement to wear a mask in public places.
Again I would say it is you who is misunderstanding. Yes there is no absolute prohibition in theory, but in practice there will be due to company policies, the risk of the company breaking the law, the risk of escalating the situation and creating conflict, and also defeating the entire purpose of some of the exemptions, such as those around anxiety and distress.

The idea that anyone with an exemption should be questioned is absolutely absurd.
I was just about to ask why the officers felt frustrated. As you rightly say, they are not there to make medical judgments, it sounds to me like they were looking for an argument.
I agree. And if they come across me, they'd be getting the full argument.
The role of a mask enforcement officer is a rather contradictory one. In that either they don’t really believe in their work (in which case they’re not going to be fussed either way), or they do believe in it (in which case they must believe they are putting themselves at risk by talking to unmasked passengers).
The whole thing is completely bonkers
Quite. I know only that no-one is exempt from catching covid and neither are they exempt from passing it on.
What a weird thing to say, as well as being utterly irrelevant.
Exemption from wearing a mask in the U.K. is entirely a matter for the person claiming it, with no 'proof' required because, simply, there can be no 'proof' because there is no definition!
I completely agree with you on this point.
It's really no different from someone declaring 'I am a woman' or even 'I am black' when it might just appear to a casual observer that was not the case.
I don't think this is an entirely sensible post and is certainly not a valid comparison (the first part of your post instantly reminds me of Emily Howard but let's move swiftly on....)
Its a thankless job because they were / are enforcing a rule that few particularly want, and that has no proven effectiveness.
True.
Clearly they were not accepting it, just following the rules that said they were not allowed to challenge people.
Indeed; if people dislike doing the job in accordance with instructions then they either have to lump it or look for a new job.
A fear that was driven by a government messaging that implied that the very act of breathing close to someone else would kill them. This messaging was a sloppy & irresponsible method of forcing people through guilt to obey whatever rules they dreamt up at the time.
Agreed.
And as above, there is no tangible proof that masks used in public settings without rigorous medical discipline have any effect on transmission levels.
Unless the masks are N99/FFP3 or similar, I agree there is absolutely no such evidence.
From the short section I heard, the frustration was based on a mixture of a thankless job, working in an environment where too many colleagues had died, and finding 20% of passengers were "exempt" when the exemption conditions are estimated at covering about 10% of the population. I also got no sense of looking for an argument in what I heard.
If they were not looking for an argument, they'd not be challenging anyone, given anyone can self-certify exemption, there is no such thing as an exemption certificate, and there is no requirement for any proof or evidence to be provided. Of course now no-one is legally required to wear a mask so it would be even more pointless.
For clarity, they didn't question exemptions and were quite explicit that if an exemption was claimed, they accepted it.
Good.
I also agree with you that the intent of the legislation was that claimed exemptions would be accepted at face value. My observation to @james60059 was that there was and is a difference between legislation and practice, a difference that is worth being aware of.
Yes I agree and people probably should have been more assertive on this front; I think people will be if there was ever a mandation in future.
I wouldn't go that far, as I think some did take the proverbial - which is why the legislation left the door ajar to exemption claims being challenged. I also believe that staff are entitled to do the jobs they are asked to do without fear.
Government and employers should never require people to do jobs that are not possible without fear. No-one should be challenged; it's as simple as that.
No, the fear I refer to is of people attacking staff doing their job enforcing their employers’ policy. Whether it’s masks, tickets, smoking, feet on seats, or whatever else.
There are enough other things for enforcement offers to enforce without them requiring passengers to wear flimsy, loose fitting masks for which anyone could have declared themselves exempt from wearing and now no-one is obliged to wear.

Regardless of opinion of masks, I found a post by one railwayman suggesting that his colleagues deserve what they get if they take one action he disapproves of deeply unpleasant.
I found nothing unpleasant about the post as it is matter of fact and reefers only to people who behave inappropriately. I would say they would deserve to be on the receiving end of disciplinary action at least.
Not really the thread for this, but the ONS put out a paper (entirely retrospective based on Covid patients surveyed between 29 August - 11 September ) that found based on those patients that there is a 50% increased probability that those routinely not wearing masks in crowded locations would suffer Covid.
It's absolute nonsense.

The following people are unlikely to wear face coverings and are also more likely to test positive, for independent reasons:
  • younger people, especially children
  • working people
  • people who are sociable
  • people who live their lives as humans and not as hermits.
  • unvaccinated people
The people who are more likely to wear face coverings are also less likely to test positive, but not because they are wearing flimsy ineffective masks. Examples include elderly people who interact with fewer people.
It begs a load of questions, and I’m far from regarding it as proof, but struck me as an interesting and unexpected finding.
It is an entirely expected set of circumstances that naturally go together because the majority of people are not wearing masks and are also not reducing their interactions.

I could say people who attend night clubs are less likely to die from Covid than people who attend Bingo sessions, for example!
I haven't a clue what killed the drivers, and need to listen to the programme to learn more - I only caught a few minutes, which are what I shared earlier about the TfL enforcement team. But I am sure - and pleased - that we haven't seen a noticeable increase in assaults on public transport workers, and disappointed that one of their colleagues might actually wish for it.
The phrase "deserve everything they get" does not necessarily imply assault.

As for the ONS data that's the subject of what you quoted, I don't know what to make of it. It's counter-intuitive on a number of levels, but the nature of the way it's gathered makes it fairly proof against observational bias.
The sort of people who do polls and tick a box to say they wear face coverings are not the same as your ordinary everyday working people (as a rule; there will always be edge cases).

Also these polls always end up with much more people claiming to wear face coverings than actually wear face coverings; you should know that by now!
 

greyman42

Established Member
Joined
14 Aug 2017
Messages
4,894
No, the fear I refer to is of people attacking staff doing their job enforcing their employers’ policy.
No member of staff is going to get any problems from the employer for not challenging passengers without masks. The only ones doing the challenging are those that enjoy that sort of thing.
 

Phil R

Member
Joined
18 Jan 2020
Messages
65
Location
Guildford
No, the fear I refer to is of people attacking staff doing their job enforcing their employers’ policy. Whether it’s masks, tickets, smoking, feet on seats, or whatever else.

Regardless of opinion of masks, I found a post by one railwayman suggesting that his colleagues deserve what they get if they take one action he disapproves of deeply unpleasant.

Not really the thread for this, but the ONS put out a paper (entirely retrospective based on Covid patients surveyed between 29 August - 11 September ) that found based on those patients that there is a 50% increased probability that those routinely not wearing masks in crowded locations would suffer Covid.

It begs a load of questions, and I’m far from regarding it as proof, but struck me as an interesting and unexpected finding.
I had a look at that paper and it was interesting, but my immediate reaction was, does it allow for the frequency of exposure? Simplistically I'd imagine mask wearers would be more timid and therefore wouldn't risk going out so often, so of course those who are out more would be more exposed. Also notable that going mask free is little different from being at home with junior school age kids, if I've read it right.
I think it's the same report that Prof Carl Heneghan and Julia Hartley-Brewer are discussing here (the intro is chopped), and they seem to reach much the same conclusion that the report is missing the quantum factor.
Apols for off-topic drift.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
To be fair, I said nothing of the sort. I certainly don’t condone assault on staff members. But I maintain that, if you go around making up rules and using your job to embark on your own personal power trip, it’ll be your own fault when you eventually pick on the wrong person.

100%.

Earlier in the year I came across a member of station staff who was actively going round challenging people, right down to “can you lift your mask up a bit higher on your face please sir”. He was complaining that his station had experienced a lot of trouble, and that it was all a total nightmare.

Why should one have sympathy for someone taking it upon themselves to act in a way they weren’t required nor expected to do?
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,295
To be fair, I said nothing of the sort. I certainly don’t condone assault on staff members. But I maintain that, if you go around making up rules and using your job to embark on your own personal power trip, it’ll be your own fault when you eventually pick on the wrong person.
Thank you for the clarification.
Again I would say it is you who is misunderstanding. Yes there is no absolute prohibition in theory, but in practice there will be due to company policies, the risk of the company breaking the law, the risk of escalating the situation and creating conflict, and also defeating the entire purpose of some of the exemptions, such as those around anxiety and distress.
And I have always been clear on this point that I have been talking about law, not individual company policy.
Government and employers should never require people to do jobs that are not possible without fear. No-one should be challenged; it's as simple as that.
I'm sure the police and armed forces would be interested in that theory about fear.
I found nothing unpleasant about the post as it is matter of fact and reefers only to people who behave inappropriately. I would say they would deserve to be on the receiving end of disciplinary action at least.
We will need to agree to disagree; I have accepted the clarification offered.
It's absolute nonsense.

The following people are unlikely to wear face coverings and are also more likely to test positive, for independent reasons:
  • younger people, especially children
  • working people
  • people who are sociable
  • people who live their lives as humans and not as hermits.
  • unvaccinated people
The people who are more likely to wear face coverings are also less likely to test positive, but not because they are wearing flimsy ineffective masks. Examples include elderly people who interact with fewer people.

It is an entirely expected set of circumstances that naturally go together because the majority of people are not wearing masks and are also not reducing their interactions.
Possibly - the research doesn't go far enough into the question to answer the question of "why" one way or the other.
The phrase "deserve everything they get" does not necessarily imply assault.
Nor does it even remotely exclude it.
The sort of people who do polls and tick a box to say they wear face coverings are not the same as your ordinary everyday working people (as a rule; there will always be edge cases).

Also these polls always end up with much more people claiming to wear face coverings than actually wear face coverings; you should know that by now!
That is a misreading of what the survey is, although I accept that response bias could be a factor.
I had a look at that paper and it was interesting, but my immediate reaction was, does it allow for the frequency of exposure? Simplistically I'd imagine mask wearers would be more timid and therefore wouldn't risk going out so often, so of course those who are out more would be more exposed. Also notable that going mask free is little different from being at home with junior school age kids, if I've read it right.
I think it's the same report that Prof Carl Heneghan and Julia Hartley-Brewer are discussing here (the intro is chopped), and they seem to reach much the same conclusion that the report is missing the quantum factor.
Apols for off-topic drift.
I think the report begs a lot of questions, and any conclusions drawn from it need to be considered carefully. However - and I say this having not watched the video - I regard an interview between JHB and Heneghan as having about as much independence as a prosecution barrister asking preliminary questions of their star witness.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,429
Location
Yorkshire
Thank you for the clarification.

And I have always been clear on this point that I have been talking about law, not individual company policy.
As far as the law is concerned, effectively everyone was exempted from wearing one by law from 19th July.

I'm sure the police and armed forces would be interested in that theory about fear.
Given recent events, the police have a lot to learn in this area; people who act lawfully should not be made to feel like they are criminals.

We will need to agree to disagree; I have accepted the clarification offered.
Good.

Possibly - the research doesn't go far enough into the question to answer the question of "why" one way or the other.

Nor does it even remotely exclude it.

That is a misreading of what the survey is, although I accept that response bias could be a factor.
The video excerpt makes it very clear that response bias is a major factor. It very much sounds like the sort of people who engaged in this survey are not your average working person.

I think the report begs a lot of questions, and any conclusions drawn from it need to be considered carefully. However - and I say this having not watched the video - I regard an interview between JHB and Heneghan as having about as much independence as a prosecution barrister asking preliminary questions of their star witness.
I disagree.

Fundamentally people like Henegan have been proven right on the main issues, even if they got some things a bit wrong; it is the other side (the zero-Covid / pro-restriction hysterical brigade) that have been proven consistently wrong and to lack any semblance of independence or rationality. People like Eric Ding, Deepti Gurdasani, Chris Pagel, Susan Michie and Trish Greenhalgh are the guilty culprits who 'have about as much independence as a prosecution barrister asking preliminary questions of their star witness'.

Of course, you and I have completely different views on this, but as time goes on, and people realise the virus is here to stay, the people you disagree with are increasingly becoming vindicated.
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,029
I don't think this is an entirely sensible post and is certainly not a valid comparison (the first part of your post instantly reminds me of Emily Howard

Also these polls always end up with much more people claiming to wear face coverings than actually wear face coverings; you should know that by now!
Who is/was Emily Howard? Maybe I don't stay in enough.

I know no such thing. Face coverings in West Cornwall at least in shops are still near the pre-19 July norm, even though I'm not amongst those wearing them generally speaking. I'm including those who wear the mask incorrectly, as their intention is presumably clear, and those in visors, who are usually shop staff. I'm not defending them but, more importantly, neither am I attacking them. I must say your 'interest' in this subject seems obsessive to an extreme.
 

VauxhallandI

Established Member
Joined
26 Dec 2012
Messages
2,743
Location
Cheshunt
Who is/was Emily Howard? Maybe I don't stay in enough.

I know no such thing. Face coverings in West Cornwall at least in shops are still near the pre-19 July norm, even though I'm not amongst those wearing them generally speaking. I'm including those who wear the mask incorrectly, as their intention is presumably clear, and those in visors, who are usually shop staff. I'm not defending them but, more importantly, neither am I attacking them. I must say your 'interest' in this subject seems obsessive to an extreme.
There are plenty more of us obsessive people, I like to call us normal.
 

southern442

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2013
Messages
2,186
Location
Surrey
Just get a green sunflower lanyard...
Completely and utterly away from the debate about masks, as someone with a mental disability, Please please please do not tell people to 'just' do this. The purpose of these lanyards is NOT for mask exemption, it is to indicate that you have a hidden disability to staff, colleagues or others, and that you may need additional help as a result. I have seen 'just get a lanyard' as a suggestion over and over online, and all it does is make people think lanyard = no mask rather than lanyard = disability, and thus people won't always think that this person might need help. I have known of people who have had panic attacks or similar being totally ignored by staff because they don't see the lanyard as 'keep an eye out for this person', they just see it as 'they don't need to wear a mask'.

If someone was annoyed about never getting a parking space, you wouldn't say to them 'just get a blue badge'.
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,213
Location
London
100%.

Earlier in the year I came across a member of station staff who was actively going round challenging people, right down to “can you lift your mask up a bit higher on your face please sir”. He was complaining that his station had experienced a lot of trouble, and that it was all a total nightmare.

Why should one have sympathy for someone taking it upon themselves to act in a way they weren’t required nor expected to do?

It’s funny how trouble always seems to find certain colleagues. It’s no coincidence that it’s usually the same people who end up getting assaulted.

Completely and utterly away from the debate about masks, as someone with a mental disability, Please please please do not tell people to 'just' do this. The purpose of these lanyards is NOT for mask exemption, it is to indicate that you have a hidden disability to staff, colleagues or others, and that you may need additional help as a result. I have seen 'just get a lanyard' as a suggestion over and over online, and all it does is make people think lanyard = no mask rather than lanyard = disability, and thus people won't always think that this person might need help. I have known of people who have had panic attacks or similar being totally ignored by staff because they don't see the lanyard as 'keep an eye out for this person', they just see it as 'they don't need to wear a mask'.

If someone was annoyed about never getting a parking space, you wouldn't say to them 'just get a blue badge'.

Absolutely. No need for a lanyard, no need to carry an exemption certificate. Wouldn’t it be nice if people could just mind their own business!?
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,382
Location
Ely
The purpose of these lanyards is NOT for mask exemption, it is to indicate that you have a hidden disability to staff, colleagues or others, and that you may need additional help as a result.

I think this is a rather good point, and reflects why I made my own lanyard rather than use a 'sunflower' one. (Still in my pocket, but its been rather a while since it has seen the light of day...)

As someone who doesn't have a disability that may require additional help or understanding - I was simply exempt under the regulations from mask wearing - I didn't feel I would be comfortable with a 'sunflower'.
 

matt_world2004

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2014
Messages
4,504
I think this is a rather good point, and reflects why I made my own lanyard rather than use a 'sunflower' one. (Still in my pocket, but its been rather a while since it has seen the light of day...)

As someone who doesn't have a disability that may require additional help or understanding - I was simply exempt under the regulations from mask wearing - I didn't feel I would be comfortable with a 'sunflower'.
I think there is a blue badge you can get from tfl for free if it makes you comfortable.it says something like "I am exempt from a face covering"
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,295
As far as the law is concerned, effectively everyone was exempted from wearing one by law from 19th July.


Given recent events, the police have a lot to learn in this area; people who act lawfully should not be made to feel like they are criminals.


Good.


The video excerpt makes it very clear that response bias is a major factor. It very much sounds like the sort of people who engaged in this survey are not your average working person.


I disagree.

Fundamentally people like Henegan have been proven right on the main issues, even if they got some things a bit wrong; it is the other side (the zero-Covid / pro-restriction hysterical brigade) that have been proven consistently wrong and to lack any semblance of independence or rationality. People like Eric Ding, Deepti Gurdasani, Chris Pagel, Susan Michie and Trish Greenhalgh are the guilty culprits who 'have about as much independence as a prosecution barrister asking preliminary questions of their star witness'.

Of course, you and I have completely different views on this, but as time goes on, and people realise the virus is here to stay, the people you disagree with are increasingly becoming vindicated.
Many points in there where I will agree to disagree. There are two, however, on which I will dig in. First is that of what the change of law in England on July 19th meant. It absolutely did not "exempt" anyone from wearing masks; it ceased to compel us to wear them as a matter of law. There is a fundamental difference between those two, and I am surprised that someone as capable as you at interpreting fine distinctions can't see it. You can assert as often as you like in support of what you wish that change meant, but it will not mean what you claim it meant. That also means, again as a matter of law, that the exemptions on which people relied before 19th July no longer exist as matters of law. The results are that decisions by premises owners to require - or not - masks are matters for them to deal with as regards who they permit in their premises. The law's involvement has receded to the extent that it would only be involved in arbitrating disputes that may arise as a result. For clarity, however, I agree with you about the practical implementation, and how the concept of "exemption" is firmly embedded in the public psyche in this area.

The second is on Heneghan. I make no defence of those you name; it is clear that their combination of hysteria and politically led recommendations are inapplicable with vaccines available, at the very least. However, that does not mean that I have any time for JHB or her tame "expert". JHB's "journalism" is a matter of sad record, while Heneghan demonstrated his unfitness for a job involving the word "evidence" with his deliberate misrepresentation of the Danmask study, and what it did or did not measure. In that act, he demonstrated that he was equally as biased, and determined to advance an agenda regardless of evidence, as those you name, or many of his fellow GBD originators.
 

Cdd89

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2017
Messages
1,451
That also means, again as a matter of law, that the exemptions on which people relied before 19th July no longer exist as matters of law. The results are that decisions by premises owners to require - or not - masks are matters for them to deal with as regards who they permit in their premises
I don’t agree that the removal of exemptions reduced rights in the way you suggest, because those exemptions were only ever associated with the legislation. You imply that government legislation has been replaced by business decisions, but businesses had always been free to go further (if they stayed on the right side of the DDA). In other words, we haven’t swapped one for the other, as you suggest; we’ve removed one layer entirely.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top