TfL rules regarding face coverings and travelling round the Kennington loop

[LowLevel]

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?

I had a tedious experience with a member of platform staff who was happily bobbing around wearing a sunflower lanyard and no mask for the duration.

During station dwell times she insisted on walking up to my train and banging on the windows, pointing at people and shouting through the (sealed) window that they should be wearing masks and then making exasperated comments to me on my way past to change ends about people not wearing masks and asking me if they were exempt, to which I replied I didn't care and perhaps she would like to concentrate on her station working. My irony meter nearly exploded.

 

[matt_world2004]

I had a tedious experience with a member of platform staff who was happily bobbing around wearing a sunflower lanyard and no mask for the duration.

During station dwell times she insisted on walking up to my train and banging on the windows, pointing at people and shouting through the (sealed) window that they should be wearing masks and then making exasperated comments to me on my way past to change ends about people not wearing masks and asking me if they were exempt, to which I replied I didn't care and perhaps she would like to concentrate on her station working. My irony meter nearly exploded.

I've noticed in upfront magazine several members of senior staff have taken their Masks off for publicity shots. This seems the height of hypocrisy

 

[43066]

Ok 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 You imply that government legislation has been replaced by business decisions, but businesses had always been free to go further (if they stayed on the right side of the DDA).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.

I agree with this 100%.

I had a tedious experience with a member of platform staff who was happily bobbing around wearing a sunflower lanyard and no mask for the duration.

During station dwell times she insisted on walking up to my train and banging on the windows, pointing at people and shouting through the (sealed) window that they should be wearing masks and then making exasperated comments to me on my way past to change ends about people not wearing masks and asking me if they were exempt, to which I replied I didn't care and perhaps she would like to concentrate on her station working. My irony meter nearly exploded.

This is exactly the kind of thing I was referring to. Sooner or later she is going to get sworn at, or worse. It’s amazing that people don’t seem able to appreciate how their own behaviour can directly provoke people.

 

[bramling]

I've noticed in upfront magazine several members of senior staff have taken their Masks off for publicity shots. This seems the height of hypocrisy

No more so than the scenes in the House of Commons where (on the government side at least) there was barely a mask to be seen. Says it all really.

 

[Kite159]

I was in Kent yesterday and noticed a small number of passengers on the platforms wearing masks, even though it was raining (so I would guess the mask would have gotten wet). Seemed a bit pointless to wear a wet cloth (or disposable mask) over the mouth. As those were the sort who would avoid hanging around the waiting shelters/under the footbridges out of the rain due to 'crowding'.

 

[jumble]

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.

It is not the business of anyone to cast doubt on peoples honesty in answering questions that do not need to be asked.
Fortunatly I live in London where no one cares except the Mayor and his merry band of enforcement officers who are counter productive
( If I were asked to wear a mask on a crowded rush hour train I might agree this has some marginal benefit but anyone who says I must wear one on a deserted open air platform is a fool who is treating me like an idiot child and deserves to be ignored in my view)

 

[35B]

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.

I think we are as one on this - my point here has always been that the exemptions were part and parcel of the legislation mandating masks. The specific right not to wear a mask in certain circumstances was therefore introduced under the mask legislation, and has evaporated with it.

The difference is therefore just as you describe, except that the idea of mask wearing being a condition of entry was utterly alien pre-Covid, whereas it is still found now. That means that while the layer of law has been removed, the role of business decisions (as you say, within the constraints of the Equalities Act) is now a significant factor.

 

[matt_world2004]

I think we are as one on this - my point here has always been that the exemptions were part and parcel of the legislation mandating masks. The specific right not to wear a mask in certain circumstances was therefore introduced under the mask legislation, and has evaporated with it.

The difference is therefore just as you describe, except that the idea of mask wearing being a condition of entry was utterly alien pre-Covid, whereas it is still found now. That means that while the layer of law has been removed, the role of business decisions (as you say, within the constraints of the Equalities Act) is now a significant factor.

Surely the mask exemptions law.didnt evaporate with the ending of compulsory mask wearing.if a business is still.insisting you wear masks and for medical or psychological reasons you can't then you are protected by the equality act.

Tfl also still publish a list of reasons on the website that exempt you from wearing masks

 

[MikeWM]

Surely the mask exemptions law.didnt evaporate with the ending of compulsory mask wearing.if a business is still.insisting you wear masks and for medical or psychological reasons you can't then you are protected by the equality act.

Tfl also still publish a list of reasons on the website that exempt you from wearing masks

I think there are some things that may 'fall through the cracks', unfortunately. For example someone who was physically or sexually abused by someone who covered their face while doing it, and as a result now find it very difficult or impossible to put something over their face again - they were explicitly exempted under the regulations (in England at least), but I don't believe that is covered by the 'protected characteristics' of the Equalities Act.

(Note TfL's list does allow for that, 'severe distress' is still mentioned in their exemptions list, assuming this is the current one).

 

[matt_world2004]

I think there are some things that may 'fall through the cracks', unfortunately. For example someone who was physically or sexually abused by someone who covered their face while doing it, and as a result now find it very difficult or impossible to put something over their face again - they were explicitly exempted under the regulations (in England at least), but I don't believe that is covered by the 'protected characteristics' of the Equalities Act.
.

This would fall under "anxiety" though its a psychological reason for why you can't wear a face covering.

 

[MikeWM]

This would fall under "anxiety" though its a psychological reason for why you can't wear a face covering.

I'm not convinced it would qualifiy under any of the 'protected characteristics' of the equalities act, however. Depends on whether it counts as a 'disability' - such people could operate perfectly normally in society without any accommodation or action on their part, until mask mandates came in.

 

[35B]

I think there are some things that may 'fall through the cracks', unfortunately. For example someone who was physically or sexually abused by someone who covered their face while doing it, and as a result now find it very difficult or impossible to put something over their face again - they were explicitly exempted under the regulations (in England at least), but I don't believe that is covered by the 'protected characteristics' of the Equalities Act.

(Note TfL's list does allow for that, 'severe distress' is still mentioned in their exemptions list, assuming this is the current one).

I agree - which is why I'm careful to distinguish between the point of law, and how places that are choosing to require masks are operating.

 

[MikeWM]

I agree - which is why I'm careful to distinguish between the point of law, and how places that are choosing to require masks are operating.

And it is unfortunate for such people who are in a less clear position than before, but until we get away once and for all from the idea of 'compulsory mask' areas, I'm not sure how it can be better dealt with.

However, given there are no longer any penalties in place for not wearing a mask when not legitimately 'exempt', it would be a brave/foolish business owner that would refuse someone service who indeed claimed they were exempt (with the addendum 'under the Equalities Act' if necessary) or indeed tried to ask for any proof of such - even if they strongly suspected that the person wasn't being entirely honest about it. So in practical terms I'm not sure it really matters all that much.

No more so than the scenes in the House of Commons where (on the government side at least) there was barely a mask to be seen. Says it all really.

It is somewhat interesting that in mid-September the 'advice' at the top of the government main page for Covid changed from 'Wear face coverings in crowded places and on public transport' to 'Wear a face covering in crowded and enclosed spaces where you come into contact with people you do not normally meet'.

The cynic in me wonders if that was directly in response to Rees-Mogg being pestered about this by the SNP every Thursday in the Commons! Not that I'm complaining...