UK face coverings discussion

[BJames]

It is unlikely to be legal to refuse someone from a ferry crossing for this reason, as there is a duty to make reasonable adjustments. I don’t know what the size of the ferry is, but it would seem reasonable to me that a person with a bona fide exemption from wearing a face covering could be accommodated but if necessary asked to remain in a separate section of the ferry.

It's more a boat than a ferry (i.e. it's quite small to be honest). There is an alternative route round on the train Exmouth to Starcross and vice versa which takes around 45 minutes (but this is more than double the amount of time the ferry crossing takes). The ferry only runs until end of October anyway so this is the alternative route that everyone has to use during the winter months. I'm not defending them, I really don't agree with their policy and it may not be legal but this is what I'm sure they'd argue.

Edit: interestingly I've just found their Facebook and they're saying everyone from age 5+ must wear a mask or no entry. I thought the age threshold was 11?

 

[35B]

Let's remember that this whole "confidence" thing (which seems to now be regarded by many as far more important than demonstrable risks) only came about because of relentless government scaremongering, supported by the media. If the restrictions were removed, it might well have a short term impact on businesses but people would soon get over it and get back out again - I think the situation with pubs and restaurants in August very much demonstrates that: a short-term incentive, and people were straight back out in sizeable numbers.

No, I remember well what it was like in central London before lockdown. People were making their own choices, trains were running very lightly loaded. I had a table of 4 to myself on a train that's normally standing room only.

It's more a boat than a ferry (i.e. it's quite small to be honest). There is an alternative route round on the train Exmouth to Starcross and vice versa which takes around 45 minutes (but this is more than double the amount of time the ferry crossing takes). The ferry only runs until end of October anyway so this is the alternative route that everyone has to use during the winter months. I'm not defending them, I really don't agree with their policy and it may not be legal but this is what I'm sure they'd argue.

Edit: interestingly I've just found their Facebook and they're saying everyone from age 5+ must wear a mask or no entry. I thought the age threshold was 11?

It is their right to set their own policies in excess of the legal requirement. Having seen their position online, they have my sympathy in taking that approach.

 

[DB]

No, I remember well what it was like in central London before lockdown. People were making their own choices, trains were running very lightly loaded. I had a table of 4 to myself on a train that's normally standing room only.


It is their right to set their own policies in excess of the legal requirement. Having seen their position online, they have my sympathy in taking that approach.

About a week or a fortnight before lockdown was when all this started, and that was a result of the scaremongering - it was entirely normal up until then. As the half-price troughing proved, it's not very difficult to get people back out again. Yes, some of the more paranoid would take longer, but most would do so in due course.

So you have 'sympathy' for those pursuining a policy of humilating and excluding people unable to wear a mask (many of whom will suffer from some disability). I think that says a lot about you, to be honest.

 

[greyman42]

I think it is unclear at present; there is a chance they reduce viral load, and this will become visible in how the hospital admission and death figures follow the main curve over the next few weeks.

If hospital admissions and deaths remain low then it will be down to the magnificent mask. If there is a spike it will be down to pubs and people not wearing masks.

 

[island]

It's more a boat than a ferry (i.e. it's quite small to be honest). There is an alternative route round on the train Exmouth to Starcross and vice versa which takes around 45 minutes (but this is more than double the amount of time the ferry crossing takes). The ferry only runs until end of October anyway so this is the alternative route that everyone has to use during the winter months. I'm not defending them, I really don't agree with their policy and it may not be legal but this is what I'm sure they'd argue.

Edit: interestingly I've just found their Facebook and they're saying everyone from age 5+ must wear a mask or no entry. I thought the age threshold was 11?

If the ferry is so small as to make it impossible to distance an Exempt person from other passengers, then their policy might possibly be protected by section 15 (2) of the Equality Act 2010 (proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, the legitimate aim being maintaining public health). I wouldn’t fancy my chances of defending it in court, but perhaps they have had different advice.

As to requiring face coverings of 5-10 year olds, they are free to set such a policy.

 

[bramling]

No, I remember well what it was like in central London before lockdown. People were making their own choices, trains were running very lightly loaded. I had a table of 4 to myself on a train that's normally standing room only.


It is their right to set their own policies in excess of the legal requirement. Having seen their position online, they have my sympathy in taking that approach.

The difference back in March was there was pretty much zero measures in place - for example one couldn’t get hold of hand gel for love nor money.

I can understand the point about businesses being free to impose their own requirements, however this shouldn’t include something which is a potential medical exemption. Businesses *aren’t* completely free to impose whatever they like - try having a “no blacks” policy, for example, and see what happens. But a discriminatory policy seems to be acceptable for Covid, although it doesn’t seem to have been tested (yet).

Most business of course don’t like to impose over-bearing entry requirements, as they kind of want business.

 

[talldave]

Wouldn't surprise me if they all trot out the 'well the government can pay' line as if money grows on trees. This seems to be another issue escaping a number of people in this country.

No doubt the people who think the government harvests money off trees are the same people who think 37 people dying "with" Covid is shocking because they aren't aware that nearly 1700 stop breathing every day.

On face masks - two of my highlights: One spotted today, a woman with a mask so vast that it was almost covering her eyes! The other, a few weeks ago, was a guy who had pulled off a few sheets of toilet roll, placed it over his mouth/nose and tucked the ends behind his ears - I was truly impressed, although it was impossible to know whether he thought that it was in any way effective or whether it was sticking two fingers up at the requirement!

 

[35B]

If the ferry is so small as to make it impossible to distance an Exempt person from other passengers, then their policy might possibly be protected by section 15 (2) of the Equality Act 2010 (proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, the legitimate aim being maintaining public health). I wouldn’t fancy my chances of defending it in court, but perhaps they have had different advice.

As to requiring face coverings of 5-10 year olds, they are free to set such a policy.

As I recall, the legitimate aim would include protecting staff and those resident with staff (including someone shielding). A situation in which excessive focus on the law rather risks missing important points.

 

[trebor79]

The other, a few weeks ago, was a guy who had pulled off a few sheets of toilet roll, placed it over his mouth/nose and tucked the ends behind his ears - I was truly impressed, although it was impossible to know whether he thought that it was in any way effective or whether it was sticking two fingers up at the requirement!

Oh I might try that!
I have considered using a paper bag with eye holes cut into it. It would be less uncomfortable, avoid my dermatitis issue, fully comply with the stupid law and be no less effective than a stupid piece of damp cloth.

 

[talldave]

Oh I might try that!
I have considered using a paper bag with eye holes cut into it. It would be less uncomfortable, avoid my dermatitis issue, fully comply with the stupid law and be no less effective than a stupid piece of damp cloth.

I should add that it looked otherwise unused!!!

 

[STINT47]

If the ferry is so small as to make it impossible to distance an Exempt person from other passengers, then their policy might possibly be protected by section 15 (2) of the Equality Act 2010 (proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, the legitimate aim being maintaining public health). I wouldn’t fancy my chances of defending it in court, but perhaps they have had different advice.

As to requiring face coverings of 5-10 year olds, they are free to set such a policy.

A business can set their own rules but cannot discriminate against someone due to them having a disability under the equalities act.

If the ferry company said we don't accept passengers with mobility problems they're would be a big fuss and probably a legal challenge.

The ferry company could argue that it's not safe to run without masks (or take people with mobility issues for that matter) and therefore they can turn disabled people away. However for this to work they need to show that they have considered all reasonable alternatives/attempted to make reasonable adjustments.

From reading online it appears that some businesses are just saying my company my rules, which is unlikely to work if legally challenged.

If face masks continue into next summer when the ferry starts back up perhaps a legal test case would be in order.

 

[DB]

As I recall, the legitimate aim would include protecting staff and those resident with staff (including someone shielding). A situation in which excessive focus on the law rather risks missing important points.

Given that nobody has proven that masks actually make a difference, plus the low likelihood of the maskless person being infected anyway, is likely to render that a weak defence.

And shielding no longer officially exists so is unlikely to be seen as a valid defence.

 

[35B]

Given that nobody has proven that masks actually make a difference, plus the low likelihood of the maskless person being infected anyway, is likely to render that a weak defence.

And shielding no longer officially exists so is unlikely to be seen as a valid defence.

The original story goes back to July, but their logic remains (and I've just checked their website) - they can't manage 2m separation, so have chosen 1m with masks. As has previously been pointed out, a challenge on the basis of masks being ineffective would probably founder on a mixture of public policy and government advice grounds. As the website is silent on disabled access, the ferry goes from tidal moorings, and is somewhat compact, I suspect the operator would be able to mount a defence of proportionality.

All of which reinforces my previous post - that applying black and white tests to a small operation like this is almost certainly misleading, and that they need to be understood in context.

 

[DB]

The original story goes back to July, but their logic remains (and I've just checked their website) - they can't manage 2m separation, so have chosen 1m with masks. As has previously been pointed out, a challenge on the basis of masks being ineffective would probably founder on a mixture of public policy and government advice grounds. As the website is silent on disabled access, the ferry goes from tidal moorings, and is somewhat compact, I suspect the operator would be able to mount a defence of proportionality.

All of which reinforces my previous post - that applying black and white tests to a small operation like this is almost certainly misleading, and that they need to be understood in context.

You are conflating two issues here. While it may be acceptable not to provide access for people with certain physical disabilities (e.g. wheelchair users) using the defence of proportionality, that's not the same as actively disciminating against people who are perfectly capable of using the ferry, but are being banned from doing so simply because they cannot wear a mask. And there are plenty of other situations where distancing of less than 2m can happen (trains being an obvious one), where some people will not be able to wear masks.

Context is certainly important with some things - e.g. it may not be reasonable to provide wheelchair access in all cases if it would be vastly expensive - but it really doesn't apply to arbitrary bans from using a service simply because someone cannot comply with a restriction for which there is no proven benefit, and a low likelihood that they are acutally infectious anyway.

 

[Bikeman78]

The British Medical Association has called for face coverings to be made mandatory in offices and indoor workplaces.

I have tolerated and complied face covering nonsense thus far, but that step would be a breaking point for me. Thankfully working from home is on the way back into fashion.

They can Foxtrot Oscar. If that happens my sickness record will go through the roof.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the ferry is so small as to make it impossible to distance an Exempt person from other passengers

I suspect that's what it is. A person doesn't pose no threat by virtue of being exempt, so really it's necessary to treat them a bit differently anyway - maintaining 2m distance between them and anyone not in their household is probably the way. This isn't dissimilar to some very small shops who are saying they will serve an exempt person outside, or will only serve them when they can empty the shop of other customers.

People may shout discrimination about this, but it's probably comparable to the fact that I doubt many places with stepped access only (for reasons of it being a listed building, for example) will be accepting of a wheelchair user being carried in by his mates, for H&S reasons e.g. in case of fire. (Though I did once do this with a friend's disabled kid - two of us carried him up the stairs in his chair - it was quite difficult! I think he was aged about 10-12 or thereabouts at the time so not small. I think the cafe owner was so taken aback by this happening that she didn't know what to say so just ignored it and took our order).

 

[DB]

They can Foxtrot Oscar. If that happens my sickness record will go through the roof.

It is quite worrying that bodies such as that are advocating these measures though - they of all people should be aware that the evidence for masks being of benefit is very weak, and they will also be aware of the risks of using them improperly (which most people outside of medical settings will be doing).

I suspect that's what it is. A person doesn't pose no threat by virtue of being exempt, so really it's necessary to treat them a bit differently anyway - maintaining 2m distance between them and anyone not in their household is probably the way. This isn't dissimilar to some very small shops who are saying they will serve an exempt person outside, or will only serve them when they can empty the shop of other customers.

People may shout discrimination about this, but it's probably comparable to the fact that I doubt many places with stepped access only (for reasons of it being a listed building, for example) will be accepting of a wheelchair user being carried in by his mates, for H&S reasons e.g. in case of fire. (Though I did once do this with a friend's disabled kid - two of us carried him up the stairs in his chair - it was quite difficult!).

Given that this government sees fines as the answer to everything, there should also be fines for businesses who treat exempt people like they are toxic scum.

 

[Richard Scott]

No, I remember well what it was like in central London before lockdown. People were making their own choices, trains were running very lightly loaded. I had a table of 4 to myself on a train that's normally standing room only.

Need to remember almost nothing was known about this virus then and expect a number of people were cautious, I know I was more cautious than normal. However we now have a greater understanding and many people are no longer as cautious.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Given that this government sees fines as the answer to everything, there should also be fines for businesses who treat exempt people like they are toxic scum.

That's a bit heavy, but it is in the guidelines that distancing is 2m unless there is mitigation, and so if someone can't wear a mask and no other mitigation is possible, then it's 2m. And that's now law, as the guidelines have themselves been made legally enforceable. So if a business can't serve an exempt person at 2m distancing from everyone else on the premises, mostly this would be because the premises (or boat) were too small, they are not legally allowed to serve them inside.

 

[DB]

they are not legally allowed to serve them inside.

Are you sure of that? My reading of it is that this doesn't apply where the person has an exemption. It would amount do a de-facto ban of exempt people from certain types of premises.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are you sure of that? My reading of it is that this doesn't apply where the person has an exemption.

The law on mask wearing doesn't apply if you are exempt, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that that exempts them from distancing (which is now a legal requirement for businesses to enforce, for the first time) - have you?

 

[birchesgreen]

Unfortunately i suspect mandatory face covering in all indoor workplaces will be the next step, lets face it if shop workers and transport workers are wearing masks its a bit incongruous for office workers to not be.

It'll go down like a ton of bricks i am sure.

 

[DB]

The law on mask wearing doesn't apply if you are exempt, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that that exempts them from distancing (which is now a legal requirement for businesses to enforce, for the first time) - have you?

No, I haven't seen a specific exemption - but my reading of it would be that the exempt person should be treated the same as a non-exempt one and therefore measures should be the same. This could be a grey area though - which wouldn't be unexpected given how badly all this legislation has been drafted.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unfortunately i suspect mandatory face covering in all indoor workplaces will be the next step, lets face it if shop workers and transport workers are wearing masks its a bit incongruous for office workers to not be.

It'll go down like a ton of bricks i am sure.

That's an interesting one. Businesses should have arranged desks with partitions or 2m distancing, so that shouldn't be necessary. That isn't true of shops, where in practice staying 2m apart just doesn't and can't really happen.

 

[birchesgreen]

That's an interesting one. Businesses should have arranged desks with partitions or 2m distancing, so that shouldn't be necessary. That isn't true of shops, where in practice staying 2m apart just doesn't and can't really happen.

I know, the reason i am still WFH unlike some of my colleagues is because everyone can't fit with the desks distanced. However there is a crushing inevitability about most of this.

 

[DB]

That's an interesting one. Businesses should have arranged desks with partitions or 2m distancing, so that shouldn't be necessary. That isn't true of shops, where in practice staying 2m apart just doesn't and can't really happen.

We've done the whole distancing thing with the desks, with assessments done for all our offices - it means that they have a much lower capacity than usual of course, so many still working from home.

 

[bramling]

That's a bit heavy, but it is in the guidelines that distancing is 2m unless there is mitigation, and so if someone can't wear a mask and no other mitigation is possible, then it's 2m. And that's now law, as the guidelines have themselves been made legally enforceable. So if a business can't serve an exempt person at 2m distancing from everyone else on the premises, mostly this would be because the premises (or boat) were too small, they are not legally allowed to serve them inside.

That doesn’t apply on public transport, unless I’ve missed something.

However surely if the premises are that small then it would be possible to restrict access to the shop whilst the exempt person is present (here in Wales many small shops seem to have a “one person at a time” policy anyway), and if t be shop is large then there’s no issue.

I can get that there might be an issue on a small boat in that mitigations might be difficult. However Bridgnorth Cliff Railway could easily provide an empty car for the journey, but are choosing not to.

 

[35B]

No, I haven't seen a specific exemption - but my reading of it would be that the exempt person should be treated the same as a non-exempt one and therefore measures should be the same. This could be a grey area though - which wouldn't be unexpected given how badly all this legislation has been drafted.

I don't get your logic there. Taking, for the moment, the premise that the regulations are justified for public health reasons, then I don't understand the logic of relaxing other obligations on a business (like distancing) for an exempt person. Given other legal duties under both general legislation (e.g. Health & Safety at Work Act) and Covid regulations, I'd have thought it more important for the protection of the exempt person and those they deal with to maintain the 2m distancing. Especially if the exemption is for something like asthma where their personal risk if they catch Covid is greater.

I fully accept that, if the premise of the regulations is wrong, then the argument falls.

 

[Ascotroyal]

A pub near me says that customers who are exempt from wearing a facemask will have to show a letter from their doctor. An exemption card will not be accepted because anybody can get one. Safe to say I won't be drinking in there.

 

[DB]

A pub near me says that customers who are exempt from wearing a facemask will have to show a letter from their doctor. An exemption card will not be excepted because anybody can get one. Safe to say i wont be drinking in there.

And doctors are likely to refuse, because they have better things to eb doing. Businesses who behave like this deserve to go bust.