UK face coverings discussion

[43066]

Had a ticket check yesterday where the announcement was “please have all tickets, railcards and face coverings ready for inspection”.

There was one person in my coach who was exempt (or at least they weren’t wearing one and claimed to be exempt). The guard checked their ticket, which was valid, then challenged them on the mask and asked them to produce a doctors letter. They were unable to and were visibly distressed. The guard went away and, I presume, phoned control, before coming back and, reluctantly, allowing the passenger in question to stay onboard.

I hope this is just a minority, but it’s clearly happening

A complaint should be going in there. Disgraceful behaviour.

 

[Ianno87]

Had a ticket check yesterday where the announcement was “please have all tickets, railcards and face coverings ready for inspection”.

There was one person in my coach who was exempt (or at least they weren’t wearing one and claimed to be exempt). The guard checked their ticket, which was valid, then challenged them on the mask and asked them to produce a doctors letter. They were unable to and were visibly distressed. The guard went away and, I presume, phoned control, before coming back and, reluctantly, allowing the passenger in question to stay onboard.

I hope this is just a minority, but it’s clearly happening

The correct question should be "are you able to wear a face covering at all, please?", followed by "No, I have a medical exemption", and that should be that.

 

[BJames]

The correct question should be "are you able to wear a face covering at all, please?", followed by "No, I have a medical exemption", and that should be that.

Spot on.

A complaint should be going in there. Disgraceful behaviour.

Agreed, this is disgusting. Enforcement is fine but the guard must accept the answer "I have an exemption" - there is no requirement by law for any person with an exemption to carry proof of this. I do assume and hope this is a tiny minority of guards behaving like this, but it's not good to hear.

 

[duncanp]

Had a ticket check yesterday where the announcement was “please have all tickets, railcards and face coverings ready for inspection”.

There was one person in my coach who was exempt (or at least they weren’t wearing one and claimed to be exempt). The guard checked their ticket, which was valid, then challenged them on the mask and asked them to produce a doctors letter. They were unable to and were visibly distressed. The guard went away and, I presume, phoned control, before coming back and, reluctantly, allowing the passenger in question to stay onboard.

I hope this is just a minority, but it’s clearly happening

I bet this guard doesn't go round intimidating people who aren't wearing masks on trains in the rougher parts of Glasgow late at night.

I am going on holiday to Edinburgh on Friday and will be using Scotrail services a number of times during my stay.

Are all the guards as zealous as that, or do most of them not bother enforcing the rules regarding masks?

What about at major stations such as Edinburgh Waverley and Glasgow (Central & Queen Street)?

If you entered these stations without a mask would you be stopped and questioned?

Certainly at Birmingham New Street they don't bother, and similarly at other stations I have visited recently. (Nottingham, Derby, London Euston and Shrewsbury)

 

[Huntergreed]

I bet this guard doesn't go round intimidating people who aren't wearing masks on trains in the rougher parts of Glasgow late at night.

I am going on holiday to Edinburgh on Friday and will be using Scotrail services a number of times during my stay.

Are all the guards as zealous as that, or do most of them not bother enforcing the rules regarding masks?

This was the only guard I encountered quite like this (in fact it's the only ticket check I encountered through using well in excess of 30 trains at the weekend)

What about at major stations such as Edinburgh Waverley and Glasgow (Central & Queen Street)?

If you entered these stations without a mask would you be stopped and questioned?

At central station there were people at the entrance enforcing the one way system, however I never (personally) saw them challenge anyone without a mask, so can't comment on that.

Certainly at Birmingham New Street they don't bother, and similarly at other stations I have visited recently. (Nottingham, Derby, London Euston and Shrewsbury)

That's handy to know for when I head to London next week! Am I right in saying TfL is far, far stricter than everyone else and you could be chucked out or fined £1,000 for a first time offense?

 

[43066]

That's handy to know for when I head to London next week! Am I right in saying TfL is far, far stricter than everyone else and you could be chucked out or fined £1,000 for a first time offense?

Nope. In two months of not wearing one, and using TfL stations and services most days, I’ve only been asked a couple of times.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Had a ticket check yesterday where the announcement was “please have all tickets, railcards and face coverings ready for inspection”.

There was one person in my coach who was exempt (or at least they weren’t wearing one and claimed to be exempt). The guard checked their ticket, which was valid, then challenged them on the mask and asked them to produce a doctors letter. They were unable to and were visibly distressed. The guard went away and, I presume, phoned control, before coming back and, reluctantly, allowing the passenger in question to stay onboard.

I hope this is just a minority, but it’s clearly happening

You should make a formal complaint to the TOC about that.

 

[BJames]

This was the only guard I encountered quite like this (in fact it's the only ticket check I encountered through using well in excess of 30 trains at the weekend)



At central station there were people at the entrance enforcing the one way system, however I never (personally) saw them challenge anyone without a mask, so can't comment on that.


That's handy to know for when I head to London next week! Am I right in saying TfL is far, far stricter than everyone else and you could be chucked out or fined £1,000 for a first time offense?

Even with TfL someone is only going to get fined if you start a massive argument about it if asked by staff or police, if you're clearly not exempt. Only police can issue fines anyway so the worst TfL staff can do is ask you to leave the station (they could call the police, but anyone with any sense would get a move on at that point). I haven't seen anyone spoken to about masks across the network. And you've not got guards on the actual services of course so don't worry too much about it.

 

[duncanp]

That's handy to know for when I head to London next week! Am I right in saying TfL is far, far stricter than everyone else and you could be chucked out or fined £1,000 for a first time offense?

I think Sadiq Khant (The Mayor of London, at least until the election next year) is far, far stricter than everyone else. He is a mask enthusiast and seems to be under the delusion that everyone in London shares his opinion.

Transport for London staff however are more pragmatic and don't want to put themselves into a situation of confrontation.

You are unlikely to be challenged by staff for not wearing a mask on entering a bus or tube station in London.

Most passengers on buses and trains will not bother to challenge you either.

There are always a few mask zealots, but generally they are few and far between.

 

[MikeWM]

This weekend I was asked (politely) about my lack of mask by a GA guard, but on saying 'I can't, sorry' (or something along those lines) he nodded and moved off. Which seems fair enough.

Had no issues going into shops either. I bought a new television in John Lewis, which I wouldn't have done if they'd pestered me about my bare-faced-ness, but happily it was un-remarked-upon, so they got a decent chunk of money out of me.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Aug 2020 ==

There was one person in my coach who was exempt (or at least they weren’t wearing one and claimed to be exempt). The guard checked their ticket, which was valid, then challenged them on the mask and asked them to produce a doctors letter. They were unable to and were visibly distressed. The guard went away and, I presume, phoned control, before coming back and, reluctantly, allowing the passenger in question to stay onboard.

Not good.

I wonder if it may be a good idea to keep the relevant part of the government website on your phone (or printed out), in particular the part that says:

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

Those who have an age, health or disability reason for not wearing a face covering should not be routinely asked to give any written evidence of this, this includes exemption cards. No person needs to seek advice or request a letter from a medical professional about their reason for not wearing a face covering.

(bold mine)

Of course, this webpage often changes, so may be wise to check it still says that before trying to show it to someone...

 

[talldave]

The correct question should be "are you able to wear a face covering at all, please?", followed by "No, I have a medical exemption", and that should be that.

That should be "I am exempt". Not all criteria are "medical".

 

[Islineclear3_1]

I saw a small pharmacy during the week displaying a notice which stated that if you had an exemption from wearing a face covering you were not permitted to enter, but they would serve you at the front door.

Discrimination! I would certainly complain

 

[507021]

I can see why it could be confusing, many of the rules and laws around covid restrictions are poorly thought out and often are based on nothing more than a desire to be seen to be doing something. However with regards to masks, people who have physical or physiological reasons for not wearing masks are considered exempt & are not required to prove why.

Thanks for the explanation, much appreciated.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Discrimination! I would certainly complain

I think that in law would be seen as a reasonable adjustment, similar to the way a wheelchair user may be offered service from outside a building which for e.g. listed building reasons couldn't reasonably be modified to be accessible. In particular as pharmacies are generally primarily counter-service, there isn't any disadvantage to being served outside (unless it's tipping it down, I suppose, but as you may have to queue outside it's likely you wouldn't go there if it was).

I can see why a pharmacy might choose to do this, because they are typically very small (so more transmission risk) and they typically have lots of custom from sick and vulnerable people. Someone who is exempt is not magically unable to transmit the virus, so other mitigations (such as 2m distancing) need to be considered.

This would be quite different from Tesco having the same rule, becuase as a self-service establishment a customer required to say from the outside what they wanted would be receiving a significantly degraded service.

 

[talldave]

I can see why a pharmacy might choose to do this, because they are typically very small (so more transmission risk) and they typically have lots of custom from sick and vulnerable people. Someone who is exempt is not magically unable to transmit the virus, so other mitigations (such as 2m distancing) need to be considered.

Installing a coffee machine would do it!

 

[island]

Even with TfL someone is only going to get fined if you start a massive argument about it if asked by staff or police, if you're clearly not exempt. Only police can issue fines anyway so the worst TfL staff can do is ask you to leave the station (they could call the police, but anyone with any sense would get a move on at that point).

That’s incorrect. TfL employees, agents, and contractors can themselves issue fixed penalty notices for non-compliance with face covering rules on TfL services and stations. See sections 7 (11) (c), 2 (1), and 5 (9) of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings on Public Transport) (England) Regulations 2020 and sections 7 (11) (c), 2 (1), and 5 (10) of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) Regulations 2020.

 

[Huntergreed]

Sturgeon has said she is planning (in the final stages of planning) to highly recommend (she didn’t strictly say mandate) masks in secondary schools in communal areas and corridors where pupils and staff cannot social distance, however she has given local authority boards the power to mandate masks more widely if they feel the need to.

I had a feeling it was coming, let’s just hope it doesn’t creep into classrooms.

 

[MikeWM]

In particular as pharmacies are generally primarily counter-service, there isn't any disadvantage to being served outside

That's true if you're just going to pick up a prescription, but what if you're going to ask the pharmacist for medical advice, as many people do nowadays? Particularly now, given it is very difficult to see a doctor in person.

 

[BJames]

That’s incorrect. TfL employees, agents, and contractors can themselves issue fixed penalty notices for non-compliance with face covering rules on TfL services and stations. See sections 7 (11) (c), 2 (1), and 5 (9) of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings on Public Transport) (England) Regulations 2020 and sections 7 (11) (c), 2 (1), and 5 (10) of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) Regulations 2020.

That's interesting, I didn't actually realise this. I thought it was only police that had the power to enforce by way of penalty notice.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's true if you're just going to pick up a prescription, but what if you're going to ask the pharmacist for medical advice, as many people do nowadays? Particularly now, given it is very difficult to see a doctor in person.

Fair point. That said, if the pharmacy doesn't have consultation rooms then it's no different to doing it inside. If it does have consultation rooms I guess they could arrange a clear path into one.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

Sturgeon has said she is planning (in the final stages of planning) to highly recommend (she didn’t strictly say mandate) masks in secondary schools in communal areas and corridors where pupils and staff cannot social distance, however she has given local authority boards the power to mandate masks more widely if they feel the need to.

I had a feeling it was coming, let’s just hope it doesn’t creep into classrooms.

As if it'll make any difference. I don't think she'd be able to mandate it. It'd be unenforceable - because teachers don't enforce the law!

Likewise - although she did explicitly say she wasn't considering making it mandatory in classrooms.

 

[scotrail158713]

Sturgeon has said she is planning (in the final stages of planning) to highly recommend (she didn’t strictly say mandate) masks in secondary schools in communal areas and corridors where pupils and staff cannot social distance, however she has given local authority boards the power to mandate masks more widely if they feel the need to.

I had a feeling it was coming, let’s just hope it doesn’t creep into classrooms.

I’ll admit I’m glad having read it today. I don’t know why, but I’d read it before as pupils having to wear one in class, but now seeing it as just in corridors, it seems a not as unreasonable move. Ideally there’s none, however Sturgeon would never settle for that.
I do agree that I hope it doesn’t move into classrooms.

 

[43066]

That’s incorrect. TfL employees, agents, and contractors can themselves issue fixed penalty notices for non-compliance with face covering rules on TfL services and stations. See sections 7 (11) (c), 2 (1), and 5 (9) of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings on Public Transport) (England) Regulations 2020 and sections 7 (11) (c), 2 (1), and 5 (10) of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) Regulations 2020.

In practice that will be limited to revenue enforcement type people who can interview under caution/issue penalty fares/report for prosecution etc. during normal times.

Again, if challenged by someone in authority about absence of a face covering, the correct approach is to politely say “I am exempt”. That should be the end of the discussion.

If challenged by a member of the public/busybody/bully the correct approach is a response along the lines of “mind your own business” (my favoured expression in that situation would be a lot less polite ).

 

[Bletchleyite]

As if it'll make any difference. I don't think she'd be able to mandate it. It'd be unenforceable - because teachers don't enforce the law!

Schools enforce school uniform and it would, if implemented, work in exactly the same way. A face covering would simply be part of school uniform unless exempt, and schools would probably ask parents for reasons for exemption just as they would ask for a reason if they were missing PE for a health reason.

Schools are about the easiest place in the world to enforce things because they are typically autocracies, i.e. unless it would be breaking the law what the headteacher says goes.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

I think that in law would be seen as a reasonable adjustment, similar to the way a wheelchair user may be offered service from outside a building which for e.g. listed building reasons couldn't reasonably be modified to be accessible. In particular as pharmacies are generally primarily counter-service, there isn't any disadvantage to being served outside (unless it's tipping it down, I suppose, but as you may have to queue outside it's likely you wouldn't go there if it was).

I can see why a pharmacy might choose to do this, because they are typically very small (so more transmission risk) and they typically have lots of custom from sick and vulnerable people. Someone who is exempt is not magically unable to transmit the virus, so other mitigations (such as 2m distancing) need to be considered.

What is wrong with a ramp?

Oh wait, the pharmacy assistant has to assist the wheelchair person in and out the shop - can't be doing that for customers now can we...?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What is wrong with a ramp?

There are older buildings where it is not possible to provide one. Often for example the building is too close to the road to do it safely. Clearly where it is possible to build in a ramp that is the reasonable adjustment.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

There are older buildings where it is not possible to provide one. Often for example the building is too close to the road to do it safely. Clearly where it is possible to build in a ramp that is the reasonable adjustment.

But if other (smallish) shops can do it...?

Most pharmacies offer a delivery service anyway which can be very useful for this cohort of people

Anyway, back on topic: my local Costas was busy and nobody in the queue was wearing a mask

 

[Bletchleyite]

But if other (smallish) shops can do it...?

It really depends on the individual shop and its situation. The law is not prescriptive, it requires "reasonable adjustments". If challenged, it's for a Court to decide if it was reasonable or not.

 

[farleigh]

Schools enforce school uniform and it would, if implemented, work in exactly the same way. A face covering would simply be part of school uniform unless exempt, and schools would probably ask parents for reasons for exemption just as they would ask for a reason if they were missing PE for a health reason.

Schools are about the easiest place in the world to enforce things because they are typically autocracies, i.e. unless it would be breaking the law what the headteacher says goes.

I think schools will face a multitude of challenges when pupils return. To add the burden of enforcing the wearing of facemasks is not helpful. No pupils wore facemasks during lockdown in my experience, and they will not be uniformly happy to do so in September.

It will be a brave & foolish school that excludes a pupil for not wearing a facemask.

 

[Andyh82]

Indeed, its easier to enforce stuff in a school compared to anywhere else, as if it becomes a school rule, teachers can dish out sanctions like they would anything else