UK face coverings discussion

[35B]

I saw something similar on the Circle line a few weeks ago. Man in his 60s/70s had a go at four people in their 20s for not wearing masks. Then he walked along the train and found someone else to pick on. Sooner or later he's going to pick on the wrong person.

None of which has anything to do with whether the current legislation is good, bad or awful, but which speaks volumes about the way that some people in some circumstances will take it upon themselves to go way beyond what the police will do.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

None of which has anything to do with whether the current legislation is good, bad or awful, but which speaks volumes about the way that some people in some circumstances will take it upon themselves to go way beyond what the police will do.

This is what happens when the chief of the Metropolitan Police not only condones, but actively encourages such vigilante behaviour.
I’m old enough to remember when the self-styled Guardian Angels patrolled the tube and the Met Police took a very dim view of that!!

 

[Reliablebeam]

It could be argued by some that a member of the public constantly looking for someone driving badly is in fact themselves ‘driving without due care and attention’ ...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Sep 2020 ==
Back on topic...

Well tonight I witnessed at first hand a ‘mask rage’ incident in a London Overground train.
A grey-haired man in his fifties got on at Imperial Wharf, sat down, looked around and saw a black teenage female on her phone, with a bare face (such horror!). Without any polite enquiry, he just bellowed
‘Put your f***ing face mask on! IT’S THE LAW!’
The girl broke off her conversation and said ‘excuse me, but can you not swear? That’s so rude!’ before resuming her conversation without covering her face (no covering in sight). Ironically, an older lady sat directly opposite him was wearing a mask under her nose, covering her mouth only, but he said nothing to her...
The guy sat there quietly fuming, and then ranted at staff on the footbridge at Clapham Junction.
There must have been at least 10-15 people on this train who heard the exchange, but no-one said a word. Given the guy was a lot bulkier physically than me, I didn’t - to my shame - intervene.
Is this the kind of society we want to have? I certainly don’t. She could have been exempt for all he knew.

I saw something similar on the Circle line a few weeks ago. Man in his 60s/70s had a go at four people in their 20s for not wearing masks. Then he walked along the train and found someone else to pick on. Sooner or later he's going to pick on the wrong person.

Edit- wrong post quoted!!
I think I might have mentioned before, one of my PhD students at a London university mentioned that some of her colleagues and friends are doing this. I have counselled her to advise them to pack it in, urgently, before they pick on the wrong person! On my own tube trips recently I've seen a few you would not be wise to pick on...

 

[Scrotnig]

A grey-haired man in his fifties got on at Imperial Wharf, sat down, looked around and saw a black teenage female on her phone, with a bare face (such horror!). Without any polite enquiry, he just bellowed
‘Put your f***ing face mask on! IT’S THE LAW!’
The girl broke off her conversation and said ‘excuse me, but can you not swear? That’s so rude!’ before resuming her conversation without covering her face (no covering in sight).

Perfect response. Everyone should follow suit if harangued by some self-appointed mask vigilante (or any other type of vigilante for that matter).

 

[35B]

Perfect response. Everyone should follow suit if harangued by some self-appointed mask vigilante (or any other type of vigilante for that matter).

So how do you suggest I should have acted when the person next to me started vaping on a District Line train?

 

[DB]

So how do you suggest I should have acted when the person next to me started vaping on a District Line train?

Well you could either ignore it or politely ask them not to.

Really not the same thing as someone not wearing a mask, where there is no impact on you beyond the vanishingly small risk that you might catch the virus from them, which may well not be couteracted by wearing a mask anyway.

 

[35B]

Well you could either ignore it or politely ask them not to.

Really not the same thing as someone not wearing a mask, where there is no impact on you beyond the vanishingly small risk that you might catch the virus from them, which may well not be couteracted by wearing a mask anyway.

So, in other words, the choice is entirely subjective based on my perceived harm from the two actions?

I really rather dislike the attitude of “I disagree with this legislation so I’ll run down anyone who acts in support of it”, while at the same time expecting the protection of laws; part of the point of the rule of law is that it should apply to all, not on a pick ‘n mix basis.

As it happens, I did politely ask the vaper to stop, and suffered from their couple of puffs before I’d alked the whole evening because of the enforced nicotine inhalation. If I were on a train and unavoidably sat next to a non mask wearer, I might well also ask them - politely - to follow the legislation - on the basis that while the odds of being affected are low, the consequences can be extremely high. The doubt is because my action might well depend on the precise circumstances, including any obvious sense of whether exemptions might apply, and frankly whether I could be bothered at that time.

 

[FQ]

So how do you suggest I should have acted when the person next to me started vaping on a District Line train?

There's no circumstances where vaping on a train are allowed. It's very possible that someone not wearing a mask has a valid reason for it - there's your difference.

 

[43066]

If I were on a train and unavoidably sat next to a non mask wearer, I might well also ask them - politely - to follow the legislation - on the basis that while the odds of being affected are low,

If you’re sat beside me, I won’t be wearing a mask because I’m exempt, and you will be “robustly“ informed that I am following the legislation in not doing so!

There's no circumstances where vaping on a train are allowed. It's very possible that someone not wearing a mask has a valid reason for it - there's your difference.

Precisely.

 

[Yew]

If I were on a train and unavoidably sat next to a non mask wearer, I might well also ask them - politely - to follow the legislation - on the basis that while the odds of being affected are low, the consequences can be extremely high.

I don't think you're making an informed evaluation of the actual risks.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think you're making an informed evaluation of the actual risks.

As long as the Government considers it sufficient for legislation, it's a reasonable view.

 

[43066]

As long as the Government considers it sufficient for legislation, it's a reasonable view.

That’s an interesting point. I can understand someone wanting to obey the law, but does that mean that all laws become inherently reasonable, just because they’ve been passed by the government?

It’s also completely inappropriate for anyone who isn’t charged with enforcement in an official capacity to go around questioning why people aren’t wearing coverings. I’ll be polite to a police officer of revenue inspector asking me, I won’t be polite to some random.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That’s an interesting point. I can understand someone wanting to obey the law, but does that mean that all laws become inherently reasonable, just because they’ve been passed by the government?

It's reasonable for people to expect them to be complied with, yes, particularly where they are there to protect others.

 

[bramling]

That’s an interesting point. I can understand someone wanting to obey the law, but does that mean that all laws become inherently reasonable, just because they’ve been passed by the government?

It’s also completely inappropriate for anyone who isn’t charged with enforcement in an official capacity to go around questioning why people aren’t wearing coverings. I’ll be polite to a police officer of revenue inspector asking me, I won’t be polite to some random.

For laws and law enforcement to work there has to be respect for the political system (the politicians) and those doing the enforcement (the police and judiciary).

How much respect is there for a government which can't even be bothered to put stuff through parliament, as rebuked by the speaker only this week?

If they don't respect the population by putting it up for debate in the house, even retrospectively, then why the hell should I respect their law?

 

[43066]

It's reasonable for people to expect them to be complied with, yes, particularly where they are there to protect others.

But what about when those laws are demonstrably ineffective (as I thought you’d now conceded in the case of masks!). Surely at that point they become irrational, or at least intended for some other purpose, that the government is not being honest about.

For laws and law enforcement to work there has to be respect for the political system (the politicians) and those doing the enforcement (the police and judiciary).

Precisely. The British legal system relies on us being policed by consent, which means that the laws passed need some level of buy in from the wider population. I can understand why I’m not allowed to steal, or assault people, but nobody has shown me why not wearing a mask should be a criminal offence.

As an aside any sense of “blitz spirit” or that we are somehow “all in this together” went out of the window months ago, for me. It’s everyone for themselves as far as I’m concerned!

 

[Bantamzen]

As an aside any sense of “blitz spirit” or that we are somehow “all in this together” went out of the window months ago, for me. It’s everyone for themselves as far as I’m concerned!

Absolutely, I would guess that the majority of people claiming that we are all in it together, or that they obey the rules to protect others is, to put it bluntly are talking load of rubbish. It has been obvious to me that most people screaming for more restrictions are really only concerned about themselves.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

And speaking of laws, our own prime minister is quite happy to break European law and the EU has issued the UK a notice of intent to take legal action

 

[Jamiescott1]

That is infuriating - if I was physically large enough to throw him off the train I would have been tempted to do so (I'm not - by the way, I am feeble in physical strength) - but he at least deserved a good shouting back, the ignorant busybody (and other words which would be censored on the forum)

I was the victim of one way rage today.
I went the wrong way round the one way system at Marylebone (no one was there) and got shouted (very loudly) by a jobsworth, whom I ignored.
A security officer chased me through the gateline and told me return to speak to the lady. Which I didn't.
I was in the wrong by not following the ridcilous one way system but I am fed up with the hassle for no reason

 

[DB]

I was the victim of one way rage today.
I went the wrong way round the one way system at Marylebone (no one was there) and got shouted (very loudly) by a jobsworth, whom I ignored.
A security officer chased me through the gateline and told me return to speak to the lady. Which I didn't.
I was in the wrong by not following the ridcilous one way system but I am fed up with the hassle for no reason

Ah right, so you ignored a one way system allegedly designed to avoid unnecesssary interactions (pointless, I agree), and were then ordered to go and talk to someone (an unnecessary interaction) - presumably so that you could be told off like a naughty schoolboy. No doubt those involved won't see the irony of this.

Is it any wonder people are increasingly losing patience with the whole 'corona theatre'?

 

[Bletchleyite]

But what about when those laws are demonstrably ineffective (as I thought you’d now conceded in the case of masks!). Surely at that point they become irrational, or at least intended for some other purpose, that the government is not being honest about.

I have not fully conceded on masks, as I've said elsewhere. My views are shifting.

However, my point remains that if something is the law people can be forgiven for wishing it to be complied with, and taking steps to ensure it is, because they can't be blamed for going along with the law rather than having to have their own opinion.

Whether it should be the law is a different question entirely.

 

[221129]

nd taking steps to ensure it is

No. They can't be forgiven for being vigilantes.

 

[trebor79]

I have not fully conceded on masks, as I've said elsewhere. My views are shifting.

However, my point remains that if something is the law people can be forgiven for wishing it to be complied with, and taking steps to ensure it is, because they can't be blamed for going along with the law rather than having to have their own opinion.

Whether it should be the law is a different question entirely.

What if people genuinely believe that law is doing more harm than good, for them personally and/or for society? That's a pretty good reason not to comply isn't it?

 

[Bletchleyite]

No. They can't be forgiven for being vigilantes.

Because the law requires a mask to be worn to protect others[1], it's not vigilanteism, it's more like reporting someone who was trying to break into your own property or to physically assault you. Asking someone to comply with the law to protect yourself isn't vigilanteism; vigilanteism is getting involved in things that don't concern you.

[1] I know that is debatable, but that is the basis of the law and Government messaging, and so whether it's correct or not is an entirely separate item for debate.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Oct 2020 ==

What if people genuinely believe that law is doing more harm than good, for them personally and/or for society? That's a pretty good reason not to comply isn't it?

You may choose to break the law for that reason, provided you accept the consequences if caught doing so.

However, that does not mean others have to accept that. It is quite right to speak up against someone breaking the law where that could[1] cause you personally a problem.

[1] Again, whether it does or not is not relevant. People are entitled to believe the Government's message.

 

[jtuk]

Interesting report in my Twitter feed (from Michael Yeadon again, no I'm not quoting as the source in question as first it's a newspaper screenshot, second it's in German) indicating that there's research out in Switzerland comparing the differences in covid outcomes in their various cantons, some of which have mask mandates and others which don't. It'll come to the surprise of nobody here (well, maybe one person) that there was no difference in results

 

[WelshBluebird]

having a few more people round to visit than the permitted number, reporting this would be pretty obnoxious behaviour.

I guess the problem there is how many is a "few"?

 

[trebor79]

I was the victim of one way rage today.
I went the wrong way round the one way system at Marylebone (no one was there) and got shouted (very loudly) by a jobsworth, whom I ignored.
A security officer chased me through the gateline and told me return to speak to the lady. Which I didn't.
I was in the wrong by not following the ridcilous one way system but I am fed up with the hassle for no reason

I detest petty one way systems. I encountered one in the Smiths at Norwich station this week. Bought a bottle of water and a newspaper, then discovered I couldn't get to the till without zigzagging through the entire shop. So I did what any sane person would and walked the 6 steps to cut across the entrance door. There was me and one other customer. No staff at all, god knows where they were, fortunately the self service tills worked without needing any staff intervention.

 

[Domh245]

Because the law requires a mask to be worn to protect others[1], it's not vigilanteism, it's more like reporting someone who was trying to break into your own property or to physically assault you. Asking someone to comply with the law to protect yourself isn't vigilanteism; vigilanteism is getting involved in things that don't concern you.

I'm sorry, what? Directly questioning someone who isn't wearing a mask is not at all like reporting someone who was trying to break into your own property - reporting someone for trying to break into your property is like reporting someone for not wearing a mask.

Just to be clear, the definition of vigilante is:

a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.

Attempting to enforce the law (and that does include asking others to comply IMO, particularly in this case where it is the reasonable first step for an official) yourself is very much the definition of vigilanteism

It's a particularly daft move to boot, not only are you increasing the risk of actually being exposed to the virus by engaging in an almost inevitable shouting match with the individual, but you're also at risk of getting into physical conflict and I certainly have no sympathy for any individuals who've taken it upon themselves to enforce the law and ended up coming to grief.

 

[Ianno87]

What if people genuinely believe that law is doing more harm than good, for them personally and/or for society? That's a pretty good reason not to comply isn't it?

No, it isn't.

Some people don't follow tax laws, because they are financially better off personally as a result, to the detriment of wider society.

Where does your logic lead to?

 

[trainophile]

Most people I have observed tend to take their masks off when talking on their phone. It's instinctive I think, you feel you would sound muffled if you have it on.

 

[duncanp]

What if people genuinely believe that law is doing more harm than good, for them personally and/or for society? That's a pretty good reason not to comply isn't it?

I would have more respect for the mask laws, and all the other petty COVID-19 related restrictions, if they had been introduced in the normal democratic way.

In normal circumstances, the government consults before introducing a bill into parliament. The bill is debated, and often amendments are put forward before the bill passes and becomes law.

But now, we have quite significant restrictions placed on our personal freedom without any debate at all, with regulations being published hours before they come into effect. The claim that it is too urgent to consult parliament is a load of hogwash.

No doubt the promise that MPs will have a say before any more National restrictions are introduced will be circumvented by introducing an ever widening range of local restrictions. I wonder how long it took Sir Humphrey Appleby at the Department of Health & Social Care to think that one up.