Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!
So to clarify - the group did not say they were exempt correct?
In which case the pub did the right thing.
The law currently is such that if a pub doesn't turn away a group like that, they will likely be closed. That would lose them a lot more money than just one group of people being turned away.
Now you can argue till the cats come home about if the pub should have a stash of one use masks for customers, but in this case it looks like they didn't. As you can't magic those up from thin air, again the only thing the staff could do is to refuse entry.
I am completely in agreement that if there are no masks available and customers are not exempt then they must be turned away.
In my email to the pubco that I reproduced you will note that my suggestion was that the pubco would be more profitable if they had masks available, not that they should ignore the law which would be ludicrous
Another dilemma is should said customers be asked to track and trace ?
I am completely in agreement that if there are no masks available and customers are not exempt then they must be turned away.
In my email to the pubco that I reproduced you will note that my suggestion was that the pubco would be more profitable if they had masks available, not that they should ignore the law which would be ludicrous
Another dilemma is should said customers be asked to track and trace ?
It being a pubco makes sense - certainly different pubco's put different rules on their pubs and sometimes that means the actual landlords or managers have little wiggle room when it comes to policies passed down from HQ.
As I said though, it is a question for the specific place or their management. A pub isn't required to provide any, nor should they be expected to. The group only have themselves to blame, and I seriously doubt they would have been served elsewhere either right now.
In terms of track and trace - I'd say it depends on how the pub is managing that. Some places I have been ask you to do it whilst at your table, in which case obviously not if the group didn't get a table! Some other places have it right at their entrance so you can't even enter the building before scanning the QR code - in that case I'd say yes they should have if they entered the building.
Bletchleyite didn't say the person should divulge why they are exempt, just that they are.
Surely that isn't controversial?
The rules are you have to wear a mask whilst entering a pub unless you are exempt, so if you don't volunteer the fact you are, and places shouldn't ask, what should a pub do exactly given that they are at risk of being shut down if they are found to not be requiring masks?
"Have you got a mask?"
"No, I have an exemption"
"OK, then, come in"
Anyone who is any more awkward than that regarding having an exemption deserves to be turned away. We don't want to be inviting people to lie about one by offering the idea to them. Everyone who has one knows it and is quite capable of saying so.
"Have you got a mask?"
"No, I have an exemption"
"OK, then, come in"
Anyone who is any more awkward than that regarding having an exemption deserves to be turned away. We don't want to be inviting people to lie about one by offering the idea to them. Everyone who has one knows it and is quite capable of saying so.
Can you please explain that comment?
"Doing the minimum measures necessary" would mean requiring anyone who isn't exempt to where a mask when entering the premises.
That is what the pub apparently did.
How on earth is that "going over and above"?
It simply means not imposing measures in excess of the bare minimum required to comply with the legislation.
In the example we are discussing the customers themselves offered to sit outside yet the staff still turned them away. An additional requirement needlessly imposed which has resulted in a loss of business.
More generally, we know from government guidance that those who are exempt should not routinely be asked to provide any evidence of this, yet many venues are asking for exactly that, so there’s another example of a needless additional requirement.
The customer was not asked if they were exempt
I take it you have never run a business as if you did and ran it in a prudent manner and had next to no trade, and each additional customer has a marginal cost but brings in a normal profit then the very last thing you would do is turn business away on the basis that your customers are stupid unless you have lazy staff.
Indeed. You were quite right to email the pub management, as the owners might interested in knowing that their staff turn away groups of diners so easily without doing everything possible to see if they can be accommodated. Perhaps they need to recruit some better ones, who are a little more commercially aware!
And sure, the staff could have "coached" the group through agreeing they were exempt - but that just makes a mockery of the rules and I am sure if a pub was caught doing that again they would be closed.
Proactively asking if people are exempt is hardly coaching or making a mockery of the law. Neither would be making the following statement: “I’m afraid face coverings will be required when moving around unless, of course, you are exempt”.
And, even if it is making a mockery of it, so what!? It’s for judges, not pub staff, to purposively interpret legislation. Pubs just need to comply with the letter of the law* and should be focusing on getting as much revenue in as possible.
“Have you got a mask?”
“No, I’m exempt.”
“Papers please”.
*As discussed upthread the whole thing is farcical anyway because vast majority of hospitality venues are *not* currently complying with the letter of the law, because they’re allowing customers to remove their masks as soon as they’re seated, rather than waiting for food and drink to be served, as required by the legislation.
On the open air part of platform 2 at Portsmouth & Southsea today I witnessed a dispatcher telling two young schoolgirls aged about 12 that they need to put their masks on. Totally incorrect as they had open air on four sides but they meekly did as told.
Still a problem with rail staff not understanding the rules.
On the open air part of platform 2 at Portsmouth & Southsea today I witnessed a dispatcher telling two young schoolgirls aged about 12 that they need to put their masks on. Totally incorrect as they had open air on four sides but they meekly did as told.
Still a problem with rail staff not understanding the rules.
Around here WMR have put posters at station entrances (even ones with just a couple of bus shelters and little else) that masks must be worn anywhere on the station premises. I ignore them and only mask up when the train comes becomes i am a bad boy.
I made a short train journey last night having been out for a meal. It was after 9:30pm and compliance on the station and train was very very low. I didn’t see anybody wearing a face covering correctly, the closest were a handful of people wearing them below their noses. There were plenty of chin warmers and a few not bothering at all (some may have been exempt obviously). Could this, I wonder, be the result of there being nobody around to enforce compliance? The other thing that struck me was how hastily they were removed when people got off the train; at my station it looked choreographed!
BREAKING In Scotland, says First Minister @NicolaSturgeon, couples getting married won't have to wear face coverings during the ceremony! But face coverings are now required in workplace canteens (when not sitting and eating) and in workplace communal areas such as corridors.
On DOO services around London the opposite is happening. Many people seem to wear them on the station and then immediately remove once they’ve boarded the train and sat down. There’s very little active enforcement anywhere (which isn’t surprising when the policy is basically unenforceable).
I passed through London Bridge yesterday and boarded a train sans mask right in front of two BTP officers. I was prepared to show my exemption screen saver if requested, but wasn’t even challenged.
It simply means not imposing measures in excess of the bare minimum required to comply with the legislation.
In the example we are discussing the customers themselves offered to sit outside yet the staff still turned them away. An additional requirement needlessly imposed which has resulted in a loss of business.
More generally, we know from government guidance that those who are exempt should not routinely be asked to provide any evidence of this, yet many venues are asking for exactly that, so there’s another example of a needless additional requirement.
Indeed. You were quite right to email the pub management, as the owners might interested in knowing that their staff turn away groups of diners so easily without doing everything possible to see if they can be accommodated. Perhaps they need to recruit some better ones, who are a little more commercially aware!
Proactively asking if people are exempt is hardly coaching or making a mockery of the law. Neither would be making the following statement: “I’m afraid face coverings will be required when moving around unless, of course, you are exempt”.
And, even if it is making a mockery of it, so what!? It’s for judges, not pub staff, to purposively interpret legislation. Pubs just need to comply with the letter of the law* and should be focusing on getting as much revenue in as possible.
Proactively asking someone if they are exempt really isn’t “encouraging them to lie”.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
All too often it’s:
“Have you got a mask?”
“No, I’m exempt.”
“Papers please”.
*As discussed upthread the whole thing is farcical anyway because vast majority of hospitality venues are *not* currently complying with the letter of the law, because they’re allowing customers to remove their masks as soon as they’re seated, rather than waiting for food and drink to be served, as required by the legislation.
There was no mention of an exemption, the group did not claim they were exempt and did not mention it when questioned about their lack of masks. What other places do or not is irrelevant here, as is the issue of some places asking for proof of exemption. Unless the group says they are exempt, the legal stance is the pub must refuse them entry. Given they did not say they were exempt, exemptions are not relevant to this discussion so there is no point continuing to discuss it.
In terms of them sitting outside - we do not know if the outside area required walking through the inside or not. We also have the question of what if one member of the group needed the toilet.
Given the above - I have no idea how you can claim the pub was going above what the law says. They were literally following what the law says!
What do you think a pub will care most about? Losing £50 or so worth of potential takings, or being closed down because they were not following the law and losing a hell of a lot more?
In terms of what you have said about the staff - having a go at underpaid and overworked staff is out of order when the fault is with the group of people who decided they wanted to chance it. In situations like this the staff have very little leeway. They have to follow the law and usually the policies of the company they work for. They are not allowed to bend the rules or allowed to make up policy decisions on the spot.
Ultimately - if the group had worn masks they would have been allowed in and none of this would even be a discussion.
But we aren't talking about that.
Currently the law is that customers entering a pub must wear a mask. If they do not, then the pub should refuse them entry.
That is what the pub did.
As already said - what about when they needed to use the toilet? And we don't even know if they had to walk through the inside of the pub to reach the outside area of the pub or not. You are making some huge assumptions.
But that isn't what we are talking about so is not relevant. There is nothing at all to suggest that this group was exempt so what other places may be doing about asking for evidence when they shouldn't be has literally nothing to do with this conversation.
Or perhaps their staff are just following the rules and polices set out by law and by the pubco.
Having a go at underpaid and overworked staff is out of order when the fault is with the group of people who decided they wanted to chance it.
If someone does not present as being exempt, and does not mention it when questioned about having a mask - I think it is fair assumption that they aren't exempt!
Again, as I have written word for word before, currently the law is that customers entering a pub must wear a mask unless they are exempt. If they do not and are not, then the pub should refuse them entry.
That is what the pub did. The pub staff did not make any interpretations - they just applied the rules.
The customers had entered the pub having not been refused entry because there was no one to stop them
The subsequent debate happened at the Bar and where they were told to leave and sauntered past us maskless
The pub therefore did not comply with the rules
The customers had entered the pub having not been refused entry because there was no one to stop them
The subsequent debate happened at the Bar and where they were told to leave and sauntered past us maskless
The pub therefore did not comply with the rules
The customers had entered the pub having not been refused entry because there was no one to stop them
The subsequent debate happened at the Bar and where they were told to leave and sauntered past us maskless
The pub therefore did not comply with the rules
So the group had already broken the law and risked the pub being investigated by the local authority? Even more reason for the pub to ask them to leave!
*As discussed upthread the whole thing is farcical anyway because vast majority of hospitality venues are *not* currently complying with the letter of the law, because they’re allowing customers to remove their masks as soon as they’re seated, rather than waiting for food and drink to be served, as required by the legislation.
Can you tell us which part of the legalisation specifically mandates that one is not allowed to take off the mask until the food /drink is served
Only it occurs to me taht your interpretation leads to the conclusion that if one member of a party of drinkers has finished their drink they must put on a mask until they are served a fresh drink which I think is preposterous and I could not imagine anyone sane actually doing this
If you Google this you will find that almost every newspaper and pub chain has interpreted it to mean that masks must be worn when one is not seated and one is intending to eat or drink and I think this is what the law intended.
As an aside I have been in a few places in UK and Wales recently that are not asking for track and trace to be filled out /QR Scanned
Can you tell us which part of the legalisation specifically mandates that one is not allowed to take off the mask until the food /drink is served
Only your interpretation seems to be suggesting that if one member of a party of drinkers has finished their drink they must put on a mask until they are served a fresh drink
PART 2
Relevant place: requirement to wear a face covering
Requirement to wear a face covering whilst entering or remaining within a relevant place
3.—(1) No person may, without reasonable excuse, enter or remain within a relevant place without wearing a face covering.
...
4.—(1) For the purposes of regulation 3(1), the circumstances in which a person (“P”) has a reasonable excuse include those where—
...
(e)[F26if] it is reasonably necessary for P to eat or drink, P removes their face covering to eat or drink;
The very literal interpretation of that is that until you're about to put something in your mouth, you don't have a reasonable excuse to not wear a face covering. Sitting at a table having a conversation is not "reasonably necessary" for them to eat or drink
I wonder if this kind of thing is happening outside London? I can’t say I’ve had any kind of overt challenge from a member of the public, despite travelling on trains in the London area daily, and never once wearing a covering.
Anyone challenging me will be rebuffed in no uncertain terms!
The very literal interpretation of that is that until you're about to put something in your mouth, you don't have a reasonable excuse to not wear a face covering. Sitting at a table having a conversation is not "reasonably necessary" for them to eat or drink
I also don't think it is clear if the 'reasonably necessary' refers to the not wearing the face covering, or to the action of eating and drinking itself.
It appears to be the latter, in which case you could easily argue that eg. a beer or a packet of crisps is not 'reasonably necessary' food or drink.
The very literal interpretation of that is that until you're about to put something in your mouth, you don't have a reasonable excuse to not wear a face covering. Sitting at a table having a conversation is not "reasonably necessary" for them to eat or drink
The problem with the literal interpretation is that whilst it may be true the vast majority of people are going to ignore that interpretation and no one is going to enforce it.
This is exactly the same situation as if you drive at 33 MPH in a 30 zone or you give an evidential breath test reading of 38 then you are breaking the law but no one is going to do anything about it
when seated to eat or drink in a hospitality premise such as a pub, bar, restaurant or cafe. You must put a face covering back on once you finish eating or drinking
when seated to eat or drink in a hospitality premise such as a pub, bar, restaurant or cafe. You must put a face covering back on once you finish eating or drinking
The catch is that the legislation quoted by @Domh245 takes precedence over the advice you quote. However, the discussion over the quality of alignment between the legislation applied by the government, and the advice given, is far wider than just masks.
If anyone thinks the law is intended to mean you should wear a mask when sat at a table and not eating or drinking - well lets say you are in a vast minority and the fact is near enough every single pub, restaurant, cafe and police officer in this country is taking it at the more sensible meaning - that you should wear a mask unless sat down in one of those establishments.
I agree that the wording is a mess, and this government specifically seem to have an issue with getting things like that right of late! But just take a step back and look at what is sensible and what everyone is interpreting it as!
The catch is that the legislation quoted by @Domh245 takes precedence over the advice you quote. However, the discussion over the quality of alignment between the legislation applied by the government, and the advice given, is far wider than just masks.
Given that the guidance is intended to be for the the purpose of telling the public how they should comply with the legislation, it wouldn't be possible to take any legal action against someone who was following it. No court would convict someone if they had the defence of following the government's official guidance, even if that did lead them to fall foul of the actual legislation.
If anyone thinks the law is intended to mean you should wear a mask when sat at a table and not eating or drinking - well lets say you are in a vast minority and the fact is near enough every single pub, restaurant, cafe and police officer in this country is taking it at the more sensible meaning - that you should wear a mask unless sat down in one of those establishments.
It's abundantly clear that the law means that, but yes, people are generally being a little more pragmatic. That said, with table service, you should really be wearing one while ordering to minimise risk to the waiter/waitress. Might be an idea for them to be wearing an N95, to be fair. (I went to the doctor's this morning and the receptionist was wearing a non-valved N95, which is probably sensible in that context).
If anyone thinks the law is intended to mean you should wear a mask when sat at a table and not eating or drinking - well lets say you are in a vast minority and the fact is near enough every single pub, restaurant, cafe and police officer in this country is taking it at the more sensible meaning - that you should wear a mask unless sat down in one of those establishments.
I agree that the wording is a mess, and this government specifically seem to have an issue with getting things like that right of late! But just take a step back and look at what is sensible and what everyone is interpreting it as!
All this could be avoided if they actually drafted legislation in a competent manner, and didn't issue statutory instruments in a hurry and then cobble on ssorted additions and changes without properly considering the impact.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
www.legislation.gov.uk
