All fair. But the real toxicity of this particular debate is not over eligibility for exemption, but the deliberate abuse of an undocumented exemption process by people who won’t wear masks, not the edge cases of those who consider they can’t. This combines with natural fear and, yes, a streak of petty authoritarianism, to create distrust in anyone who isn’t wearing a mask.
-
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!
UK face coverings discussion
- Thread starter Mag_seven
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
And the problem wouldn't be a problem if those who could wear a mask did, however much they might not like it, and just saved all the workarounds and objections for a time when there wasn't a pandemic going on.
Like with any "honour system", it is those people who are the problem, and that leads to the need for strict enforcement, which those people don't like as they then can't do it any more. Same as fare dodging - I'd rather we returned to the days that if you boarded without a ticket you'd just be sold one at normal price, as was true across the North in the 90s, because that took account of genuine circumstances. But people abused it, it became "pay when challenged", and so now most of Northern and TPE is a Penalty Fares area.
Those people brought it on themselves, to the honest person's detriment.
"Everyone would be fine if people did exactly as I want"
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It's not so much what I want, as what the law specifies. It happens that I agree with the law in this case, at least for the time being, but that's irrelevant.
Another example - we were better without speed cameras, but too many people are incapable of reading the number in a red circle and making sure the needle in front of them doesn't go past it. So people who are occasionally distracted or miss a sign by accident are hit with fines, when before a genuine apology to the Police Officer who stopped you would probably do.
More unfairness caused by people who think they're above the law.
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2018
- Messages
- 4,582
Would be less of a problem if there was clear evidence they made a difference rather than the anecdotal evidence we seem to have. If you want everyone to buy into something you need to give them clear reasoning. Admittedly some never will whatever is put before them but it would be far fewer than now. If evidence not forthcoming then whole thing should be scrapped.
Purely out of interest, given no one has apparently done the research before, do you believe that such a (or several such) study should be commissioned, undertaken, published and peer reviewed and if so and the findings show that actually, face coverings do make a difference, how would you propose to make up the time lost in the interim, given that we are in this mess now? I took the view that it's worth trying anything that might help whether I feel strongly about it or not.
In other news, at my TOC we have this morning been advised that face coverings are now mandatory for staff in all public facing areas and to have a discussion with your manager immediately if you're medically exempt, otherwise disciplinary action may be undertaken.
This is apparently on the basis of customer feedback and to be fair I hear many more comments/see more on social media about people not wearing face coverings than complaints about having to do so, so it seems those customers who are out and about travelling are those we should be seeking to meet the needs of.
The one RCT that has been attempted and carried out - in Denmark - can't get the results published. (See https://twitter.com/AlexBerenson/status/1317875526997102594 - 'as soon as a journal is brave enough to accept the paper.')
Draw your own conclusions - but I don't see why a journal would need to be 'brave' in the current climate to publish a study showing that masks were effective, and I think it would be 'brave' to publish a study showing that they're not (or, indeed, harmful).
I've noticed a concerning trend in Journals recently, papers that go against the consensus have been censured for vague reasons like "the risk to society if they are wrong" rather than any flaws with the scientific reasoning or methodology. Journals should judge science on scientific rigour, not political expediency.
Greater Manchester Police have been patrolling the Trafford Centre at the weekend and issued five FPNs for non-compliance with face covering rules. According to the Manchester Evening News, they said “if exempt, bring proof”.
www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk
Trafford Centre shoppers fined by police for refusing to wear masks
Greater Manchester Police warned that officers will be back on patrol on Sunday
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Greater Manchester Police have been patrolling the Trafford Centre at the weekend and issued five FPNs for non-compliance with face covering rules. According to the Manchester Evening News, they said “if exempt, bring proof”.
Trafford Centre shoppers fined by police for refusing to wear masks
Greater Manchester Police warned that officers will be back on patrol on Sunday
So GMP don't think the law or Government guidance applies to them, then? And how does one prove that wearing a mask would cause extreme distress?
More effective would be a scheme (which MK shopping centre is operating) that you go to the customer service desk immediately on entering, state your exemption, and get a sunflower lanyard. Casual non-compliers are generally not brazen enough to do this, so it allows your privacy by reducing abuse of the exemptions.
Do you mean "state that you are exempt"?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Yes.
It's basically bullying. GMP must know the law perfectly well, but clearly think that they can get away with exceeding it.
Or at least, claim that they will - whether they would actually try to fine anyone in practice if they stated that they were exempt is rather doubtful: chances are the ones they did fine didn't claim any exemption.
Even if you are not suggesting we then take them to the on-site Doctor to prove the exemption I still hate that idea.
A significant proportion of those who are exempt will be on the basis of mental health conditions many of whom find that kind of interaction difficult enough at the best of times let alone trying to explain it to a bouncer at the entrance to Asda or a Shopping centre who will have had no training in the area or any idea how to react to someone. I am fortunate that I don't find wearing a mask to be a real problem (though I admit I wear it because I have to rather than because I think it will do any good) but as someone who really struggles socially I can't imagine anything worse than needing to justify myself in the way you describe.
We risk creating a group who are completely ostracized from society because they have hidden disabilities, including with their Mental Health, and that just seems both completely unfair on them and shameful.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I'm not proposing they justify themselves. I'm proposing they go to the customer services desk and say "I am exempt from wearing a mask" and are given a lanyard to wear. That would result in far fewer awkward exchanges than just walking around without one and having to say it repeatedly.
It would work because most people are not brazen enough to do that and lie; most non-compliance is casual. It's similar to the reason why barriers work against fare-dodging even though it's easy to jump them or push through - most people are not brazen enough to do that, but they are brazen enough to say they'll pay if someone asks them to but not otherwise.
To be honest I think this is already happening.
I can't wear a mask. I'm not timid and 6'3" and big with it so often get left alone, but even I avoid mask situations as much as possible. I just don't want the hassle of potentially being challenged and questioned - its utterly demoralising, and you can never predict when it will happen.
For someone who is shy and a smaller person (bullies tend to pick on smaller people usually) the situation must be considerably worse. And virtually nothing seems to be done to help these people. The legislation is a case in point - how many times does the line about fines for non-wearing get trotted out? But it's only on forums such as this where the fines for non-compliance with signage about exemptions is even mentioned. Has any business anywhere actually been fined for this?
DragonEast
Member
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2016
- Messages
- 266
I just keep my distance, whether people are wearing a face mask or not. No problem.
On a personal level (and I don't preach, as I'm the first to agree not everyone can do it, thank goodness) since I was a teenager, some 50 years ago, what a thought! I've always tried consciously to look after, protect and enhance my immune system, rather than always rely on "after the event" remedies.
On a personal level (and I don't preach, as I'm the first to agree not everyone can do it, thank goodness) since I was a teenager, some 50 years ago, what a thought! I've always tried consciously to look after, protect and enhance my immune system, rather than always rely on "after the event" remedies.
Last edited:
At which point, irrespective of my views of the legislation in general, I welcome the enforcement. Laws that are seen not to be enforced fall into disrepute and become unenforceable; a pragmatic approach to enforcement that seeks to verify whether an individual has a "reasonable excuse" (note, I do not suggest enquiring as to the small print of the reasonable excuse) and then enforces on that basis rather than just leaving a free for all has my support. It may also (though I recognise this is an "optimistic" view!) help reduce the tendency for some to over-enforce by giving them confidence that the law is being enforced.
They would be under no obligation to wear it.
No. But any reasonable person would accept a trade-off between asking for a commonly available indication of exemption, and having to justify themselves every time. And if they use the sunflower lanyard, that would avoid the need for repeated encounters as the lanyard could be reused elsewhere.
Indeed. I've got one (a sunflower one) but I've yet to wear it and I won't unless in a situation where I really have to.
Situations like that should never arise if people follow the regulations.
VauxhallandI
Established Member
I have a lanyard and I hate wearing it. Until you are in the situation you are in no place to tell people in the situation what is reasonable.
Disagree completely.
There is no legal requirement to carry an exemption certificate, and government guidance expressly states that people should not generally be asked for one. The creation of a system of lanyards risks creating a de facto requirement for everyone who is exempt to carry one, on the basis that anyone who doesn’t have one will then be assumed to be breaking the law. That’s the opposite to what is intended by the law/guidance.
The solution to this is that people simply need to mind their own business (as the vast majority do) and be prepared for the fact that they will encounter people who aren’t wearing coverings.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
But if you take that to its logical conclusion you could justify doing literally *anything*! Carrying a crucifix might help, so might standing on one leg for five seconds before entering a shop. Obviously those are silly examples, but they demonstrate the point that the only thing that distinguishes between the ridiculous and the sensible is some evidence that the sensible measures work.
The established scientific consensus up until earlier this year was that coverings in non clinical settings are ineffective (and may do my harm than good if they encourage people to abandon distancing etc.). Since then no new evidence has appeared, the WHO has admitted it changed its stance based on political lobbying, and there was also no reduction in infection rates from the point when masks were introduced.
Last edited:
STINT47
Member
I use the sunflower lanyard to save shop and rail staff having to challenge me and myself from having to explain that I am exempt. So far this has worked well and I have had no issues.
I dont wear it for members of the public who have decided to police covid regulations.
Hopefully we won't be using masks this time next year so a formal exemption scheme and certificates would be a waste of time. If we don't have a vaccine by next summer then we need to get back on with life and learn to live with one of many other deadly diseases.
I dont wear it for members of the public who have decided to police covid regulations.
Hopefully we won't be using masks this time next year so a formal exemption scheme and certificates would be a waste of time. If we don't have a vaccine by next summer then we need to get back on with life and learn to live with one of many other deadly diseases.
In my view it would be better for shop and rail staff to avoid actively challenging individuals. It is not their job to enforce and that is reflected by the policy of the majority of TOCs and supermarkets. So long as signs are displayed, appropriate announcements made etc., anyone not wearing a covering should simply be assumed to be exempt.
I recognise that staff might be challenged by mask enthusiasts about individuals not wearing coverings. The answer to that should be along the lines of: “please remember not everyone is required or able to cover”. If they find that unacceptable, that is their problem, and they should simply be advised to move and/or leave the premises.
They could also point out that, according to the law, shop and rail staff (apart from TfL) are not responsible for enforcement.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Which means the system is less effective, as then those who could wear coverings but don't like it then don't. And many such people are younger and so less likely to distance and so pose a greater risk.
The mind boggles as to why those with genuine exemptions don't want those exemptions keeping for them. After all, if everyone who is not exempt wears a covering, it's safer for those who can't, too.
If you were in a wheelchair, say, and needed the loo, would you be particularly happy that I'd decided to take the Daily Telegraph into the disabled cubicle just because I felt like, and so you'd have to wait? I bet you wouldn't. Or that if you needed to use your Blue Badge to park next to the supermarket, that I'd parked there "just for a minute"? I bet you wouldn't, and again quite rightly so.
I suspect some of those shouting about it in here are people who wouldn't get an exemption if it had to be given formally, though?
I know some of you don't want masks. But if we are going to have them, and the Government has decided we are, then to me it really is quite important that those who really can't wear one are the only people who do not.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,326
Where will the enormous bureaucracy required to administer this system come from?
How many months do you want to set it up?
- Status