England set to drop facemasks and social distancing on July 19

[RuralRambler]

We have to hope that SD restrictions are done away with too. Then we can get back to normal for the likes of Uni students who've suffered a truly miserable year with no face to face teaching. Without legal restrictions in place, Unis (and their staff/unions) have no reason not to get back to normal with face to face teaching. If the teaching and other staff are worried, then let them carry with with mask wearing or it's time for them to change jobs.

 

[bengley]

Yes, being distressed has always been counted as an exemption and has always had my full support. Where in my post do I say otherwise?

Read what the original poster wrote though and I think you will find that they don’t mention the list of legal exemptions…

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jun 2021 ==


I fully support anyone with a legal exemption and as I mentioned in my post I’ve actually stood up for them and this was against a very aggressive member of railway staff.

I dislike wearing masks but they don’t cause me distress and hence I’m not exempt.

Why do you always go on the defensive? I wasn't arguing with you. Just adding to the conversation.

 

[HSTEd]

We have to hope that SD restrictions are done away with too. Then we can get back to normal for the likes of Uni students who've suffered a truly miserable year with no face to face teaching. Without legal restrictions in place, Unis (and their staff/unions) have no reason not to get back to normal with face to face teaching. If the teaching and other staff are worried, then let them carry with with mask wearing or it's time for them to change jobs.

Non face to face teaching is much cheaper, I very much doubt it will ever return.

 

[NorthOxonian]

We have to hope that SD restrictions are done away with too. Then we can get back to normal for the likes of Uni students who've suffered a truly miserable year with no face to face teaching. Without legal restrictions in place, Unis (and their staff/unions) have no reason not to get back to normal with face to face teaching. If the teaching and other staff are worried, then let them carry with with mask wearing or it's time for them to change jobs.

I can't see that being likely - the unions will just threaten to go on strike, and sadly rather than stick up for students, the students' unions will demand that we support them out of "solidarity". That said, most of the issues around universities should be resolved by the rules going either way.

 

[hst43102]

We have to hope that SD restrictions are done away with too. Then we can get back to normal for the likes of Uni students who've suffered a truly miserable year with no face to face teaching. Without legal restrictions in place, Unis (and their staff/unions) have no reason not to get back to normal with face to face teaching. If the teaching and other staff are worried, then let them carry with with mask wearing or it's time for them to change jobs.

This can't be understated. I'm in my first year at uni and it has been a total farce. I've been lied to and failed countless times by the govt and the uni - and I've seriously considered dropping the course multiple times.

 

[duncanp]

It is being reported that face coverings may be "advisory in some settings" after 19th July.

What worries me about this is that some businesses will act as if they were still compulsory, and have NO MASK NO ENTRY signs up at the entrance.

I hope the government makes it clear to shops, pubs etc, that they cannot arbitrarily decide to act as face coverings were still compulsory.

If face coverings are "advisory" on public transport, no doubt some maskivists on the railways (especially LNER & Cross Country) will continue to make announcements along the lines of "..please continue to wear a mask to show that you care about the health of your fellow passengers..", and National Express West Midlands buses will carry on with their annoying automated announcement "..you must wear a face covering to avoid infecting other people.."

 

[kristiang85]

Non face to face teaching is much cheaper, I very much doubt it will ever return.

As I work around many lecturers, most of them deeply care about the education they give and can't wait for face to face teaching to return.

Yes universities might look at the bottom line, but the coffers will quickly dry up as students will go elsewhere to insitutions here or abroad that offer face to face teaching.

So I'm pretty certain that will be back to normal.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I hope the government makes it clear to shops, pubs etc, that they cannot arbitrarily decide to act as face coverings were still compulsory.

But they can if they want to.

Shops, pubs etc can impose any rule they wish as long as they are not discriminating based on protected characteristics.
Not wanting to wear a mask is not one of those things. Granted there are some linked discussions around disability but as long as you make reasonable accomodations for that, then you can absolutely "arbitrarily decide to act as face coverings were still compulsory". Its up to the business what rules they want inside their premises.

Of course you will find that a business that does that will likely suffer financially and so would likely remove that rule pretty quickly, but it doesn't change the fact places could do that if they want to (and I wouldn't be surprised to see some try - especially if they are owned or staffed by specifically vulnerable people).

 

[duncanp]

But they can if they want to.

Shops, pubs etc can impose any rule they wish as long as they are not discriminating based on protected characteristics.
Not wanting to wear a mask is not one of those things. Granted there are some linked discussions around disability but as long as you make reasonable accomodations for that, then you can absolutely "arbitrarily decide to act as face coverings were still compulsory". Its up to the business what rules they want inside their premises.

Of course you will find that a business that does that will likely suffer financially and so would likely remove that rule pretty quickly, but it doesn't change the fact places could do that if they want to (and I wouldn't be surprised to see some try - especially if they are owned or staffed by specifically vulnerable people).

If any pub or shop tries to insist on face coverings being compulsory after July 19th, as is their right, I shall take my business elsewhere, as is my right.

 

[sjpowermac]

Why do you always go on the defensive? I wasn't arguing with you. Just adding to the conversation.

If you are not contradicting, questioning or agreeing with a post, then I’m at a loss as to why you feel the need to quote it.

Anyhow, at least we have debunked the claim that not believing masks work isn’t a valid exemption.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jun 2021 ==

Causing severe distress is an exemption so I shall leave it up to each individual to decide whether wearing one causes them this.

Which is quite different from what you wrote previously, but thank you for clarifying.

I completely agree, it’s up to each individual to decide if the mask causes them distress, which is as I’ve posted previously.

Subsequent posts have revealed that ‘not believing masks work’ isn’t a valid exemption.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jun 2021 ==

I'd have to agree. I think a small number of people are relying on the 'cause severe distress' exemption in this case, but while I have a lot of sympathy for that position on moral grounds [1], I don't think that stands up legally and I'd be very wary of relying solely on that if you want to remain following the law - it seems pretty clear to me that the intent of this exemption is to cover eg. people who have been physically or sexually abused while having their face covered in some way by the abuser.

'Fortunately' I have other reasons for exemption.

[1] if you feel that you are being required to do something that you believe is totally pointless, an unacceptable imposition by the state on what you must wear, and if you believe that wearing one is therefore signalling your support for something that you really don't support, then that could be considered to cause 'severe distress', at least mentally. I've seen it compared to the government requiring in March 2003 that everyone go around with a sign on their head saying 'I support the Iraq War', which is a slightly flawed analogy but makes the point.



I note that in Israel, all of three weeks or so since they dropped their mask mandates, they're now discussing bringing them back Though there is a recent change of government involved there, which may be related.

I agree with all you have put there. It was reading a story in August 2020 about how someone had been abused and struggled with masks that really made me think about this topic.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jun 2021 ==

To be honest in schools I think face coverings ruin communication which is so important in education.

As someone who is now double vaccinated I will be using my face coverings a lot less from now on.

Agree re-schools, masks have been a complete farce.

 

[MikeWM]

It is being reported that face coverings may be "advisory in some settings" after 19th July.

What worries me about this is that some businesses will act as if they were still compulsory, and have NO MASK NO ENTRY signs up at the entrance.

Apple Stores and Disney Stores did this *before* they were compulsory in shops... I suspect rather more will do so immediately after the mandate is lifted, unfortunately, at least for a little while. Though hopefully at some point they will go the same way as hand sanitiser, which this time last year was pretty much policed by every shop, but now you have to actively seek out a place that still cares.

There is an issue here for those with valid exemptions, of course - currently it is pretty clear that those exemptions are legally required to be honoured. After the law is removed, you'd have to fall back onto other laws (eg. the Equalities Act) to make it clear that those with exemptions are required to be treated like everyone else - which is valid, but perhaps less easy to demonstrate. In addition, some people have valid exemptions currently (eg. those who have 'severe distress' eg. as a result of prior abuse that involved an abuser covering their face) that I'm not at all sure would be covered by eg. the Equalities Act.

So there's a potential for a right mess here. Hopefully we'll avoid all that and find a sensible way forward.

 

[sjpowermac]

Apple Stores and Disney Stores did this *before* they were compulsory in shops... I suspect rather more will do so immediately after the mandate is lifted, unfortunately, at least for a little while. Though hopefully at some point they will go the same way as hand sanitiser, which this time last year was pretty much policed by every shop, but now you have to actively seek out a place that still cares.

There is an issue here for those with valid exemptions, of course - currently it is pretty clear that those exemptions are legally required to be honoured. After the law is removed, you'd have to fall back onto other laws (eg. the Equalities Act) to make it clear that those with exemptions are required to be treated like everyone else - which is valid, but perhaps less easy to demonstrate. In addition, some people have valid exemptions currently (eg. those who have 'severe distress' eg. as a result of prior abuse that involved an abuser covering their face) that I'm not at all sure would be covered by eg. the Equalities Act.

So there's a potential for a right mess here. Hopefully we'll avoid all that and find a sensible way forward.

You’ve made some very good points there and all things with which I have a great deal of sympathy. Also, for masks today, read ‘Covid passports’ tomorrow… a very slippery slope.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jun 2021 ==

In England, it has never been the law to wear a mask at non-public workplaces.

I can assure you that they were a requirement (I’m not 100% if it was a legal one) in my place of work but now they are just advised.

EDIT: ‘Non-binding guidance’ to be fair, though since I’m not exempt I wouldn’t have felt happy at that stage not to wear one.

 

[jumble]

Apple Stores and Disney Stores did this *before* they were compulsory in shops... I suspect rather more will do so immediately after the mandate is lifted, unfortunately, at least for a little while. Though hopefully at some point they will go the same way as hand sanitiser, which this time last year was pretty much policed by every shop, but now you have to actively seek out a place that still cares.

There is an issue here for those with valid exemptions, of course - currently it is pretty clear that those exemptions are legally required to be honoured. After the law is removed, you'd have to fall back onto other laws (eg. the Equalities Act) to make it clear that those with exemptions are required to be treated like everyone else - which is valid, but perhaps less easy to demonstrate. In addition, some people have valid exemptions currently (eg. those who have 'severe distress' eg. as a result of prior abuse that involved an abuser covering their face) that I'm not at all sure would be covered by eg. the Equalities Act.

So there's a potential for a right mess here. Hopefully we'll avoid all that and find a sensible way forward.

Likewise mask enforcement /Track and trace in our local area (West London)
Previously
Asda had Covid safe marshalls offering free masks if you entered without one
Now no one asks or cares
Lidl had security guard on door asking about masks
Now no one asks or cares
Tesco had security guard on door asking about masks
Now no one asks or cares
Large pub chain insisted on T and T with staff member on door asking everyone if they had complied
They also enforced masks
Now no one asks or cares

The only shops that seem to care are Charity shops, chemist shops and barbers and I suspect that this is because they are too small to tell our local council to get lost

On TFL there are far more people not complying than previously which makes Sadiq Khans poll seem absurd
( I would guess 25 to 30% either no mask or below nose as opposed to 10% before last Monday)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jun 2021 ==

It's not about that; mask mandates are about asserting authoritarianism & control, pandering to hysterical people and providing a placebo to people who have been scared by vaccine efficacy deniers.

I'd argue mask mandates have never made sense but it's more true now than ever before. The whole thing is absolutely bonkers. The likes of Texas and Florida have it right and those made false claims about those places now have egg on their faces.

And the continuing mandate is saying "get stuffed sucker" to all the people who did not want the vaccine but were told that they were protecting others and if they did masks would be gone by now.
This is the situation I am in now and am not pleased with the Government

Just look at that farce down in Cornwall where world leaders all mixed with no quarantine, no masks and were hugging and kissing when they thought the cameras weren't watching to confirm that you are correct
Maybe it was the wake up call people needed.

 

[ashworth]

If any pub or shop tries to insist on face coverings being compulsory after July 19th, as is their right, I shall take my business elsewhere, as is my right.

Which is exactly what I have done with those pubs and restaurants that will only take orders using apps on a smartphone. My little bit of business lost is perhaps of little concern to them but it makes me feel better for doing it.

 

[WelshBluebird]

If any pub or shop tries to insist on face coverings being compulsory after July 19th, as is their right, I shall take my business elsewhere, as is my right.

And that is fair enough! My point was more that, as it is your right to take your business elsewhere, it is also a businesses right to determine what rules they want in place on their premises (and that those rules can absolutely be rules over and beyond the law).

 

[island]

If any pub or shop tries to insist on face coverings being compulsory after July 19th, as is their right, I shall take my business elsewhere, as is my right.

Likewise.

I expect that once face coverings are no longer legally required, we will see:

1. They will quickly vanish from ground public transport; even if providers unwisely choose to maintain requirements as a condition of entry, there will be materially no enforcement.
2. They will remain required for some time on air transport either as a condition of carriage or because of laws at the other end. Enforcement capability of airlines is strong as for the most part the police will (on landing) arrest any passenger whom the crew point out as behaving in an “unruly” manner, and ask questions later.
3. Most shops and other businesses will not enforce them as they can’t afford to have money walk out the door to the less fussy competition down the road.
4. A minority of businesses and premises with less replaceability may still choose to require face coverings for a while “out of an abundance of caution” or “for everybody’s safety”. This could include places like rural pharmacies where the next one is some distance away, doctors‘ surgeries, Apple Stores, theme park rides, and escape rooms.
5. What the Disney Store does will be irrelevant as they are all (or almost all) closing down.

 

[RuralRambler]

Non face to face teaching is much cheaper, I very much doubt it will ever return.

Whilst true, Unis will suffer falls in income in other ways, such as those campus Unis with lots of Uni owned accommodation, and those with lots of shops/takeaways/bars etc on campus. If there's no or little F2F teaching, that lots of students will simply stay at home, and not pay for the campus flats, and with fewer students (and staff) on campus, the shops/takeaways/bars will want substantial rent reductions to stay, or simply vacate. Unis need to be very careful what they wish for!

 

[43066]

Anyhow, at least we have debunked the claim that not believing masks work isn’t a valid exemption.

If the belief that masks don’t work translates into wearing one causing them significant distress, then yes it is. The overriding point is that the exemption is 100% subjective.

And that is fair enough! My point was more that, as it is your right to take your business elsewhere, it is also a businesses right to determine what rules they want in place on their premises (and that those rules can absolutely be rules over and beyond the law).

That approach is likely to be potentially unlawful, as it will (indirectly) discriminate against those whose with disabilities (ie protected characteristics) which preclude wearing a mask. This alone will dissuade most sensible businesses from taking this approach.

I suppose there might be a few small enterprises owned by cranks who take this approach (like the ferry company mentioned above who sound like they cater to a captive market), but hardly a significant number in the grand scheme of things.

Good luck running any kind of hospitality business and insisting on masks when the competition no longer does!

Likewise.

I expect that once face coverings are no longer legally required, we will see:

1. They will quickly vanish from ground public transport; even if providers unwisely choose to maintain requirements as a condition of entry, there will be materially no enforcement.
2. They will remain required for some time on air transport either as a condition of carriage or because of laws at the other end. Enforcement capability of airlines is strong as for the most part the police will (on landing) arrest any passenger whom the crew point out as behaving in an “unruly” manner, and ask questions later.
3. Most shops and other businesses will not enforce them as they can’t afford to have money walk out the door to the less fussy competition down the road.
4. A minority of businesses and premises with less replaceability may still choose to require face coverings for a while “out of an abundance of caution” or “for everybody’s safety”. This could include places like rural pharmacies where the next one is some distance away, doctors‘ surgeries, Apple Stores, theme park rides, and escape rooms.
5. What the Disney Store does will be irrelevant as they are all (or almost all) closing down.

I think it’s overwhelmingly likely that, in fairly short order, the number of businesses insisting on a face covering to enter will be the same as it was in 2019.

 

[kristiang85]

Sunak has also said today he will ditch his mask as soon as he can. The government seem to be preparing the nation for the dropping of mask mandates, which is a very very good sign.

 

[sjpowermac]

If the belief that masks don’t work translates into wearing one causing them significant distress, then yes it is. The overriding point is that the exemption is 100% subjective.

That point has already been discussed in this post:

If a person purely didn't believe in the effectiveness of masks but was not in any way distressed, anxious to do so, then there is no cause for exemption on that basis.

Apologies that I omitted the word ‘purely’ from my post…

 

[YorkshireBear]

Time soon to start agrgressively lecturing those pro mask persisters in none reusable masks for destroying the environment after then. No conscience whatsovere. Cos those will be the ones now going off on one every time they see a disabled child who can't wear one. Revenge is a 50, best cold started.

I agree completely, but this isn't just those mask persisters it is everyone who decided to buy 200 reusable ones.

I have worn a mask throughout and have 4 reusable ones which I keep on constant rotation. I have bought 4 masks ever, none have been thrown or replaced and I haven't lost one (i.e. littered).

 

[43066]

That point has already been discussed in this post:

Apologies that I omitted the word ‘purely’ from my post…

Fair enough.

I don’t mean to be pedantic, but it’s important to be absolutely clear on these points. Unfortunately there’s a great deal of ignorance around exemptions, for example many people still seem to think that everyone wearing an exemption badge also has a hidden disability. Many will, but not all. Even more worryingly people are unaware that there is no *requirement* to wear an exemption badge, and that it’s perfectly possible to be exempt and choose not to!

Many train crew still refer to “medical exemptions” which are only one category of possible exemption. I’ve heard that one (and variations) goodness knows how many times over the last few months and it never gets any less irritating!

Sunak has also said today he will ditch his mask as soon as he can. The government seem to be preparing the nation for the dropping of mask mandates, which is a very very good sign.

Agreed.

Thankfully, from the tone of the messaging, it does sound like we are finally approaching a point where the legal mandate to wear coverings will be dropped in all situations.

 

[greyman42]

What do you specifically mean by ‘just claim an exemption’? Do you believe that people who are not exempt should claim to be so?

Many people do and there is nothing wrong with that. Good luck to them, the more who do so the better.

 

[Cdd89]

Sunak has also said today he will ditch his mask as soon as he can. The government seem to be preparing the nation for the dropping of mask mandates, which is a very very good sign.

Hmm. So logically I’d expect masks to go mandatory -> advisory -> not advised. Why would ministers want to “set a bad example” by ceasing to wear them at the advisory stage?

If they go mandatory -> not advised, it’ll beg the question of why we have (for a period of time) been mandating something which is not of critical public health benefit.

 

[sjpowermac]

Many people do and there is nothing wrong with that. Good luck to them, the more who do so the better.

So you are advising people to break the law? That people who are not exempt should claim to be exempt?

As mentioned previously, I absolutely support those who are exempt not to wear a mask.

I also believe that it’s the business of the person concerned as to their reason for exemption.

What you seem to be promoting though is that people without exemptions should claim to be exempt. Is that correct?

 

[roversfan2001]

So you are advising people to break the law? That people who are not exempt should claim to be exempt?

As mentioned previously, I absolutely support those who are exempt not to wear a mask.

I also believe that it’s the business of the person concerned as to their reason for exemption.

What you seem to be promoting though is that people without exemptions should claim to be exempt. Is that correct?

Do all of your posts across the forum aim to try and catch other people out or is it just in this subforum?

Encouraging people to claim an exemption isn't advising people to break the law. Encouraging people to not wear a mask without claiming an exemption would be advising people to break the law. The 'severe distress' exemption is quite wide ranging as it isn't clearly defined (and rightfully so, as it encompasses all sorts of situations).

 

[sjpowermac]

Do all of your posts across the forum aim to try and catch other people out or is it just in this subforum?

Encouraging people to claim an exemption isn't advising people to break the law. Encouraging people to not wear a mask without claiming an exemption would be advising people to break the law. The 'severe distress' exemption is quite wide ranging as it isn't clearly defined (and rightfully so, as it encompasses all sorts of situations).

No, I asked the original poster to clarify their position, which I feel sure they will.

I absolutely agree, anyone with an exemption should claim it and in no way feel bad about doing so. If you read the post to which I replied, the poster made no reference to claiming a legal exemption.

The point that I asked for clarification on earlier related to claiming an exemption purely because a person felt that masks don’t work.

That has now been clarified by @yorkie here:

If a person purely didn't believe in the effectiveness of masks but was not in any way distressed, anxious to do so, then there is no cause for exemption on that basis.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jun 2021 ==

Fair enough.

I don’t mean to be pedantic, but it’s important to be absolutely clear on these points. Unfortunately there’s a great deal of ignorance around exemptions, for example many people still seem to think that everyone wearing an exemption badge also has a hidden disability. Many will, but not all. Even more worryingly people are unaware that there is no *requirement* to wear an exemption badge, and that it’s perfectly possible to be exempt and choose not to!

Many train crew still refer to “medical exemptions” which are only one category of possible exemption. I’ve heard that one (and variations) goodness knows how many times over the last few months and it never gets any less irritating!

I didn’t take the point as being pedantic and agree, the word ‘purely’ was important to the argument

Agree too that it’s quite astonishing the amount of ignorance around this matter, even amongst HR ‘professionals’ with whom I’ve had several exchanges on behalf of colleagues.

 

[liam456]

As I work around many lecturers, most of them deeply care about the education they give and can't wait for face to face teaching to return.

Yes universities might look at the bottom line, but the coffers will quickly dry up as students will go elsewhere to insitutions here or abroad that offer face to face teaching.

So I'm pretty certain that will be back to normal.

Fingers crossed!

 

[Class 33]

England set to drop facemasks and social distancing on July 19.​

Well yes, hopefully this really will turn out to be the case on 19th July. But I'll believe it when I see it!

England set to drop face masks and social distancing just can't come soon enough for me! It's long long overdue! Am sick to the back teeth of these nonsense restrictions we've had to so far endure for the past 15 months!

For me, using public transport(especially for long journeys) will be MUCH more appealing once this face mask and social distancing nonsense is scrapped! Wearing face masks on public transport is uncomfortable, especially during the warmer weather. Also it's not just that, it's the tedious PA annoucements(either pre-recorded or "live" or both!) that keep going off frequently telling us we MUST wear face masks at all times and we MUST socially distance. And I read on here that some of the conductors on trains can be very harsh and even bullying like with their PA announcements about wearing face masks, i.e. telling us if we're not wearing one we may be fined, arrested and thrown off the train by British Transport Police! This is very very off-putting.

I'm hoping to do a return trip from London King's Cross-Edinburgh soon. It's been 6 years since I've been up there. It's a great limited stop train journey. But from reading some of the comments on here about some of the conductors PA announcements on LNER services about face masks and social distancing, makes it not very appealing! So I'm not intending to do such a trip until this social distancing and face mask nonsense is finally scrapped. Hopefully this will be the case no later than 19th July in England and no later than 9th August in Scotland!

Hope this helps with your research!

Oh and some other stuff I forgot to mention in my posting yesterday....

It's also all the signage about social distancing/keep your distance and face masks(along with all these cartoon heads wearing face masks!), all these black and yellow(or whatever colours!) hazzard tapes, ridiculous one-way systems, perspex dividers, etc which I find extremely annoying and tiresome. We don't need all this nonsense now!

Bring on 19th July and hopefully finally finally the end to all this nonsense! This just can't some enough!

Once these restrictions I look forward to doing some long distance train journeys soon.

 

[richa2002]

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jun 2021 ==


Which is quite different from what you wrote previously, but thank you for clarifying.

I completely agree, it’s up to each individual to decide if the mask causes them distress, which is as I’ve posted previously.

Subsequent posts have revealed that ‘not believing masks work’ isn’t a valid exemption.

I think you need to re-read my original post. I simply said "You don't even have to break the law in doing so, just claim an exemption which are sufficiently vague that anyone can legally do so.". I didn't mention the severe distress exemption specifically but that is just a case of being ambiguous and unspecific rather than saying anything "quite different". The vague and unobjective nature of 'severe distress' means anyone can do so as it seems to be a self-declared condition with no objective assessment.