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!
The "short" timescale is looking like being a full year at the minimum, and masks are repeatedly being talked about as the nice easy restriction we could keep in place right through next year "just in case".
The whole case is based on the idea that they aren't a significant inconvenience, so we might as well do it "just in case". The situation in the UK is just about tolerable because we have the exemptions. Where there are no exceptions, life is being made effectively impossible for a significant chunk of the population, for an extended period of time, and lots of people are pushing for that here.
You can't have a situation where for a extended period, if certain people they try to take any part in life at all they are labelled as murderers and denied access. Doing it "just in case" is monstrous
But when you look at their arguments it's based on theoretical studies using proper masks and proper usage; I am yet to see any concensus that mask mandates are effective.
Years of studies had previously suggested against mandates; it's only when some theoretical studies were done in a rush last Spring that a sudden U turn occured.
Have you read my posts about how people with anxieties, disabilities, medical conditions, autism etc have been treated? I have cited many examples and provides numerous quotes.
If not, and if you can't find them, let me know and I will find the links.
If you have, then do you really think that the impact on people who are disadvantaged can be so easily disregarded?
But when you look at their arguments it's based on theoretical studies using proper masks and proper usage; I am yet to see any concensus that mask mandates are effective.
Years of studies had previously suggested against mandates; it's only when some theoretical studies were done in a rush last Spring that a sudden U turn occured.
Have you read my posts about how people with anxieties, disabilities, medical conditions, autism etc have been treated? I have cited many examples and provides numerous quotes.
If not, and if you can't find them, let me know and I will find the links.
If you have, then do you really think that the impact on people who are disadvantaged can be so easily disregarded?
The jury is out on masks and their effectiveness but the point is most people medically exempt are happy to wearing sunflower lanyards or show other ID. The issue is with the very small minority including a number on here (yes I have read the links) that don't like the law and decide they want to disobey it. There's a few laws I don't like but I obey them. I think I should go 80 mph on the motorway but accept that if I get caught then I'll get a fine.
For 30 years I worked with autistic children in my capacity as a teacher so I do know something about disabilities. If they did something wrong it might be a reason but it could never be an excuse for their behaviour. Same applies here.
At the moment there is a law to wear face coverings in Supermarkets and the Supermarkets want to be more rigorous in their enforcement due to an increased transmission rate of the new variant virus whilst giving reasonable leeway to those able give some sort of ID. That seems sensible.
My point is that those who are genuinely medically exempt and won't use sunflower lanyards etc are in the very small minority and the rest are just bloody minded (including some on here)
As for people being 'disadvantaged' I say more people are advantaged than disadvantaged here.
Finally, the vast majority of Scientists and medical professions think that face coverings should be worn so I'm happy to go along with the experts with qualifications and not the 'experts' on here (or social media).
If a couple of years down the line we find that masks were useless (I accept the science is dynamic) then fine by me but on the balance of risk at the moment best to go with what the Supermarkets are proposing even if a very small minority are affected.
Uses of terms like 'disgrace' and 'monstrous' are amusing beyond belief. I don't like wear face coverings but don't have a tantrum wearing one at this current time. I do agree though that long term use of masks would be wrong and I would not be in favour. Of course there is the worry that the time taken to decide to remove the requirement in important and some risk averse person in charge (politician/manager) may not wish to rescind the mandate even when the risk of infection is very low. (Think bins on stations)
The jury is out on masks and their effectiveness but the point is most people medically exempt are happy to wear sunflower lanyards or show other ID. The issue is with the very small minority including a number on here (yes I have read the links) that don't like the law and decide they want to disobey it. There's a few laws I don't like but I obey them. I think I should go 80 mph on the motorway but accept that if I get caught then I'll get a fine.
For 30 years I worked with autistic children in my capacity as a teacher so I do know something about disabilities. If they did something wrong it might be a reason but it could never be an excuse for their behaviour. Same applies here.
At the moment there is a law to wear face coverings in Supermarkets and the Supermarkets want to be more rigorous in their enforcement due to an increased transmission rate of the new variant virus whilst giving reasonable leeway to those able give some sort of ID. That seems sensible.
My point is that those who are genuinely medically exempt and won't use sunflower lanyards etc are in the very small minority and the rest are just bloody minded (including some on here)
As for people being 'disadvantaged' I say more people are advantaged than disadvantaged here.
Finally, the vast majority of Scientists and medical professions think that face coverings should be worn so I'm happy to go along with the experts with qualifications and not the 'experts' on here (or social media).
If a couple of years down the line we find that masks were useless (I accept the science is dynamic) then fine by me but on the balance of risk at the moment best to go with what the Supermarkets are proposing even if a very small minority are affected.
Uses of terms like 'disgrace' and 'monstrous' are amusing beyond belief. I don't like wear face coverings but don't have a tantrum wearing one at this current time. I do agree though that long term use of masks would be wrong and I would not be in favour. Of course there is the worry that the time taken to decide to remove the requirement in important and some risk averse person in charge (politician/manager) may not wish to rescind the mandate even when the risk of infection is very low. (Think bins on stations)
We shall see how long this keeps up when the parents are asked to start handing over private data to head teachers as mentioned elsewhere.
The tune will change when it affects those individuals who say its not a problem to share personal/private information to strangers when not required to by law.
Just returned from my local Tesco with my daughter and my first experience of the new stricter 'rules'. We were both wearing masks, entered the store and were approached immediately.
"Is there any reason why you both need to shop together today?"
I know those who want us all to see the 'greater good' won't see any problem with this but I find the fact that supermarket staff now want to enquire about your childcare habits a bit concerning, especially if you consider most other childcare arrangements are impossible. It's small fry compared to the enquiries people have said they are making about medical conditions though. Despite being wholly necessary, shopping is becoming a very unpleasant experience.
The new rules in supermarkets won't last, they just have to be seen to be doing something now the Government's Blame Game Darts™ have landed on them this week.
Just returned from my local Tesco with my daughter and my first experience of the new stricter 'rules'. We were both wearing masks, entered the store and were approached immediately.
I know those who want us all to see the 'greater good' won't see any problem with this but I find the fact that supermarket staff now want to enquire about your childcare habits a bit concerning, especially if you consider most other childcare arrangements are impossible. It's small fry compared to the enquiries people have said they are making about medical conditions though. Despite being wholly necessary, shopping is becoming a very unpleasant experience.
Just returned from my local Tesco with my daughter and my first experience of the new stricter 'rules'. We were both wearing masks, entered the store and were approached immediately.
I know those who want us all to see the 'greater good' won't see any problem with this but I find the fact that supermarket staff now want to enquire about your childcare habits a bit concerning, especially if you consider most other childcare arrangements are impossible. It's small fry compared to the enquiries people have said they are making about medical conditions though. Despite being wholly necessary, shopping is becoming a very unpleasant experience.
I was the opposite yesterday at my Sainsbury’s with my mum, got told only one person per household, mum explained I help with the bags but still any other time never been asked and this was a first
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The new rules in supermarkets won't last, they just have to be seen to be doing something now the Government's Blame Game Darts™ have landed on them this week.
I hope so, it was bad enough in the summer last year for me on a train to Glasgow - it’s your responsibility etc but still feel free to complain if someone isn’t keeping their distance
However there is also a consensus among scientists that they are not helpful where social distancing can be maintained. This is of no interest to the zealots (I’m not referring to you here) who want to see them worn at all times.
If those most in favour of masks didn’t push for them in contexts where they make zero sense (outdoors, empty train carriages, etc), with language like “wear a damn mask”, there wouldn’t be this pushing back and it would be a lot less divisive.
The result of pushing for them everywhere is that some section of the population throw the towel in (whether in obvious or subtle ways), including in situations where they might make a difference.
If you are in favour of masks, it is actually in your interest to highly target their use to where are most effective. Wearing a mask properly is quite unpleasant, so when people accept it’s only in the most limited contexts, that way people will wear them properly in those contexts, hopefully wear a fresh one, and not keep half wearing the same moisture filled one that may do more harm than good.
The problem is that targeting their use to situations where they are truly effective is hard to legislate in the law - it comes down to common sense rather than broad brushes. But given that the current law is unenforceable anyway, I would question how much good it does and whether the emphasis should be on personal responsibility alone.
However there is also a consensus among scientists that they are not helpful where social distancing can be maintained. This is of no interest to the zealots (I’m not referring to you here) who want to see them worn at all times.
If those most in favour of masks didn’t push for them in contexts where they make zero sense (outdoors, empty train carriages, etc), with language like “wear a damn mask”, there wouldn’t be this pushing back and it would be a lot less divisive.
The result of pushing for them everywhere is that some section of the population throw the towel in (whether in obvious or subtle ways), including in situations where they might make a difference.
If you are in favour of masks, it is actually in your interest to highly target their use to where are most effective. Wearing a mask properly is quite unpleasant, so when people accept it’s only in the most limited contexts, that way people will wear them properly in those contexts, hopefully wear a fresh one, and not keep half wearing the same moisture filled one that may do more harm than good.
The problem is that targeting their use to situations where they are truly effective is hard to legislate in the law - it comes down to common sense rather than broad brushes. But given that the current law is unenforceable anyway, I would question how much good it does and whether the emphasis should be on personal responsibility alone.
You may be interested to know I am pretty anti-mask but see the need for them at this current time (and more so at a time of high infection and a more infection variant)
I hate the mask zealots (all over social media) but also strongly dislike those who are just saying I'm not wearing face coverings (masking (pun intended) the real reason that they are just being stroppy).
I agree that if social distancing can be maintained then there is no point. As an example I would be dead against the wearing masks outside as there's no scientific reason to do so. However, in Supermarkets (and other enclosed spaces) there may well be good reasons to do so. The vast majority are happy to comply ( I include those genuinely exempt) with the law but there is a hard core who are just being objectionable (compliance is violence and all that nonsense). A very small number of genuine cases will be adversely affected but if we can decrease the numbers of 'refusers' then all the better.
Mandatory masking on public transport and shops was introduced in June and July last year.
1. That is not a short time scale with it seems many more months to go and no exit plan.
2. It was far from being when infection rates were "very high", as it was pretty much the nadir in infections.
Just returned from my local Tesco with my daughter and my first experience of the new stricter 'rules'. We were both wearing masks, entered the store and were approached immediately.
I know those who want us all to see the 'greater good' won't see any problem with this but I find the fact that supermarket staff now want to enquire about your childcare habits a bit concerning, especially if you consider most other childcare arrangements are impossible. It's small fry compared to the enquiries people have said they are making about medical conditions though. Despite being wholly necessary, shopping is becoming a very unpleasant experience.
I wonder if we'll be hassled on Saturday evening. This tends to be "relaxed hour" in my local Tesco's. In particular no one bats an eyelid regarding masks. I certainly have every intention that the two of us will be shopping together this coming Saturday.
Having said that, there was an odd atmosphere in there at 2130 last Saturday. I did wonder if there was some terrified types who'd changed their usual shopping time to one where they knew the store might be empty. Normally it's a pretty good atmosphere at that time, few people about, most of those in there just wanting to get round as painlessly as possible, and generally pleasant interactions with the staff.
I wonder if we'll be hassled on Saturday evening. This tends to be "relaxed hour" in my local Tesco's. In particular no one bats an eyelid regarding masks. I certainly have every intention that the two of us will be shopping together this coming Saturday.
Having said that, there was an odd atmosphere in there at 2130 last Saturday. I did wonder if there was some terrified types who'd changed their usual shopping time to one where they knew the store might be empty. Normally it's a pretty good atmosphere at that time, few people about, most of those in there just wanting to get round as painlessly as possible, and generally pleasant interactions with the staff.
The government's long term plan is probably that supermarkets will be restricted to one designated household member, wearing a mask, gloves and goggles. Once they have paid online in advance they will be allowed 30 seconds to collect a prepaid hamper for each household member prepared by Compass Group* with £30 worth of food in it.
* An open procurement process will actually allow any company meeting the annual threshold for Conservative Party donations to produce hampers
The government's long term plan is probably that supermarkets will be restricted to one designated household member, wearing a mask, gloves and goggles. Once they have paid online in advance they will be allowed 30 seconds to collect a prepaid hamper for each household member prepared by Compass Group* with £30 worth of food in it.
* An open procurement process will actually allow any company meeting the annual threshold for Conservative Party donations to produce hampers
The jury is out on masks and their effectiveness but the point is most people medically exempt are happy to wearing sunflower lanyards or show other ID. The issue is with the very small minority including a number on here (yes I have read the links) that don't like the law and decide they want to disobey it.
At the moment there is a law to wear face coverings in Supermarkets and the Supermarkets want to be more rigorous in their enforcement due to an increased transmission rate of the new variant virus whilst giving reasonable leeway to those able give some sort of ID. That seems sensible.
My point is that those who are genuinely medically exempt and won't use sunflower lanyards etc are in the very small minority and the rest are just bloody minded (including some on here)
Do you count anxieties, autism etc as "medical" exemptions? Wearing a lanyard does not guarantee avoiding hassle; I've been present when people wearing lanyards have been challenged. Also people should not have to label themselves nor is there any requirement to do so.
But how do you define disadvantaged? There are around 3800 active members but most won't be posting about this. I don't think the numbers and proportions are particularly relevant here.
Finally, the vast majority of Scientists and medical professions think that face coverings should be worn so I'm happy to go along with the experts with qualifications and not the 'experts' on here (or social media).
If a couple of years down the line we find that masks were useless (I accept the science is dynamic) then fine by me but on the balance of risk at the moment best to go with what the Supermarkets are proposing even if a very small minority are affected.
Those who are affected are disproportionately affected. Also I'd estimate around 10% of the population would be covered by exemptions which is not a proportion that can be ignored.
This suggests a lack of understanding of the issues people face; I ask again if you have read my posts where I have provided quotes? Have you read the concerns of forum members about their anxieties?
Then I urge you to join us and fight authoritarianism; the authoritarians want this to be a long term thing. If you are not ready to join our fight yet, fair enough, but if you are true to your word, the time will come.
Of course there is the worry that the time taken to decide to remove the requirement in important and some risk averse person in charge (politician/manager) may not wish to rescind the mandate even when the risk of infection is very low. (Think bins on stations)
The lender reiterated that face masks are mandatory in all branches, unless legally exempt, warning customers that non-compliance could result in accounts being closed
www.mirror.co.uk
Interestingly they say "Sadly, some people are failing to protect themselves [...] by refusing to wear a face covering inside our branches"
I thought masks were only supposed to be about protecting others?
Just returned from my local Tesco with my daughter and my first experience of the new stricter 'rules'. We were both wearing masks, entered the store and were approached immediately.
I know those who want us all to see the 'greater good' won't see any problem with this but I find the fact that supermarket staff now want to enquire about your childcare habits a bit concerning, especially if you consider most other childcare arrangements are impossible. It's small fry compared to the enquiries people have said they are making about medical conditions though. Despite being wholly necessary, shopping is becoming a very unpleasant experience.
If they try that when I take my two small children with me (which happens occasionally) they'll get a sarcastic reply along the lines of "maybe I should leave them with their grandparents."
Banks, like any business reserve the right not to do business with you (but not because of a disability or other protected characteristic). I'd guess they'll just return your money and close the account.
You see news stories periodically of people having accounts randomly closed for no reason.
Banks, like any business reserve the right not to do business with you (but not because of a disability or other protected characteristic). I'd guess they'll just return your money and close the account.
You see news stories periodically of people having accounts randomly closed for no reason.
Just like a customer is not obliged to continue using a bank, a bank is not obliged to continue serving a customer. Generally, it will have to give two months’ notice of closure of the account, but that is all. Even if the closure is later found to be discriminatory, the resolution would be an award of compensation; the bank is very unlikely to be ordered to keep an account going.
Nevertheless, if a customer has chosen not to make alternative arrangements in the two-month period, the bank may remit the customer’s funds to them by cheque, but...
Just like a customer is not obliged to continue using a bank, a bank is not obliged to continue serving a customer. Generally, it will have to give two months’ notice of closure of the account, but that is all. Even if the closure is later found to be discriminatory, the resolution would be an award of compensation; the bank is very unlikely to be ordered to keep an account going.
Nevertheless, if a customer has chosen not to make alternative arrangements in the two-month period, the bank may remit the customer’s funds to them by cheque, but...
...this would be the more usual arrangement.
One might end up needing to use a branchless bank such as Starling, I suppose, but we are squarely into the territory of the firmly unlikely.
And in the meantime, of course, you'd be unable to access your money, use your debit cards, etc. If you didn't have an alternate supply of cash, what are you supposed to do?
This is one of the key reasons why the move to a 'cashless' society needs to be resisted.
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.
