UK face coverings discussion

[43066]

What sort of proof are they looking for, as there is no "proof" available, apart from saying "I am exempt"

No proof is available - and none is required - according to the government‘s own guidelines!

Unfortunately a significant minority of the population are busybodies who enjoy poking their noses in. Put them in a uniform and a high vis and they’re ten times worse. I’m sorry to say there are lots like this working on the railway.

Staff have been told not to enforce these measures. A guard or platform staff member might ask if you have a face covering (even that is a stretch). If you say you’re exempt they should accept that. If they question any further or ask for proof they should be reported immediately.

 

[mawallace]

The Government guidance read, on 31 July 2020 as follows:-





For members of the public, from 8 August the places where you will have to wear a face covering will be expanded to include:

• funeral directors
• premises providing professional, legal or financial services …..

Highlighting mine.



The guidance now reads:-



In England, you must wear a face covering in the following indoor settings (a list of examples for each is included in the brackets):

• public transport (aeroplanes, trains, trams and buses)
• transport hubs (airports, rail and tram stations and terminals, maritime ports and terminals, bus and coach stations and terminals)
• shops and supermarkets (places which offer goods or services for retail sale or hire)
• shopping centres (malls and indoor markets)
• auction houses
• premises providing professional, legal or financial services (post offices, banks, building societies, high-street solicitors and accountants, credit unions, short-term loan providers, savings clubs and money service businesses)

Highlighting mine.



The word “must” and the text that comes after this would suggest that it is a legal requirement that you wear a face covering in an accountant office, such as mine.



However, I have read the latest regulation https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/839/regulation/2/made#f00002 and I note that the following settings were added:-



“5. Indoor places of worship.

6. Community centres including youth centres.

7. Crematoria and burial ground chapels.

8. Public areas in hotels and hostels.

9. Concert halls, exhibition halls and other public halls.

10. Cinemas.

11. Museums, galleries, aquariums, indoor zoos and visitor farms, and other indoor, or indoor parts of, tourist, heritage or cultural sites.

12. Bingo halls.

13. Public libraries and reading rooms.”.



Professional offices are not on the list.



As the owner of an accountancy practice I would like to know if it is Government advice, or the Law, which governs the wearing of face covering.

 

[furlong]

As the owner of an accountancy practice I would like to know if it is Government advice, or the Law, which governs the wearing of face covering.

Doublespeak has been a common theme throughout this government's handling of the situation - look no further than the justifications for the trips of Dominic Cummings. Statements from politicians and the media and guidelines seem often to have been out of alignment with the law at the time. In law, schools have not been closed and continue to provide a "typical" education to all their pupils. Face coverings don't act as prophylactics in law even though the guidance suggests that is why they have been mandated.

 

[trebor79]

Doublespeak has been a common theme throughout [...] Face coverings don't act as prophylactics in law even though the guidance suggests that is why they have been mandated.

Yes, because the government is prohibited by statute from enforcing prophylaxis.
Somebody should push for a judicial review, but then they'd just push a line that face coverings are useless as virus prevention and therefore not a prophylactic, rather something to "make people fee safe".

I really do think we are being softened up for face coverings in schools. It's the same drip drip of partially rebuffed media stories that we saw before face coverings on shops was mandated.

 

[bramling]

Yes, because the government is prohibited by statute from enforcing prophylaxis.
Somebody should push for a judicial review, but then they'd just push a line that face coverings are useless as virus prevention and therefore not a prophylactic, rather something to "make people fee safe".

I really do think we are being softened up for face coverings in schools. It's the same drip drip of partially rebuffed media stories that we saw before face coverings on shops was mandated.

I’m utterly sick of the drip feeding.

 

[packermac]

Firstly the mask won't be protecting anyone outdoors.
Secondly, if he does have COVID, removing the mask to take a drag is going.to get virions al lover his hands to contaminate everything he touches.
Thirdly, the exhaled smoke from deep in his lungs is going to have virions attached to every particle, ready to be inhaled by someone else.

If he's wearing the mask in some misguided self-protection from COVID but continue to smoke, well.... One of the the medical advisors said very early in the pandemic "if ever there was a time to quite smoking, it is now."

If he is aware he has Covid then he should not be outside, if he is not aware then having a mask on for some of the time is better than no mask at all. Hewil be smoking whichever category he is in.
And wearing a mask may give a LITTLE protection from others who have the medics claim.

 

[mawallace]

I really do think we are being softened up for face coverings in schools. It's the same drip drip of partially rebuffed media stories that we saw before face coverings on shops was mandated.

You mean like this from the BBC - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-53691182

 

[island]

The Government guidance read, on 31 July 2020 as follows:-





For members of the public, from 8 August the places where you will have to wear a face covering will be expanded to include:

• funeral directors
• premises providing professional, legal or financial services …..

Highlighting mine.



The guidance now reads:-



In England, you must wear a face covering in the following indoor settings (a list of examples for each is included in the brackets):

• public transport (aeroplanes, trains, trams and buses)
• transport hubs (airports, rail and tram stations and terminals, maritime ports and terminals, bus and coach stations and terminals)
• shops and supermarkets (places which offer goods or services for retail sale or hire)
• shopping centres (malls and indoor markets)
• auction houses
• premises providing professional, legal or financial services (post offices, banks, building societies, high-street solicitors and accountants, credit unions, short-term loan providers, savings clubs and money service businesses)

Highlighting mine.



The word “must” and the text that comes after this would suggest that it is a legal requirement that you wear a face covering in an accountant office, such as mine.



However, I have read the latest regulation https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/839/regulation/2/made#f00002 and I note that the following settings were added:-



“5. Indoor places of worship.

6. Community centres including youth centres.

7. Crematoria and burial ground chapels.

8. Public areas in hotels and hostels.

9. Concert halls, exhibition halls and other public halls.

10. Cinemas.

11. Museums, galleries, aquariums, indoor zoos and visitor farms, and other indoor, or indoor parts of, tourist, heritage or cultural sites.

12. Bingo halls.

13. Public libraries and reading rooms.”.



Professional offices are not on the list.



As the owner of an accountancy practice I would like to know if it is Government advice, or the Law, which governs the wearing of face covering.

My reading of the regulations, which may or may not be right, is that your premises falls within the rather wide definition of a “shop” and therefore customers must wear face coverings.

Staff are and remain exempt.

 

[Justin Smith]

We just came back from a long journey which required us to go into a supermarket once and motorway services twice, and a thoroughly unpleasant and upsetting (for me) experience it was, being forced to wear those soddin' horrible face coverings. My wife works for the NHS so knows a bit about face masks and we were debating why they have been made compulsory. The best, indeed only rational explanation was either :

1 - They're enforcing face coverings to give people who are particularly frightened of this virus some extra confidence. But it may have the opposite effect on many others, getting freaked out by the sight of everyone in face masks. It certainly freaks me out, I detest them probably more than anything in this whole unnecessary nightmare, partly because they are continuously reminding me about it when I just want to get back to normal and forget about Covid, which leads me to (2).

2 - They're enforcing face coverings to ensure people never forget about this virus, "keep 'em scared". They actually want it to be in their face all the time (pun intended), prompting them "don't forget about this virus you children", they're not bothered about the effect on people's mental health, and, even more significantly, they're bargaining in a vaccine being found. Let's face it the longer they go on trying to scare people they more trouble they're going to be in if a vaccine isn't found and people just have to live with this virus.

Which reminds me : "BE ALERT", to which my answer would be why, is there a shortage of lerts in the world ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’m utterly sick of the drip feeding.

I am too. Let's just set the 5 levels of "lockdown", publish them, and apply each one up front. If that means "masks in all indoor places where more than one household is present", then, up front and honestly, go for it.

This is another thing NZ has got very right.

2 - They're enforcing face coverings to ensure people never forget about this virus, "keep 'em scared".

There may be something in that. People are forgetting to distance, and it's really important and really bad that they are. The omnipresence of masks serves as a reminder. If that's the reason, people brought it on themselves by failing to distance. You speak as if it's OK to forget the virus - it's not - it's vitally important (literally) that we all remember and consider it every single time we walk out of our house, and continuously in every single interaction we have with every other person until we re-enter it.

 

[DB]

I am too. Let's just set the 5 levels of "lockdown", publish them, and apply each one up front. If that means "masks in all indoor places where more than one household is present", then, up front and honestly, go for it.

This is another thing NZ has got very right.



There may be something in that. People are forgetting to distance, and it's really important and really bad that they are. The omnipresence of masks serves as a reminder. If that's the reason, people brought it on themselves by failing to distance. You speak as if it's OK to forget the virus - it's not - it's vitally important (literally) that we all remember and consider it every single time we walk out of our house, and continuously in every single interaction we have with every other person until we re-enter it.

If the masks are ontended as a reminder to distance then they've completely failed. They seem to make a lot of people feel invincible and notbother with distancing at all! I.e. thhe opposite effect!

 

[43066]

There may be something in that. People are forgetting to distance, and it's really important and really bad that they are. The omnipresence of masks serves as a reminder. If that's the reason, people brought it on themselves by failing to distance. You speak as if it's OK to forget the virus - it's not - it's vitally important (literally) that we all remember and consider it every single time we walk out of our house, and continuously in every single interaction we have with every other person until we re-enter it.

I disagree. Social distancing is incompatible with resuming normal life in this country. The evidence that masks make a difference is weak and the benefits, if any, are unproven.

We all need to accept that this virus is going to kill a lot of people - which is regrettable- but above all we need to get back to normal.

I agree with some of what you have said (and with @Justin Smith) - masks are there to serve as a reminder/keep people scared. That’s clearly the real reason they have been mandated, along with “being seen to be doing something” and “everyone else is doing it”.’

 

[Ken H]

As I said above I think this is taking the mick, and TOCs deserve serious adverse publicity for it. Drivers in the cab obviously have no need to wear one, nor when they're using the can, but they absolutely should be wearing one when travelling as a passenger unless they fit the requirements of a medical exemption, even if it's not technically legally required. To allow otherwise is rank hypocrisy, same as if a shopkeeper who would not be medically exempt neither wears one nor uses other mitigation such as perspex screens.

The Press really should be taking this one up. Nobody should confront staff about it directly, however I would like to see everyone witnessing this making a formal complaint to the TOC about it, and if I see it (a member of staff travelling passenger not wearing a mask) I shall be doing so; obviously the TOC will know from their medical records if that member of staff had a valid exemption and thus can ignore the complaint if so. Hopefully sufficient complaints will be received that they will act on it and impose this as a policy.

The rule needs to be that if a uniformed member of staff is in the passenger compartment[1] they must wear a mask or face shield. If they are unable to wear either (I suspect there would be very few such people, due to the high standards of medical required to be traincrew) then it would make sense to issue lanyards or similar to make the exemption clear.

And if the Unions threaten to strike, let them.

[1] This wouldn't include a taped-off area e.g. vestibule where that area is laid out so it is impossible for them to come within 2m of a passenger or other member of staff at any time.

Under disablilty regulations you are not allowed to ask reasons why they consider themselves exempt. i have no desire to discuss why I am exempt with a shop worker, TOC employee or another member of the public. Thats private between me and my GP.
I am not sure a police office is allowed to ask me my reasons. I cant think of any other scenario where i would be required to disclose my medical condition to anyone.

If any member of the public berates someone for not wearing a mask, then that is poor behaviour.

I went in a small shop yesterday. the owner (who i know) was upset because a customer had gone off on one a few minutes before because another customer wasn't wearing one. That really isnt good.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the masks are ontended as a reminder to distance then they've completely failed. They seem to make a lot of people feel invincible and notbother with distancing at all! I.e. thhe opposite effect!

It's possible it has backfired in that way, yes, if indeed that was part of the intention.

Regarding the Government being barred from forcing prophylaxis, in what context are they? The Coronavirus Regulations may rule out forced vaccination etc, but that law can always be changed, and because of the large Tory majority they can pass anything they like.

 

[bramling]

It's possible it has backfired in that way, yes, if indeed that was part of the intention.

Regarding the Government being barred from forcing prophylaxis, in what context are they? The Coronavirus Regulations may rule out forced vaccination etc, but that law can always be changed, and because of the large Tory majority they can pass anything they like.

Like masks in open spaces I’d certainly be up for some direct action over forced vaccination.

Boris is such an empty vessel that he’d crumble at the first sign of that.

To be honest I’m not far off that point over masks in shops and on transport. I’ll wear them in shops, to a point, simply to avoid creating problems for staff, but on transport Boris can go hang.

 

[Ken H]

My mother has just been shopping and couldn't cope with the facemask as found breathing difficult (she suffers from sinus conditions like I do), the lad on the door said just to say on her way in next time that she's unable to wear one for medical reasons.

no. just tell her to say she is exempt - they dont need any more than that.

 

[Domh245]

It's possible it has backfired in that way, yes, if indeed that was part of the intention.

Even if it wasn't the intention for masks to act as a reminder to distance, the fact that social distancing is breaking down following their introduction means it has backfired regardless.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Like masks in open spaces I’d certainly be up for some direct action over forced vaccination.

I don't agree with forced vaccination (I was simply pointing out that they could pass such a law; with no written constitution there is basically no aspect of British law whatsoever that can't be changed by a simple majority in Parliament), but I do think an education campaign about the development process is needed.

 

[bramling]

I don't agree with forced vaccination (I was simply pointing out that they could pass such a law; with no written constitution there is basically no aspect of British law whatsoever that can't be changed by a simple majority in Parliament), but I do think an education campaign about the development process is needed.

Yes an education programme is the right way to go, then we can all make up our own minds, in the way the government has unforgivably failed to allow us to do over masks.

 

[43066]

Under disablilty regulations you are not allowed to ask reasons why they consider themselves exempt. i have no desire to discuss why I am exempt with a shop worker, TOC employee or another member of the public. Thats private between me and my GP.
I am not sure a police office is allowed to ask me my reasons. I cant think of any other scenario where i would be required to disclose my medical condition to anyone.

If any member of the public berates someone for not wearing a mask, then that is poor behaviour.

I went in a small shop yesterday. the owner (who i know) was upset because a customer had gone off on one a few minutes before because another customer wasn't wearing one. That really isnt good.

This is aimed at @Bletchleyite ‘s post quoted above, which I can’t seem to find.

It is ridiculous to suggest that people complain about railstaff not wearing masks - they are not required to do so! By doing so you will only be wasting your own time and that of the TOC’s.

Once again you appear to be confusing what you think should happen, with what is actually required. Railstaff on duty are not required to wear masks. End of. Just the same as with the police.

That includes when they’re travelling as a passenger.

 

[bramling]

Even if it wasn't the intention for masks to act as a reminder to distance, the fact that social distancing is breaking down following their introduction means it has backfired regardless.

Distancing has certainly broken down in my town if my experience earlier is anything to go by. The place was chaos, despite numbers seeming lower than a pre-Covid Sunday.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is ridiculous to suggest that people complain about railstaff not wearing masks - they are not required to do so! By doing so you will only be wasting your own time and that of the TOC’s.

Once again you appear to be confusing what you think should happen, with what is actually required. Railstaff on duty are not required to wear masks. End of. Just the same as with the police.

That includes when they’re travelling as a passenger.

It is entirely valid that I might wish to make a complaint about a TOC's policy, which can be stricter than the law if they deem it fit (and agree with the Unions), and if I choose to do that it is not yours to judge whether it is right for me to do so or not.

As it happens, I believe it should be policy of any organisation where customers are required, either by law or policy, to wear face coverings, that any staff not otherwise shielded from customers (e.g. behind a screen) must wear one unless they fall into the legal exemptions.

Even more so TOC staff who are travelling as a passenger.

I have a major problem with company policies based on a foundation of rank hypocrisy. (This is not the only area where I have an issue with this; Northern's PF scheme is another example).

 

[43066]

It is entirely valid that I might wish to make a complaint about a TOC's policy, which can be stricter than the law if they deem it fit (and agree with the Unions), and if I choose to do that it is not yours to judge whether it is right for me to do so or not.

As it happens, I believe it should be policy of any organisation where customers are required, either by law or policy, to wear face coverings, that any staff not otherwise shielded from customers (e.g. behind a screen) must wear one unless they fall into the legal exemptions.

Even more so TOC staff who are travelling as a passenger.

I have a major problem with company policies based on a foundation of rank hypocrisy. (This is not the only area where I have an issue with this; Northern's PF scheme is another example).

I’m merely pointing out that complaining that staff are not doing something, which they are not required to do, just because *you think* they should be doing it, is a complete and utter waste of time. A bit like your previous suggestion that people text the BTP if they see a group of lads having a few cans on the Train! Good grief!

You seem to have an obsession with endlessly monitoring and controlling the behaviour of others.

 

[Wuffle]

One can of course acquire one of the lanyards sold on this site, other sites are available
(https://hiddendisabilitiesstore.com/?SID=d00163bd7d4a273c0d6acd1bd6770e64)

As regards people being aggrieved regarding Cummings as has been pointed out his son is autistic and hence they felt justified in taking him to his grandparents. This coupled with the anti brexit protests which had turned nasty outside his house

It would be interesting to know how those unhappy with Cummings feel about the trips by for example Stephen Kinnock or Ian Blackford ?

The government have handled this situation abysmally and if ever an organisation is misnamed it is the SAGE group.
Sweden seem to have handled it much better

(https://sebastianrushworth.com/2020/08/04/how-bad-is-covid-really-a-swedish-doctors-perspective/)

One other link I came across refers to the 2003 crisis
(https://www.smh.com.au/national/farce-mask-its-safe-for-only-20-minutes-20030427-gdgnyo.html)

Off to see son and his girlfriend in Lincoln tomorrow as they have moved to go to Uni, going by train of course - the Wherry Line to Norwich and then via Peterborough on EMR - whose revised timetable means we have to take different trains to and from Peterborough to Lincoln then the ones booked - I have been assured we can take either earlier or later trains

I am Mask Exempt so I will let you know if anything untoward happens - shops I've been in have been ok

 

[Bletchleyite]

You seem to have an obsession with endlessly monitoring and controlling the behaviour of others.

With regard to masks specifically, I would like others to wear them to protect me and others unless they are exempt for medical/mental health etc reasons. That is a totally reasonable stance, and I include in that rail staff when present in the passenger compartment.

 

[bramling]

It is entirely valid that I might wish to make a complaint about a TOC's policy, which can be stricter than the law if they deem it fit (and agree with the Unions), and if I choose to do that it is not yours to judge whether it is right for me to do so or not.

As it happens, I believe it should be policy of any organisation where customers are required, either by law or policy, to wear face coverings, that any staff not otherwise shielded from customers (e.g. behind a screen) must wear one unless they fall into the legal exemptions.

Even more so TOC staff who are travelling as a passenger.

I have a major problem with company policies based on a foundation of rank hypocrisy. (This is not the only area where I have an issue with this; Northern's PF scheme is another example).

For masks for rail staff it’s extremely simple.

Forcing me to wear a mask will result in one of two things:

1) refusing to work on the grounds of safety (ever tried, for example, to make a safety-critical phone call in a mask when there’s background noise and you’re speaking to someone whose English is poor?)

and/or

2) me off with stress for an extended period due to the distress wearing a mask causes me.

Either of these scenarios will quite simply cause one or more trains not to run, and sacking people isn’t an option when it takes 6–12 months to train people and the industry has a highly strained recruitment and training setup at the moment thanks to Covid.

There’s also the small matter that there’s a general feeling that staff wearing masks is to “be seen to set an example” rather than for any specific measurable benefit.

And of course one other little matter that for staff to wear masks correctly without any element of misuse (remembering we’re “setting an example”) the numbers of masks needed would be massive. 10 to 20 masks per shift per person. So a driver depot with 100 duties per day would be needing something like 7,000 masks per week. No one seems to wish to supply masks in those quantities. Fancy paying for it via your train fares?

 

[Bletchleyite]

1) refusing to work on the grounds of safety (ever tried, for example, to make a safety-critical phone call in a mask when there’s background noise and you’re speaking to someone whose English is poor?)

If it is necessary to remove the mask for a specific action, remove it. Then put it back on afterwards. In doing so, touch only the ear loops.

How often do you make a safety-critical phone call in the passenger compartment?

2) me off with stress for an extended period due to the distress wearing a mask causes me.

If that is the case you fit an exemption anyway.

There’s also the small matter that there’s a general feeling that staff wearing masks is to “be seen to set an example” rather than for any specific measurable benefit.

That is a very, very good reason in and of itself.

 

[43066]

With regard to masks specifically, I would like others to wear them to protect me and others unless they are exempt for medical/mental health etc reasons. That is a totally reasonable stance, and I include in that rail staff when present in the passenger compartment.

There’s very little evidence that it well protect you! But we’ll leave that to one side.

The fact is that staff are not required to wear masks in accordance with the current legislation (so in that respect they are “exempt” whenever they are on duty). I’m afraid your opinion on the matter is completely irrelevant.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There’s very little evidence that it well protect you! But we’ll leave that to one side.

The fact is that staff are not required to wear masks in accordance with the current legislation (so in that respect they are “exempt” whenever they are on duty). I’m afraid your opinion on the matter is completely irrelevant.

And your opinion is completely irrelevant as to whether I would express dissatisfaction to the TOC over such a policy, to be fair

 

[43066]

And your opinion is completely irrelevant as to whether I would express dissatisfaction to the TOC over such a policy, to be fair

Indeed. I’m not disputing that. I’m just trying to help you by pointing out that you’ll be wasting your time.

Even if TOCs change their policy, and require masks (I think that might already be the official line at my place), it will be completely unenforceable for the reasons @bramling has set out above.