UK face coverings discussion

[Bletchleyite]

All this could be avoided if they actually drafted legislation in a competent manner, and didn't issue statutory instruments in a hurry and then cobble on ssorted additions and changes without properly considering the impact.

Well, there is that.

For instance, why is the legislation for a circuit breaker not being drafted and going through Parliament now just in case we need it?

 

[Bikeman78]

If anyone thinks the law is intended to mean you should wear a mask when sat at a table and not eating or drinking - well lets say you are in a vast minority and the fact is near enough every single pub, restaurant, cafe and police officer in this country is taking it at the more sensible meaning - that you should wear a mask unless sat down in one of those establishments.

I'm not convinced that sensible comes into it. The idea that wearing a mask for a few seconds to get to the toilet makes any difference is laughable. They seem to manage in pubs and restaurants in Stockholm without killing each other.

 

[43066]

Ok this is going around in circles.

1. There was no mention of an exemption, the group did not claim they were exempt and did not mention it when questioned about their lack of masks. What other places do or not is irrelevant here, as is the issue of some places asking for proof of exemption. Unless the group says they are exempt, the legal stance is the pub must refuse them entry. Given they did not say they were exempt, exemptions are not relevant to this discussion so there is no point continuing to discuss it.
2. In terms of them sitting outside - we do not know if the outside area required walking through the inside or not. We also have the question of what if one member of the group needed the toilet.
3. Given the above - I have no idea how you can claim the pub was going above what the law says. They were literally following what the law says!
4. What do you think a pub will care most about? Losing £50 or so worth of potential takings, or being closed down because they were not following the law and losing a hell of a lot more?
5. In terms of what you have said about the staff - having a go at underpaid and overworked staff is out of order when the fault is with the group of people who decided they wanted to chance it. In situations like this the staff have very little leeway. They have to follow the law and usually the policies of the company they work for. They are not allowed to bend the rules or allowed to make up policy decisions on the spot.
6. Ultimately - if the group had worn masks they would have been allowed in and none of this would even be a discussion.

As one of my old bosses used to say “don’t bring me problems, bring me solutions!” My point is that it would have been possible for the pub to allow the diners to be served by thinking outside the box.

1. Ask them *very slowly* if they’re exempt. If they’re not utterly thick they’ll say “yes!” In which case they can be allowed in perfectly legally;

2. Allow them to sit outside (no need for an exemption). They might not even need to use the toilet if they do, they can pull their jackets around their noses and mouths, or be given serviettes to hold to their faces.

Both of the above comply with the letter of the law (which is all that is required) and allow the pub to benefit from their business.
I should have thought that would be the main focus for the hospitality industry st the moment.

I’m not having a go at the individual staff - but the organisation as a whole should surely be doing its utmost to bring in business rather than enforcing more strictly than necessary.

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) Regulations 2020 (revoked)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

www.legislation.gov.uk

The very literal interpretation of that is that until you're about to put something in your mouth, you don't have a reasonable excuse to not wear a face covering. Sitting at a table having a conversation is not "reasonably necessary" for them to eat or drink

Thanks. My reading of the above is supported by the below, from the government’s guidelines around scenarios when it is permissible to remove coverings:

when seated to eat or drink in a hospitality premise such as a pub, bar, restaurant or cafe. You must put a face covering back on once you finish eating or drinking

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Oct 2020 ==

If anyone thinks the law is intended to mean you should wear a mask when sat at a table and not eating or drinking - well lets say you are in a vast minority and the fact is near enough every single pub, restaurant, cafe and police officer in this country is taking it at the more sensible meaning - that you should wear a mask unless sat down in one of those establishments.

I agree that the wording is a mess, and this government specifically seem to have an issue with getting things like that right of late! But just take a step back and look at what is sensible and what everyone is interpreting it as!

It doesn’t matter what you or I think the law is intended to mean, what matters is what it says. To ascertain that you need to look at the actual wording of the legislation, which is black and white in this case.

 

[island]

All this could be avoided if they actually drafted legislation in a competent manner, and didn't issue statutory instruments in a hurry and then cobble on ssorted additions and changes without properly considering the impact.

They didn’t even need to do that, they could have just copied the older Scottish regulation which stated that a face covering is not required when sat at a table in a restaurant, bar, or café.

 

[DB]

They didn’t even need to do that, they could have just copied the older Scottish regulation which stated that a face covering is not required when sat at a table in a restaurant, bar, or café.

But politics come into it!

Scotland generally seems to have been more competent at drafting the legislation around this situation (whether or not you agree with its terms, whcih I mostly don't, at least it's clearly-written).

 

[Bletchleyite]

But politics come into it!

Scotland generally seems to have been more competent at drafting the legislation around this situation (whether or not you agree with its terms, whcih I mostly don't, at least it's clearly-written).

I think it's fair to say, whether you agree with the actual policy or not, Scotland has been vastly more competent at literally absolutely everything COVID related.

 

[DB]

I think it's fair to say, whether you agree with the actual policy or not, Scotland has been vastly more competent at literally absolutely everything COVID related.

Yes, that's true - I don't agree with what they've done, but they've certainly proved far better at implementing and communicating it than Johnson and his cronies.

 

[Richard Scott]

I think it's fair to say, whether you agree with the actual policy or not, Scotland has been vastly more competent at literally absolutely everything COVID related.

Apart from stopping it which is her aim so, no, not competent at all. Sturgeon is loving her power and taking advantage of it. I'd say it's a serious abuse of power.

 

[43066]

I think it's fair to say, whether you agree with the actual policy or not, Scotland has been vastly more competent at literally absolutely everything COVID related.

I’ll have to grudgingly agree with that! Which is yet another nail in the coffin of Johnson’s premiership.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’ll have to grudgingly agree with that! Which is yet another nail in the coffin of Johnson’s premiership.

I think it's clear that his career is destroyed and is very unlikely to recover.

 

[Richard Scott]

I think it's clear that his career is destroyed and is very unlikely to recover.

Now do agree with that. Sooner the better too.

 

[DB]

Now do agree with that. Sooner the better too.

Yeah, but who would replace him? Nobody vaguely competent would want this poisoned chalice at the moment.

 

[Controller1701]

A perfect money making idea for pubs as follows. A group of 6 people enter the premises without masks on. Once at the bar you then sell them a single use mask for somewhere between £10 and £20 per mask per person. To ensure that these masks are paid for they then get added to the bill when the customers pay after their meal or drinks. Perfect solution - customers get served in the pub of their choice even if they forget their masks (note that is masks not face nappies, for those unaware nappies are used to cover part of the anatomy at the other end of the human body) and the pubs soon start to recover some of their income.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A perfect money making idea for pubs as follows. A group of 6 people enter the premises without masks on. Once at the bar you then sell them a single use mask for somewhere between £10 and £20 per mask per person. To ensure that these masks are paid for they then get added to the bill when the customers pay after their meal or drinks. Perfect solution - customers get served in the pub of their choice even if they forget their masks (note that is masks not face nappies, for those unaware nappies are used to cover part of the anatomy at the other end of the human body) and the pubs soon start to recover some of their income.

I think charging that much is a bit silly, but charging say £3 would still be profitable and would be offering a service.

I believe Asda will sell you one if you show up without one.

 

[DB]

A perfect money making idea for pubs as follows. A group of 6 people enter the premises without masks on. Once at the bar you then sell them a single use mask for somewhere between £10 and £20 per mask per person. To ensure that these masks are paid for they then get added to the bill when the customers pay after their meal or drinks. Perfect solution - customers get served in the pub of their choice even if they forget their masks (note that is masks not face nappies, for those unaware nappies are used to cover part of the anatomy at the other end of the human body) and the pubs soon start to recover some of their income.

It would certainly be a perfect solution if the aim was to make sure that these customers would never come back again...

 

[bramling]

I think it's clear that his career is destroyed and is very unlikely to recover.

He needs to be particularly careful at the moment. There's the possibility he could end up facing a scenario where he resists the calls to implement some kind of harder lockdown, yet after some time finds himself pressured into it (by the likes of Starmer), so we end up with it again like before with a view circulating around that it was belated. He then gets held personally responsible for every death or hospital admission that then happens in the interim, which will finish him off in short order, perhaps with Sturgeon then coming out for another independence referendum on the basis that "we wanted to do it a different way but couldn't because of England".

From a strategic point of view, it might actually have been *his* least-worst option just to go for the "circuit breaker" to coincide with half term, where any fuss about incomes would be muted as a proportion of people would have been on leave anyway. It's now turning into a circus and he doesn't have the comms ability to handle it.

All madness of course, but there we are.

 

[43066]

Once at the bar you then sell them a single use mask for somewhere between £10 and £20 per mask per person.

At which point they’ll tell you shove it, leave and go elsewhere, or simply declare themselves exempt.

 

[Jimini]

TfL’s weekend email bulletin is ultra cheerful, this week..

 

[Bletchleyite]

From a strategic point of view, it might actually have been *his* least-worst option just to go for the "circuit breaker" to coincide with half term

I think he still will, probably with almost no notice.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Oct 2020 ==

"Wearing an exemption badge"? Have TfL now made this mandatory?

 

[bramling]

I think he still will, probably with almost no notice.

If I were forced to place a bet on it, I think it's more likely to happen than not - he will lose his nerve.

Of course he will be crucified if he does it and it messes up all the half-term staycations at short notice, but that'll be next week's (or the week after?) gossip!

 

[Yew]

If I were forced to place a bet on it, I think it's more likely to happen than not - he will lose his nerve.

Of course he will be crucified if he does it and it messes up all the half-term staycations at short notice, but that'll be next week's (or the week after?) gossip!

I was about to make a joke about "if he lasts that long" but in all honesty, I think when he goes, it will be with about as much notice of some of his restrictions.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was about to make a joke about "if he lasts that long" but in all honesty, I think when he goes, it will be with about as much notice of some of his restrictions.

It's a real pity that the opportunity presented by him having COVID to resign on health grounds was not taken - both for him and for everyone else.

 

[bramling]

I was about to make a joke about "if he lasts that long" but in all honesty, I think when he goes, it will be with about as much notice of some of his restrictions.

There is that. I think he's on borrowed time now, but then he's been on borrowed time for a while - there remains the age-old problem that there's no one obvious to take over. Gove, Hunt or Sunak - take your pick!

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is that. I think he's on borrowed time now, but then he's been on borrowed time for a while - there remains the age-old problem that there's no one obvious to take over. Gove, Hunt or Sunak - take your pick!

If only we could have May back.

 

[bramling]

If only we could have May back.

I was having that discussion with a friend yesterday, we had a difference of opinion. I think May would have been better, though probably not much so, however he thought May would have been even worse. So who knows?! Neither has much of a forensic mind. Starmer might, but he's still currently allowing politics to cloud judgements. I remain of the opinion that Thatcher or Portillo. Blair perhaps, but only before his reputation was trashed as a result of Iraq.

 

[43066]

TfL’s weekend email bulletin is ultra cheerful, this week..

View attachment 84688

Dreadful wording. Not every exempt person will be wearing an “exemption badge”. There’s officially no such thing, for pity’s sake, so what does that even mean? My “badge” is on my phone, therefore not on public display (and isn’t legally necessary).

I think he still will, probably with almost no notice.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Oct 2020 ==

"Wearing an exemption badge"? Have TfL

If only we could have May back.

now made this mandatory?

TfL is not the government, and it certainly isn’t above the law, so no it won’t have done. Some idiot in the communications department has dropped the ball.

If only we could have May back.

Just may? I’d rather have the whole of 2020 back.

 

[Richard Scott]

Yeah, but who would replace him? Nobody vaguely competent would want this poisoned chalice at the moment.

This is the flip side of the coin, agreed.

 

[Domh245]

If only we could have May back.

I can see the appeal in brining May back for the more authoritarian types!

 

[Cowley]

I think we’re quite a way off topic re face coverings now folks...

 

[bramling]

Dreadful wording. Not every exempt person will be wearing an “exemption badge”. There’s officially no such thing, for pity’s sake, so what does that even mean? My “badge” is on my phone, therefore not on public display (and isn’t legally necessary).



TfL is not the government, and it certainly isn’t above the law, so no it won’t have done. Some idiot in the communications department has dropped the ball.



Just may? I’d rather have the whole of 2020 back.

I think TFL is looking to progress to a situation where it's either wear a mask or wear a badge. Seems like someone has jumped the gun.