Face coverings compulsory on public transport in England from 15 June

[MikeWM]

The new ‘England’ regulations prescribe an unlimited fine on summary conviction.

The £100/£50 figures relate to fixed penalty notices which are an administrative resolution.

That is true, and I suppose the same applies to the TfL byelaw (which doesn't mention fixed penalty notices at all - are they elsewhere in the byelaws?).

I'd imagine most enforcement would be via fixed penalty notice though. Was anyone actually convicted under the 'lockdown' regs? (Excluding all the people who were charged wrongly and had their convictions quashed, that is...)

 

[Skymonster]

Interestingly/alarmingly, it appears TfL have gone rather further than the government regulations and actually amended their byelaws:

https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/terms-and-conditions/byelaws#on-this-page-1

A person will have a reasonable excuse and will not be required to wear a face covering in the following circumstances:
• where a person cannot put on, wear, or remove a face covering safely, accurately, consistently, without pain, or without severe distress or anxiety;
• where a person is using an oxygen mask to breathe;
• where a person is providing a lip-reading service to a person they are travelling with;
• where a person is eating or drinking, or taking medication;

So just walk into a station while eating or sipping a drink and there's the loophole you need.

 

[neontrix]

No they're not free to make their own policies that are legally enforceable. They have to be backed up with an appropriate by-law or law which is the case in England, but not in Scotland.

You've not provided any evidence of them claiming legal enforcement. Or evidence of anything really...

 

[MrTurbostar170]

If you want to kill people, use a loophole. Otherwise, have a bit of basic consideration for others and wear one unless you are genuinely precluded from doing so by a physical or mental health condition, and not because you just can't be bothered or don't like the idea.

Bit of an overreaction. Always my opinion that masks should be a choice. I don't believe masks make any significant difference and they do cause more discomfort. I'm sure I won't be the only one not wearing them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So just walk into a station while eating or sipping a drink and there's the loophole you need.

Good luck continuously, without interruption, sipping a drink throughout your journey. Obviously if you are not eating or drinking, such as in any pause between bouts of doing so, the face covering must be put back in place.

Or just pack in trying to get round something that is being done for everyone's good, and if you must be selfish, as finding loopholes and workarounds to this is, just stay off public transport, as you aren't required presently to wear one in any other setting? (Though I would personally, at this stage, support extension to all indoor public places).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Bit of an overreaction. Always my opinion that masks should be a choice. I don't believe masks make any significant difference and they do cause more discomfort. I'm sure I won't be the only one not wearing them.

Anything that is done solely for the benefit of others cannot be personal choice. I oppose laws for the protection of the individual, but that is not the primary benefit of face coverings, it is to protect others from the possibility that you may have an asymptomatic infection.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Interestingly/alarmingly, it appears TfL have gone rather further than the government regulations and actually amended their byelaws:

https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/terms-and-conditions/byelaws#on-this-page-1

And has a maximum fine of £1000, as opposed to £100/£50 in the government regulations.

Which I'm guessing is going to be uneforceable...?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which I'm guessing is going to be uneforceable...?

In what way? London is rather more heavily policed than much of the rest of the UK. I would expect at least one such fine will be imposed.

 

[Mintona]

I’ve managed to spend the last 20 minutes eating a satsuma. I’m going to spend the next twenty eating a chocolate bar. Train is empty anyway.

 

[Skymonster]

Or just pack in trying to get round something that is being done for everyone's good, and if you must be selfish, as finding loopholes and workarounds to this is, just stay off public transport?

Or just accept that like all the other crap that we've been fed since this started, the additional restrictions being put into place do not fully address the problem and are designed to encourage obedience among the majority rather than absolute compliance.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

If spread occurs because you do not wear a face covering, it is likely that one or more deaths will result from that spread, even if a considerable way downstream.

You are doing this for other people. Please do not take the mick by finding loopholes. The exceptions are to accommodate "can'ts", not "won'ts". "Won'ts" should never be accommodated in any form ever, but certainly not in any form of public health regulation.

Just wear one as billed, or exercise your choice not to use public transport, unless you would encounter a medical issue (vague displeasure/discomfort is not a medical issue) from doing so, and if you would encounter a medical issue, be super-conscientious about distancing on board.

Thanks for the (unrequested) advice but it really isn't necessary. New cases of the virus are plummeting so rapidly now that, in order to infect anyone, you would have to literally cough in their face for 15 minutes and even then it would have little effect if, like most of the population, you don't have the virus!

I'll wear a mask on a commute because for now at least it's the law and I don't want any hassle off strangers or overzealous station staff. But if I'm travelling on a nearly empty train and no-one's within several metres of me I see no problem in pulling down the mask occasionally to have a drink, eat a sandwich or just get the chance to breathe freely for a bit!

 

[py_megapixel]

No they're not free to make their own policies that are legally enforceable. They have to be backed up with an appropriate by-law or law which is the case in England, but not in Scotland.

No, but surely they are perfectly entitled to refuse travel to someone who is not wearing a face covering, in the same way they could refuse travel to someone with an unreserved bike for example?

 

[Islineclear3_1]

If spread occurs because you do not wear a face covering, it is likely that one or more deaths will result from that spread, even if a considerable way downstream.

Although I have made my feelings clear, I wore my mask whilst on my way to work this morning

However, I will not be coerced into a state of fear with comments like the above.

If I don't wear a mask; it's unlikely that I am going to kill somebody...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or just accept that like all the other crap that we've been fed since this started, the additional restrictions being put into place do not fully address the problem and are designed to encourage obedience among the majority rather than absolute compliance.

That is what is termed a conspiracy theory, which are invariably nonsense. Is the tin-foil hat comfortable?

Thanks for the (unrequested) advice

This is a discussion forum and, subject to Forum policy etc, I will post what I wish, thank you, whether you or anyone else happens to request it or not.

but it really isn't necessary. New cases of the virus are plummeting so rapidly

They are not. Check the figures for the past few days, they are staying pretty constant now (i.e. R=1, pretty much), so it won't take much to have them shooting back up - even the WHO has said as much, and this was quite remarkable as I believe it's the first time they have commented on a specific country's measures so they are clearly concerned too. Without other measures, we will not be able to ease anything else, and track and trace is clearly an utter sham in its implementation - nowhere near invasive and investigatory enough to work, and does nothing more than what you could do by ringing your mates and your boss yourself. I would rather wear a mask on the train and in the supermarket and get beer gardens back open, for instance.

 

[8J]

No, but surely they are perfectly entitled to refuse travel to someone who is not wearing a face covering, in the same way they could refuse travel to someone with an unreserved bike for example?

Hence the creation of this thread.

 

[tspaul26]

That is true, and I suppose the same applies to the TfL byelaw (which doesn't mention fixed penalty notices at all - are they elsewhere in the byelaws?).

I'd imagine most enforcement would be via fixed penalty notice though. Was anyone actually convicted under the 'lockdown' regs? (Excluding all the people who were charged wrongly and had their convictions quashed, that is...)

The fine on conviction for breach of the TfL byelaws is capped at level 3 i.e. £1,000.

There is no provision for fixed penalty notices to be issued.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unless it would be a direct breach of the franchise agreement, the TSA or any other contract to which they are party, or of equality law, as private companies TOCs can make whatever policies they like. They are entirely allowed to do this so far as I am aware.

It is no different to a pub or similar imposing a dress code. Indeed, it is a form of dress code.

 

[8J]

“All over Twitter” - Where?

“Too many examples” - provides one screenshot

Have a look yourself. I've seen a number of examples this morning.

 

[221129]

Have a look yourself. I've seen a number of examples this morning.

Well the example you've posted has nothing wrong with it...

 

[8J]

Well the example you've posted has nothing wrong with it...

Face coverings are not required in Scotland... TPE are saying they are. What they are saying is incorrect

 

[221129]

Face coverings are not required in Scotland... TPE are saying they are. What they are saying is incorrect

They are required on TPE services. LNER and XC have the same policy. No mask, then you can be refused travel. Regardless of where the train is.

 

[8J]

Unless it would be a direct breach of the franchise agreement, the TSA or any other contract to which they are party, or of equality law, as private companies TOCs can make whatever policies they like. They are entirely allowed to do this so far as I am aware.

It is no different to a pub or similar imposing a dress code. Indeed, it is a form of dress code.

Interesting way of putting it thank you.

This is the sort of opinion and discussion I was trying to drum up.

 

[Skymonster]

That is what is termed a conspiracy theory, which are invariably nonsense. Is the tin-foil hat comfortable?

No tin-foil hat necessary. But if you want to continue being one of the sheeple, be my guest.

 

[PupCuff]

No, but surely they are perfectly entitled to refuse travel to someone who is not wearing a face covering, in the same way they could refuse travel to someone with an unreserved bike for example?

That's asking for them to have a legal challenge in respect of the Equality Act if they were to refuse travel to someone who could not wear a face covering for reasons of a disability.

 

[PupCuff]

No mask, then you can be refused travel.

Legally, only by a police officer, PCSO, TfL Officer or an employee of a TOC who has been specifically authorised by their employer to enforce the regulations, in England. I am currently unaware of any TOCs having authorised their staff to enforce the regulations, everything I have seen so far across a number of TOCs has been for staff to engage, explain, and encourage only.

 

[RightAwayGuy]

If someone is politely asked why they are not wearing a face covering and the reply is due to an exemption then I am sure they will not face any issues. If the reply is because they don't want to then the TOC employee can ask said person to vacate the station until such a time that they are wearing a covering. Once asked to leave this person is trespassing and can be dealt with as such. However this is all trivial because from what I have seen out and about this morning nearly all persons have come to travel equipped with a covering.

 

[mmh]

Don't be so melodramatic - its comments like this that fuels fear. If a person who was not wearing a mask was likely to kill someone else, NO ONE would be allowed to go without a mask.

And we wouldn't have waited until today to make people wear them. Hyperbole helps nobody.

 

[adc82140]

That is what is termed a conspiracy theory, which are invariably nonsense. Is the tin-foil hat comfortable?




This is a discussion forum and, subject to Forum policy etc, I will post what I wish, thank you, whether you or anyone else happens to request it or not.



They are not. Check the figures for the past few days, they are staying pretty constant now (i.e. R=1, pretty much), so it won't take much to have them shooting back up - even the WHO has said as much, and this was quite remarkable as I believe it's the first time they have commented on a specific country's measures so they are clearly concerned too. Without other measures, we will not be able to ease anything else, and track and trace is clearly an utter sham in its implementation - nowhere near invasive and investigatory enough to work, and does nothing more than what you could do by ringing your mates and your boss yourself. I would rather wear a mask on the train and in the supermarket and get beer gardens back open, for instance.

I see you've fallen for the Sky News R value hysteria. As discussed on here many times R0 (to give it its full name) is based on mathematical models, rather than facts on the ground. It is also more likely to climb as overall infection rates fall. Just look at the South West, which has been the least affected area but has the highest R0.

Quite frankly I don't care what the daily infection rate is either. What I care about is hospital admissions (consistently falling) and ITU bed occupancy (also going down). I'm happy to have my life disrupted to prevent the health service being overwhelmed. I'm not happy to disrupt my life to stop people feeling rough for a few days.

 

[221129]

Legally, only by a police officer, PCSO, TfL Officer or an employee of a TOC who has been specifically authorised by their employer to enforce the regulations, in England. I am currently unaware of any TOCs having authorised their staff to enforce the regulations, everything I have seen so far across a number of TOCs has been for staff to engage, explain, and encourage only.

That's not true. You can only be fined by a police officer but any member of staff can refuse travel.

 

[Bletchleyite]

R0 (to give it its full name)

R0 is the "base" R value, i.e. without interventions. If you want to give the current one its correct name, it's RT (with the T subscripted), i.e. "the value of R over time".

Quite frankly I don't care what the daily infection rate is either. What I care about is hospital admissions (consistently falling) and ITU bed occupancy (also going down). I'm happy to have my life disrupted to prevent the health service being overwhelmed. I'm not happy to disrupt my life to stop people feeling rough for a few days.

Wearing a face covering is not really "disrupting your life".