That's fine providing it works both ways.If people want to continue wearing masks, then no one should be judging them for doing so. Let people do their own thing. There’s enough conflict as there is.
That's fine providing it works both ways.If people want to continue wearing masks, then no one should be judging them for doing so. Let people do their own thing. There’s enough conflict as there is.
From 23:55hrs tonight TfL has no power to issue "fines" for failing to wear a face covering on their services.Any advice for dealing with TFL journeys? Should I boycott them? Is the fine still £200?
From 23:55hrs tonight TfL has no power to issue "fines" for failing to wear a face covering on their services.
Failing to wear one may in theory result in travel being refused, though I don't expect there to be any meaningful enforcement, any more than there is now.
Debatably, one could be prosecuted for violation of byelaw 12 around failure to observe safety instructions. This offence doesn't have a fixed penalty option.
So, if people have been wrongfully giving maskless people verbal abuse, that means it’s ok to verbally abuse those who are wearing masks? Two wrongs don’t make a right.That's fine providing it works both ways.
From 23:55hrs tonight TfL has no power to issue "fines" for failing to wear a face covering on their services.
Failing to wear one may in theory result in travel being refused, though I don't expect there to be any meaningful enforcement, any more than there is now.
Debatably, one could be prosecuted for violation of byelaw 12 around failure to observe safety instructions. This offence doesn't have a fixed penalty option.
If you are not exempt and you fail to comply with this requirement or directions given by an authorised officer, you may not be allowed entry or may be asked to leave our premises. You may
(document continues)also receive a Fixed Penalty Notice or be prosecuted. Details of the fines are specified in the applicable face coverings regulations.
Hence why I prefixed my point on the matter with "debatably"Highly theoretical, firstly Bylaw 12 is open to interpretation and asking someone to wear something that they don't have could be seen as unreasonable.
TfL staff are, as I understand things, instructed not to use force over conditions of carriage (or at all), so this is rather theoretical, but anyone who has not paid their fare (including such arrangements as contactless payment allowing for the fare to pay later) and is on a TfL train or station platform will be removable for breach of Byelaws 17 or 18.Also, anyone on the TfL payroll using force over conditions of carriage, all else being equal (assuming that the fare is paid or that there are no fare-related issues), is potentially on a very sticky wicket.
That much is not correct. Contracts can and do enter into being all the time before (or even without) monetary payment being made. To give but a few examples, the actions of fuelling a car, ordering a meal at a restaurant, or joining a "paytrain" all create contracts, the consideration being the customer's promise to pay after filling up/when the bill comes/when the guard arrives. A customer surrendering a gift card in return for goods and services will see no money change hands at all, but that is still certainly a contract.Also, a contract has to exist to be broken and fare evasion is generally a failure to enter into the contract where the receipt of payment is what brings the contract into being.
As I said previously, I expect enforcement will be very thin on the ground indeed.The very head of page 3 of the pdf version of the conditions of carriage (paragraph starts page 2 threatens a "Fixed Penalty Notice" or prosecution, whether this relates to the outgoing regulations (this post being written on the 18th); I presume the legislative force falls with these threats.
(see http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-conditions-of-carriage.pdf ) The section of most interest is:
How they are going to enforce a clause that relates to an expired (technically repealed, by 5 minutes) after the expiry/repeal time is another matter.
That much is not correct. Contracts can and do enter into being all the time before (or even without) monetary payment being made. To give but a few examples, the actions of fuelling a car, ordering a meal at a restaurant, or joining a "paytrain" all create contracts, the consideration being the customer's promise to pay after filling up/when the bill comes/when the guard arrives. A customer surrendering a gift card in return for goods and services will see no money change hands at all, but that is still certainly a contract.
Actually, at a supermarket the contract's formed at the checkout when you present the items you wish to purchase, the cashier (or computer!) asks you for the price, and you pay it.This takes me back to my contract law modules at uni! Your quite correct, people enter into contracts on a daily basis, putting an item in your trolley at the supermarket is a great example.
There is absolutely no requirement to wear a mask; it is entirely your choice.I have my first long-distance journey since last August coming up on Saturday, travelling from Stevenage to Leeds on the 0756 LNER Harrogate service and returning back to Stevenage on the 1515 from Leeds. If the carriage I'm travelling in isn't very busy, I'll probably forego wearing a mask, but otherwise I can probably sustain the 1 hour 47 minute journey each way with a mask on (I did around 1 hour 30 mins each way between Cambridge and Norwich last August with a mask on, so this should be manageable).
I agree. It is personal choice.I don't mind if people opt to wear a face covering but I shan't be wearing one regardless of the amount of signs, announcements and people asking me to wear one. I don't even plan to carry one on my person just in case of a disagreement like some on this forum intend to do.
No-one should be given abuse for their decision.So, if people have been wrongfully giving maskless people verbal abuse, that means it’s ok to verbally abuse those who are wearing masks? Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Actually, at a supermarket the contract's formed at the checkout when you present the items you wish to purchase, the cashier (or computer!) asks you for the price, and you pay it.
You can (in most circumstances anyway) take items back out of your trolley, for example, without committing to buy them.
It's called devolution, which we (in Wales) voted for.Will there be an announcement at the Scottish or Welsh border to put masks on?
What a bloody silly ruling. You don't have to wear a mask now, but we'd rather you would.
Is there a risk, or is there not? If there is, why remove the ruling?
I stopped requiring a comfort blanket when I was 5.
It's called devolution, which we (in Wales) voted for.
The next rules easing in Wales is on August 7 (but not for masks).
Sometimes the rules change going the other way, too.
The TfW web site section mandating mask wearing has not changed.
The only indirect concession is the catchall "If you are travelling in Wales/England please follow the Welsh/UK Governments' guidance".
That is exactly what i meant. Perhaps i did not word it too well.So, if people have been wrongfully giving maskless people verbal abuse, that means it’s ok to verbally abuse those who are wearing masks? Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Lets just let people do their own thing, rather than speculating why people are wearing masks alone on a station platform.
Apologies if I misinterpreted.That is exactly what i meant. Perhaps i did not word it too well.
The latest rule changes mean passengers at some stations in the capital require face coverings for the services run by Transport for London (TfL), but not on other operators' trains.
On the first morning under this new, more relaxed Covid regime in England, the BBC spoke to commuters at one such station, Farringdon, to see what they are making of it all.
Commuters at this central London station can change trains a matter of metres apart. As they make the short journey across the platform, the advice changes too. They are allowed either to remove their face covering or should put it on, depending on which direction they are travelling.
Although face coverings are no longer a legal requirement, official advice "expects and recommends" them in crowded and enclosed spaces. Mayor of London Sadiq Khan has gone further though, using his powers to make mask-wearing a condition of carriage on all TfL services.
Many passengers were unaware of the rule changes and seem confused about what the current advice is.
Muck stirring.The BBC have highlighted the conflict in mask mandate at Farringdon station:
I experienced similar yesterday - but rather on the streets of a nearby town! It almost felt like the "easing of restrictions" was a reverse psychology tactic.More people than I've seen before masked on open air platforms. Weird.
I experienced similar yesterday - but rather on the streets of a nearby town! It almost felt like the "easing of restrictions" was a reverse psychology tactic.
Also did a few bus journeys yesterday to get to said town (and back), and across all buses (all of which were decently loaded, maybe 40% of seats taken), only three other people weren't wearing a mask.
One passenger did board, and then ask the driver "Do I still need to wear a mask?" to which the driver replied "Yes, the buses prefer you to continue wearing them until this is completely over." So, he put one on, and then sat down.