johnnychips
Established Member
I did a weekly shop at a big Tesco and totally forgot my mask until I went out. Oops! Nobody said anything.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!
Police checking travel
- Thread starter Chriso
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
cactustwirly
Established Member
You don't need to prove an exemption, it's up to the police to prove you don't
FLIRTfan18
Member
But by the logic of innocent until proven guilty, as long as you say you bought a ticket, you should be let off a penalty fare if you pretend you've lost it because there's no proof you didn't bother to buy one?
Gloster
Established Member
I am afraid that I feel that the problem lies further back. (The following is my opinion only.)
The government has had nine months to sort out the the rules and regulations, and make them clear and understood by all. This they have failed to do.
They have also failed to get an exemption card scheme sorted out. Yes, I know that there would have been problems and it would have taken a while to set up, but there is not a sign of anything comprehensive and properly policed.
If someone wasn’t wearing a mask, the police, etc. could ask them if they have an exemption, but all they need to do is hold up the card (which wouldn’t give the reason for the exemption). End of conversation.
The government has had nine months to sort out the the rules and regulations, and make them clear and understood by all. This they have failed to do.
They have also failed to get an exemption card scheme sorted out. Yes, I know that there would have been problems and it would have taken a while to set up, but there is not a sign of anything comprehensive and properly policed.
If someone wasn’t wearing a mask, the police, etc. could ask them if they have an exemption, but all they need to do is hold up the card (which wouldn’t give the reason for the exemption). End of conversation.
221129
Established Member
This is already the case, except you don't need to present a card.
Apples and oranges. 'I lost it' is not a legal excuse for not having a ticket at the time of inspection.
FLIRTfan18
Member
Absolutely agree
Yes, but "I'm exempt" is a legal excuse for not wearing a mask whether the person actually is exempt or not, which is where the problem lies here.
221129
Established Member
But it only seems to be a problem to those who are either unaware or purposely ignoring government instructions.
So you think the police should be going around fining innocent people who are obeying the law, and requiring them to prove - in court - that they were in fact obeying the law? That's not a society I want to live in, and it doesn't fit my definition of 'innocent until proven guilty' either.
The relevant clause in the legislation says that
7.—(1) An authorised person may issue a fixed penalty notice to anyone that the authorised person reasonably believes—
(a)has committed an offence under these Regulation
So they have to have a 'reasonable' belief that the person does not have a valid exemption before issuing a FPN. I'm sure we can all think of circumstances where they may indeed be the case, but that isn't as wide as you seem to want it to be (even though 'reasonable', as ever, is doing some heavy lifting here).
It is the equivalent of the 'lockdown' regulations concept of 'reasonable excuses' to be outside your house. Unless it is rather obvious you're not exercising or going shopping or similar, you shouldn't be fined and then have to go to court to offer proof you were actually on your way to Tesco.
All the regulations are, but that is a problem with what they are trying to achieve, which is to put the minutiae of everyday life into law, where it ought not to be.
And if the person in authority has a *reasonable* belief that this isn't true, they can issue an FPN. However, no definiton of a *reasonable* belief can be based on not producing documents that the Government has explicitly said you do not need.
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
This is the root of the problem really... with the best will in the world if the rules don't allow adequate and fair enforcement you'll end up with some who ignore them with impunity and others being penalised unjustly.
Those vaccines can't come quickly enough.
GlitterUnicorn
Member
Just an observation but an awful lot of the people vigorously attacking the requirement to wear a facemask, and ardently defending the right to claim to be exempt without explanation, are in fact people who post an awful lot on this forum about how much they dislike/Don't intend to respect Covid regulations of any sort.
I do wonder whether the people most opposed to being questioned about exceptions are worried that they might be found out?
I do wonder whether the people most opposed to being questioned about exceptions are worried that they might be found out?
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
Funnily enough, I would qualify for an exemption if I wished to claim one. However I personally find that wearing a mask is no big deal and I'd rather just wear one and not create a fuss. However I know that my personal circumstances and situation can't be applied to everyone else who is exempt, even if their medical issues are identical to mine on paper (I did make a bit of an arse of myself over this on here a while back- lesson learned!).Maybe this ought to be the dividing line between the exempt and not-exemptThere's no way I'd forget I had one on.
It was mentioned on another thread that people will be less likely to make a four hour plane or train journey if they have to wear a mask the whole time. Personally this wouldn't discourage me at all, but different strokes for different folks I guess!
Certainly not here. I thoroughly dislike many of these draconian regulations but abide to every single one that i'm required to. Vulnerable people shouldn't be questioned and made out to have done something wrong when they haven't, that's quite simply what i'm opposed to.
And for those still bleating on about how giving an explanation is painless i'm leaving this here again. If anyone thinks this would be acceptable, shame on you.
There were plenty of genuinely busy trains to seaside resorts. However, the number of infections didn't shoot up at the time and I suspect that the beach goers made zero difference to the current number of infections.
Richard Scott
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2018
- Messages
- 3,690
They can't ask why you're exempt, just saying that you are is within the law. Tried to explain this to someone at work who said those with exemptions should carry identification to say so. They wouldn't accept it but told them they didn't have a choice.
Butts
Veteran Member
Well it must be one of the most flouted rules going in Stations with direct access to open platforms !!
The BTP Officers were certainly not remonstrating with anyone not complying on an open platform.
Hardly surprising in these sort of Stations as it makes no sense whatsoever.
bramling
Veteran Member
There's a difference, in that rail ticketing matters generally don't involve a protected characteristic.
There was an example mentioned upthread of the example of ticket issuing facilities at the boarding station not being "accessible" (which could be in a many number of ways)
Or in stations with multiple entrances that are used to walk to another housing estate, meaning the mask goes on for 20 seconds whilst walking down the platform to the other exit then gets taken back off upon leaving.
That's probably because you look trustworthy
Also younger people are probably more likely to be challenged (unless they look like they may be young enough to be exempt on age grounds)
For the past few months I have not seen a single person in Morrisons without a face covering, except for children who I would assume are exempt on age grounds. The only exception I can think of is yesterday I saw a Year 8 boy helping his mum with the shopping and he wasn't wearing one, but of course most people wouldn't know his true age and therefore assume he is under 11*
(* There is a slight anomaly in that children aged 11 are expected to wear face coverings in shops and on public transport but not in school if they are in Year 6)
What do you think I am worried about being "found out" about? Not wearing a mask?
Maybe some people do this but it must be an absolutely tiny number. Where I am, hardly anyone exercises an exemption, even when eligible to do so.
When I've witnessed people be challenged, in nearly all cases they have put a face covering on. In one case I witnessed an argument on a ferry in Dartmouth; the person concerned did not claim an exemption. In another case on a train the person did not have a mask and was given one by the Guard. I've been with a forum member who was asked about a mask and who pointed to his sunflower lanyard.
I can't think of any occasions when I have witnessed people claim exemptions and there being any doubt in my mind that they are exempt.
Last edited:
3rd rail land
Member
That sounds rather like guilty until proven innocent. You can't issue a FPN and say the person is still innocent, its basically saying your are guilty until you submit suitable evidence that you aren't.
It would waste so much time as the person may have to get an appointment with their GP so as to get an exemption letter then someone from the relevant police force has to spend time reviewing the exemption letter and revoking the FPN. Not to mention the time the police spend incorrectly issuing the FPN. This doesn't take into consideration all the time that the exempt person ahs to spend getting suitable evidence if they don't already have it and then carry it with them whenever they leave their home or spend time submitting the evidence by way of appeal to the incorrectly issued FPN.
What constitutes suitable evidence? If the police, or other suitable authority organisation, are not happy with the evidence you have to waste more time and expense in taking the matter to court.
Its a total non starter and this is why the Government, quite sensibly, realised providing evidence wasn't viable so set out the law in such a way that evidence is not required.
Courts, medical professionals, police etc all have better things to be doing with their limited resources than deal with incorrectly issued FPNs over a face covering exemption.
Last edited:
And there’s the other big issue that’s haunted this whole episode. The use of the word “routinely”, like should, endeavour, where possible etc etc just creates massive confusion both on the public and law enforcement. People need simple instruction, what they can do and what they can’t. If they do or don’t need documentation. That one word ruins it.
Is this GWR policy? If so, I think this warrants a new thread and needs to be thoroughly investigated!
I don't think GWR are authorised to issue Fixed penalty notices under the various Coronavirus regulations.
I'm also sure I've seen someone before (think may have been @island) say that there is no formal[1] appeals process for Fixed penalty notices. If you disagree with the notice being issued then your option is to go to court & argue it there.
[1] I say "formal," because in one of the recent news articles about prosecutions initiated by TfL for non-payment of Fixed penalty notices included something about a small number of cases being withdrawn prior to going to court as medical evidence was submitted prior to going to court. Presumably the prosecutor saw sense and decided not to ask the court to hear the case.
Last edited:
Yes, I also thought if you were issued a FPN you have to sign it basically saying 'guilty'.
Basically if you disagree it's off to court.
Quite.
I've seen BTP officers on Thameslink trains a couple of times, walking through reminding people to wear face coverings. I haven't observed them encountering anyone with an exemption. They weren't asking why people were travelling, either. Simple polite presence, good policing.
Out of interest, I wonder how long it would take for a court to get around to hearing a FPN case? Aren't the courts very behind with lots of cases at the moment? They might be keen to throw out any shaky looking cases at the first opportunity.
Out of interest, I wonder how long it would take for a court to get around to hearing a FPN case? Aren't the courts very behind with lots of cases at the moment? They might be keen to throw out any shaky looking cases at the first opportunity.
FLIRTfan18
Member
Not an entirely unreasonable suggestion. Those who incessantly winge about the various operators forgetting to say "unless exempt" on the end of their tweets reminding about masks are often, upon further investigation of their profiles, either anti-mask, Covid hoax conspiracists, or simply those who don't believe in restrictions.
I'm not suggesting all, or indeed any, of the people on the forum have these intentions, but there are certainly those out there who will join the bandwagon, as it were, to emphasise that you don't have to wear a mask in order to push their own causes. And let's be honest, this thread has established very clearly that if you don't want to wear a mask, you simply don't have to wear one as long as you are willing to say "I'm exempt", regardless of whether you are exempt or not. I feel it is completely impossible to justify that, what with the many many thousands of people are not here to see in the new year let alone to do something as simple as to prove to the police an exemption (which as explained below can be far from evasive and stressful)
I still maintain that, were I exempt, which technically I am but do not exercise it, I would out of respect for my fellow passengers provide a reason as to why I was not wearing a mask. Because, as we are so concerned about rights of individuals here, I believe that any passenger on a train has the right to not share a carriage with a passenger who is not wearing a mask unless it is absolutely necessary.
I'm not saying the various people on here are necessarily wrong about the law. I think the law is wrong. There should be a simple and as non evasive way as possible to prove exemption. Simple. As has been referred to before on the thread I've never known anyone to think that a disabled blue badge is an Infringement of their rights. And if they don't want one, they don't get one, and they can't park in a disabled place. Of course, this is something that should have been organised long before now
Last edited:
GlitterUnicorn
Member
It has echoes of the people who abused the law on service animals in the US to designate untrained pets as service animals in order to bring them onto planes with them for free in the US.
The end result was that it became more difficult for people with genuine service animals to travel with them.
3rd rail land
Member
There simply isn't the resource available to setup and administer an exemption scheme in the way you think there should be. From all the extra work it would put on medical professionals having to issue letters/proof of a medical condition to Government, presumably councils, having to review and approve these exemptions and issue a badge/lanyard/whatever to show to the police to prove their exemption. Plus while waiting for the necessary medical appointment or waiting for exemption application to be approved what do you do if you are unable to wear a mask but need to travel on public transport or go into a supermarket/pharmacy etc...
While there are plenty of furloughed/unemployed people who could be employed to do this work it takes time to get everything setup and the necessary training provided. Then there's the cost. The NHS and councils are already struggling financially as it is.
I am sure that if the Government deemed it viable to have such a scheme they would have setup one up by now. By not doing so they have essentially admitted such a scheme is not viable and what we have now is the next best alternative with the sunflower lanyards.
- Status