Face coverings compulsory on public transport in England from 15 June

[Bedpan]

If I invite somebody into my garden I am perfectly entitled to insist that they wear a facemask before they enter, whether or not it is the law to do so. Similarly if I am a nervous car passenger and I don't like being driven fast, I have every right to make it clear to a taxi driver that I will only become his fare if he limits his speed to 45mph. Just because the national speed limit is 60/70mph doesn't mean that I'm not allowed to impose such a stipulation. Similarly TOCs have a right to stipulate that passengers must wear facemasks even if it isn't the law to wear one in a particular country. You could say that it's part of their duty of care to passengers to insist that they must be worn.

 

[PupCuff]

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

In England it is true, you can refer to the relevant regulations on legislation.gov.uk. In Scotland the law may be different, apologies, it's off my patch I'm afraid.

 

[mmh]

It's not made it into any laws yet, but basically any piece of fabric that wholly covers your mouth and nose will do in practice.

It's defined as "a covering of any type which covers a person’s nose and mouth." A cardboard box with some eye slits would count.

 

[221129]

In England it is true, you can refer to the relevant regulations on legislation.gov.uk. In Scotland the law may be different, apologies, it's off my patch I'm afraid.

You're the one asserting something as fact, can you provide a source that only BTP can refuse travel.

 

[NorthOxonian]

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

If this becomes a permanent part of daily life then it will be disruptive. I'm concerned that we're heading in that direction, and a masked society is not one I want to live in.

As a temporary measure for a couple of months, I can just about stomach masks. But we're seeing buses having them painted on, huge numbers of news articles illustrated with mask pictures, and even them becoming a fashion statement in some quarters. We need to have a clear exit strategy for leaving this masked world behind.

 

[Journeyman]

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

If it becomes compulsory in a wide range of places for a long period of time, yes it is.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's defined as "a covering of any type which covers a person’s nose and mouth." A cardboard box with some eye slits would count.

Fortunately most people are not quite that stupid nor facetious when it comes to taking care of the safety of others.

 

[alex397]

Some ridiculous conspiracy theory-type comments on here. Although it should have been done earlier, I see it as an attempt to get society back to normal but doing all we can to try and minimise the risk of spreading it to vulnerable people (some of whom may not even know they are vulnerable).

I'm mostly fine with the idea of face coverings, however I do think there is an issue for the people who are exempt from wearing them. My local operator's Twitter feed has quite a few people today demanding to know why other passengers have not been wearing them, and why some drivers have not been wearing them.
I fear that some disabled people will get hassle off of the many ignorant members of our society, as to why they are not wearing a face covering. In a similar way to how some Blue Badge holders with hidden disabilities can sometimes get abuse.
Not sure on a solution for that though, other than constant reminders that some are except. Although, that has been made clear on the news and on operator publicity, so I'm not sure why people continue to be ignorant.

 

[Bantamzen]

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.

Unfortunately the 'R' value has gone from a statistical method of measuring to a big stick to beat people with. I've said this before, but the media's continually shifting focus seems to be driven by a grim determination to make this situation seem as bad as possible, even though generally speaking the situation is improving. Just looking at the BBC live feed (and I really should stop) they are currently trying to talk up the possibility of a second wave in Beijing because of 39 new cases in a city with a population of over 20 million.

 

[PupCuff]

You're the one asserting something as fact, can you provide a source that only BTP can refuse travel.

I haven't said that only BTP can refuse travel, I have said that only a police officer, PCSO, TfL Officer or a member of train operator's staff specifically authorised can enforce it, below from the The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings on Public Transport) (England) Regulations 2020:

Enforcement of requirement to wear face covering whilst using public transport
5.—(1) Where a relevant person considers that another person is, at the time of boarding, not wearing a face covering, in contravention of the requirement in regulation 3, the relevant person may deny boarding of the relevant vehicle to that person.

(2) Where a relevant person considers that a person is not wearing a face covering, in contravention of the requirement in regulation 3, the relevant person may—

(a)direct that person to wear such a covering;
(b)direct that person to disembark from the relevant vehicle.

<...>


(9) In these Regulations—

“relevant person” means—

(a) a constable;
(b) a police community support officer;
(c) in relation to a public transport service provided by TfL or a TfL contractor, a TfL officer;
(d) in relation to a public transport service provided by any other operator—
(i) the operator, or
(ii) any employee or agent of the operator who is authorised by the operator for the purposes of this regulation;
(e) a person designated by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this regulation;

 

[mmh]

It is a disruption. If I wanted to get on a bus or train today I would have to first walk two miles to the only shop I know definitely sells them, and pay over the odds for something I do not want. I would have to do this despite living in Wales where there is no law on covering your face.

 

[RightAwayGuy]

It would be easier for enforcement through railway byelaw 13.2 loiter on the railway if asked to leave by an authorised person.

Railway Byelaws

“authorised person” means:

1.a person acting in the course of his duties who:

(a) is an employee or agent of an operator

or

(b) any other person authorised by an operator

or

2.any constable, acting in the execution of his duties upon or in connection with the railway

 

[MikeWM]

...other than constant reminders that some are except. Although, that has been made clear on the news and on operator publicity, so I'm not sure why people continue to be ignorant.

It hasn't been made clear on operator publicity *at all*, that's one of my major concerns. The notices say 'wear a face covering'. All the automated announcements say 'you must wear a face covering'. I didn't see one railway sign or hear one railway announcement yesterday that allowed for any exceptions (and I saw a *lot* of signs and heard a *lot* of announcements).

 

[mmh]

Fortunately most people are not quite that stupid nor facetious when it comes to taking care of the safety of others.

Peter Hitchens has been travelling in his gasmask again today. Could you explain why his gasmask or my hypothetical cardboard box are less safe than your approved face coverings?

 

[PupCuff]

It would be easier for enforcement through railway byelaw 13.2 loiter on the railway if asked to leave by an authorised person. Authorised person being anyone who works for the managing TOC.

They're not loitering though, they're travelling! Can you imagine that in front of the magistrates, where, Mr Porter, do you allege the defendant was loitering? When I challenged him, he was sat on a moving train with a valid ticket!

 

[221129]

I haven't said that only BTP can refuse travel, I have said that only a police officer, PCSO, TfL Officer or a member of train operator's staff specifically authorised can enforce it, below from the The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings on Public Transport) (England) Regulations 2020:

Fair enough, thanks for that. Although there are other options available under other railway bylaws if you really wanted to cause hassle for yourself.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

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.

Erm...larger population?

Jobsworths Security personnel can't issue fines and the police have more important matters to attend to

 

[Bletchleyite]

Peter Hitchens has been travelling in his gasmask again today. Could you explain why his gasmask or my hypothetical cardboard box are less safe than your approved face coverings?

Your cardboard box would have eyeholes out of which the virus could project forwards. A smaller box covering only the mouth and nose and fitting closely to the face would work, however.

The gas mask no doubt works but looks very stupid and is no doubt incredibly uncomfortable, but if you must, go ahead. This assumes a gas mask doesn't have a valve for exhalation and that goes via the filter the same as inhalation. If there's a valve, it would be useless and is not acceptable.

 

[mmh]

Unfortunately the 'R' value has gone from a statistical method of measuring to a big stick to beat people with. I've said this before, but the media's continually shifting focus seems to be driven by a grim determination to make this situation seem as bad as possible, even though generally speaking the situation is improving. Just looking at the BBC live feed (and I really should stop) they are currently trying to talk up the possibility of a second wave in Beijing because of 39 new cases in a city with a population of over 20 million.

As numbers dropped it was inevitable R would be used as a magical measure to justify continued restrictions despite the minuscule rate of diagnoses, hospitalizations and deaths. Sections of the media which have spent months predicting catastrophic scenes after each and every one of Easter, mothers day, bank holidays, VE day, a sunny weekend which never materialise have switched to obsessing over R instead. That's not a coincidence.

 

[RightAwayGuy]

They're not loitering though, they're travelling! Can you imagine that in front of the magistrates, where, Mr Porter, do you allege the defendant was loitering? When I challenged him, he was sat on a moving train with a valid ticket!

But the person may have been asked to leave by an employee due to the fact that they are not wearing a face covering, which could be a TOC specific policy. They then have been refused service which the TOC is allowed to do, so long as that in itself is not unlawful, and therefore have no reason to be on the railway and are loitering.

 

[8J]

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.

Not according to the TPE website coronavirus FAQ section

Buy Cheap Train Tickets | Book Train Tickets | TransPennine Express Trains

View train times and buy train tickets in advance to any destination in Great Britain. Book train tickets now with TransPennine Express - no booking fee

www.tpexpress.co.uk

So as per my original post, their twitter staff are posting information contrary to the law and the information on their website.

 

[island]

It would appear that the byelaws have not in fact been amended.

Whether this purported notice is valid and enforceable is a different matter.

The notice purports to be a “reasonable instruction relating to safety” under byelaw 12 (1).

 

[Journeyman]

As numbers dropped it was inevitable R would be used as a magical measure to justify continued restrictions despite the minuscule rate of diagnoses, hospitalizations and deaths. Sections of the media which have spent months predicting catastrophic scenes after each and every one of Easter, mothers day, bank holidays, VE day, a sunny weekend which never materialise have switched to obsessing over R instead. That's not a coincidence.

Certain parts of the media seem absolutely determined to make things out as far worse than they are, simply to use it as a stick to beat the government with. The Guardian is particularly bad for this - they seem to be in complete denial that the death rate and pressure on the health service are both dropping sharply.

 

[PupCuff]

But the person may have been asked to leave by an employee due to the fact that they are not wearing a face covering, which could be a TOC specific policy. They then have been refused service which the TOC is allowed to do, so long as that in itself is not unlawful, and therefore have no reason to be on the railway and are loitering.

I'm assuming you're rail staff - I'm sorry to be so blunt, I recognise the difficult job frontline staff do on a day to day basis and I share an understanding that we need the byelaws etc to maintain effective control of the network, but if you want to try claiming that someone travelling on a train between A and B with a valid ticket is 'loitering' then by all means try, but I cannot for a second think you'll get one iota of support from either BTP, your management, or a court of law I'm afraid.

 

[PupCuff]

The gas mask no doubt works but looks very stupid and is no doubt incredibly uncomfortable, but if you must, go ahead. This assumes a gas mask doesn't have a valve for exhalation and that goes via the filter the same as inhalation. If there's a valve, it would be useless and is not acceptable.

The relevant regs simply require a face covering, defined in the regs as;

“face covering” means a covering of any type which covers a person’s nose and mouth;

As such a respirator covers the nose and mouth it is acceptable for the purpose of travelling by train.

 

[RightAwayGuy]

I'm assuming you're rail staff - I'm sorry to be so blunt, I recognise the difficult job frontline staff do on a day to day basis and I share an understanding that we need the byelaws etc to maintain effective control of the network, but if you want to try claiming that someone travelling on a train between A and B with a valid ticket is 'loitering' then by all means try, but I cannot for a second think you'll get one iota of support from either BTP, your management, or a court of law I'm afraid.

I had someone removed 2 weeks ago for not following 2 meters distance and generally being unpleasant to talk to so why would this be any different? Its my own safety at risk as well as the safety of others around me.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Legal, but not useful for the intended purpose.

 

[PupCuff]

I had someone removed 2 weeks ago for not following 2 meters distance and generally being unpleasant to talk to so why would this be any different? Its my own safety at risk as well as the safety of others around me.

That would be done on the basis of Byelaw 6 which prohibits any person behaving in a disorderly manner, being abusive towards other people on the railway, and wilfully interfering with the comfort and convenience of other people on the railway. Someone simply not wearing a face mask who is not being disorderly, abusive or failing to adhere to social distancing rules is unlikely to be reasonably seen to be falling under any of these categories, otherwise there would be issues surrounding disabled people who can't wear a mask and whether the enforcement of the law was indirectly or directly discriminatory against someone with a protected characteristic. Unless, of course, the person you dealt with wasn't travelling or using station facilities, in which case they could be reasonably deemed to be loitering and removed for that reason.

 

[MikeWM]

Certain parts of the media seem absolutely determined to make things out as far worse than they are, simply to use it as a stick to beat the government with. The Guardian is particularly bad for this - they seem to be in complete denial that the death rate and pressure on the health service are both dropping sharply.

Yep - I've no idea what they're trying to achieve (the same applies to much of the 'left', people who in the past I've tended to agree with seem to have entirely lost it over this). I used to buy the Guardian daily, but fortunately I got better some years back

 

[Jayden99]

Well, I've just spent my day wearing one on the tube to work, whenever I was in a customer area at work, and then on the tube home. I really would've been the odd one out had I not done so. I even managed to eat and drink water on the tube without the BTP whisking me away to a cell and throwing away the key, it's just a matter of being considerate when you do so. I wouldn't want this becoming a permanent fixture of life, it wasn't the most comfortable experience, but I absolutely don't mind doing this for now if it means I don't unknowingly spread the virus