Is reporting the non wearing of face coverings on trains the correct use of the BTP texting service?

[CaptainHaddock]

Moderator note posts #1-#15 originally in this thread:

What are your observations of face coverings wearing on public transport?

Now that the law has been enacted for compulsory wearing of face coverings on public transport in England (as discussed in this thread ). What have been your observations? Have people been largely compliant or not? Do people take them off when they think no-one is watching? Are people wearing...

www.railforums.co.uk

Twice in a week now I have been disturbed to hear Cross Country Train Managers announce "if you see anyone on the train not wearing a face mask you can call BTP on 61016".

Not only does this not take into account those with valid exemptions, it also encourages vigilantism and potential confrontation. I hope this isn't now official XC policy.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Twice in a week now I have been disturbed to hear Cross Country Train Managers announce "if you see anyone on the train not wearing a face mask you can call BTP on 61016".

Not only does this not take into account those with valid exemptions, it also encourages vigilantism and potential confrontation I hope this isn't now official XC policy.

Reporting things to the Police if you "see something that doesn't look right" is absolutely the right thing to do, and is the precise polar opposite of "vigilanteism". So I am quite happy that it is policy.

 

[Bantamzen]

Reporting things to the Police if you "see something that doesn't look right" is absolutely the right thing to do, and is the precise polar opposite of "vigilanteism". So I am quite happy that it is policy.

A couple of days after the 7/7 London bombings a colleague of mine was stopped by the BTP in Leeds station after someone had reported to them that there was someone who didn't look right boarding a train. His crime? Being Kashmiri of origin and carrying a backpack. So no, reporting "something not looking right" is not necessarily the right thing to do.

So someone sees a person on a train not wearing a mask. They report it to the BTP, they turn up only to find that the person has a valid exemption for not wearing a mask. Was that a valid use of their resources? No. Did the person travelling have the right not to wear a mask whilst travelling? Yes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A couple of days after the 7/7 London bombings a colleague of mine was stopped by the BTP in Leeds station after someone had reported to them that there was someone who didn't look right boarding a train. His crime? Being Kashmiri of origin and carrying a backpack. So no, reporting "something not looking right" is not necessarily the right thing to do.

Yes, it was. It sounds like the Police possibly didn't exercise their professional judgement correctly, but it is never, ever, under any circumstances the wrong thing to do to report something you're genuinely concerned about to the Police.

 

[Bantamzen]

Yes, it was. It sounds like the Police possibly didn't exercise their professional judgement correctly, but it is never, ever, under any circumstances the wrong thing to do to report something you're genuinely concerned about to the Police.

No it wasn't, he was just a person travelling home from a meeting. That he was of Kashmiri origin and carrying a backpack was not a reason to call the Police. Equally someone with a physical or mental health issue that affords them an exception from wearing a mask is not a reason to call the Police. It is not the job of untrained members of public to make decisions on whether someone qualifies for an exemption, period.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is not the job of untrained members of public to make decisions on whether someone qualifies for an exemption, period.

That's why it is the job of the Police (and if necessary the Courts), and reporting the matter is totally appropriate.

 

[Bantamzen]

That's why it is the job of the Police, and reporting the matter is totally appropriate.

No matter how often you try to insist that it is, it is not appropriate and it should not be encouraged. Unless of course you can explain to me how you would determine that someone not wearing a mask was breaking the law purely by looking at them, keeping in mind that the exemptions are part of that same law?

 

[Bletchleyite]

No matter how often you try to insist that it is, it is not appropriate and it should not be encouraged. Unless of course you can explain to me how you would determine that someone not wearing a mask was breaking the law purely by looking at them, keeping in mind that the exemptions are part of that same law?

All that matters is that you are concerned. It is the job of the Police to determine if the law is being broken and what, if any, action is required. You do not have to be sure the law is being broken to call the Police, you just need to have reasonable suspicion that it might be.

Nobody should be discouraged from calling the Police if they believe the law may be being broken or they feel unsafe due to others' actions.

 

[LowLevel]

That's why it is the job of the Police (and if necessary the Courts), and reporting the matter is totally appropriate.

We have the opposite policy in place telling members of the public to mind their own business in a polite fashion. Anyone telling passengers to use 61016 is doing it off their own back regardless I think, as I am fully aware of our policy and yet some staff still seem to be reported as doing it.

It is completely at odds with the posters and messages regarding exemptions and being kind.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We have the opposite policy in place telling members of the public to mind their own business in a polite fashion. Anyone telling passengers to use 61016 is doing it off their own back regardless I think, as I am fully aware of our policy and yet some staff still seem to be reported as doing it.

It is completely at odds with the posters and messages regarding exemptions and being kind.

There are too many refuseniks, though. If it's not enforced, it is pointless. So 61016 is quite appropriate in my view. Confrontation in person/vigilanteism would, by contrast, not be appropriate.

 

[Smidster]

Reporting things to the Police if you "see something that doesn't look right" is absolutely the right thing to do, and is the precise polar opposite of "vigilanteism". So I am quite happy that it is policy.

I could not disagree more.

Is it an "offence" to not be wearing a mask without a valid reason - Yes.
Does that mean people should be calling the actual police when that doesn't happen - No.

For a start you have absolutely no idea why someone isn't wearing one - For sure they could be just deciding to flout the rules but alternatively they could have a perfectly valid reason not to and having police involvement in those circumstances is both a complete waste of valuable resource but could well make the situation worse.

Secondly it really doesn't seem the kind of country we should be aiming to be when every time you see someone do something questionable your first instinct is "I must notify the police immediately" - Like the people at the start of lock down who were phoning 999 if their neighbour went for 2 periods of exercise (I know that wasn't the law but you get my point) We should all be trying to look after one another not finding any excuse to alert the authorities.

If someone not wearing a mask really offends you then move to another carriage or if you must alert the Guard - at least they should have some training in handling people sensitively.

Ultimately I hope BTP have more important things to be doing.

 

[talldave]

That's why it is the job of the Police (and if necessary the Courts), and reporting the matter is totally appropriate.

In the case of masks, the BTP are powerless to do anything (see my recent post of my partners run-in). After lying about there being no exemptions, the BTP officer looked dumbfounded when my partner asked which of the threats made it was to be "arrest or fine?". I suspect most people give in to the threats and lies.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is probably going to go round in circles, but there is a simple solution of course.

Wear a mask in the required places unless you cannot. It is, to paraphrase Matt Hancock, your civic duty to take a minor inconvenience for the greater good. And by "cannot" I mean it would cause you a genuine physical or mental health issue to do so, not just that you find it a bit uncomfortable, because, you know what? I find it uncomfortable too.

 

[Bantamzen]

All that matters is that you are concerned. It is the job of the Police to determine if the law is being broken and what, if any, action is required. You do not have to be sure the law is being broken to call the Police, you just need to have reasonable suspicion that it might be.

Nobody should be discouraged from calling the Police if they believe the law may be being broken or they feel unsafe due to others' actions.

It is legal not to wear a mask if you fall under one of the possible exemptions. This does not require the intervention of the Police.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is legal not to wear a mask if you fall under one of the possible exemptions. This does not require the intervention of the Police.

Would you not report someone apparently breaking into a house, just because it turned out it was the owner who had lost his keys?

I'm sorry, this mask thing is turning people irrational. The Police would show up, establish it was the owner, and go away again.

 

[Huntergreed]

The law on masks has many exemptions, and that means unless the law requires proof of exemption, it’s practically unenforceable.

I agree with the many posters on here, it is absolutely not the right thing to do if you see someone not wearing a mask to contact the police. Many of those who are indeed genuinely exempt for medical reasons are scared to use public transport through fear of confrontation (I can’t blame them in this regard) and I don’t think we should be encouraging these types of confrontation to take place (especially when there’s police officers out there with the attitude of “no exemptions” as we’ve already heard)

I would argue it’s our “civic duty” to ensure those who are exempt feel comfortable and safe using public transport, and encouraging them into confrontations with the force most certainly isn’t the correct way to do this.

 

[talldave]

Would you not report someone apparently breaking into a house, just because it turned out it was the owner who had lost his keys?

I'm sorry, this mask thing is turning people irrational.

At last, something we agree on.

The Police would show up, establish it was the owner, and go away again.

Nowadays there's very little chance of that happening. Apart from anything else, they'll be tied up manning the doors at the local supermarket.

 

[Bantamzen]

Would you not report someone apparently breaking into a house, just because it turned out it was the owner who had lost his keys?

I'm sorry, this mask thing is turning people irrational. The Police would show up, establish it was the owner, and go away again.

OK, let's run with your idea. Say a million people travel in a week, and let's say 10% of those were people who fell under the exemptions. Are you proposing that BTP deal with 100,000 calls of "he/she is not wearing a mask"? And how would you propose to manage this? Easy enough perhaps at a station where the BTP have a presence, but what about the majority of routes that don't see them from one week to the next? Do they call ahead to have the train stopped, do they ask for help from local forces, maybe the Army or local vigilantes?

I would have thought the most obvious reason for it not being appropriate is that a lot of people will fall into this exemption. Certainly a lot more than people losing their house keys....

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would argue it’s our “civic duty” to ensure those who are exempt feel comfortable and safe using public transport, and encouraging them into confrontations with the force most certainly isn’t the correct way to do this.

To be honest I think the Government have slipped up here and could have provided an official means of proof of exemption available via GPs. The vast majority of people who are exempt are so because of diagnosed medical conditions. That leaves only a few who would need a telephone appointment to discuss reasons why - and that might well have other benefits, such as unearthing and starting treatment for a medical condition. Such as "I get a headache and short of breath" could mean they have something serious like a blood clot on the lung and their body is only just getting enough oxygen in as a result - I can confirm that first hand!

 

[CaptainHaddock]

To be honest I think the Government have slipped up here and could have provided an official means of proof of exemption available via GPs. The vast majority of people who are exempt are so because of diagnosed medical conditions. That leaves only a few who would need a telephone appointment to discuss reasons why - and that might well have other benefits, such as unearthing and starting treatment for a medical condition. Such as "I get a headache and short of breath" could mean they have something serious like a blood clot on the lung and their body is only just getting enough oxygen in as a result - I can confirm that first hand!

A person's medical history is private and is not something a member of rail staff has any right to know. If a guard challenges a person not wearing a mask, all they have to say is "I have a medical condition" and the guard should accept that and not press them for further details.

 

[Huntergreed]

A person's medical history is private and is not something a member of rail staff has any right to know. If a guard challenges a person not wearing a mask, all they have to say is "I have a medical condition" and the guard should accept that and not press them for further details.

Exactly, however there has been some stories of some guards and police officers employing their own “no exceptions” policy, which is understandably discouraging the 10-20% of the population from going anywhere near public transport or shops for a while.

 

[westv]

I would be as likely to call BTP for someone without a mask as I would be for someone with their feet on the seat.

 

[talldave]

@Bantamzen you forgot to factor in the calls to the BTP reporting BTP officers not wearing face masks.

We are meant to report those aren't we?

 

[AdamWW]

Exactly, however there has been some stories of some guards and police officers employing their own “no exceptions” policy, which is understandably discouraging the 10-20% of the population from going anywhere near public transport or shops for a while.

Only the proportion of that 10-20% who have read such stories...

 

[Bantamzen]

@Bantamzen you forgot to factor in the calls to the BTP reporting BTP officers not wearing face masks.

We are meant to report those aren't we?

I was under the impression they were also exempt? However either way, based on the logic deployed on this thread, I guess yeah we should be reporting BTP to BTP for failing to wear a mask....

 

[Ianno87]

Surely it should only be raised to BTP if you have a reasonable belief that the person concerned does not have a "reasonable excuse" for not wearing one (and is perhaps also not giving reasonable regard to distancing). Which, for a random stranger on a train, is pretty unlikley.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surely it should only be raised to BTP if you have a reasonable belief that the person concerned does not have a "reasonable excuse" for not wearing one (and is perhaps also not giving reasonable regard to distancing). Which, for a random stranger on a train, is pretty unlikley.

I would say if you observed a group of lads in their 20s sitting together, drinking beer and not wearing masks, it is near-certain that at least one of them is breaking the law. Whereas if you observed an older person sitting alone, it's near-certain they have a valid exemption.

 

[Ianno87]

I would say if you observed a group of lads in their 20s sitting together, drinking beer and not wearing masks, it is near-certain that at least one of them is breaking the law. Whereas if you observed an older person sitting alone, it's near-certain they have a valid exemption.

I'd also add in "is there a reasonable chance of BTP actually being able to do something?"; e.g. if the lads are likely to be getting off shortly at a local station somewhere.


Edit: Although the act of drinking (albeit beer) is an exemption for wearing a mask! On travels this weekend, I couldn't help but notice de-masked individuals walking round with drinks conveniently taking a long time to be finished....

 

[Bletchleyite]

Edit: Although the act of drinking (albeit beer) is an exemption for wearing a mask!

While you're actually drinking it. Once you remove the can/bottle/glass from your mouth, the mask goes back on until your next sip. Having a beer on the table isn't an exemption.

 

[Huntergreed]

While you're actually drinking it. Once you remove the can/bottle/glass from your mouth, the mask goes back on until your next sip. Having a beer on the table isn't an exemption.

Is the legislation officially that you must put the mask back on between sips or that you may remove it whilst consuming and then once finished must put it back on? It's not very clear!