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

[MikeWM]

Last week, a couple were in sat acroos the aisle to me, both had masks, one wore one for half the journey, the other (facing him) didn't wear one at all, despite having it in front of her. If they couldn't wear for medical reasons, then they wouldn't have them in the first place?

Some people can wear one for a short period of time but not for an extended period. I'm in that category.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Some people can wear one for a short period of time but not for an extended period. I'm in that category.

If that's the case, rather than using the exemption it would be more considerate, if possible, to plan the journey to allow for this, i.e. plan in additional breaks.

 

[Ianno87]

The legislation says to eat or drink, so I can see no reason why it should be restricted to water.

As I said, you unhook one ear loop and move it aside while you take a sip then replace it. There is no need to touch the fabric of the mask to do this.



Having read the law it seems clear to me that drinking alcohol would presently breach that law because it provides only for consumption when necessary, and as beer provides no positive benefit to the body it cannot be necessary to consume it under any circumstances.

I made a train journey last Wednesday. I consumed water where it was necessary not to be thirsty. To take a necessary drink of water I moved the mask aside with my left hand by unhooking the ear loop while bringing the bottle to my mouth with my right hand, then replaced the mask immediately after taking a drink.

It's all excuses by people who simply don't like masks or think their can of beer is more important than other peoples' health. Wear one for as much of the journey as humanly possible out of simple consideration for others unless you absolutely cannot. It's the law and it's morally right.

If we actually want people back on railways and for them to have a future, let people have a drink that isn't water and for the experience to at least be loosely enjoyable.

 

[Bantamzen]

I made a train journey last Wednesday. I consumed water where it was necessary not to be thirsty. To take a necessary drink of water I moved the mask aside with my left hand by unhooking the ear loop while bringing the bottle to my mouth with my right hand, then replaced the mask immediately after taking a drink.

It's all excuses by people who simply don't like masks or think their can of beer is more important than other peoples' health. Wear one for as much of the journey as humanly possible out of simple consideration for others unless you absolutely cannot. It's the law and it's morally right.

So in conclusion, people not wearing masks should be reported to the Police (depending on their appearance it seems), but you can remove & replace your mask with impunity? What's to stop someone calling you in for removing your mask to take a sip of water?

 

[MikeWM]

If that's the case, rather than using the exemption it would be more considerate, if possible, to plan the journey to allow for this, i.e. plan in additional breaks.

Having experimented, I can do 20 minutes or so before my breathing is affected (and then need some time to recover). I'm not going to get off the train every few stops. If people think this then it seems it would be easier on myself to claim an exemption and not do it for the small period that I can bear it for.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If we actually want people back on railways and for them to have a future, let people have a drink that isn't water and for the experience to at least be loosely enjoyable.

At the moment that is not the important thing.

So in conclusion, people not wearing masks should be reported to the Police (depending on their appearance it seems), but you can remove & replace your mask with impunity? What's to stop someone calling you in for removing your mask to take a sip of water?

They can if they wish, and the Police would inform them that brief removal for a sip of water is within the law.

Having experimented, I can do 20 minutes or so before my breathing is affected (and then need some time to recover). I'm not going to get off the train every few stops. If people think this then it seems it would be easier on myself to claim an exemption and not do it for the small period that I can bear it for.

You are probably a sensible user of the exemption, then. However, someone who can tolerate one for, say, two hours, probably much less so.

 

[Ianno87]

At the moment that is not the important thing.

It is. That's why government legislation has changed. HM Treasury can't continue shovelling subsidy into railways forever.

The next weeks and months will be critical as to whether passengers ever return.

Compared against, for example, people choosing road travel instead and putting themselves and others at risk of a fatal accident.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is. That's why government legislation has changed. HM Treasury can't continue shovelling subsidy into railways forever.

It's not. Masks would not be required if it was.

 

[Ianno87]

It's not. Masks would not be required if it was.

Masks (debatably) balance off the risk of relaxing guidelines on travel.

Someone drinking beer in place of water does not add any extra risk.

 

[43066]

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!

But with all due respect your (extremely biased) opinion is completely irrelevant. The legislation, as drafted, is open ended and unenforceable. In effect you can self verify yourself as exempt, and that’s no doubt by design, because many of those with legitimate exemptions will have been unable to obtain “proof”. Suggesting that people report non mask wearing to the police is absolutely ludicrous when they are likely to be several such people per train, many/all of whom will claim exemptions. Do you have any idea how thinly spread BTP are?!

Furthermore, so you really think providing written exemptions of this type is a good use of GPs time? I’d rather they start looking at those potentially undiagnosed cancers we are going to be seeing thousands of deaths from over the next few years.

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.

Precisely. The fact there are people on here who seriously think passengers should be reporting non mask wearing to BTP absolutely boggles my mind. And railway staff also have no business going round challenging non mask wearers, let alone inventing their own rules.

This pandemic is bringing out the absolute worst in human nature. It’s clear that many people have an unpleasantly authoritarian streak and get a kick out of seeing others being forced into do something they don’t want to. Utterly pathetic.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Masks (debatably) balance off the risk of relaxing guidelines on travel.

Someone drinking beer in place of water does not add any extra risk.

It's not that they are drinking beer instead of water. It's that if beer is acceptable they don't need to be drinking at all.

 

[Ianno87]

It's not that they are drinking beer instead of water. It's that if beer is acceptable they don't need to be drinking at all.

And, one step further, very few people need to be travelling by train at all. By taking a trip for leisure at all, anybody is (in theory) posing a small risk to others.

Its a balance between health need and a practical return to the real world.

 

[43066]

It's not that they are drinking beer instead of water. It's that if beer is acceptable they don't need to be drinking at all.

Again, you need to stop stating your own opinions as if they are fact. The law says that a mask can be removed to drink - whether that is beer or water is irrelevant.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Again, you need to stop stating your own opinions as if they are fact. The law says that a mask can be removed to drink - whether that is beer or water is irrelevant.

Au contraire.

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings on Public Transport) (England) Regulations 2020

These Regulations require members of the public to wear face coverings whilst using public transport (such as buses, trains, the London Underground, trams, aircraft and water taxis) in England to protect against the risks to public health arising from coronavirus, except in certain limited cases.

www.legislation.gov.uk

(e)if it is reasonably necessary for P to eat or drink, P removes their face covering to eat or drink;

It is not "reasonably necessary" to drink beer.

 

[DB]

This pandemic is bringing out the absolute worst in human nature. It’s clear that many people have an unpleasantly authoritarian streak and get a kick out of seeing others being forced into do something they don’t want to. Utterly pathetic.

I agree, and it seem to be getting worse - and the government seems to be listening to them and trying to give them what they want.

 

[Ianno87]

Au contraire.

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings on Public Transport) (England) Regulations 2020

These Regulations require members of the public to wear face coverings whilst using public transport (such as buses, trains, the London Underground, trams, aircraft and water taxis) in England to protect against the risks to public health arising from coronavirus, except in certain limited cases.

www.legislation.gov.uk

It is not "reasonably necessary" to drink beer.

There are health benefits to drinking alcohol (in moderation).

 

[Bletchleyite]

There are health benefits to drinking alcohol (in moderation).

However, to obtain these (and they are debatable), it is not necessary to drink it while on a train journey.

 

[duncanp]

In Devon and Cornwall, the police have said that they are not going to respond to calls about people not wearing masks in shops, unless violence or disorder is involved.

I would imagine the BTP are going to take the same attitude, so whilst you might be able to text them saying "...OMG, there's someone on the train from Little Dribbling who isn't wearing a mask!!!, Please arrest them at once otherwise I'm going to die from COVID-19.", it's highly unlikely that they will do anything about it.

Police force says it will not respond to calls about shoppers who refuse to wear face masks

Officers too busy to deal with calls about masks unless violence or disorder involved, Devon and Cornwall commissioner says

www.telegraph.co.uk

I also think it is perfectly acceptable to eat and drink on a train, including alcohol if you want. If you have to remove a mask to do that, then so be it. If there is adequate social distancing on the train, then the risk of passing the deadly killer virus on to someone else is very small.

A police force has become the first in the country to announce it will not respond to calls about shoppers refusing to wear face masks.
Devon and Cornwall's police and crime commissioner said officers were too busy to respond to calls about face masks unless there was violence or disorder involved.
Later this week, it will become mandatory for people in England to wear face coverings when they go to shops and other enclosed spaces, with the threat of a £100 fixed penalty notice for non-compliance.
However, there is widespread confusion around how the rule will be enforced, after retailers said their staff should not be expected to intervene.
Amid criticism of inconsistent messaging on the issue, George Eustice, the Environment Secretary, last week said shops would have a "role to play" but added: "When it comes to that final sanction of issuing a penalty, that is something that only the police can do."

However, Alison Hernandez, police and crime commissioner for Devon and Cornwall, said officers would not investigate reports of people ignoring the new rule.
"We are moving back into ordinary policing," she said. "The expectation is that [officers] will only come if there is disorder or violence or something associated with it. They are not going to come to every phone call that someone is not wearing a mask."
Last week, the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) suggested officers would only intervene over face masks as a "last resort".
Andrew Goodacre, the CEO of the British Independent Retailer Association, said: "This is not the role of retailers, and we would be concerned any such enforcement may lead to a further increase in the number of threats and abuse shop workers in the UK are currently experiencing."
It came as a survey found that around half of service workers have faced abuse from customers during the pandemic.
Almost three-quarters (73 per cent) said they had experienced verbal hostility, and more than a quarter (26 per cent) said they had been subjected to physical assault.
Examples ranged from being shouted and sworn at to, in extreme cases, being spat on.

The study by the Institute of Customer Service (ICS) – which surveyed 1,000 customer service workers and 1,000 members of the public – also showed that the majority of staff felt that their roles had changed, forcing them to do things that increased the risk of conflict.
These included ensuring that newly implemented social distancing measures were properly adhered to, and dealing with "frustrated customers".
Meanwhile the Government has announced that factories in south Wales and Lancashire have begun making "high quality" face coverings. Around £14 million is being invested as part of a push to produce a million every week.
Michael Gove, the Cabinet Office minister, said: "This is a major step to ensure that this country can meet any increase in demand for face coverings by working with British firms to establish the capability, capacity and skills required to manufacture these items at scale."

 

[43066]

Au contraire.

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings on Public Transport) (England) Regulations 2020

These Regulations require members of the public to wear face coverings whilst using public transport (such as buses, trains, the London Underground, trams, aircraft and water taxis) in England to protect against the risks to public health arising from coronavirus, except in certain limited cases.

www.legislation.gov.uk

It is not "reasonably necessary" to drink beer.

You may think so, but others will disagree! It also doesn’t say anywhere in the legislation that the mask must be removed and put back on for each individual sip as you stated earlier.

Reading things into the legislation which aren’t there isn’t at all helpful when there’s so much confusion around already.

 

[adc82140]

My wife is medically exempt. If any member of rail staff attempted to question her beyond where she says she's exempt, I tell you for certain that said TOC would be sued by us. I feel that strongly about it. A BTP officer would be OK to question why, but only in private. Any BTP officer claiming there are no exemptions would find themselves having a conversation with their Superintendent.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

However, to obtain these (and they are debatable), it is not necessary to drink it while on a train journey.

So I'm stuck on a train on a hot day, it's broken down and it'll be hours before we'll get moving again. The toilets are out of order and there's no food and drinks trolley. I have a dry mouth and I'm feeling dehydrated and the only liquid I have one is some cans of beer. Will you allow me to drink one of them?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So I'm stuck on a train on a hot day, it's broken down and it'll be hours before we'll get moving again. The toilets are out of order and there's no food and drinks trolley. I have a dry mouth and I'm feeling dehydrated and the only liquid I have one is some cans of beer. Will you allow me to drink one of them?

I would suggest not drinking anything, as beer does not hydrate and will make the situation worse. Furthermore, it's a diuretic, so you are more likely to want to use the unavailable toilet facilities.

Your best course of action would be asking other passengers if any had a spare bottle of water.

 

[Bantamzen]

So I'm stuck on a train on a hot day, it's broken down and it'll be hours before we'll get moving again. The toilets are out of order and there's no food and drinks trolley. I have a dry mouth and I'm feeling dehydrated and the only liquid I have one is some cans of beer. Will you allow me to drink one of them?

Knowing the love of bureaucracy on here, you'd need to apply for permission from Boris in writing, in advance citing your drinking itinerary, the type of drink you are planning to drink, book your toilet break....

 

[adc82140]

You wouldn't want to ask other passengers in Wales, as that would be talking.

 

[43066]

I word urge anyone considering travelling by train to do so.

If you are wearing a mask, and want to drink a beer on the train, (so long as it isn’t a dry train) you may remove your mask to do so.

If you are exempt from wearing a mask, do not wear one. If you are challenged by a member of staff or a BTP officer politely explain that you fall under an exemption. There should be no need to give any more detail than that.

If a member of staff is making up their own rules, report them to their TOC.

If you’re a passenger who has a grudge against non mask wearers, mind your own business! There may well be a good reason why.

If you are challenged by a vigilante passenger for not wearing a mask, report them to BTP for harassment/assault on 61016.

See it. Say it. Sorted.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

I would suggest not drinking anything, as beer does not hydrate and will make the situation worse. Furthermore, it's a diuretic, so you are more likely to want to use the unavailable toilet facilities.

Your best course of action would be asking other passengers if any had a spare bottle of water.

In this hypothetical situation I'm the only person on the train. Now can I drink the beer?

You wouldn't want to ask other passengers in Wales, as that would be talking.

And as Blackadder famously said, "You need half a pint of phlegm in your throat just to pronounce the placenames. Never ask for directions in Wales Baldrick, you'll be washing spit out of your hair for a fortnight. "

 

[Smidster]

It seems this is one of those where there needs to be a "reasonableness" test - Is this something where the alleged indiscretion so serious that it requires legal involvement.

To me this is something which falls an awful way short of that measure - Should people be encouraged and prodded to follow the instruction? Yes. Is it going to do anyone any good to have thousands of people bombarding a method of communication that is surely meant to alert people to stuff that could have immediate and serious impact.

As a question to those who would alert the authorities - Would you also do reach for the number if you saw someone with their feet on the seats? Someone who is drinking alcohol on the tube or any of the other things that are not permitted on the railway. If not what is the difference? Do you also alert the police if you see someone drop a crisp packet on the street or run to a parking warden if you see someone with an out of date parking ticket?

It may seem flippant but in the grand scheme of things it is really not serious enough to worry about.

 

[carlberry]

So I'm stuck on a train on a hot day, it's broken down and it'll be hours before we'll get moving again. The toilets are out of order and there's no food and drinks trolley. I have a dry mouth and I'm feeling dehydrated and the only liquid I have one is some cans of beer. Will you allow me to drink one of them?

No, you'd then have to use the toilet that's out of order!

 

[Bletchleyite]

In this hypothetical situation I'm the only person on the train. Now can I drink the beer?

It would still be to your disadvantage to do so!

 

[Scrotnig]

It seems this is one of those where there needs to be a "reasonableness" test - Is this something where the alleged indiscretion so serious that it requires legal involvement.

To me this is something which falls an awful way short of that measure - Should people be encouraged and prodded to follow the instruction? Yes. Is it going to do anyone any good to have thousands of people bombarding a method of communication that is surely meant to alert people to stuff that could have immediate and serious impact.

As a question to those who would alert the authorities - Would you also do reach for the number if you saw someone with their feet on the seats? Someone who is drinking alcohol on the tube or any of the other things that are not permitted on the railway. If not what is the difference? Do you also alert the police if you see someone drop a crisp packet on the street or run to a parking warden if you see someone with an out of date parking ticket?

It may seem flippant but in the grand scheme of things it is really not serious enough to worry about.

The types of people you're dealing with it differently. To them, someone without a mask is a murderer who is killing people in front of their very eyes. That is literally how they see it.