Police checking travel

[Pit_buzzer]

Well done btp, need a lot more of this

Yes I do mean it

 

[Wolfie]

Good, well done BTP.

Shame that the police have zero power to demand that you prove entitlement to an exemption. If it goes to Court they will almost certainly lose. A civil action against BTP to follow.. .

 

[Bletchleyite]

Whether it's the law or not is it not worth doing out of pure respect for fellow passengers?

The purpose of the Police (among a few other secondary things) is to enforce the law. Not what they think the law should be, but what it actually is.

That's all that matters here. It doesn't matter if the officer involved thinks proof should be required, nor if I do, nor if you do, nor if Queen Elizabeth herself does (well, sort of). All that matters is what is written in the law.

 

[Wolfie]

So you think everyone who is legitimately exempt should have to prove it when challenged by the police or have to appeal a FPN despite the law saying you do not need to prove an exemption?
If I were exempt and proof was demanded by the police I would want the officer's details so I could make a formal complaint against that person.

Yup. If everyone inconvenienced took civil action against BTP it's budget would soon be broken.

 

[221129]

Well done btp, need a lot more of this

Yes I do mean it

Yes because instead of dealing with important police work such as staff assaults or aggressive passengers they are too busy unlawfully harassing vulnerable people. Such amazing work...

 

[Darandio]

Well done btp, need a lot more of this

Yes I do mean it

Another one advocating harrassment of the vulnerable. Well done you.

 

[Wolfie]

Just say you’re exempt and everybody has to believe you. No surprise then at the amount of people taking the p!ss.

Can you imagine if the same principle was applied elsewhere?

Blue Badges holders are exempt from certain parking regulations. To get one you have to prove you have a requirement. You have to display said blue badge to show your exemption.

Somehow I don’t think someone just saying, “I’m exempt” would really cut the mustard.

So once again, good on BTP for enforcement. If you do actually have a valid exemption, appeal the FPN, prove it and have it quashed.

Then sue the arse off BTP!

 

[Wolfie]

The problem I've got is that, unless people are asked to give proof, the exemption rule is very open to being a abused by those who simply don't want to wear one and in doing so are putting others at risk. The other week a young man was smoking fag after fag on the platform yet claimed he was asthmatic when challenged and so was let off.
Probably around 20-30% of people on my journeys refuse to wear a mask and I'm sure if challenged they would call themselves exempt. The fact of the matter is, however, that only a very limited number of people truly do not have the ability to wear a mask. Me and my family all have asthma varying from very mild to very severe and we can all cope with having a mask on all day, let alone for a half an hour journey. Furthermore I don't see why very many people are exempt from wearing a visor.
I don't think it is in any way unreasonable to ask for proof of exemption, whether that's through one of those lanyards, a doctor's note or any other means. Its clear you are exempt if not wearing a mask, so there's no more embarassment in proving it than there is sitting without a face covering on. Personally, I think that if asked you should prove it purely out of respect for those you are travelling with, or otherwise simply don't travel. Because in doing so you are helping to root out those who are pretending to have a disability for their own gain - which when you think about it is pretty sick!

Those are your thoughts. The legislature chose to make it otherwise. The role of the police is to enforce the law as it is, not as they might wish it to be. If they do otherwise they are wide open to claims for damages as a result of their own potentially illegal actions

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

The purpose of the Police (among a few other secondary things) is to enforce the law. Not what they think the law should be, but what it actually is.

That's all that matters here. It doesn't matter if the officer involved thinks proof should be required, nor if I do, nor if you do, nor if Queen Elizabeth herself does (well, sort of). All that matters is what is written in the law.

Indeed,

According to the law you are not required to wear one if you have an exemption, and that you will not be required to routinely carry proof of your exemption.

I do wonder whether to simply say "I'm exempt" is enough though? The law doesn't say this. There might be an expectation that when asked you should explain which exception you fall under? Or just reasonably explain why you don't wear one?

 

[FLIRTfan18]

Those are your thoughts. The legislature chose to make it otherwise. The role of the police is to enforce the law as it is, not as they might wish it to be. If they do otherwise they are wide open to claims for damages as a result of their own potentially illegal actions

But if they were to enforce wearing a face covering they would be enforcing the law.
The problem lies in that they are not allowed to enforce the law (and so basically not allowed to do their job) in this instance

 

[221129]

But if they were to enforce wearing a face covering they would be enforcing the law.

I think you should read what the law actually states.

 

[Darandio]

I do wonder whether to simply say "I'm exempt" is enough though? The law doesn't say this. There might be an expectation that when asked you should explain which exception you fall under? Or just reasonably explain why you don't wear one?

Imagine being on a busy concourse and trying to explain that you were a rape victim and wearing a mask brings up severely traumatic memories of that hand over their mouth?

Do we really expect people to reasonably explain this?

 

[GB]

I do wonder whether to simply say "I'm exempt" is enough though? The law doesn't say this. There might be an expectation that when asked you should explain which exception you fall under? Or just reasonably explain why you don't wear one?

But Police officer (or shop worker or anyone else for that matter) is not really qualified to make an assessment on someone's reason/exemption.

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

I think you should read what the law actually states.

I read the law,

It says you do not need to wear one if you have a reasonable excuse,

It does not say that those enforcing the law cannot ask what the reasonable excuse is.

 

[Tom Quinne]

What a nasty country the UK turned into, disabled people having to prove their disable or disabled enough in some people eyes.

 

[221129]

I read the law,

It says you do not need to wear one if you have a reasonable excuse,

It does not say that those enforcing the law cannot ask what the reasonable excuse is.

It also doesn't state that you are obliged to answer.

 

[Wolfie]

I read the law,

It says you do not need to wear one if you have a reasonable excuse,

It does not say that those enforcing the law cannot ask what the reasonable excuse is.

The BMA's guidance to doctors is that it is sufficient that those claiming an exemption tell anyone asking that that is the case. There is no requirement to go into details.

 

[bramling]

Well done btp, need a lot more of this

Yes I do mean it

Need a lot more of what exactly?

The law has made clear that proof of exemption should not need to be provided. It therefore follows that BTP should not be asking for it.

It is completely unacceptable for people with a potentially hidden disability to be put in the position where they have to wear a device which singles them out (for which, incidentally, proof isn't required in order to obtain), nor where they have to be on the receiving end of being issued a FPN potentially every time they use a train, or for that matter a station.

As it happens I spent my afternoon with some BTP yesterday in a professional capacity, and it was quite interesting to hear their own views on all this. It's fair to say the majority view within the BTP is very similar to that found on this forum, and in particular that most officers find the ones who are taking things too far as objectionable as most on here, for the very reason that it devalues their own profession.

 

[FLIRTfan18]

It also doesn't state that you are obliged to answer.

It does state;
"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"
Where regulation 3 is;
"No person may, without reasonable excuse, use a public transport service without wearing a face covering"
If someone is refusing to say why they are exempt then it is surely reasonable to believe that they may be breaking the law.
There is nothing written in law which says they can't ask for proof. Therefore, since it is the job of a policeman, to enforce the law, I think it is very reasonable to suggest they will, and investigate if they have any suspicion of it being broken.

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

 

[yorkie]

Good, well done BTP.

There is no requirement to provide proof of exemption.

No-one should be asked why they are exempt, either.

Yes i was accosted by BTP and given a fine for not wearing a mask and not being able to `prove` my exemption. This on the concourse at Leeds station. Disgarceful approach from BTP.

Have you written to complain yet?

You do not have to prove your exemption.

Do get in touch if you need assistance drafting a complaint.

Well done btp, need a lot more of this

Yes I do mean it

The BTP have no right to require proof of exemption.

Do you claim they do have that right? If so you are absolutely incorrect

How can you possibly endorse this?

 

[GB]

If someone is refusing to say why they are exempt then it is surely reasonable to believe that they may be breaking the law.

That is a huge and unjustified leap if I have ever heard one....and quite a dangerous one at that.

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

It also doesn't state that you are obliged to answer.

Here's a good blog post about what a Reasonable Excuse means in regulatory law.

https://www.anthonygold.co.uk/latest/blog/what-is-a-reasonable-excuse/

The law requiring the wearing of a facemask is strict liability, the onus is on the person exercising the excuse to justify their actions.

But, government guidance on interpreting the law states that those exercising a reasonable excuse will not be required to carry proof.

This means that those enforcing the law should accept people's explanations as to why they are exempt without evidence, basically at face value. It doesn't however mean that someone citing a non-credible or non-existent exemption. Neither would it oblige anyone to go into excessive detail about why exactly they cannot comply.

If a person was asked why they were not exempt and they said that they were exempt on the basis of their age - they're 60 - then that's not credible since age itself is not a reasonable excuse not to comply with the law. An officer would be within their rights to ask that person to wear a mask or leave the train.

 

[221129]

it is surely reasonable to believe that they may be breaking the law

Maybe in 1930s Germany. Certainly not in 2020 Britain.

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

Maybe in 1930s Germany. Certainly not in 2020 Britain.

Here we go! Godwin's Law in action!

 

[bramling]

Here's a good blog post about what a Reasonable Excuse means in regulatory law.

https://www.anthonygold.co.uk/latest/blog/what-is-a-reasonable-excuse/

The law requiring the wearing of a facemask is strict liability, the onus is on the person exercising the excuse to justify their actions.

But, government guidance on interpreting the law states that those exercising a reasonable excuse will not be required to carry proof.

This means that those enforcing the law should accept people's explanations as to why they are exempt without evidence, basically at face value. It doesn't however mean that someone citing a non-credible or non-existent exemption. Neither would it oblige anyone to go into excessive detail about why exactly they cannot comply.

If a person was asked why they were not exempt and they said that they were exempt on the basis of their age - they're 60 - then that's not credible since age itself is not a reasonable excuse not to comply with the law. An officer would be within their rights to ask that person to wear a mask or leave the train.

That isn't what the guidance says though, as it makes clear people should not be asked for reasons of their exemption. Certainly police officers should under no circumstances be delving into people's medical circumstances.

 

[FLIRTfan18]

That is a huge and unjustified leap if I have ever heard one....and quite a dangerous one at that.

So who is going to look more like they're breaking the law than that?
Who are they actually supposed to be suspicious of?
Who are they actually supposed to be able to fine?
How are the police supposed to keep us safe if they're not allowed to enforce the law?

 

[rail-god]

I have the right to remain silent!!!

Ive had to resort to wearing a look at me lanyard because im sick to death of people telling me to wear a mask.


Im exempt so ____ off

 

[bramling]

So who is going to look more like they're breaking the law than that?
Who are they actually supposed to be suspicious of?
Who are they actually supposed to be able to fine?
How are the police supposed to keep us safe if they're not allowed to enforce the law?
For goodness sake. This is a pandemic. Thousands of people have died. And we'd rather make a fuss about giving a simple excuse to a police officer than helping each other to keep safe.

All this is a good reason for not having masks in the first place. It's not like they're showing themselves to be in any way effective, so perhaps police resources could be better deployed enforcing measures which are actually beneficial, or continuing with their normal workload?

 

[221129]

So who is going to look more like they're breaking the law than that?
Who are they actually supposed to be suspicious of?
Who are they actually supposed to be able to fine?
How are the police supposed to keep us safe if they're not allowed to enforce the law?
For goodness sake. This is a pandemic. Thousands of people have died. And we'd rather make a fuss about giving a simple excuse to a police officer than helping each other to keep safe.

So that makes it alright for Police officers to go around enforcing laws that don't exist and against government instructions? Or, heaven forbid, they could focus their limited resources on things that actually cause harm, such as violent crimes.

 

[yorkie]

What a nasty country the UK turned into, disabled people having to prove their disable or disabled enough in some people eyes.

There is no requirement ; the police are acting incorrectly.

But if they were to enforce wearing a face covering they would be enforcing the law.
The problem lies in that they are not allowed to enforce the law (and so basically not allowed to do their job) in this instance

This is totally incorrect

That isn't what the guidance says though, as it makes clear people should not be asked for reasons of their exemption. Certainly police officers should under no circumstances be delving into people's medical circumstances.

Agreed.

I'd anyone thinks the police acted correctly they are quite simply wrong.

People are entitled to the opinion that they think the police should be acting incorrectly; that's their opinion. It's an odd opinion but they are entitled to it.

But to suggest the police can legitimately ask for proof of exemption is absolutely incorrect; they cannot do so. Not only that, but there is no concept of a 'proof of exemption' certificate!

So who is going to look more like they're breaking the law than that?
Who are they actually supposed to be suspicious of?
Who are they actually supposed to be able to fine?
How are the police supposed to keep us safe if they're not allowed to enforce the law?

The law entitled them to ask if the person has an exemption but does not entitle them to ask for proof

If you want to live in a more authoritarian country than the one, that's your prerogative.

All this is a good reason for not having masks in the first place. It's not like they're showing themselves to be in any way effective, so perhaps police resources could be better deployed enforcing measures which are actually beneficial, or continuing with their normal workload?

Absolutely agreed.