Pit_buzzer
Member
Well done btp, need a lot more of this
Yes I do mean it
Yes I do mean it
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.. .Good, well done BTP.
Whether it's the law or not is it not worth doing out of pure respect for fellow passengers?
Yup. If everyone inconvenienced took civil action against BTP it's budget would soon be broken.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.
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...Well done btp, need a lot more of this
Yes I do mean it
Well done btp, need a lot more of this
Yes I do mean it
Then sue the arse off BTP!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.
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 actionsThe 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!
Indeed,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.
But if they were to enforce wearing a face covering they would be enforcing the law.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
I think you should read what the law actually states.But if they were to enforce wearing a face covering they would be enforcing the law.
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?
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?
I read the law,I think you should read what the law actually states.
It also doesn't state that you are obliged to answer.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.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.
Well done btp, need a lot more of this
Yes I do mean it
It does state;It also doesn't state that you are obliged to answer.
There is no requirement to provide proof of exemption.Good, well done BTP.
Have you written to complain yet?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.
The BTP have no right to require proof of exemption.Well done btp, need a lot more of this
Yes I do mean it
If someone is refusing to say why they are exempt then it is surely reasonable to believe that they may be breaking the law.
Here's a good blog post about what a Reasonable Excuse means in regulatory law.It also doesn't state that you are obliged to answer.
Maybe in 1930s Germany. Certainly not in 2020 Britain.it is surely reasonable to believe that they may be breaking the law
Here we go! Godwin's Law in action!Maybe in 1930s Germany. Certainly not in 2020 Britain.
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.
So who is going to look more like they're breaking the law than that?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?
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.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.
There is no requirement ; the police are acting incorrectly.What a nasty country the UK turned into, disabled people having to prove their disable or disabled enough in some people eyes.
This is totally incorrectBut 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
Agreed.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.
The law entitled them to ask if the person has an exemption but does not entitle them to ask for proofSo 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?
Absolutely agreed.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?