Sadiq Khan to make face masks a condition of carriage

[nlogax]

I've found it:

https://twitter.com/TanyaRo58329998/status/1414983434351648770?s=19

Amazing. I wasn't aware there's a sequel to Outbreak in the works.

 

[Fragezeichnen]

Ignoring Khan isn’t a difficult one for me, as far as I’m concerned as I don’t get a say in voting for him, I regard him as an illegitimate politician.

Interesting logic. Do you also ignore the laws of other countries when you visit them, since you didn't vote for their "illegitimate" politicians either?

 

[notlob.divad]

I think the thing to understand is that the government isn't removing the mask mandate because they think it's pointless or counterproductive, or even because they care about freedom.

They're purely removing it as a symbolic measure, to quell their backbenchers' dissent.

Bingo.

 

[Bantamzen]

Interesting logic. Do you also ignore the laws of other countries when you visit them, since you didn't vote for their "illegitimate" politicians either?

When you visit another country, you accept the laws / rules of those countries. When you live somewhere other than London, why should you accept rules made up by a politician who only has any control in London & voted for only by people of that city?

In other words, Khan has no say in what happens beyond the city in which he represents.

 

[notlob.divad]

Interesting logic. Do you also ignore the laws of other countries when you visit them, since you didn't vote for their "illegitimate" politicians either?

Given the only parlimentary politician bramling gets to vote for is their own local constiuency MP, then I guess by the same logic, he considers all other MPs to be illegitimate. This is a very very dangerous rhelm he is entering, where we are all free to deligitimise anyone who has won a free and fair election, simply because we were not invloved in that specific election, or indeed voted for an alternative. However it is nothing less than I would expect in post Brexit britain which seems to be setting its stall out as best possible to emulate Trump's America.

 

[Failed Unit]

It is interesting that Khan is claiming that is he doing it to help London recover, but if you had a choice of going to London (restricted on public transport) or Leeds (sensible) - I would take my money to Leeds. Khan's policy is actually going to discourage me from visiting many areas of London. I can get their by national rail fine - otherwise go somewhere else. So actually his policy could damage London's recovery.

 

[Bantamzen]

Given the only parlimentary politician bramling gets to vote for is their own local constiuency MP, then I guess by the same logic, he considers all other MPs to be illegitimate. This is a very very dangerous rhelm he is entering, where we are all free to deligitimise anyone who has won a free and fair election, simply because we were not invloved in that specific election, or indeed voted for an alternative. However it is nothing less than I would expect in post Brexit britain which seems to be setting its stall out as best possible to emulate Trump's America.

How is the Mayor of London not having any say over Yorkshire, or Cornwall, or a small village in the Welsh Marches a dangerous rhelm?

 

[HSTEd]

Ultimately I expect the other operators to compel masks over the next couple of days.

We will never be rid of them.

 

[notlob.divad]

When you visit another country, you accept the laws / rules of those countries. When you live somewhere other than London, why should you accept rules made up by a politician who only has any control in London & voted for only by people of that city?

In other words, Khan has no say in what happens beyond the city in which he represents.

Would you accept the differnet laws if you visit Northern Ireland, Wales or Scotland?

How about if you visited Quebec, would you accept thier laws, or only accept the laws governing Canada as a whole. Do you only follow federal laws if you visit Texas, or one of the other US states? How about Bavaria, they have different laws to Germanys federal laws.

From what I have read he isn't trying to impose rules in Baildon and nobody is asking you to accept those rules there. I am sure you have your own political representatives who could make your own rules that people from London would have to follow if they visited you. So you should be alright if you don't want to follow them, just don't go.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

I just want to bang my head on the desk....

Link to the video:

https://twitter.com/hooliganstv_eu/status/1415044989151809536?s=21

(shows man how theatrically cleaning station ticket machine and work surface at ticket window on passenger side)

 

[notlob.divad]

How is the Mayor of London not having any say over Yorkshire, or Cornwall, or a small village in the Welsh Marches a dangerous rhelm?

He doesn't hence why he is only proposing rules in and around the area he represents. The dangerous Rhelm is in not recognising him as a legitimate politician and the representative of the people of London which is what was the post I was responding to infered.

 

[scrapy]

Seeing as Shapps said he was “relaxed” about operators instituting mask wearing, I’d say very little. Masks on part of the underground are sensible anyway considering the poor air quality. But it’s a completely disjointed, isolated approach which will confuse many and has no end date.

Other than properly designed masks for the purpose, do cloth face coverings or paper masks that 99% wear do anything to improve air quality?

I'd have thought they'd do the opposite as it wouldn't stop the poor air getting in but this would make it more likely that the wearer is also breathing in their own exhaled air which contains less oxygen.

 

[Failed Unit]

Ultimately I expect the other operators to compel masks over the next couple of days.

We will never be rid of them.

But then less people will use them, so ultimately they are going to drive themselves out of business. Saying public transport is so unsafe that you need a mask on to use it, is basically saying drive to potential customers. The masks are actually more likely to spread covid anyway as people take them off to eat / drink, putting them on the table etc, totally unhygienic. I think the RDG will stand firm on this, if they want their business to survive. I am now only using public transport where I have absolutely no choice, so on leisure journeys I am driving, which is costing the TOCs revenue. I won't be alone. The paranoid won't use public transport anyway, masks or no masks so mandating it doesn't gain anything.

 

[Bantamzen]

Would you accept the differnet laws if you visit Northern Ireland, Wales or Scotland?

How about if you visited Quebec, would you accept thier laws, or only accept the laws governing Canada as a whole. Do you only follow federal laws if you visit Texas, or one of the other US states? How about Bavaria, they have different laws to Germanys federal laws.

From what I have read he isn't trying to impose rules in Baildon and nobody is asking you to accept those rules there. I am sure you have your own political representatives who could make your own rules that people from London would have to follow if they visited you. So you should be alright if you don't want to follow them, just don't go.

We are not discussing visiting anywhere else, so pack the strawman away for the next one.

He doesn't hence why he is only proposing rules in and around the area he represents. The dangerous Rhelm is in not recognising him as a legitimate politician and the representative of the people of London which is what was the post I was responding to infered.

I don't have to recognise him or his policies any more than I do a parish council in Cheshire unless I visit London. I think you are just looking for reasons to be annoyed.

 

[Philip]

I disagree, but then we disagree on many topics, so this is not a surprise

Taking a sample from young or middle-aged people I know or am friends with, it is a mixed bag in terms of who thinks we should be cautious or who thinks everything should be lifted and back to pre-pandemic life. A couple of friends of mine in their late 20s/early 30s believe there should be caution and will still wear face coverings and these are not authoritarians or virtue signalling in the slightest.

Whilst I do not think that Khan should be applying pressure to other mayors/councils in other regions of the country to follow his mandate, as he has done, it really is up to him as far as London is concerned. I suspect a fair proportion of Londoners won't be too unhappy at his decision either; quite a lot of people were wearing face coverings when using London transport months before they became a legal requirement.

 

[HSTEd]

But then less people will use them, so ultimately they are going to drive themselves out of business. Saying public transport is so unsafe that you need a mask on to use it, is basically saying drive to potential customers. The masks are actually more likely to spread covid anyway as people take them off to eat / drink, putting them on the table etc, totally unhygienic. I think the RDG will stand firm on this, if they want their business to survive. I am now only using public transport where I have absolutely no choice, so on leisure journeys I am driving, which is costing the TOCs revenue. I won't be alone. The paranoid won't use public transport anyway, masks or no masks so mandating it doesn't gain anything.

Ultimately the train operators no longer take any significant revenue risk.
They are just arms of the state now.

 

[Failed Unit]

Ultimately the train operators no longer take any significant revenue risk.
They are just arms of the state now.

True - but if the trains are empty services will be cut, DFT won't throw money at rail for ever.

 

[Dent]

Saying public transport is so unsafe that you need a mask on to use it, is basically saying drive to potential customers.

Driving is not an option for everyone, and those that have that option mostly do so anyway.

 

[bramling]

Interesting logic. Do you also ignore the laws of other countries when you visit them, since you didn't vote for their "illegitimate" politicians either?

The key difference being “other countries”. Last time I looked, London was part of the UK.

 

[Failed Unit]

Driving is not an option for everyone, and those that have that option mostly do so anyway.

I don't particularly want to drive to Richmond - it is about 2 hours in heavy traffic. (which London normally is) But as we need to wear masks on public transport I have no choice now (to avoid vigilantes) - surely I can't be alone.

 

[Philip]

The key difference being “other countries”. Last time I looked, London was part of the UK.

It is a lot more cosmopolitan than other cities in the UK, particularly northern cities. The attitudes towards face coverings may well be different as a result.

I serve the general public/rail passengers and from my own observations people from other countries seem to be wearing face coverings more so than British people.

 

[notlob.divad]

When you visit another country, you accept the laws / rules of those countries.

..

We are not discussing visiting anywhere else,

... OK

I think you are just looking for reasons to be annoyed.

I am not annoyed. The people who appear to be annoyed are those who disagree with Sadiq Kahn.

 

[yorkie]

Taking a sample from young or middle-aged people I know or am friends with, it is a mixed bag in terms of who thinks we should be cautious or who thinks everything should be lifted and back to pre-pandemic life. A couple of friends of mine in their late 20s/early 30s believe there should be caution and will still wear face coverings and these are not authoritarians or virtue signalling in the slightest.

They are victims of Stockholm syndrome

Whilst I do not think that Khan should be applying pressure to other mayors/councils in other regions of the country to follow his mandate, as he has done, it really is up to him as far as London is concerned.

He has no power to legally mandate anything and he can only require them on TfL services, not other operators.

I suspect a fair proportion of Londoners won't be too unhappy at his decision either; quite a lot of people were wearing face coverings when using London transport months before they became a legal requirement.

Very few people were, in my experience. What sort of journeys did you make?

 

[notlob.divad]

They are victims of Stockholm syndrome

People should be allowed free choice.

Poke holes in the reasoning for people making that free choice, when it doesn't agree with your preconcieved notions.

Next steps: Direclty mocking those who choose to continue to wear a mask.

followed by: vigilantes ripping the masks off people who choose to wear them.

 

[Philip]

They are victims of Stockholm syndrome


He has no power to legally mandate anything and he can only require them on TfL services, not other operators.


Very few people were, in my experience. What sort of journeys did you make?

Journeys on the tube, including only a week ago. Also quite a lot of young people wearing face coverings just walking along the streets. I am not saying I think this is necessary but I think it is strong enough evidence that this isn't just a big virtue-signalling exercise, or out of irrational paranoia. Some people just want to be cautious and they shouldn't be judged for that.

 

[RPI]

Journeys on the tube, including only a week ago. Also quite a lot of young people wearing face coverings just walking along the streets. I am not saying I think this is necessary but I think it is strong enough evidence that this isn't just a big virtue-signalling exercise, or out of irrational paranoia. Some people just want to be cautious and they shouldn't be judged for that.

Or is it because of constant scaremongering? I say that as a question, not necessarily my own opinion

 

[yorkie]

People should be allowed free choice.

That's what we are asking for. Are you agreeing with us, or not?

You appear to be disagreeing, so your stance is very confusing.

Poke holes in the reasoning for people making that free choice, when it doesn't agree with your preconcieved notions.

Next steps: Direclty mocking those who choose to continue to wear a mask.

followed by: vigilantes ripping the masks off people who choose to wear them.

Is this some sort of fear or prediction?

The only hostilities I've witnessed so far are pro-maskers having a go at people not wearing masks, and I've seen/heard a lot of that.

Journeys on the tube, including only a week ago.....

You said:

I suspect a fair proportion of Londoners won't be too unhappy at his decision either; quite a lot of people were wearing face coverings when using London transport months before they became a legal requirement.

They became a legal requirement approx 13 months ago.

And what you describe was was not my experience at all.

 

[Failed Unit]

People should be allowed free choice.

Poke holes in the reasoning for people making that free choice, when it doesn't agree with your preconcieved notions.

Next steps: Direclty mocking those who choose to continue to wear a mask.

followed by: vigilantes ripping the masks off people who choose to wear them.

We already have vigilantes attacking people in supermarkets that can't legitimately wear them. Unfortunately we can't stop the vigilantes. I am all for free choice, hence why I can't wait until July the 19th. TfL continuing the policy means I have to continue to put up with the vigilantes so are forced off public transport in London. Khan's policy is not allowing free choice.

 

[Philip]

Or is it because of constant scaremongering? I say that as a question, not necessarily my own opinion

There is probably an element of that yes, but people can make up their own minds so as I say I think it is more people just wanting to be cautious in context of the circumstances rather than having some big fear of the virus.

 

[yorkie]

We already have vigilantes attacking people in supermarkets that can't legitimately wear them. Unfortunately we can't stop the vigilantes. I am all for free choice, hence why I can't wait until July the 19th. TfL continuing the policy means I have to continue to put up with the vigilantes so are forced off public transport in London. Khan's policy is not allowing free choice.

Exactly; for someone to use a theoretical case of vigilantism of the sort that is not currently heard of, let alone rampant, as a reason to continue the current situation where exempt people are regularly discriminated against, demonstrates either perhaps being disingenuous or maybe a complete lack of awareness of what is currently happening and an unwillingness to listen.

its utterly bizarre line of argument but of course it is what I expect these days.