Starcross ferry discrimination?

[yorkie]

https://www.facebook.com/StarcrossExmouthFerry/

Due to COVID all passengers over the age of 5 must wear a face mask this is for everyone’s safety no exceptions for not wearing a face covering so if you can’t wear one you will have to find another way to travel

I believe this is unlawful.

I am potentially using this service in a few weeks time; if I do, I will be challenging them on this point!

Hopefully someone will bring a legal case against them; there is the potential to cost the ferry company a lot of money:

https://disabilityrights.org.uk/first-face-mask-discrimination-case-nets-7-000

A disabled woman assisted by Kester Disability Rights has been paid £7,000 in compensation by a service provider who refused her access to a service because she was unable to wear a face mask.

Has anyone used this service?

Looking at their Facebook page, it does look to be a bit of a Mickey Mouse operation!

 

[3rd rail land]

Hopefully people will see this bad PR and boycott them if there is a viable alternative.

 

[Ediswan]

Accroding to theiir FB pagee, they have been working this way (when operating) since July 2020. No substantial opposition so far. Seems to be a 'my boat, my rules' operation.

 

[Horizon22]

I see a few people have already commented regarding this.

 

[nanstallon]

It is unnecessary to be so harsh - if i were running the show, I'd say you can travel without a face covering as long as you travel in the open part of the boat and not in the enclosed bit. The risk of catching the virus is much lower/ virtually non-existent in the open air.

 

[dk1]

Hopefully people will see this bad PR and boycott them if there is a viable alternative.

Would never let something so trivial put me off using this wonderful ferry.

 

[Ianno87]

Whilst it says that on the website, has it actually been enforced?

Edit: Just seen the news story in the OP.

 

[181]

There's a news story from last summer here.

 

[Mag_seven]

Seems to be a 'my boat, my rules' operation.

It doesn't work like that if it flouts anti-discrimination laws.

 

[joncombe]

I used another ferry in the UK recently. They explicitly said no mask needed if outside only inside. So doubt there is any legal requirement to wear a mask outside. But I'm not going to name them just in case.

 

[initiation]

On a similar theme - there is this bakery (Rough Hand Made) in Liverpool who have had this sign up (as seen on Twitter)...

I wonder how people would react if a shopkeeper put a sign up that said "no walking, no entry. Apologies to those in wheelchairs".
An apology is not enough for open discrimination.

 

[Busaholic]

On a similar theme - there is this bakery (Rough Hand Made) in Liverpool who have had this sign up (as seen on Twitter)...

I wonder how people would react if a shopkeeper put a sign up that said "no walking, no entry. Apologies to those in wheelchairs".
An apology is not enough for open discrimination.

That seems a fairly standard sign - several of them in my Cornish town, including a bakery (I think, I'll check when I call there tomorrow). Round here, the local unitary council is employing loads of people to hassle the small shops that remain open about signs of all kinds, as well as 'marshals' to attempt to dragoon unwary shoppers into some ridiculous one way system. In the case of the shops, because most have received amounts of government money administered through the council most are reluctant to rock the boat and tell the jobsworths where to get off.

 

[brad465]

I used another ferry in the UK recently. They explicitly said no mask needed if outside only inside. So doubt there is any legal requirement to wear a mask outside. But I'm not going to name them just in case.

Last year I did all of the Dartmouth Ferry, Dart River and Harbour Cruise (both July 2020) and the ferry to and from Brownsea Island (October 2020), with masks required on all parts of the boat, although I don't recall any age requirements like being shown at Starcross. I suspect one reason why the aforementioned ferries were all or nothing is because there'd be a huge scramble for outdoor seating if foregoing masks in them was a thing.

 

[221129]

Round here, the local unitary council is employing loads of people to hassle the small shops that remain open about signs of all kinds

Heaven forbid that small local shops need to obey the law?!

 

[gnolife]

Would never let something so trivial put me off using this wonderful ferry.

It's not really trivial to those of us who would be refused access to it

 

[dk1]

It's not really trivial to those of us who would be refused access to it

But extremely trivial to start a boycott from those who can & have no issues with the rule.

 

[Ianno87]

But extremely trivial to start a boycott from those who can & have no issues with the rule.

Personally I have no issue with mask wearing myself, but I definitely have beef with those trying to force it on those who genuinely cannot wear one.

 

[35B]

https://www.facebook.com/StarcrossExmouthFerry/

I believe this is unlawful.

I am potentially using this service in a few weeks time; if I do, I will be challenging them on this point!

Hopefully someone will bring a legal case against them; there is the potential to cost the ferry company a lot of money:

https://disabilityrights.org.uk/first-face-mask-discrimination-case-nets-7-000


Has anyone used this service?

Looking at their Facebook page, it does look to be a bit of a Mickey Mouse operation!

From what was reported last year, it’s a family business where the operator lived in a multi generational household with an elderly and vulnerable parent. At the time, it seemed as though it was a strong but justifiable response to a risk, though today I would be much less sympathetic.

I suspect that the cost of a successful case may well include the loss of a local amenity to those in the area as the nature this “mickey mouse” operation will not encourage people to replace it if they stop.

 

[Ianno87]

From what was reported last year, it’s a family business where the operator lived in a multi generational household with an elderly and vulnerable parent. At the time, it seemed as though it was a strong but justifiable response to a risk, though today I would be much less sympathetic.

I suspect that the cost of a successful case may well include the loss of a local amenity to those in the area as the nature this “mickey mouse” operation will not encourage people to replace it if they stop.

That's a bit more understandable (even if against the wording of the law), especially at the height of the pandemic.

At least for the Starcross ferry there is an alternative of the train via Exeter (albeit the long way around)

 

[yorkie]

It's not understandable; they are not above the law and if they continue to discriminate, I hope they face the legal concequences.

 

[Ianno87]

It's not understandable; they are not above the law and if they continue to discriminate, I hope they face the legal concequences.

For discrimination, it surely depends what constitutes a "reasonable adjistment".

 

[nedchester]

From what was reported last year, it’s a family business where the operator lived in a multi generational household with an elderly and vulnerable parent. At the time, it seemed as though it was a strong but justifiable response to a risk, though today I would be much less sympathetic.

I suspect that the cost of a successful case may well include the loss of a local amenity to those in the area as the nature this “mickey mouse” operation will not encourage people to replace it if they stop.

Agreed. I have always said that face masks might be useful at height of infection rates at reducing transmission but now, to be honest, pretty pointless.

On the main point though demanding something which against the law is, to say the least, dangerous especially if they were taken to court and lost.

 

[yorkie]

For discrimination, it surely depends what constitutes a "reasonable adjistment".

It's not lawful to demand a child over 5 or an adult with a disability, medical condition or other exemption wears a mask when exempt.

There is no "adjustment" to be made, other than simply accepting such exemptions.

It's not like we are talking about a vehicle that would need to be adapted to carry disabled people at a cost of adapting the vehicle, which is where it would come down to whether it was reasonable or not.

There is no such adjustment to be made other than adjusting their attitude and behaviour.

 

[Ianno87]

The operator is basically in an impossible position of:

-Knowingly expose a Clinically Extremely Vulnerable family member to risk (much lessened now of course)
-Impose mask requirements in excess of the law, or
-Don't operate at all

There is no "adjustment" to be made, other than simply accepting such exemptions.

It's not like we are talking about a vehicle that would need to be adapted to carry disabled people at a cost of adapting the vehicle, which is where it would come down to whether it was reasonable or not.

There is no such adjustment to be made other than adjusting their attitude and behaviour.

The "adjustment" on their part is exposing a Clinically Vulnerable family member to risk, which in a court of law could be argued to be unreasonable, when the alternative is not operating the ferry at all to the detriment of the whole community.

 

[Yew]

In all seriousness, since the vaccine rollout, are there clinically extremely vulnerable people anymore?

 

[yorkie]

The operator is basically in an impossible possible position of:

They are in the position of needing to comply with the law.

An irrational phobia of human faces does not alter this obligation.

-Knowingly expose a Clinically Extremely Vulnerable family member to risk (much lessened now of course)

This is completely false and absurd.

-Impose mask requirements in excess of the law,

That is not acceptable, as I have said

-Don't operate at all

That would be their choice to make, but it's a false dichotomy.

The "adjustment" on their part is exposing a Clinically Vulnerable family member to risk, which in a court of law could be argued to be unreasonable.

This is an absurd argument.

If they believe in the fallacy of mandating masks outdoors, they can choose to wear N95 masks themselves, which are intended to protect the wearer.

 

[Ianno87]

In all seriousness, since the vaccine rollout, are there clinically extremely vulnerable people anymore?

I know some people who are being cautious until everybody in their household bubble has been given two jabs.

 

[yorkie]

I know some people who are being cautious until everybody in their household bubble has been given two jabs.

They can choose to wear N95 (or similar) masks everywhere they go I'd they wish

The idea that such individuals have the right to break the law by mandating what others do is absurd.

 

[Ianno87]

They are in the position of needing to comply with the law.

An irrational phobia of human faces does not alter this obligation.

This is completely false and absurd.


That is not acceptable, as I have said


That would be their choice to make, but it's a false dichotomy.


This is an absurd argument.

If they believe in the fallacy of mandating masks outdoors, they can choose to wear N95 masks themselves, which are intended to protect the wearer.

Lots of words like "absurd" and "false" with zero argument or justification. Don't you usually pick up others on making statements without backing them up, but are happy to do so yourself?

 

[Yew]

I know some people who are being cautious until everybody in their household bubble has been given two jabs.

It's well documented that there are many people with a disproportionate sense of fear, not based in the statistical reality of the situation. I was more talking about the actual calculated risk of someone in a vulnerable group post-vaccine.