• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

UK face coverings discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,219
Location
London
It's absolutely a Byelaw offence, and it grates that staff walk past it ignoring it rather than saying something about it being unacceptable, even in the quiet coach.

Most guards I’m sure would remind people of the quiet coach rules. If someone is so drunk that they pose a safety risk then steps will be taken. But very often those steps will involve waiting for “Be There Presently” and hopelessly delaying the service, and many more services behind it.

Do you want to be stuck on that train?

Though it's rather different to people failing to take COVID precautions. I have told people to turn devices off in the quiet coach before, usually to non-quiet applause from other passengers, and I'll do it again, and press charges in the event of it turning into anything even vaguely like an assault. However, approaching unmasked twentysomething lads runs the risk of (a) catching COVID, or (b) getting a thump. I would like the railway to provide the security provision to prevent me having to put myself at that risk to keep myself appropriately safe and to ensure the law is complied with.

I have done so myself as a passenger and would do so again! I would caution against approaching anybody and challenging them yourself - it’s surely much easier simply to extricate yourself from the situation, and sit in another carriage.

We need something like Germany's BSG - a proper security provision on the railway with trained railway professionals, not just cheapo rentathugs and inadequate BTP, neither of which are adequate to ensure compliance with the "comfort" Byelaws or indeed law with regard to COVID. But that's probably one for another thread.

I’m led to believe that railstaff used to take a rather more hands on approach. That is no longer acceptable, these days, in the age of “duty of care” and camera phones.

As a DOO driver I had people manhandled off trains and slung out of stations (by passengers) by making targeted announcements. But that’s as far as it goes.

You are generally one of the first to say that staff members should always remain professional, and should never be aggressive towards “challenging individuals”, and how dealing with them is “part of the job” etc.

So which is it to be!?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,219
Location
London
To be fair playing music and getting rip roaring drunk on trains are both illegal and I've removed/had removed people from trains for both.

61016 is a discrete reporting mechanism for railway crime that is helpful when you feel you may be subject to reprisal from people you can't get away from inside a train for calling for help. Personal experience is that BTP are better at responding to it in an appropriate way (either logging persistent issues or by getting a constable to contact you directly, immediately) than through the control centre. Non wearing of masks being discretely reported by some busy body is not helpful though I can't say it is necessarily outright "wrong", as the guard I prefer to be first port of call for these problems rather than having the police turn up unannounced.

Out of interest how do you get someone thrown off? I’d imagine a fair bit of discretion is involved as it might well involve a delay (depending on location).

@Bletchleyite ‘s previous suggestion that he’d speak to the guard in the first instance is probably a good one. But there are limits on what you guys can do - you are not policemen.
 

Jonny

Established Member
Joined
10 Feb 2011
Messages
2,562
Please can you elaborate on the basis for your claim that there is causation and not merely correlation between mask requirements and new Covid19 cases.

Because people are getting too close to other people when they would not do so without masks?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
You are generally one of the first to say that staff members should always remain professional, and should never be aggressive towards “challenging individuals”, and how dealing with them is “part of the job” etc.

So which is it to be!?

It's possible to ask someone to leave (and physically assist them in doing so) while remaining professional - that's the sign of an excellent security guard (or most Police Officers). That was the basis of the BSG suggestion - I wouldn't expect guards to be physically throwing people off, and it's certainly awkward in the COVID context because that means personal risk.
 

LowLevel

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2013
Messages
7,543
Out of interest how do you get someone thrown off? I’d imagine a fair bit of discretion is involved as it might well involve a delay (depending on location).

@Bletchleyite ‘s previous suggestion that he’d speak to the guard in the first instance is probably a good one. But there are limits on what you guys can do - you are not policemen.

Like all things it's a judgement call. I personally have a policy of never giving consideration to the cost of delay minutes, only the impact on the network. I don't mind giving account of myself to managers and I pride myself on averaging less than one BTP call out a year.

I always go for diplomacy first, I try and talk people around and get them to behave that way. If that fails, projecting authority can be surprisingly effective, I know how to make myself appear menacing if I have to.

If we get all the way through that then I make arrangements for police attention at an appropriate location, collect evidence as best as possible and if required detain the train somewhere where it won't excessively impact the running of the network. This is quite unusual for me. I've spent all of my career on and off the railway dealing with difficult people. I have a knack of sorting it myself.

The final stage has only happened a few times to me when someone gets violent. If it's drunks fighting, loiter at a safe distance to stop people from pulling the cord thinking you don't know and let them get on with it.

If they're picking on somebody innocent I'm not concerned about intervening and have done as a matter of record in the past and always been found to have acted appropriately - that has included physical intervention. I've dragged people off trains when they've swung for colleagues and stood between people who don't have a refuge and individuals who have made threats to kill while guiding them to safety.

I take my responsibilities towards keeping passengers on the railway network safe extremely seriously.

This has nothing to do with people not wearing masks though where my views are pretty clear - the guard can report compliance figures and police can target patrols as they wish to their heart's content, the Public Health Act is their problem, in the mean time my main concern is dealing with busy bodies harassing others.
 

farleigh

Member
Joined
1 Nov 2016
Messages
1,145
I have to say LowLevel - based on reading your posts over some time, you sound like an excellent guard an an asset to the railway. Whoever you work for are lucky to have you.
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,219
Location
London
Like all things it's a judgement call. I personally have a policy of never giving consideration to the cost of delay minutes, only the impact on the network. I don't mind giving account of myself to managers and I pride myself on averaging less than one BTP call out a year.

I always go for diplomacy first, I try and talk people around and get them to behave that way. If that fails, projecting authority can be surprisingly effective, I know how to make myself appear menacing if I have to.

If we get all the way through that then I make arrangements for police attention at an appropriate location, collect evidence as best as possible and if required detain the train somewhere where it won't excessively impact the running of the network. This is quite unusual for me. I've spent all of my career on and off the railway dealing with difficult people. I have a knack of sorting it myself.

The final stage has only happened a few times to me when someone gets violent. If it's drunks fighting, loiter at a safe distance to stop people from pulling the cord thinking you don't know and let them get on with it.

If they're picking on somebody innocent I'm not concerned about intervening and have done as a matter of record in the past and always been found to have acted appropriately - that has included physical intervention. I've dragged people off trains when they've swung for colleagues and stood between people who don't have a refuge and individuals who have made threats to kill while guiding them to safety.

I take my responsibilities towards keeping passengers on the railway network safe extremely seriously.

This has nothing to do with people not wearing masks though where my views are pretty clear - the guard can report compliance figures and police can target patrols as they wish to their heart's content, the Public Health Act is their problem, in the mean time my main concern is dealing with busy bodies harassing others.

Absolutely cracking response. Thanks for that. I second @farleigh ’s comment.

In relation to non compliance with masks, it’s probably best if people who are concerned mention it to the you (if they desperately feel the need), rather than poking their noses in?

I’m sure your happily seat them elsewhere, to defuse any tensions?! :rolleyes: :D
 

LAX54

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2008
Messages
3,753
They might be more obedient at actually wearing them. At remembering not to fiddle with them? Doubtful I'd say from my experience.
sitting in the car, waiting for the wife come out from a shop watching others, you can almost count on one hand how many are using masks correctly, and the amount of people who kept touching them, I lost count ! it is now said that children can spread this virus as easily as adults, but may not / will not show symptons, yet 11 and under...no mask
and we are still carefully overlooking 50,000 died in the 2018 flu season.
and where is the promised spike due to the beach invasion by thousand sin May, June and July ?
 

LowLevel

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2013
Messages
7,543
Absolutely cracking response. Thanks for that. I second @farleigh ’s comment.

In relation to non compliance with masks, it’s probably best if people who are concerned mention it to the you (if they desperately feel the need), rather than poking their noses in?

I’m sure your happily seat them elsewhere, to defuse any tensions?! :rolleyes: :D

Yes, I am always happier dealing with any issue on board short of a gunman appearing without notice myself. In this case I can almost definitely say I will respond with "they're exempt" or "I'll have a quiet word and see if they're ok". I had a lady in her 30s on the other day sat with a group of friends wearing masks and she was quite obviously struggling having run for the train. 2 minutes chatting to her (through my own mask :lol: ) later she had admitted defeat on attempting to keep up with appearances and was puffing on the inhaler she had in her handbag with mask swapping places with it.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,382
Location
Ely
100% improvement in faces this evening in Sainsburys compared with last week. Only me last week, me plus one other gentleman this evening.

That's my fourth supermarket trip since this nonsense began. Happy to report no issues at all so far.
 

Skimpot flyer

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2012
Messages
1,610
Face masks now mandated outdoors in parts of France, and the German education minister is urging local authorities to mandate them in schools.
If these sorts of measures come to the UK I'm going to be very upset. What a horrible world to live in.
There is no way I will comply if mask-wearing becomes mandatory outdoors. It would give all the FaceTwits on social media a chance to scream ‘but why aren’t they mandatory in workplaces, too?’ and then the government will make it so, just to be seen doing something.
No. No. And a thousand times, No.

Dr Vernon Coleman has warned, months ago on his YouTube videos, that Government won’t be satisfied until we’re all subjected to being masked all day, every day. People decried him as being absurd, but it is government's reaction to this crisis that is, truly, absurd.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I have to say LowLevel - based on reading your posts over some time, you sound like an excellent guard an an asset to the railway. Whoever you work for are lucky to have you.

Completely agreed - certainly someone who takes the job very seriously - and if something bad did happen to the train I was on someone who I'd want around to sort it out.


I’m sure your happily seat them elsewhere, to defuse any tensions?! :rolleyes: :D

FWIW, I did actually try to avoid them, hanging back from them and letting them pick a coach first so I could pick another one (it wasn't exactly busy), but unfortunately they then decided to chase me down to ask me to assist in their fruitless First Class fare dodging quest - from nowhere near 2m away, sadly. If they'd left me alone I probably wouldn't have thought much of it even if it was likely they weren't both exempt.

Moving this here from the "should the young shield" thread as it's more about masks than shielding:

Yeah the nastiness that's emerged lately is definitely a massive problem. Even pointing out the ableist parts of this mess like face coverings and public toilets being problematic get met with all sorts of groans and guilt tripping. Also telling people the reason lockdown was never going to work properly is due to a major lack of police never goes down well even though it's true

There's a wider debate there that I think has been had before, namely how things can be made to work in a situation where a large number of people do not act reasonably in terms of only claiming the special arrangements that they need, but where those with the disabilities etc that require those special arrangements prefer not to have to register or otherwise formally demonstrate entitlement to those special arrangements which would protect them by ensuring only those needing the arrangements get them.

It's a paradox because you can only deal with one of the two issues. I have wondered, more generally, if those who object to, for example, the idea of registering for a card entitling them not to wear a mask also have an issue with the Blue Badge scheme, which is precisely the same thing - a means of registering to prove that you need a dedicated disabled parking space in order to exclude those who don't need it from clogging them up "just for a minute while I buy a paper".
 
Last edited:

A Challenge

Established Member
Joined
24 Sep 2016
Messages
2,823
A sense of perspective is needed and, not for the first time, is rather lacking on here! Do you call 999 every time you see someone drop a piece of litter, or park on a double yellow line?
I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, just hoping you'd understand why some people are doing it - which given some people (not me, I'll add, before you assume this is my view) seem to view not wearing a mask as murdering their grandparents it's understandable they think they should get the police involved.
 

PaulMc7

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2019
Messages
4,029
Completely agreed - certainly someone who takes the job very seriously - and if something bad did happen to the train I was on someone who I'd want around to sort it out.




FWIW, I did actually try to avoid them, hanging back from them and letting them pick a coach first so I could pick another one (it wasn't exactly busy), but unfortunately they then decided to chase me down to ask me to assist in their fruitless First Class fare dodging quest - from nowhere near 2m away, sadly. If they'd left me alone I probably wouldn't have thought much of it even if it was likely they weren't both exempt.

Moving this here from the "should the young shield" thread as it's more about masks than shielding:



There's a wider debate there that I think has been had before, namely how things can be made to work in a situation where a large number of people do not act reasonably in terms of only claiming the special arrangements that they need, but where those with the disabilities etc that require those special arrangements prefer not to have to register or otherwise formally demonstrate entitlement to those special arrangements which would protect them by ensuring only those needing the arrangements get them.

It's a paradox because you can only deal with one of the two issues. I have wondered, more generally, if those who object to, for example, the idea of registering for a card entitling them not to wear a mask also have an issue with the Blue Badge scheme, which is precisely the same thing - a means of registering to prove that you need a dedicated disabled parking space in order to exclude those who don't need it from clogging them up "just for a minute while I buy a paper".

Yeah it's a tough situation to balance. The 2 key things for me are:

Encouraging people to focus on themselves
Education on just how many people are exempt because it's far higher than a lot will realise.

Due to mental health issues tying in with some of the exemptions, distress etc you'll find that about half of the UK could be exempt. This is something that made it impossible to work in the first place and living with caution not fear needs to be the way forward because it's media driven scaremongering that's lead to the fear which has then lead to nastiness
 

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
4,435
There's a wider debate there that I think has been had before, namely how things can be made to work in a situation where a large number of people do not act reasonably in terms of only claiming the special arrangements that they need, but where those with the disabilities etc that require those special arrangements prefer not to have to register or otherwise formally demonstrate entitlement to those special arrangements which would protect them by ensuring only those needing the arrangements get them.

It's a paradox because you can only deal with one of the two issues. I have wondered, more generally, if those who object to, for example, the idea of registering for a card entitling them not to wear a mask also have an issue with the Blue Badge scheme, which is precisely the same thing - a means of registering to prove that you need a dedicated disabled parking space in order to exclude those who don't need it from clogging them up "just for a minute while I buy a paper".
Horrible for the economy as it is, distancing seemed to be working very well. It didn't impose on anyone, everyone could do it and it was simple to do properly and effectively.
And it worked, demonstrated by the continually falling infection rates.
Now we have silly face coverings which some people can't do, most people dislike doing and a significant number feel is an imposition. Most people don't or can't do it properly. It's ineffective at best and has caused a breakdown in distancing observance.
Lo and behold infection rates are now steadily rising again.
Utterly appalling waste of all the economic damage and progress that had been made.
 

Richard Scott

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
3,673
Horrible for the economy as it is, distancing seemed to be working very well. It didn't impose on anyone, everyone could do it and it was simple to do properly and effectively.
And it worked, demonstrated by the continually falling infection rates.
Now we have silly face coverings which some people can't do, most people dislike doing and a significant number feel is an imposition. Most people don't or can't do it properly. It's ineffective at best and has caused a breakdown in distancing observance.
Lo and behold infection rates are now steadily rising again.
Utterly appalling waste of all the economic damage and progress that had been made.
Agree, at least I could see the science behind distancing. Would rather have that than facemasks, I understand the need to reduce distancing with shops etc but afraid facemasks are not the answer. Just keep distancing to 1m, at least there's a chance most/all people could manage that rather than farcical situation with masks. However, I'd be quite happy to ditch both!
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
Outdoor facemasks are pretty logical, from the point of the view of the government.

They are desperately searching for a way to row back what they've done in terms of terrifying everyone, and have decided that masks are the talisman that will achieve this.
I very much doubt they will, but there we go.

We also have a bunch of pro-lockdown people who are desperate to prove that the lockdown strategy was the right one, so are seizing on absolutely anything they can think of to let the economy open up marginally more without causing a second spike which will demonstrate the futility of the lockdown/elimination strategy in the first place.
People are realising what they've been signed up for, and don't particularly like it - and if they aren't assauged the strategy will collapse completely.

Especially when Whitty commands pubs close indefinitely in September.... at leas the pubs that last until then.

When the redundancy notices start flowing like a river and people realise there will be no family gatherings for christmas......
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
15,982
Location
0036
It’s already happening by regulation creep. Southeastern tweeted this morning that they are “requesting” masks be worn in all their outdoor stations.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
It’s already happening by regulation creep. Southeastern tweeted this morning that they are “requesting” masks be worn in all outdoor stations.

The law already requires them to be worn at stations and bus stations ("transport hubs" being the word used) whether indoor or outdoor, so they're a bit behind there!
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
15,982
Location
0036
The law already requires them to be worn at stations and bus stations ("transport hubs" being the word used) whether indoor or outdoor, so they're a bit behind there!
You are not correct. See regulations 3 (1), 2 (1), and 2 (4) of SI 2020/791.
 

Scrotnig

Member
Joined
5 Sep 2017
Messages
592
There is no way I will comply if mask-wearing becomes mandatory outdoors. It would give all the FaceTwits on social media a chance to scream ‘but why aren’t they mandatory in workplaces, too?’ and then the government will make it so, just to be seen doing something.
No. No. And a thousand times, No.

Dr Vernon Coleman has warned, months ago on his YouTube videos, that Government won’t be satisfied until we’re all subjected to being masked all day, every day. People decried him as being absurd, but it is government's reaction to this crisis that is, truly, absurd.
I think it will be the other way round with masks in terms of the order of imposition.

First we had public transport
Then shops
Then theatres / museums etc
Next will be all indoor workplaces and schools
Then anywhere outdoors
Finally it will be inside your own home if more than one person lives there

And don't dismiss the final one as absurd - there were some experts a few weeks ago calling for this to be imposed.

There's some sort of mask fetish going on with a lot of people and I have no idea why.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Finally it will be inside your own home if more than one person lives there

Speaking generally this is a bit silly, but there are cases that would make sense:

1. Where someone in a household has been diagnosed with COVID, that person should wear one when they are not in their "isolation room" in order to reduce the likelihood of others in the family catching it.

2. If your house is not a size where you can be sure to keep 2m away from visitors, when having visitors from another household indoors, as an alternative to just prohibiting this if cases continue to rise.
 

Scrotnig

Member
Joined
5 Sep 2017
Messages
592
Where someone in a household has been diagnosed with COVID, that person should wear one when they are not in their "isolation room" in order to reduce the likelihood of others in the family catching it.
Indeed but that's a long way from 'everyone in your household should wear one at all times' which is what's being advocated.
If your house is not a size where you can be sure to keep 2m away from visitors, when having visitors from another household indoors, as an alternative to just prohibiting this if cases continue to rise.
This would amount to 'stricter laws if you're poor'.

Unless the government start contributing to my rent, they are not telling me what I have to wear in my own home. It'd be absolutely unenforceable anyhow, but that hasn't prevented many of the other outrageous intrusions on civil liberties lately.
 

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
4,435
Speaking generally this is a bit silly, but there are cases that would make sense:

1. Where someone in a household has been diagnosed with COVID, that person should wear one when they are not in their "isolation room" in order to reduce the likelihood of others in the family catching it.

2. If your house is not a size where you can be sure to keep 2m away from visitors, when having visitors from another household indoors, as an alternative to just prohibiting this if cases continue to rise.
Sorry but that's absurd. It's not Ebola! I would have zero qualms about me or any of my family infecting each other.
Similarly, if visitors come while one of us is infected, we would tell them and it's then their choice whether they want to come in or not.
Of course if people choose to wear masks in their own home then that is their business. Government might mandate it but 99% of people would simply ignore it.
As we've seen in shops etc, a secondary effect of mask enforcement is a breakdown in compliance with other measures that are demonstrably effective. The government claims to "follow the science" but it appears they are not considering behavioural science.
 

birchesgreen

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2020
Messages
5,044
Location
Birmingham
Bit of face mask oddness this morning. As i was on my morning walk i saw a bloke approach wearing a mask. As he passed me (about 0.5m perhaps) he pulled his mask down to scratch his nose. :p
 

Puffing Devil

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2013
Messages
2,742
Face Masks Really Do Matter. The Scientific Evidence Is Growing

Wall Street Journal
Face masks are emerging as one of the most powerful weapons to fight the new coronavirus, with growing evidence that facial coverings help prevent transmission—even if an infected wearer is in close contact with others.

Robert Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said he believes the pandemic could be brought under control over the next four to eight weeks if “we could get everybody to wear a mask right now.” His comments, made in mid-July with the Journal of the American Medical Association, followed an editorial he and others wrote there emphasizing “ample evidence” of asymptomatic spread and highlighting new studies showing how masks help reduce transmission.

I understand this thread is very much an anti-mask echo chamber, though the body of evidence is growing, and will continue to grow as research continues. I look forward to returning to this thread in six months review many of the comments and views in the light of new evidence and the progression of the pandemic. Meanwhile, I'm not investing any more of my time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top