FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Mask wearing
Mask wearing
Jump to: Newest in thread
A little more concerned with mandatory vaccination for carers being voted through in the Commons this evening.
Massive change for the country - all on the back of a 90 minute debate in an almost empty chamber.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A little more concerned with mandatory vaccination for carers being voted through in the Commons this evening.
Massive change for the country - all on the back of a 90 minute debate in an almost empty chamber.
"
why does that concern you? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *eeleyWoman
over a year ago
Dudley |
"A little more concerned with mandatory vaccination for carers being voted through in the Commons this evening.
Massive change for the country - all on the back of a 90 minute debate in an almost empty chamber.
why does that concern you? "
I wondered the same thing, it makes perfect sense to me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
He doesn't care. He's delivered what his extremist powerbrokers have demanded, so case closed.
I hope that a sufficient large number of businesses will be expecting customers to wear them, so that the current rapid escalation in infections doesn't get to harm too many people.
He should be leading the public. He'll probably start taking just in Latin from Monday  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Well if you come to London make sure you bring a mask as they will still require for transport
good advice, who wants to be stuck on the tube feeling unprotected?"
Not advice but compulsory
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-57826331 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A little more concerned with mandatory vaccination for carers being voted through in the Commons this evening.
Massive change for the country - all on the back of a 90 minute debate in an almost empty chamber.
why does that concern you? "
It’s concerning that something so fundamentally important involving aspects of medical ethics and human rights has been presented for a brief 90 minute debate, with very little information and at the last minute, resulting in a near empty chamber.
I thought people cared about how the government of the day acts to uphold our rights and protections?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eeleyWoman
over a year ago
Dudley |
"A little more concerned with mandatory vaccination for carers being voted through in the Commons this evening.
Massive change for the country - all on the back of a 90 minute debate in an almost empty chamber.
why does that concern you?
It’s concerning that something so fundamentally important involving aspects of medical ethics and human rights has been presented for a brief 90 minute debate, with very little information and at the last minute, resulting in a near empty chamber.
I thought people cared about how the government of the day acts to uphold our rights and protections?
"
It was discussed weeks ago, it's not a new thing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A little more concerned with mandatory vaccination for carers being voted through in the Commons this evening.
Massive change for the country - all on the back of a 90 minute debate in an almost empty chamber.
why does that concern you?
It’s concerning that something so fundamentally important involving aspects of medical ethics and human rights has been presented for a brief 90 minute debate, with very little information and at the last minute, resulting in a near empty chamber.
I thought people cared about how the government of the day acts to uphold our rights and protections?
It was discussed weeks ago, it's not a new thing. "
There is already a shortage of carers, I’d imagine they shortage will get worse if some carers refuse to get the vaccinations. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A little more concerned with mandatory vaccination for carers being voted through in the Commons this evening.
Massive change for the country - all on the back of a 90 minute debate in an almost empty chamber.
why does that concern you?
It’s concerning that something so fundamentally important involving aspects of medical ethics and human rights has been presented for a brief 90 minute debate, with very little information and at the last minute, resulting in a near empty chamber.
I thought people cared about how the government of the day acts to uphold our rights and protections?
It was discussed weeks ago, it's not a new thing.
There is already a shortage of carers, I’d imagine they shortage will get worse if some carers refuse to get the vaccinations."
I cant see most refusing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eeleyWoman
over a year ago
Dudley |
"A little more concerned with mandatory vaccination for carers being voted through in the Commons this evening.
Massive change for the country - all on the back of a 90 minute debate in an almost empty chamber.
why does that concern you?
It’s concerning that something so fundamentally important involving aspects of medical ethics and human rights has been presented for a brief 90 minute debate, with very little information and at the last minute, resulting in a near empty chamber.
I thought people cared about how the government of the day acts to uphold our rights and protections?
It was discussed weeks ago, it's not a new thing.
There is already a shortage of carers, I’d imagine they shortage will get worse if some carers refuse to get the vaccinations."
Why would they refuse?
I'm an unpaid carer for my mum, I didn't hesitate when I was offered the vaccine, it was the best thing I could do, so I did it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A little more concerned with mandatory vaccination for carers being voted through in the Commons this evening.
Massive change for the country - all on the back of a 90 minute debate in an almost empty chamber.
why does that concern you?
It’s concerning that something so fundamentally important involving aspects of medical ethics and human rights has been presented for a brief 90 minute debate, with very little information and at the last minute, resulting in a near empty chamber.
I thought people cared about how the government of the day acts to uphold our rights and protections?
It was discussed weeks ago, it's not a new thing.
There is already a shortage of carers, I’d imagine they shortage will get worse if some carers refuse to get the vaccinations.
Why would they refuse?
I'm an unpaid carer for my mum, I didn't hesitate when I was offered the vaccine, it was the best thing I could do, so I did it. "
There are a lot of anti vaxxers who refuse. Who knows why, but they have their reasons. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A little more concerned with mandatory vaccination for carers being voted through in the Commons this evening.
Massive change for the country - all on the back of a 90 minute debate in an almost empty chamber.
why does that concern you?
It’s concerning that something so fundamentally important involving aspects of medical ethics and human rights has been presented for a brief 90 minute debate, with very little information and at the last minute, resulting in a near empty chamber.
I thought people cared about how the government of the day acts to uphold our rights and protections?
It was discussed weeks ago, it's not a new thing. "
Maybe in here, yes - and the amount of discussion it has received here is to be commended - however in the place that forms our laws it’s one thing for the idea to be floated and a very different matter for it to be pushed through the back door, quietly. Surely something so important warrants more than a snap vote after a 90 minute debate in an empty chamber?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eeleyWoman
over a year ago
Dudley |
"A little more concerned with mandatory vaccination for carers being voted through in the Commons this evening.
Massive change for the country - all on the back of a 90 minute debate in an almost empty chamber.
why does that concern you?
It’s concerning that something so fundamentally important involving aspects of medical ethics and human rights has been presented for a brief 90 minute debate, with very little information and at the last minute, resulting in a near empty chamber.
I thought people cared about how the government of the day acts to uphold our rights and protections?
It was discussed weeks ago, it's not a new thing.
Maybe in here, yes - and the amount of discussion it has received here is to be commended - however in the place that forms our laws it’s one thing for the idea to be floated and a very different matter for it to be pushed through the back door, quietly. Surely something so important warrants more than a snap vote after a 90 minute debate in an empty chamber?
"
No, it was announced weeks ago on the .gov website
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/everyone-working-in-care-homes-to-be-fully-vaccinated-under-new-law-to-protect-residents |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A little more concerned with mandatory vaccination for carers being voted through in the Commons this evening.
Massive change for the country - all on the back of a 90 minute debate in an almost empty chamber.
why does that concern you?
It’s concerning that something so fundamentally important involving aspects of medical ethics and human rights has been presented for a brief 90 minute debate, with very little information and at the last minute, resulting in a near empty chamber.
I thought people cared about how the government of the day acts to uphold our rights and protections?
It was discussed weeks ago, it's not a new thing.
Maybe in here, yes - and the amount of discussion it has received here is to be commended - however in the place that forms our laws it’s one thing for the idea to be floated and a very different matter for it to be pushed through the back door, quietly. Surely something so important warrants more than a snap vote after a 90 minute debate in an empty chamber?
No, it was announced weeks ago on the .gov website
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/everyone-working-in-care-homes-to-be-fully-vaccinated-under-new-law-to-protect-residents"
Yes, but that’s not really the concern I am raising this evening.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I do not doubt masks will be legally required again.
Its fucking stupid to make voluntary now. The sbop workers etc have been thrown under bus all because of the ego of Boris.
Remember start of pandemic it was said 20000 deaths would be seen as good result.
That alone waz reached by letting folk with covid put on care homes with no checks to see if clear. It was not rocket science to predict what would occur.
So now they say expect 100,000 cases a day to say thats acceptable is sickening. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A little more concerned with mandatory vaccination for carers being voted through in the Commons this evening.
Massive change for the country - all on the back of a 90 minute debate in an almost empty chamber.
why does that concern you?
It’s concerning that something so fundamentally important involving aspects of medical ethics and human rights has been presented for a brief 90 minute debate, with very little information and at the last minute, resulting in a near empty chamber.
I thought people cared about how the government of the day acts to uphold our rights and protections?
It was discussed weeks ago, it's not a new thing.
Maybe in here, yes - and the amount of discussion it has received here is to be commended - however in the place that forms our laws it’s one thing for the idea to be floated and a very different matter for it to be pushed through the back door, quietly. Surely something so important warrants more than a snap vote after a 90 minute debate in an empty chamber?
No, it was announced weeks ago on the .gov website
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/everyone-working-in-care-homes-to-be-fully-vaccinated-under-new-law-to-protect-residents
Yes, but that’s not really the concern I am raising this evening.
"
What is the concern you are raising then? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"Well if you come to London make sure you bring a mask as they will still require for transport "
Issue is that the mayor of London has the power to make that decision….tfl run operations, London busses, tube, London overground and all tfl run rail services
He is the only metro mayor who does …
for example burnham in greater Manchester has the power to mandate it on the metrolink, but not on the buses and rail system
It’s going to get confusing… which is why transport issues should be government mandate
it’s going to get on rail services when you have to put on or have the option to take off at Berwick, or Carlisle when you go in/out of Scotland….or Bristol parkway and Chester before you go in/out of Wales….
Same mandate will be in place for cross border coach services |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eeleyWoman
over a year ago
Dudley |
"A little more concerned with mandatory vaccination for carers being voted through in the Commons this evening.
Massive change for the country - all on the back of a 90 minute debate in an almost empty chamber.
why does that concern you?
It’s concerning that something so fundamentally important involving aspects of medical ethics and human rights has been presented for a brief 90 minute debate, with very little information and at the last minute, resulting in a near empty chamber.
I thought people cared about how the government of the day acts to uphold our rights and protections?
It was discussed weeks ago, it's not a new thing.
Maybe in here, yes - and the amount of discussion it has received here is to be commended - however in the place that forms our laws it’s one thing for the idea to be floated and a very different matter for it to be pushed through the back door, quietly. Surely something so important warrants more than a snap vote after a 90 minute debate in an empty chamber?
No, it was announced weeks ago on the .gov website
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/everyone-working-in-care-homes-to-be-fully-vaccinated-under-new-law-to-protect-residents
Yes, but that’s not really the concern I am raising this evening.
"
You said it was sneaked through on the back of a brief debate and a last minute vote, I just proved that wasn't the case. It's been discussed previously and announced, I think today's vote was a formality.
What exactly was your point?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Well if you come to London make sure you bring a mask as they will still require for transport
Issue is that the mayor of London has the power to make that decision….tfl run operations, London busses, tube, London overground and all tfl run rail services
He is the only metro mayor who does …
for example burnham in greater Manchester has the power to mandate it on the metrolink, but not on the buses and rail system
It’s going to get confusing… which is why transport issues should be government mandate
it’s going to get on rail services when you have to put on or have the option to take off at Berwick, or Carlisle when you go in/out of Scotland….or Bristol parkway and Chester before you go in/out of Wales….
Same mandate will be in place for cross border coach services "
I’m sure, but I’m expecting other train / bus operators will follow suit.
Although to be honest if they don’t, the only confusion will be for those that don’t bother checking local requirements when travelling. no different than when you go abroad (pre covid) you check local laws |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"Well if you come to London make sure you bring a mask as they will still require for transport
Issue is that the mayor of London has the power to make that decision….tfl run operations, London busses, tube, London overground and all tfl run rail services
He is the only metro mayor who does …
for example burnham in greater Manchester has the power to mandate it on the metrolink, but not on the buses and rail system
It’s going to get confusing… which is why transport issues should be government mandate
it’s going to get on rail services when you have to put on or have the option to take off at Berwick, or Carlisle when you go in/out of Scotland….or Bristol parkway and Chester before you go in/out of Wales….
Same mandate will be in place for cross border coach services
I’m sure, but I’m expecting other train / bus operators will follow suit.
Although to be honest if they don’t, the only confusion will be for those that don’t bother checking local requirements when travelling. no different than when you go abroad (pre covid) you check local laws "
The mayor’s and government have the powers to legally enforce it…. The bus and train companies don’t.. they can strongly ask, they can advise but they cannot enforce |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just got a txt from my docs saying still need to wear mask when visiting the practice which is fair enough! Not been in ages as they only seem to do phone appointments nowadays! X"
This applies to any medical building such as hospitals and health centres etc. Both staff and patients are still required to wear masks in these settings. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
And now the government are saying the measures that TFL will continue with are in the spirit of what they meant, why not simply keep that aspect of mask wear as mandatory ?
More mixed message's only serve to cause confusion with some.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
If you care about people, you should still wear a mask in public places , it’s no hardship and you will help protect the people who are out there working hard to help us |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If you care about people, you should still wear a mask in public places , it’s no hardship and you will help protect the people who are out there working hard to help us "
Ohh please?? Give up the if u care about others spool! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"A little more concerned with mandatory vaccination for carers being voted through in the Commons this evening.
Massive change for the country - all on the back of a 90 minute debate in an almost empty chamber.
why does that concern you?
It’s concerning that something so fundamentally important involving aspects of medical ethics and human rights has been presented for a brief 90 minute debate, with very little information and at the last minute, resulting in a near empty chamber.
I thought people cared about how the government of the day acts to uphold our rights and protections?
It was discussed weeks ago, it's not a new thing.
There is already a shortage of carers, I’d imagine they shortage will get worse if some carers refuse to get the vaccinations. I cant see most refusing. "
I can't see any refusing! If they do, then they were in the wrong job to begin with! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Well if you come to London make sure you bring a mask as they will still require for transport that makes sense x "
Its not enforceable by law though.
You can be refused travel but you cannot be fined or have any legal ramifications.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Well if you come to London make sure you bring a mask as they will still require for transport
good advice, who wants to be stuck on the tube feeling unprotected?
Not advice but compulsory
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-57826331"
You can be refused travel but it is not legally enforceable. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So who thinks Boris will back track and say we will still have to wear masks from the 19 July.  "
He really is stuck now is ole BJ. Councils and the devolved nations are flat out ignoring his wishes. If he does backtrack I can see it leading to a vote of no confidence. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Well if you come to London make sure you bring a mask as they will still require for transport
good advice, who wants to be stuck on the tube feeling unprotected?
Not advice but compulsory
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-57826331
You can be refused travel but it is not legally enforceable."
They will just stop you travelling, so get on your bike or walk if you don’t want to wear one |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eeleyWoman
over a year ago
Dudley |
"If you care about people, you should still wear a mask in public places , it’s no hardship and you will help protect the people who are out there working hard to help us
Ohh please?? Give up the if u care about others spool! "
It's true though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And now the government are saying the measures that TFL will continue with are in the spirit of what they meant, why not simply keep that aspect of mask wear as mandatory ?
More mixed message's only serve to cause confusion with some.."
All that is lifted is the legal restriction. His actual announcement contained “We will stick to our plan to lift legal restrictions and to lift social distancing, but we expect and recommend that people wear a face covering in crowded and enclosed spaces where you come into contact with those you don’t normally meet, such as on public transport” |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eeleyWoman
over a year ago
Dudley |
"And now the government are saying the measures that TFL will continue with are in the spirit of what they meant, why not simply keep that aspect of mask wear as mandatory ?
More mixed message's only serve to cause confusion with some..
All that is lifted is the legal restriction. His actual announcement contained “We will stick to our plan to lift legal restrictions and to lift social distancing, but we expect and recommend that people wear a face covering in crowded and enclosed spaces where you come into contact with those you don’t normally meet, such as on public transport” "
It's almost like people don't listen, they just make up their own interpretation  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Just wear the fucking masks, seriously, it’s not a big deal. It’s a bit of cloth over your stanky mouth and nose…. Lol. People acting like the government is requiring legs to be removed or something. Honestly, it doesn’t make a difference to most people, it’s just this boiling blood people have over government control. Go live in North Korea for a few months, piss the government off there… see how long you last. It is a face mask. Wear it or accept you simply won’t be allowed in to certain places. And, for the record, yes it’s not enforceable by law, but by law, any place can refuse to serve anyone for any reason, like it or hate it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"Well if you come to London make sure you bring a mask as they will still require for transport that makes sense x
Its not enforceable by law though.
You can be refused travel but you cannot be fined or have any legal ramifications.
"
It is enforceable as the mayor has the power to make it part of the “terms of carriage” of travel … so if you refuse to leave they can actually give you a fixed penalty notice… |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And now the government are saying the measures that TFL will continue with are in the spirit of what they meant, why not simply keep that aspect of mask wear as mandatory ?
More mixed message's only serve to cause confusion with some..
All that is lifted is the legal restriction. His actual announcement contained “We will stick to our plan to lift legal restrictions and to lift social distancing, but we expect and recommend that people wear a face covering in crowded and enclosed spaces where you come into contact with those you don’t normally meet, such as on public transport” "
I think to protect bus drivers etc it shouldn't be down to individual company management to say yes or no it should have been left as law..
Ditto trains, that way there's no confusion or which there already is as some operators are leaving it to the public so no mask on a train then get on the tram or tube and masks required..
It's all over the place.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And now the government are saying the measures that TFL will continue with are in the spirit of what they meant, why not simply keep that aspect of mask wear as mandatory ?
More mixed message's only serve to cause confusion with some..
All that is lifted is the legal restriction. His actual announcement contained “We will stick to our plan to lift legal restrictions and to lift social distancing, but we expect and recommend that people wear a face covering in crowded and enclosed spaces where you come into contact with those you don’t normally meet, such as on public transport”
It's almost like people don't listen, they just make up their own interpretation "
Been like the whole way though |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A little more concerned with mandatory vaccination for carers being voted through in the Commons this evening.
Massive change for the country - all on the back of a 90 minute debate in an almost empty chamber.
why does that concern you?
It’s concerning that something so fundamentally important involving aspects of medical ethics and human rights has been presented for a brief 90 minute debate, with very little information and at the last minute, resulting in a near empty chamber.
I thought people cared about how the government of the day acts to uphold our rights and protections?
It was discussed weeks ago, it's not a new thing.
There is already a shortage of carers, I’d imagine they shortage will get worse if some carers refuse to get the vaccinations. I cant see most refusing.
I can't see any refusing! If they do, then they were in the wrong job to begin with! "
I know a few care homes that we have contracts with, have sacked a few staff due to refusing to get jabbed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And now the government are saying the measures that TFL will continue with are in the spirit of what they meant, why not simply keep that aspect of mask wear as mandatory ?
More mixed message's only serve to cause confusion with some..
All that is lifted is the legal restriction. His actual announcement contained “We will stick to our plan to lift legal restrictions and to lift social distancing, but we expect and recommend that people wear a face covering in crowded and enclosed spaces where you come into contact with those you don’t normally meet, such as on public transport”
I think to protect bus drivers etc it shouldn't be down to individual company management to say yes or no it should have been left as law..
Ditto trains, that way there's no confusion or which there already is as some operators are leaving it to the public so no mask on a train then get on the tram or tube and masks required..
It's all over the place.."
Personally I’ll still be wearing a mask in any transport, I don’t need someone to tell me to do so just because the legal requirement has disappeared.
Re the trains I see their stand point, they are still expecting customers to wear masks in busy services, however on quiet services no. Example I took a 2.5 hour train journey there was no one else in the carriage but myself and my lad, we still kept our masks on as it was a legal requirement to do so. 19th July we will be able to remove them, if we choose, as no one else around. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"And now the government are saying the measures that TFL will continue with are in the spirit of what they meant, why not simply keep that aspect of mask wear as mandatory ?
More mixed message's only serve to cause confusion with some..
All that is lifted is the legal restriction. His actual announcement contained “We will stick to our plan to lift legal restrictions and to lift social distancing, but we expect and recommend that people wear a face covering in crowded and enclosed spaces where you come into contact with those you don’t normally meet, such as on public transport”
I think to protect bus drivers etc it shouldn't be down to individual company management to say yes or no it should have been left as law..
Ditto trains, that way there's no confusion or which there already is as some operators are leaving it to the public so no mask on a train then get on the tram or tube and masks required..
It's all over the place.."
Then you are going to have the situation that on cross border services, the last place it stops in England will be the first place you will be mandated to wear a mask! …
So if you are going from England to Scotland.. a mask will legally have to go on at Carlisle or Newcastle/Berwick, England to Wales the mask will have to go on at Bristol or Chester ….
Local restrictions are going to be all over the place |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And now the government are saying the measures that TFL will continue with are in the spirit of what they meant, why not simply keep that aspect of mask wear as mandatory ?
More mixed message's only serve to cause confusion with some..
All that is lifted is the legal restriction. His actual announcement contained “We will stick to our plan to lift legal restrictions and to lift social distancing, but we expect and recommend that people wear a face covering in crowded and enclosed spaces where you come into contact with those you don’t normally meet, such as on public transport”
I think to protect bus drivers etc it shouldn't be down to individual company management to say yes or no it should have been left as law..
Ditto trains, that way there's no confusion or which there already is as some operators are leaving it to the public so no mask on a train then get on the tram or tube and masks required..
It's all over the place..
Personally I’ll still be wearing a mask in any transport, I don’t need someone to tell me to do so just because the legal requirement has disappeared.
Re the trains I see their stand point, they are still expecting customers to wear masks in busy services, however on quiet services no. Example I took a 2.5 hour train journey there was no one else in the carriage but myself and my lad, we still kept our masks on as it was a legal requirement to do so. 19th July we will be able to remove them, if we choose, as no one else around. "
Unfortunately some on here can’t help themselves when it comes to attacking the government. I’m a lifelong Labour supporter so hardly a boris fan. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Well if you come to London make sure you bring a mask as they will still require for transport
good advice, who wants to be stuck on the tube feeling unprotected?
Not advice but compulsory
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-57826331
You can be refused travel but it is not legally enforceable.
They will just stop you travelling, so get on your bike or walk if you don’t want to wear one "
No they won't.
It's only been the police that have been enforcing it.
We travel by bus and tube all the time and never once seen a maskless person challenged or refused travel.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Well if you come to London make sure you bring a mask as they will still require for transport that makes sense x
Its not enforceable by law though.
You can be refused travel but you cannot be fined or have any legal ramifications.
It is enforceable as the mayor has the power to make it part of the “terms of carriage” of travel … so if you refuse to leave they can actually give you a fixed penalty notice…"
It's been enforceable for the last 18 months but very rarely is we travel on London transport every day so I can tell you it is not enforced most of the time. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
All the clinically vulnerable have had two jabs. Those left are more likely to be bowled over by the flu than COVID.
People need to grow a pair and live life (mask free) than sit hiding behind the sofa. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And now the government are saying the measures that TFL will continue with are in the spirit of what they meant, why not simply keep that aspect of mask wear as mandatory ?
More mixed message's only serve to cause confusion with some..
All that is lifted is the legal restriction. His actual announcement contained “We will stick to our plan to lift legal restrictions and to lift social distancing, but we expect and recommend that people wear a face covering in crowded and enclosed spaces where you come into contact with those you don’t normally meet, such as on public transport”
I think to protect bus drivers etc it shouldn't be down to individual company management to say yes or no it should have been left as law..
Ditto trains, that way there's no confusion or which there already is as some operators are leaving it to the public so no mask on a train then get on the tram or tube and masks required..
It's all over the place..
Personally I’ll still be wearing a mask in any transport, I don’t need someone to tell me to do so just because the legal requirement has disappeared.
Re the trains I see their stand point, they are still expecting customers to wear masks in busy services, however on quiet services no. Example I took a 2.5 hour train journey there was no one else in the carriage but myself and my lad, we still kept our masks on as it was a legal requirement to do so. 19th July we will be able to remove them, if we choose, as no one else around. "
But most masks only filter out going particles you would need a face fit pp3 mask to filter incoming so it's like an all or nothing.
He will back track on this indoors and transport I hope. Or.i will be in the supermarket in a hi level mask as it will protect me but not you!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"All the clinically vulnerable have had two jabs. Those left are more likely to be bowled over by the flu than COVID.
People need to grow a pair and live life (mask free) than sit hiding behind the sofa."
Thats untrue.
76% of all people currently in hospital are under 50.
63% of those have not had a vaccine. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"All the clinically vulnerable have had two jabs. Those left are more likely to be bowled over by the flu than COVID.
People need to grow a pair and live life (mask free) than sit hiding behind the sofa."
That's ok but if you get systems will you have to isolate and if so will you get played. Was off in February for 3 weeks on SSP not so good when it hits your income. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eeleyWoman
over a year ago
Dudley |
"All the clinically vulnerable have had two jabs. Those left are more likely to be bowled over by the flu than COVID.
People need to grow a pair and live life (mask free) than sit hiding behind the sofa."
Untrue but why let facts get in the way of bullshit? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Well if you come to London make sure you bring a mask as they will still require for transport
good advice, who wants to be stuck on the tube feeling unprotected?
Not advice but compulsory
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-57826331
You can be refused travel but it is not legally enforceable.
They will just stop you travelling, so get on your bike or walk if you don’t want to wear one
No they won't.
It's only been the police that have been enforcing it.
We travel by bus and tube all the time and never once seen a maskless person challenged or refused travel.
"
Well you might see that change as it is now going to be a ‘condition of carriage’ ie no mask (or valid exemption) no travel |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And now the government are saying the measures that TFL will continue with are in the spirit of what they meant, why not simply keep that aspect of mask wear as mandatory ?
More mixed message's only serve to cause confusion with some..
All that is lifted is the legal restriction. His actual announcement contained “We will stick to our plan to lift legal restrictions and to lift social distancing, but we expect and recommend that people wear a face covering in crowded and enclosed spaces where you come into contact with those you don’t normally meet, such as on public transport”
I think to protect bus drivers etc it shouldn't be down to individual company management to say yes or no it should have been left as law..
Ditto trains, that way there's no confusion or which there already is as some operators are leaving it to the public so no mask on a train then get on the tram or tube and masks required..
It's all over the place..
Personally I’ll still be wearing a mask in any transport, I don’t need someone to tell me to do so just because the legal requirement has disappeared.
Re the trains I see their stand point, they are still expecting customers to wear masks in busy services, however on quiet services no. Example I took a 2.5 hour train journey there was no one else in the carriage but myself and my lad, we still kept our masks on as it was a legal requirement to do so. 19th July we will be able to remove them, if we choose, as no one else around.
But most masks only filter out going particles you would need a face fit pp3 mask to filter incoming so it's like an all or nothing.
He will back track on this indoors and transport I hope. Or.i will be in the supermarket in a hi level mask as it will protect me but not you!!"
I know that |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ucka39Man
over a year ago
Newcastle |
"All the clinically vulnerable have had two jabs. Those left are more likely to be bowled over by the flu than COVID.
People need to grow a pair and live life (mask free) than sit hiding behind the sofa."
You do know that the virus and further viruses will continue and the vaccine wouldn't be able to protect vaccine are designed but if the strain is able to attack the vaccine it's all downhill
Never learned I can see deaths reaching over 200.000 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Well if you come to London make sure you bring a mask as they will still require for transport
good advice, who wants to be stuck on the tube feeling unprotected?
Not advice but compulsory
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-57826331
You can be refused travel but it is not legally enforceable.
They will just stop you travelling, so get on your bike or walk if you don’t want to wear one
No they won't.
It's only been the police that have been enforcing it.
We travel by bus and tube all the time and never once seen a maskless person challenged or refused travel.
Well you might see that change as it is now going to be a ‘condition of carriage’ ie no mask (or valid exemption) no travel "
Ive just read the article and it makes it very clear that the mayor on has asked TFL to make it a condition of travel, that doesn't mean the will enforce it.
All so it very clearly says anybody who is exempt does not have to wear one or has a reasonable excuse. Most bus drivers won't the hassle so do what they do now and let people on.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Well if you come to London make sure you bring a mask as they will still require for transport
good advice, who wants to be stuck on the tube feeling unprotected?
Not advice but compulsory
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-57826331
You can be refused travel but it is not legally enforceable.
They will just stop you travelling, so get on your bike or walk if you don’t want to wear one
No they won't.
It's only been the police that have been enforcing it.
We travel by bus and tube all the time and never once seen a maskless person challenged or refused travel.
Well you might see that change as it is now going to be a ‘condition of carriage’ ie no mask (or valid exemption) no travel
Ive just read the article and it makes it very clear that the mayor on has asked TFL to make it a condition of travel, that doesn't mean the will enforce it.
All so it very clearly says anybody who is exempt does not have to wear one or has a reasonable excuse. Most bus drivers won't the hassle so do what they do now and let people on.
"
All so you still don't have to provide proof of exemption so anybody can say there are except and there isn't anything TFL can do.
It's no longer a legal requirement and I think it puts bus drivers and ticket Hall staff in a very difficult situation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Well if you come to London make sure you bring a mask as they will still require for transport
good advice, who wants to be stuck on the tube feeling unprotected?
Not advice but compulsory
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-57826331
You can be refused travel but it is not legally enforceable.
They will just stop you travelling, so get on your bike or walk if you don’t want to wear one
No they won't.
It's only been the police that have been enforcing it.
We travel by bus and tube all the time and never once seen a maskless person challenged or refused travel.
Well you might see that change as it is now going to be a ‘condition of carriage’ ie no mask (or valid exemption) no travel
Ive just read the article and it makes it very clear that the mayor on has asked TFL to make it a condition of travel, that doesn't mean the will enforce it.
All so it very clearly says anybody who is exempt does not have to wear one or has a reasonable excuse. Most bus drivers won't the hassle so do what they do now and let people on.
"
I’ll await the updated terms of carriage, that is the document that will have the basis for it, along with the staff’s responsibility (as it is now) to ensure people are travelling with the correct tickets, entry to transport etc and if not refusal or travel or fixed penalty notices are issued |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Well if you come to London make sure you bring a mask as they will still require for transport
good advice, who wants to be stuck on the tube feeling unprotected?
Not advice but compulsory
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-57826331
You can be refused travel but it is not legally enforceable.
They will just stop you travelling, so get on your bike or walk if you don’t want to wear one
No they won't.
It's only been the police that have been enforcing it.
We travel by bus and tube all the time and never once seen a maskless person challenged or refused travel.
Well you might see that change as it is now going to be a ‘condition of carriage’ ie no mask (or valid exemption) no travel
Ive just read the article and it makes it very clear that the mayor on has asked TFL to make it a condition of travel, that doesn't mean the will enforce it.
All so it very clearly says anybody who is exempt does not have to wear one or has a reasonable excuse. Most bus drivers won't the hassle so do what they do now and let people on.
I’ll await the updated terms of carriage, that is the document that will have the basis for it, along with the staff’s responsibility (as it is now) to ensure people are travelling with the correct tickets, entry to transport etc and if not refusal or travel or fixed penalty notices are issued "
When the face covering law came in TFL made it very clear they would not expect their staff to enforce it so I dont see that happening now especially as they don't have the powers of the police to back them up.
More and more people have been taking off their face coverings in the last couple of weeks and I think that will continue. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Well if you come to London make sure you bring a mask as they will still require for transport
good advice, who wants to be stuck on the tube feeling unprotected?
Not advice but compulsory
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-57826331
You can be refused travel but it is not legally enforceable.
They will just stop you travelling, so get on your bike or walk if you don’t want to wear one
No they won't.
It's only been the police that have been enforcing it.
We travel by bus and tube all the time and never once seen a maskless person challenged or refused travel.
Well you might see that change as it is now going to be a ‘condition of carriage’ ie no mask (or valid exemption) no travel
Ive just read the article and it makes it very clear that the mayor on has asked TFL to make it a condition of travel, that doesn't mean the will enforce it.
All so it very clearly says anybody who is exempt does not have to wear one or has a reasonable excuse. Most bus drivers won't the hassle so do what they do now and let people on.
I’ll await the updated terms of carriage, that is the document that will have the basis for it, along with the staff’s responsibility (as it is now) to ensure people are travelling with the correct tickets, entry to transport etc and if not refusal or travel or fixed penalty notices are issued
When the face covering law came in TFL made it very clear they would not expect their staff to enforce it so I dont see that happening now especially as they don't have the powers of the police to back them up.
More and more people have been taking off their face coverings in the last couple of weeks and I think that will continue. "
This isn’t the face covering law though that ends at midnight on 18th, this will be part of the ‘terms of carriage’ a whole different set of bylaws that covers travel within the TfL network, which is enforced by staff, enforcement officers and the British transport police. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Well if you come to London make sure you bring a mask as they will still require for transport
good advice, who wants to be stuck on the tube feeling unprotected?
Not advice but compulsory
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-57826331
You can be refused travel but it is not legally enforceable.
They will just stop you travelling, so get on your bike or walk if you don’t want to wear one
No they won't.
It's only been the police that have been enforcing it.
We travel by bus and tube all the time and never once seen a maskless person challenged or refused travel.
Well you might see that change as it is now going to be a ‘condition of carriage’ ie no mask (or valid exemption) no travel
Ive just read the article and it makes it very clear that the mayor on has asked TFL to make it a condition of travel, that doesn't mean the will enforce it.
All so it very clearly says anybody who is exempt does not have to wear one or has a reasonable excuse. Most bus drivers won't the hassle so do what they do now and let people on.
I’ll await the updated terms of carriage, that is the document that will have the basis for it, along with the staff’s responsibility (as it is now) to ensure people are travelling with the correct tickets, entry to transport etc and if not refusal or travel or fixed penalty notices are issued
When the face covering law came in TFL made it very clear they would not expect their staff to enforce it so I dont see that happening now especially as they don't have the powers of the police to back them up.
More and more people have been taking off their face coverings in the last couple of weeks and I think that will continue.
This isn’t the face covering law though that ends at midnight on 18th, this will be part of the ‘terms of carriage’ a whole different set of bylaws that covers travel within the TfL network, which is enforced by staff, enforcement officers and the British transport police. "
Yes and TFL have said they don't want to enforce it!
And like I said it very clearly says anybody who says they are exempt will be allowed travel so its quite clear what's going to happen because that's what's been happening so far.
Like I said very difficult to enforce. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"Well if you come to London make sure you bring a mask as they will still require for transport
good advice, who wants to be stuck on the tube feeling unprotected?
Not advice but compulsory
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-57826331
You can be refused travel but it is not legally enforceable.
They will just stop you travelling, so get on your bike or walk if you don’t want to wear one
No they won't.
It's only been the police that have been enforcing it.
We travel by bus and tube all the time and never once seen a maskless person challenged or refused travel.
Well you might see that change as it is now going to be a ‘condition of carriage’ ie no mask (or valid exemption) no travel
Ive just read the article and it makes it very clear that the mayor on has asked TFL to make it a condition of travel, that doesn't mean the will enforce it.
All so it very clearly says anybody who is exempt does not have to wear one or has a reasonable excuse. Most bus drivers won't the hassle so do what they do now and let people on.
I’ll await the updated terms of carriage, that is the document that will have the basis for it, along with the staff’s responsibility (as it is now) to ensure people are travelling with the correct tickets, entry to transport etc and if not refusal or travel or fixed penalty notices are issued
When the face covering law came in TFL made it very clear they would not expect their staff to enforce it so I dont see that happening now especially as they don't have the powers of the police to back them up.
More and more people have been taking off their face coverings in the last couple of weeks and I think that will continue. "
Actually they have about 300 specialist enforcement officers who will be doing this job.. so it won’t be the average station staff…the will also have BTP officers who can back up the enforcement officers….
The onus is going to be on the passenger to prove they are exempt… and if they are exempt, I am sure they will have no reason to not bring proof….
So maybe it will weasel out those who had been using it as excuse when they really had none |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Well if you come to London make sure you bring a mask as they will still require for transport
good advice, who wants to be stuck on the tube feeling unprotected?
Not advice but compulsory
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-57826331
You can be refused travel but it is not legally enforceable.
They will just stop you travelling, so get on your bike or walk if you don’t want to wear one
No they won't.
It's only been the police that have been enforcing it.
We travel by bus and tube all the time and never once seen a maskless person challenged or refused travel.
Well you might see that change as it is now going to be a ‘condition of carriage’ ie no mask (or valid exemption) no travel
Ive just read the article and it makes it very clear that the mayor on has asked TFL to make it a condition of travel, that doesn't mean the will enforce it.
All so it very clearly says anybody who is exempt does not have to wear one or has a reasonable excuse. Most bus drivers won't the hassle so do what they do now and let people on.
I’ll await the updated terms of carriage, that is the document that will have the basis for it, along with the staff’s responsibility (as it is now) to ensure people are travelling with the correct tickets, entry to transport etc and if not refusal or travel or fixed penalty notices are issued
When the face covering law came in TFL made it very clear they would not expect their staff to enforce it so I dont see that happening now especially as they don't have the powers of the police to back them up.
More and more people have been taking off their face coverings in the last couple of weeks and I think that will continue.
Actually they have about 300 specialist enforcement officers who will be doing this job.. so it won’t be the average station staff…the will also have BTP officers who can back up the enforcement officers….
The onus is going to be on the passenger to prove they are exempt… and if they are exempt, I am sure they will have no reason to not bring proof….
So maybe it will weasel out those who had been using it as excuse when they really had none "
It has been made very clear no proof is needed.
In fact the article says anyone with an exemption or reasonable excuse will be allowed travel so tell me what exemption proof do you expect people to give?
and currently there is no provision of any proof about mask exception.
I have just spoken to a friend who works for TFL and they have told me their management team have told them it is not going to be enforced.
The mayor of London has asked TFL to make it a requirement it doesn't mean they will. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Well if you come to London make sure you bring a mask as they will still require for transport
good advice, who wants to be stuck on the tube feeling unprotected?
Not advice but compulsory
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-57826331
You can be refused travel but it is not legally enforceable.
They will just stop you travelling, so get on your bike or walk if you don’t want to wear one
No they won't.
It's only been the police that have been enforcing it.
We travel by bus and tube all the time and never once seen a maskless person challenged or refused travel.
Well you might see that change as it is now going to be a ‘condition of carriage’ ie no mask (or valid exemption) no travel
Ive just read the article and it makes it very clear that the mayor on has asked TFL to make it a condition of travel, that doesn't mean the will enforce it.
All so it very clearly says anybody who is exempt does not have to wear one or has a reasonable excuse. Most bus drivers won't the hassle so do what they do now and let people on.
I’ll await the updated terms of carriage, that is the document that will have the basis for it, along with the staff’s responsibility (as it is now) to ensure people are travelling with the correct tickets, entry to transport etc and if not refusal or travel or fixed penalty notices are issued
When the face covering law came in TFL made it very clear they would not expect their staff to enforce it so I dont see that happening now especially as they don't have the powers of the police to back them up.
More and more people have been taking off their face coverings in the last couple of weeks and I think that will continue.
Actually they have about 300 specialist enforcement officers who will be doing this job.. so it won’t be the average station staff…the will also have BTP officers who can back up the enforcement officers….
The onus is going to be on the passenger to prove they are exempt… and if they are exempt, I am sure they will have no reason to not bring proof….
So maybe it will weasel out those who had been using it as excuse when they really had none "
I have severe anxiety so what proof do you expect do you want me to show? to have a panic attack in front of the staff or do you want me to disclose private medical information?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This isn’t the face covering law though that ends at midnight on 18th, this will be part of the ‘terms of carriage’ a whole different set of bylaws that covers travel within the TfL network, which is enforced by staff, enforcement officers and the British transport police. "
I'm in favour of masks continuing to be worn on public transport for now, but there is absolutely zero chance of something which is just one of the hundreds of Conditions of Carriage suddenly being effectively enforced to a greater degree than it was when it was the subject of a specific law and when Covid was new and people were less complacent and restless. At large stations people may continue to be challenged, but the BTP can't be on every train, and ordinary staff have been very explicitly instructed not to enforce mask wearing.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Well if you come to London make sure you bring a mask as they will still require for transport
good advice, who wants to be stuck on the tube feeling unprotected?
Not advice but compulsory
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-57826331
You can be refused travel but it is not legally enforceable.
They will just stop you travelling, so get on your bike or walk if you don’t want to wear one
No they won't.
It's only been the police that have been enforcing it.
We travel by bus and tube all the time and never once seen a maskless person challenged or refused travel.
Well you might see that change as it is now going to be a ‘condition of carriage’ ie no mask (or valid exemption) no travel
Ive just read the article and it makes it very clear that the mayor on has asked TFL to make it a condition of travel, that doesn't mean the will enforce it.
All so it very clearly says anybody who is exempt does not have to wear one or has a reasonable excuse. Most bus drivers won't the hassle so do what they do now and let people on.
I’ll await the updated terms of carriage, that is the document that will have the basis for it, along with the staff’s responsibility (as it is now) to ensure people are travelling with the correct tickets, entry to transport etc and if not refusal or travel or fixed penalty notices are issued
When the face covering law came in TFL made it very clear they would not expect their staff to enforce it so I dont see that happening now especially as they don't have the powers of the police to back them up.
More and more people have been taking off their face coverings in the last couple of weeks and I think that will continue.
This isn’t the face covering law though that ends at midnight on 18th, this will be part of the ‘terms of carriage’ a whole different set of bylaws that covers travel within the TfL network, which is enforced by staff, enforcement officers and the British transport police.
Yes and TFL have said they don't want to enforce it!
And like I said it very clearly says anybody who says they are exempt will be allowed travel so its quite clear what's going to happen because that's what's been happening so far.
Like I said very difficult to enforce. "
I never said those with exemptions wouldn’t be able to travel’
Agree to disagree on this one and move on |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And now the government are saying the measures that TFL will continue with are in the spirit of what they meant, why not simply keep that aspect of mask wear as mandatory ?
More mixed message's only serve to cause confusion with some..
All that is lifted is the legal restriction. His actual announcement contained “We will stick to our plan to lift legal restrictions and to lift social distancing, but we expect and recommend that people wear a face covering in crowded and enclosed spaces where you come into contact with those you don’t normally meet, such as on public transport”
I think to protect bus drivers etc it shouldn't be down to individual company management to say yes or no it should have been left as law..
Ditto trains, that way there's no confusion or which there already is as some operators are leaving it to the public so no mask on a train then get on the tram or tube and masks required..
It's all over the place..
Personally I’ll still be wearing a mask in any transport, I don’t need someone to tell me to do so just because the legal requirement has disappeared.
Re the trains I see their stand point, they are still expecting customers to wear masks in busy services, however on quiet services no. Example I took a 2.5 hour train journey there was no one else in the carriage but myself and my lad, we still kept our masks on as it was a legal requirement to do so. 19th July we will be able to remove them, if we choose, as no one else around. "
Ditto on wearing them in similar places, shops etc.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *orny PTMan
over a year ago
Peterborough |
!9th July ids national 'It's your fault now day!'.
Seeing how the government is far too busy chasing a whistleblower's digital paper trail, for GDPR breaches smacks of sour grapes and a lack of brain cells.
Guilty is as guilty does.
The tories are like clotted cream; very rich, very thick and very sloppy clots. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
