Nearly 4,000 fined for violating London’s transport mask rules

Nearly 4,000 people received fixed-term warnings (FPNs) for not wearing a face mask on public transport in London when required to do so, and thousands more were barred from traveling or asked to leave the network. the capital, according to official figures. .

Mandatory use of masks was established in Transport for London (TfL) services to help stop the spread of Covid-19. Facial coverings ceased to be a transport condition as of February 24 this year following the change in the government’s approach to living with coronavirus.

Between February 24, 2021 and January 27, 2022, said London Mayor Sadiq Khan, a total of 3,996 FPNs were issued to people for failing to comply with the requirement to wear a face mask.

In the same period, TfL prevented 7,283 people from traveling and ordered 2,325 people to leave the network. TfL did not record facial coverage compliance activity between January 27 and February 24, 2022.

The data was released following a question from a member of the London Assembly. Khan said: “The safety of TfL’s customers and staff is always their top priority. cover their faces as a condition of transportation both before and after they were a legal requirement, and continue to encourage them firmly today.

The release of the data coincides with the release of a report that has uncovered the party culture on Downing Street at the same time, where officials discussed how “parties have gone out with their” party drinks.

Johnson has apologized to the Commons for breaking the law on Downing Street, including his own actions, but has insisted he did not mislead Parliament when he said all the rules had been followed. “I am humble and have learned a lesson,” he told lawmakers.

Labor leader Keir Starmer said: “It is now impossible to defend the words of the Prime Minister in this House. This is about confidence. Because during that May 20 press conference the British public was told that life normal, as we know, is a long way off. But that was not the case with number 10. “

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *