PGberkshire

Still doesn't justify the lack of mask compliance.

Deaf viewers noted, but that is what subtitles can be used for.

Jambon87

I am not defending the non mask use (unless its medical grounds) however a few seconds in a specific location on a video, doesn’t mean he wasn’t using a mask when the camera wasn’t rolling.

1Aturnleft

Like you say, it's a personal preference to travel or not travel. I think anyone would find it hard to justify why they took 6 flights in very quick succession at the moment and expect anyone to be convinced it was anything but unnecessary. Sometimes doing the right thing is setting the right example and using his influencer position to encourage behaviour that's generally acceptable to the majority. I think I'd have found it easier to accept 1-2 sectors for a trip report at the moment. Unnecessary mileage marathons accross Europe just because it's cheap doesn't really buy into that behaviour and conduct idealism and it's probably done him some PR damage. There's literally hundreds of people commenting on his video about his lack of mask. IMO it was a poor decision to publish that trip at this time.

Sharratt4

Well, I think we can now conclusively agree that we do know who he is .

Now lets all visit the merch store.....

KARFA

Sorry, I am still not clear why he would have to justify it as necessary travel? Neither the law nor the government advice required travel to be necessary.

Nick Art

It doesn't matter what he claims, the facts matter. If he falsely claims it'd still go against the guidelines. Sorry, but this little detail makes a huge difference.

Not to mention one could argue he also needs to follow the laws of the countries he passed through. Essentially unless we know what and why exactly a person did or did not do something for the right or wrong reasons, there's no point arguing about it.

You're using employment with a rather loose definition here I see.

Jambon87

I didn’t state he falsely claimed, if he did it’s a different scenario.

If his main source of income is from the his you tube channel, then it “could” be classed as employment. I
am not saying it is, as I don’t know his personal affairs. But if it is, and he was travelling for his work, then it could be determined as complying with the guidelines.

I am not saying I agree with it, I don’t, but we shouldn’t be blindly making assumptions with out the required fact check.


EDIT : the crux of my argument is this. The court of social media has assumed that he has went gung-ho round Europe with out due care or attention to masks/quarantine restrictions etc for the sake of a few likes on YouTube.

No context or fact checking has been applied to verify if that has been the case, but favour has been given to berate him instead.

We may not aggree with his current travels, but if he has followed the rules as prescribed, then complaining here won’t do much good. If he hasn’t complied with entry restrictions to countries and has flouted them, then he should be holding himself accountable.

The Geek

If you make an income from Travel blogging / vlogging you can not work without travelling, so it is classed as essential travel for business / employment purposes. { Ditto if Wizz were paying him to produce that video. }

You could even argue that it is essential for journalistic purposes.

1Aturnleft

He doesn't NEED to justify his travel to anyone from a legal viewpoint as you rightly mention. Just because it isn't illegal doesn't necessarily make it socially acceptable and that's my point.

Nick Art

No, I was just referring to the precision of wording: Saying if he claims XY, he'll be in accordance to the guidelines, is incorrect and not precise, because just claiming something doesn't imply if it's true or not. As mentioned, the claim is not important, the important part are the facts which will determine if somebody acts in accordance of a guideline or not.
The proper statement would have been referring to the facts, whatever they may be, not the claim.

I agree wholeheartedly with the third part of your comment.

Jambon87

I watched the video, I would be asking for a refund

KARFA

so your suggestion is unnecessary travel is socially unacceptable?

Jambon87

Some context on that video, most people are complaining about how awful wizz are, granted there are comments re masks.

Also checking his Social Blade stats it looks like he has gained an extra 1000 followers since he posted the video, so it doesn’t seem to have done too much damage.

Context.

The Geek

I'd ban him from flying with the airline again for consistently breaking the mask policy. { If there is such a policy. }

TBH though, the real surprise for me is O'Lary isn't suing him for the title "Europe's Cheapest Airline" and the "Master of the hidden charges" references.

PGberkshire

its more than a few seconds
camera or not, the mask should be on