birchesgreen
Established Member
Tut tut, i thought you knew the rule was "Do as i say not as i do"?
This is not correct, assuming (which is reasonable) that the enforcement provisions of existing similar regulations are replicated. Enforcement will be a matter for police and local authorities – who are already pre-emptively washing their hands of the matter.Supposing a shop (or chain) refused to implement this law because it would adversely affect their trade and instead put a sign up outside saying "masks optional here, enter at your own risk". Could the government or indeed the Police force them to comply ?
As it’s law, yes they could.
That would be like selling a car that said “seatbelts not included, buy at your own risk”, this would be stopped immediately.
If they’re still around in 2021, I’d find it hard to believe their removal wouldn’t become political by the point of public demonstrations demanding a General Election. Or just mass non-compliance.I'm only pro-mask on the presumption to it is a temporary, needs-must requirement.
If they're still around in 2024, I'd find it hard to believe their removal wouldn't become political by the point for the General Election.
I don't agree with 'covering up', but if it is to be done, a simple message is the way to do it. I would stick with the first part of your suggestion ie "A face covering must be worn in any indoor public space where 2m cannot be guaranteed". and that would include all staff, all visitors, all delivery drivers, even Cabinet Minsters and Special Advisors. Even those who think / can confirm that they have previously had it. Everyone or no-one.TBH my libertarian side does object to compulsory seatbelt *wearing* laws just like it does to cycle helmet laws. However, wearing a seatbelt is to protect the individual. I would however wear a seatbelt in a car whether required or not (I'm less convinced by coaches).
However I'm happy with compulsory fitment because, like most workplace H&S, it protects people from unscrupulous companies with more power than the individual by ensuring the appropriate PPE is provided. As masks are intended to protect others, not the wearer, on that basis I accept the idea of compulsion (though I hate actually wearing one).
None at all, which is downright stupid.
Clearly it should be "in any indoor public space where 2m cannot be guaranteed to be maintained at all times, and where mitigations to allow a reduction to 1m are not feasible with 1m maintained". Offices for example can do it a different way, e.g. by 2m distancing or setting up "cubicles" like the Americans like where everyone has their own partitioned space, and car workshops can do it by putting the cars 2m apart and having only one person work on each.
If after several months R remains stable or continues downward then yes lets review masks again.
Why, let's look at that R rate:
![]()
R has remained stable and continued downwards for months already - even before the lockdown. If you want to live in a nuclear bunker for the rest of your life, go ahead and leave the rest of us to live ours
Just out of curiosity, do you have the link for that & the data?
Just out of curiosity, do you have the link for that & the data?
I think it's from the Evidence Not Fear site linked here yesterday (https://evidencenotfear.com/)
The signage in a number of American stores that is going around Facebook with messaging to the effect of “Masks are required by law unless you have an exemption, we will not enquire into your medical history so if you enter the store without a mask we will assume you have an exemption and not bother you” may well show up here.
I'm curious.
89% of the electorate (on this poll) are either for, against, or unsure/undecided about the proposals (276 out of 310).
That's 34 people who don't know / can't decide whether they are for, against or unsure/undecided!
50% who voted on any option are against coverings, but that means 56% of those who actually expressed a preference are against the proposals.
People can vote for multiple options. There have been 310 voters but some of these have cast multiple votes meaning there are 481 votes in total.
Exactly this. I find it particularly interesting that there are more people who are in favour of it than there are people who are more likely to return to shopping. "You all have to wear masks, but I'm not personally affected"
(that or they didn't realise it was a multi-option poll)
There is no option for “It will not influence the frequency I visit shops.” It is quite legitimate to favour the proposal in principal but the proposal does not change the frequency (more or less) at which you visit shops.Exactly this. I find it particularly interesting that there are more people who are in favour of it than there are people who are more likely to return to shopping. "You all have to wear masks, but I'm not personally affected"
(that or they didn't realise it was a multi-option poll)
There is no option for “It will not influence the frequency I visit shops.” It is quite legitimate to favour the proposal in principal but the proposal does not change the frequency (more or less) at which you visit shops.
Surely unnecessary? We've been assured repeatedly that the Government will always follow the science!I have asked him to pressure government into following the scientific research more than emotion
People can vote for multiple options. There have been 310 voters but some of these have cast multiple votes meaning there are 481 votes in total.
Just had a response from my MP, who is the only one who stood up in parliament to oppose the mask rules. I have asked him to pressure government into following the scientific research more than emotion, and to make the public aware about how unacceptable it is to question those who are exempt. He agreed with me on all points.
I wonder how many MPs were in theory against it because they could see the lack of evidence, but said nothing to avoid rocking the boat and having hysterical accusations thrown at them on twitter and facebook?
That’s pretty much how I’m feeling about it. It’s not brilliant, but I’ll tolerate it for the time being.A week in, I'm getting used to it and can tolerate it, but I won't ever agree with it, and I won't put up with it for a second longer than is legally required.
That’s pretty much how I’m feeling about it. It’s not brilliant, but I’ll tolerate it for the time being.
That is what a lot of people will be thinking but we must ask "when will this end?". Nobody so far has given an answer, let alone asked the question.
That is what a lot of people will be thinking but we must ask "when will this end?". Nobody so far has given an answer, let alone asked the question.
And what if this gentleman had a genuine exemption? That’s seems totally wrongOn the One Show tonight they were following inspectors on London buses doing a mask check and everyone on the programme was pretty much tumescent at the sight of some poor bloke getting fined £100 by a jumped up copper showing off for the cameras.
The mind boggles.