Face coverings to become mandatory in shops in England (includes poll)

[Jonny]

And what if this gentleman had a genuine exemption? That’s seems totally wrong

Best to carry a card. All you really need is, pre-printed, "I believe that I have a reasonable excuse" at minimum, possibly also explaining. The way that the rules are written is that if you believe that you are exempt, you effectively are.

 

[island]

The only concern I would have is if the matter came to court. Because of the way the law is drafted, it appears that the onus is on the defendant to provide proof of their disability or condition. Someone with a condition that has been diagnosed by a medical professional could presumably tender a letter from them and that would be that. Others may not be so lucky.

 

[DB]

The only concern I would have is if the matter came to court. Because of the way the law is drafted, it appears that the onus is on the defendant to provide proof of their disability or condition. Someone with a condition that has been diagnosed by a medical professional could presumably tender a letter from them and that would be that. Others may not be so lucky.

Where are the rules stated?

If it doesn't say that there is a need for a medical diagnosis, then it would be hard for prosecutors to argue that one was needed. e.g. many people who suffer from bad anxiety may well not have any formal diagnosis.

 

[talldave]

Doctors aren't providing any exemption "certification" are they? And quite rightly so; they've got a hard enough job diagnosing by mobile phone already.

 

[Huntergreed]

Where are the rules stated?

If it doesn't say that there is a need for a medical diagnosis, then it would be hard for prosecutors to argue that one was needed. e.g. many people who suffer from bad anxiety may well not have any formal diagnosis.

Exactly, and this is why that prosecution on TfL seems extremely harsh and quite wrong. If you can’t prove 100% that someone isn’t exempt, then surely you shouldn’t fine them.

 

[DB]

Exactly, and this is why that prosecution on TfL seems extremely harsh and quite wrong. If you can’t prove 100% that someone isn’t exempt, then surely you shouldn’t fine them.

I didn't see it, but did the bloke claim that he had a good reason to be exempt?

 

[Llanigraham]

I didn't see it, but did the bloke claim that he had a good reason to be exempt?

Not from what I saw and he totally failed the attitude test!

 

[Wuffle]

I think it's from the Evidence Not Fear site linked here yesterday (https://evidencenotfear.com/)

Looks interesting
I've found this one to be well presented and sourced

(https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/)

 

[BJames]

Not directly shops related but I'm currently on an EMR service, where the train manager spoke for about 3 minutes over the PA after leaving London about how important face coverings were. I'm slightly concerned that it was signed off with (and this is word for word) "if any passengers around you are not wearing face coverings, please do let a member of the on-train team know, or feel free to text the British Transport Police on 61016, as they are fining people on the spot". I'm not sure it's such a good idea for the BTP to have an influx of messages about "so-and-so isn't wearing a face covering". And we're not stopping for over an hour, by which time the passenger could easily have put their covering on and there's nothing the police can do about it. The train manager did come through and politely ask people to wear their covering but I don't think inviting people to text the police is helpful.

Directly on topic, let's hope there's not an influx of ridiculous calls to 101 (or worse to 999) about shoppers not wearing their covering. Some people are really taking this to the extreme.

 

[DB]

Directly on topic, let's hope there's not an influx of ridiculous calls to 101 (or worse to 999) about shoppers not wearing their covering. Some people are really taking this to the extreme.

There's sure to be - some people have got themselves so worked up over this that they will view anyone not wearing a mask as a major hazard.

 

[trebor79]

But then they wouldn't be able to introduce it as an urgent (not enough time to consult parliament), necessary, rational and proportionate measure under the 1984 act to combat the spread of infection.

Doesn't the 1984 Act also specifically prohibit the government from introducing regulations that would enforce people to take active or prophylactic treatment? Surely there's grounds for a judicial review - masks/face coverings/old underpants would seem to be a prophylactic?

The front page of the Metro shows Rishi Sunak wearing a face covering with a one way valve on it.

As you said, utter farce. Just exposes the mask mandate as a knee-jerk reaction to populism. Debate on Radio 4 this afternoon with one pundit saying the government is no longer making decisions based upon science, but based upon public opinion. I'd go further than that and say they're making decisions based upon a mistaken interpretation of what they think public opinion is, because they are only listening to the social media segment.

 

[adc82140]

Doesn't the 1984 Act also specifically prohibit the government from introducing regulations that would enforce people to take active or prophylactic treatment? Surely there's grounds for a judicial review - masks/face coverings/old underpants would seem to be a prophylactic?

As you said, utter farce. Just exposes the mask mandate as a knee-jerk reaction to populism. Debate on Radio 4 this afternoon with one pundit saying the government is no longer making decisions based upon science, but based upon public opinion. I'd go further than that and say they're making decisions based upon a mistaken interpretation of what they think public opinion is, because they are only listening to the social media segment.

That pretty much sums up what I wrote to my local MP, Desmond Swayne (Conservative) He is in complete agreement. I was very surprised to get a personal reply only 12 hours after I sent the email. He has gone up in my estimation.

 

[trebor79]

That pretty much sums up what I wrote to my local MP, Desmond Swayne (Conservative) He is in complete agreement. I was very surprised to get a personal reply o ly 12 hours after I sent the email. He has gone up in my estimation.

I wrote to mine (George Freeman) and got an auto-reply saying he (or his assistant) might deign to read it in the next couple of weeks, because he gets ever such a lot of email at the moment. I suppose he doesn't really need to try very hard in a safe seat.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

Following the PM's announcement this morning, do we reckon that compulsory face coverings or social distancing will be scrapped first?

 

[DB]

Following the PM's announcement this morning, do we reckon that compulsory face coverings or social distancing will be scrapped first?

Distancing / physical distancing (I try to avoid the meaningless 'social' term!) is already fading out in practice - other than in sitations where it's in some way enforced (e.g. tables in pubs / cafes), most people now seem to be ignoring it.

The divide between those who have had enough and are trying to get back to behaving normally, and those who remain terrified seems to be getting larger by the day - but the latter are mostly only seen in the mornings as that's when they seem to venture out for their shopping.

 

[trebor79]

Having read the 'regulations' it seems that you are exempt from wearing a mask if you say you are, simple as that. Bit like declaring which gender you are, it's up to you, no questions asked, or rather none to be answered. I wondered if I might bother trying to secure an exemption on medical grounds (severe sinusitis in my case, confirmed by MRI scan in April), but there's nothing to be secured in the first place. If I say my health won't allow me to wear a facemask, then that's the end of the matter, in the context of shops anyway. I happen to know that it'd not be the case with hospital appointments, and quite rightly so imo. By the way, I shall endeavour to actually abide by the spirit of the regs for the time being, and actually put a mask on before I enter a shop because I get so sick of the pettymindedness directed towards us, and don't have the energy for TOO many arguments in one day.

Can you post a link to the legislation?

 

[MikeWM]

Can you post a link to the legislation?

I wouldn't expect the shops one to be published until a few hours before it comes into effect - so sometime late next Thursday. That's the way we make new, wide-ranging, civil liberty-infringing criminal offences nowadays. There used to be a word we used for that sort of thing when other countries (that we didn't like for whatever reason) did similar.

I'd expect it to look remarkably similar to the transport one though, probably with something close to the Scottish definition of a shop.

The transport one says

For the purposes of regulation 3(1), the circumstances in which a person (“P”) has a reasonable excuse include those where—

(a)P cannot put on, wear or remove a face covering—

(i)because of any physical or mental illness or impairment, or disability (within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010(1)), or

(ii)without severe distress;

...

There is nothing in these regulations that determines the mechanism or extent of what should be done (either by the person or by the attempted enforcer) to determine whether a 'reasonable excuse' exists or not.

 

[DB]

There is nothing in these regulations that determines the mechanism or extent of what should be done (either by the person or by the attempted enforcer) to determine whether a 'reasonable excuse' exists or not.

They appear to be either drafted by someone completely incompetent at drafting legislation, or with the intention that they are unenforceable. As ever with this government, it's impossible to tell which.

 

[island]

Where are the rules stated?

If it doesn't say that there is a need for a medical diagnosis, then it would be hard for prosecutors to argue that one was needed. e.g. many people who suffer from bad anxiety may well not have any formal diagnosis.

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings on Public Transport) (England) Regulations 2020

These Regulations require members of the public to wear face coverings whilst using public transport (such as buses, trains, the London Underground, trams, aircraft and water taxis) in England to protect against the risks to public health arising from coronavirus, except in certain limited cases.

www.legislation.gov.uk

I don’t know how it would go in court; courts are notoriously unpredictable, especially at the lower levels.

Doesn't the 1984 Act also specifically prohibit the government from introducing regulations that would enforce people to take active or prophylactic treatment? Surely there's grounds for a judicial review - masks/face coverings/old underpants would seem to be a prophylactic?

I think you would struggle greatly to convince a High Court judge that a face covering is a medical treatment.

 

[trebor79]

I think you would struggle greatly to convince a High Court judge that a face covering is a medical treatment.

Is a plaster cast a [active] medical treatment?
Therefore a mask must be a prophylactic medical treatment?
What other reason is it being worn for, if not medical one?

 

[45107]

Not directly shops related but I'm currently on an EMR service, where the train manager spoke for about 3 minutes over the PA after leaving London about how important face coverings were. I'm slightly concerned that it was signed off with (and this is word for word) "if any passengers around you are not wearing face coverings, please do let a member of the on-train team know, or feel free to text the British Transport Police on 61016, as they are fining people on the spot". I'm not sure it's such a good idea for the BTP to have an influx of messages about "so-and-so isn't wearing a face covering". And we're not stopping for over an hour, by which time the passenger could easily have put their covering on and there's nothing the police can do about it. The train manager did come through and politely ask people to wear their covering but I don't think inviting people to text the police is helpful.

Directly on topic, let's hope there's not an influx of ridiculous calls to 101 (or worse to 999) about shoppers not wearing their covering. Some people are really taking this to the extreme.

I was on board the same service (I noticed your posting at the time it was made)
i alighted at Market Harborough for a beer break and boarded the following service.
The announcement on that was in a similar vain, and to me seemed to almost encourage peer pressure towards passengers Not wearing coverings.
i have travelled on other TOCs recently and the message has generally been “face coverings mandatory but please respect those who aren’t wearing one as they may have a reason”.

 

[talldave]

Why make any announcements at all? It just making the railway feel like part of the nanny state we're now lumbered with. Our ears were already bombarded by endless, mostly unnecessary, waffle before lockdown. Examples being "thanks for choosing to travel with [insert name of the onlyTOC running services on that line] today" and endless reminders about "personal belongings" (no idea about impersonal ones!).

 

[Bantamzen]

Not directly shops related but I'm currently on an EMR service, where the train manager spoke for about 3 minutes over the PA after leaving London about how important face coverings were. I'm slightly concerned that it was signed off with (and this is word for word) "if any passengers around you are not wearing face coverings, please do let a member of the on-train team know, or feel free to text the British Transport Police on 61016, as they are fining people on the spot". I'm not sure it's such a good idea for the BTP to have an influx of messages about "so-and-so isn't wearing a face covering". And we're not stopping for over an hour, by which time the passenger could easily have put their covering on and there's nothing the police can do about it. The train manager did come through and politely ask people to wear their covering but I don't think inviting people to text the police is helpful.

Directly on topic, let's hope there's not an influx of ridiculous calls to 101 (or worse to 999) about shoppers not wearing their covering. Some people are really taking this to the extreme.

I would make a complaint to EMR, and copy your local MP & the Secretary of State for Transport into it. Because it is really not acceptable for any member of rail crew to be encouraging members of the public to report people that may well be exempt from wearing a mask to the Police. This is exactly the kind of behaviour that will cause conflict, and ultimately more problems for the rail industry.

 

[island]

I don’t think you will get any mileage out of complaining to MPs or government ministers about someone saying that you should report crimes to the police.

 

[island]

Separately, I got an email from CostCo yesterday saying that their door staff would be enforcing the face covering rule from next Friday and shoppers would not be admitted without one unless exempt by age or medical reason.

As they already have staff to check membership cards coming in I suppose they are able to do that without too much imposition.

 

[trebor79]

Separately, I got an email from CostCo yesterday saying that their door staff would be enforcing the face covering rule from next Friday and shoppers would not be admitted without one unless exempt by age or medical reason.

As they already have staff to check membership cards coming in I suppose they are able to do that without too much imposition.

Ridiculous. Like you ever get within 10 yards of someone at Costco!

 

[Bantamzen]

I don’t think you will get any mileage out of complaining to MPs or government ministers about someone saying that you should report crimes to the police.

Not wearing a mask because you are exempt is not a crime. And frankly using or encouraging using the Police to enforce it is not only plain stupid, but it is a misuse of a valuable resource. The Police should be chasing down burglars, rapists, murderers, drug dealers, not faffing about trying to appease the frightened.

 

[island]

Not wearing a mask because you are exempt is not a crime. And frankly using or encouraging using the Police to enforce it is not only plain stupid, but it is a misuse of a valuable resource. The Police should be chasing down burglars, rapists, murderers, drug dealers, not faffing about trying to appease the frightened.

Oh, I agree. I just think the people you suggested reporting it to won’t.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Why make any announcements at all? It just making the railway feel like part of the nanny state we're now lumbered with. Our ears were already bombarded by endless, mostly unnecessary, waffle before lockdown. Examples being "thanks for choosing to travel with [insert name of the onlyTOC running services on that line] today" and endless reminders about "personal belongings" (no idea about impersonal ones!).

Perhaps they could use those precious few silent seconds between unnecessary messages to remind us that 'murder is not permitted on this train' and that 'taking other passengers belongings is theft'. Perhaps add in some moral advice to.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Not from what I saw and he totally failed the attitude test!

I can't find any reference to an 'attitude test' in any legislation or regulations. It is not for the passenger to prove their innocence, it is for the relevant body to prove guilt. Although not written into the constitution (as per the US), one does not have to incriminate oneself. Silence does not equate to guilt, nor does failing to answer questions, nor does failing to jump through any hoops randomly determined by the questioning person / investigating body.

The police have, essentially, already stated that the law is either unenforcable, or will not be enforced except in very extreme circumstances.