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

What is your view on wearing face masks in shops?


  • Total voters
    401
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Huntergreed

Established Member
Joined
16 Jan 2016
Messages
1,704
Location
Coach J Seat 39
I've just signed it - hope lots of other people do as well.
Likewise!

I can already foresee the response from the government though.

'We appreciate that this is an uncertain time, however the safety of the public is our utmost priority, and this is a necessary precaution in order to ensure we are able to continually suppress the virus whilst we re-open the economy and build a better future for Great Britain. There is growing evidence to suggest that wearing face coverings reduces transmission of covid-19 in enclosed public spaces, so we felt this was the right time to take this step to protect public health whilst ensuring the path we take out of lockdown will allow us to rebuild in a sustainable and safe manner.' or summat like that, completely avoiding the point.
 

NorthOxonian

Member
Joined
5 Jul 2018
Messages
611
Location
Oxford/Newcastle
Likewise!

I can already foresee the response from the government though.

'We appreciate that this is an uncertain time, however the safety of the public is our utmost priority, and this is a necessary precaution in order to ensure we are able to continually suppress the virus whilst we re-open the economy and build a better future for Great Britain. There is growing evidence to suggest that wearing face coverings reduces transmission of covid-19 in enclosed public spaces, so we felt this was the right time to take this step to protect public health whilst ensuring the path we take out of lockdown will allow us to rebuild in a sustainable and safe manner.' or summat like that, completely avoiding the point.
I would argue that a more effective petition would not seek to reverse the move, especially now it has been implemented. It would instead seek to clarify an exit strategy. Perhaps something like "Commit to ending the mask mandate in authorities with cases below 1 in 10,000" (phrased in a better way of course). That would at least have a chance of passing, and would end the risk of masks being here long after the virus. It wouldn't work for medium to long distance public transport, but would for local services and shops.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Grecian 1998

Member
Joined
27 Oct 2019
Messages
80
Location
Bristol
Some thoughts I had following the announcement it extends to takeaways and banks:

1. Is anyone going to try to enforce it in a kebab shop at 1:00am on a Sunday morning? That could be interesting.

2. It's mandatory in banks, yet there are numerous situations in which people will be asked to remove their covering before replacing it (not just banks but the most likely place). This means potentially transferring COVID19 germs to surfaces within the bank if they subsequently touch anything else. Does this mean every office will have to be deep cleaned after each customer?

3. Customers visiting a cafe/takeaway won't have to wear a mask if sitting down for a long period of time inside, but will if making a flying visit to grab a takeaway. Doesn't seem entirely logical.

Not shop related I know but arising out of the same laws.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
50,058
Location
Yorkshire
Some thoughts I had following the announcement it extends to takeaways and banks:

1. Is anyone going to try to enforce it in a kebab shop at 1:00am on a Sunday morning? That could be interesting.
I doubt there is going to be any enforcement, and what question would you ask? Bear in mind there are many people covered by exemptions and you cannot ask them to prove it. Some people suffer from anxiety and it could be difficult to ask them in a way that did not make them feel uncomfortable.
 

Cowley

Established Member
Associate Staff
General Discussion
Railtours & Preservation
Modelling & Games
Joined
15 Apr 2016
Messages
8,617
Location
Devon
I would argue that a more effective petition would not seek to reverse the move, especially now it has been implemented. It would instead seek to clarify an exit strategy. Perhaps something like "Commit to ending the mask mandate in authorities with cases below 1 in 10,000" (phrased in a better way of course). That would at least have a chance of passing, and would end the risk of masks being here long after the virus. It wouldn't work for medium to long distance public transport, but would for local services and shops.
Yes I’m with you on that.
I’m not particularly happy about having to do it in the first place but I certainly won’t be causing any grief to the people who work in shops/on public transport etc.
For me it’s the lack of any kind of exit strategy and the fact that we’re expected to trust in this tinpot government to make sensible decisions on our behalf that I’m most uncomfortable with.
 

Enthusiast

Member
Joined
18 Mar 2019
Messages
487
I haven't read all the latest on this thread yet (only up to #1410). Once again (as with the Public Transport version), I doubt very much if a successful prosecution would result from this legislation:

(1) No person may, without reasonable excuse, enter or remain within a relevant place without wearing a face covering.

It places the burden on the prosecution to prove that the defendant had no reasonable excuse rather on the defendant to prove that he had. Imagine the prosecution case:

The prosecutor: "Mr Cummings entered Tesco in Barnard Castle without a face covering and he had no reasonable excuse for doing so." He then goes on to produce a witness who saw Mr Cummings in Tesco without a face covering.

Mr Cummings provided a "No comment" interview at the police station.

How does he prosecution go on to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that Mr Cummings had no reasonable excuse? Any ideas?
 

MDB1images

Member
Joined
9 Jun 2018
Messages
414
A few things need to happen now for me regarding masks.

1) We need to know what the Government's need to see happen before these restrictions are withdrawn.

2) A cap on the cost of a basic normal mask, if your poor things like this will matter.

3) Educate people on wearing masks so they don't risk self infection.
 

Cowley

Established Member
Associate Staff
General Discussion
Railtours & Preservation
Modelling & Games
Joined
15 Apr 2016
Messages
8,617
Location
Devon
A few things need to happen now for me regarding masks.

1) We need to know what the Government's need to see happen before these restrictions are withdrawn.

2) A cap on the cost of a basic normal mask, if your poor things like this will matter.

3) Educate people on wearing masks so they don't risk self infection.
Three really obvious and simple things that need clarification I do agree.
 

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
1,176
A few things need to happen now for me regarding masks.

1) We need to know what the Government's need to see happen before these restrictions are withdrawn.

2) A cap on the cost of a basic normal mask, if your poor things like this will matter.

3) Educate people on wearing masks so they don't risk self infection.
Yes - you'd think all three are obvious points.

But it seems not.
 

Puffing Devil

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2013
Messages
2,424
I haven't read all the latest on this thread yet (only up to #1410). Once again (as with the Public Transport version), I doubt very much if a successful prosecution would result from this legislation:

(1) No person may, without reasonable excuse, enter or remain within a relevant place without wearing a face covering.

It places the burden on the prosecution to prove that the defendant had no reasonable excuse rather on the defendant to prove that he had. Imagine the prosecution case:

The prosecutor: "Mr Cummings entered Tesco in Barnard Castle without a face covering and he had no reasonable excuse for doing so." He then goes on to produce a witness who saw Mr Cummings in Tesco without a face covering.

Mr Cummings provided a "No comment" interview at the police station.

How does he prosecution go on to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that Mr Cummings had no reasonable excuse? Any ideas?
The offence is complete when he enters without a face covering. The defence Cummings relies on is that he has a "reasonable excuse". Cummings needs to show this.
 

bramling

Established Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
9,309
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Yes - you'd think all three are obvious points.

But it seems not.
Which combined with some of the other dubious elements of this does further the notion that this is largely a political measure, with little care as to whether it actually works as postulated.

I’ve just returned from Tesco’s. Slightly busier than evenings have been of late, although still fairly empty. Just two couples in masks, not a single staff member, so about typical for recent weeks. The gentleman who served me on the checkout was dreading tomorrow, as they’re expecting issues.
 

bramling

Established Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
9,309
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
I bet they are...
I feel sorry for supermarket staff, they’ve just about returned to normal after weeks of chaos, now something new to cause grief. This is the only reason that I will comply with this in supermarkets, with all other shopping to now be done online.

Given how most supermarket staff clearly choose not to wear masks (whether this differs at busier times I can’t comment), this places them in a very difficult position, as like railway staff some quarters will expect them to “set an example”. In my railway role this doesn’t bother me massively as there’s ways of dealing with anyone who challenges my lack of mask (although it’s an atmosphere we could all do without), however I wouldn’t like to be in that position on the floor of a supermarket, it’s not a nice position to be in.

I would suspect it’s not going to be wonderful news for places like Ian Allan Bookshop, where something like Amazon already offers competition. That‘s the sort of business who could really be affected by this.
 
Last edited:

The_Train

Established Member
Joined
2 Jun 2018
Messages
2,560
I doubt there is going to be any enforcement
As much as I will comply to the rules, I am of this thinking. My belief is that the Government are happy to set these sort of guidelines knowing that a good majority percentage will just comply because it is in their nature to do so. Even with people not following the rules, it will be viewed as better to have 75% of people complying with the wearing of a mask/covering compared to the 25% or so who have been doing so off their own back.

There might be a few police forces who fancy increasing the coffers just in case they can still have their Xmas Ball but most just won't have the time or resources to be out policing this.
 

Mag_seven

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
1 Sep 2014
Messages
6,794
Location
here to eternity
I’ve just returned from Tesco’s. Slightly busier than evenings have been of late, although still fairly empty. Just two couples in masks, not a single staff member, so about typical for recent weeks
Yep we have had maskless shopping in supermarkets for months now and I have yet to see one spike in cases linked to a supermarket.
 

Kendalian

Member
Joined
30 Mar 2016
Messages
242
Just had a look through the regulations.

Boris said it would be over by Christmas (which one?)....so for the Christmas crackers....

"What type of shop is specifically exempted from the mask requirements?"

"A knocking shop"

Only in Boris's Britain :rolleyes:
 

alxndr

Member
Joined
3 Apr 2015
Messages
812
I have altered my vote to be a clear no, that I won't be going to shops as often. At the moment, I can't.

I left home at 20:30 this evening to go to the shops. At 21:00 I left the carpark without any shopping, having burst into tears in my car, and I haven't cried in years. I have just got home after going for a walk in a field to calm down.

In my cupboards I have about enough food to last one or two weeks if I'm very frugal with it. I'm not really sure where I'm going to go from here, but I know that I am not able to cope with the way that the world is changing and the uncertainty. I am probably going to have to "admit defeat" to myself and try to secure a supermarket delivery slot while I figure out why this is causing so much of an issue to me.
 

Enthusiast

Member
Joined
18 Mar 2019
Messages
487
The offence is complete when he enters without a face covering.
No it isn't. The offence is only complete when he does so without a reasonable excuse. It is not incumbent on him (as the legislation is framed) to prove that he has such an excuse. The offence is entering premises without a face covering and without a reasonable excuse. The prosecution has to prove both of those elements. A police officer has no idea when he encounters the alleged transgressor whether he has an excuse or not. He can ask him and he can either say "yes" or refuse to answer at all. Neither of those responses proves he has no reasonable excuse.
 

bramling

Established Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
9,309
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
No it isn't. The offence is only complete when he does so without a reasonable excuse. It is not incumbent on him (as the legislation is framed) to prove that he has such an excuse. The offence is entering premises without a face covering and without a reasonable excuse. The prosecution has to prove both of those elements. A police officer has no idea when he encounters the alleged transgressor whether he has an excuse or not. He can ask him and he can either say "yes" or refuse to answer at all. Neither of those responses proves he has no reasonable excuse.
Unless someone responds with something daft like “because I can’t be bothered” then I can’t see how any further action can be taken. Evidently the police recognise this, hence why we see stuff from Dick suggesting public shaming. Having said that I’m no legal expert.

Meanwhile there’s a particularly nasty post on my local Facebook page, which reads along the lines of “the virus doesn’t treat people differently if they’re exempt, so if you can’t wear a mask then you should stay at home to protect us all and the NHS”. To be fair she has received some kick-back, but it’s still a rather nasty attitude to have.
 
Last edited:

farleigh

Member
Joined
1 Nov 2016
Messages
774
I have altered my vote to be a clear no, that I won't be going to shops as often. At the moment, I can't.

I left home at 20:30 this evening to go to the shops. At 21:00 I left the carpark without any shopping, having burst into tears in my car, and I haven't cried in years. I have just got home after going for a walk in a field to calm down.

In my cupboards I have about enough food to last one or two weeks if I'm very frugal with it. I'm not really sure where I'm going to go from here, but I know that I am not able to cope with the way that the world is changing and the uncertainty. I am probably going to have to "admit defeat" to myself and try to secure a supermarket delivery slot while I figure out why this is causing so much of an issue to me.
I am really sorry to hear that. Hopefully you will feel better over the next week. It is a very big change that has taken place and it is not unnatural for it to cause anxiety.

Look after yourself.
 

Kendalian

Member
Joined
30 Mar 2016
Messages
242
This is Reasonable Excuse 4(c) -

P removes their face covering to avoid harm or injury, or the risk of harm or injury, to themselves or others;

(P = Person)

The autumn colds season isn't far away. If you sneeze or cough into your mask there's a reasonable chance you will cause "harm" to yourself if you don't remove the mask. If you keep the mask on, you're likely to touch it and then go around the shop touching other things.
I think this is what Jenny Harries was getting at when she said wearing a mask could cause more harm than good
 

Puffing Devil

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2013
Messages
2,424
No it isn't. The offence is only complete when he does so without a reasonable excuse. It is not incumbent on him (as the legislation is framed) to prove that he has such an excuse. The offence is entering premises without a face covering and without a reasonable excuse. The prosecution has to prove both of those elements. A police officer has no idea when he encounters the alleged transgressor whether he has an excuse or not. He can ask him and he can either say "yes" or refuse to answer at all. Neither of those responses proves he has no reasonable excuse.
If you say so. I'm sure that you've sat through more court cases than me.
 

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
2,242
I've got a meme for this. I can't share it because it has a swear word on it, but picture Samuel Jackson in his role as Jules Winfield in Pulp Fiction getting annoyed because someone has said "social distancing" again...
I double dare you!
It’s very dodgy ground. There’s already been a shift to online through all this. It *may* be the case that this brings old people, generally the group less likely to use online, out spending, but this would have to be sufficient to overtop those who will switch to online. Personally I don’t think it will, and there’s the serious risk of catalysing a precedent that’s already been boosted by lockdown.

Despite being younger I still haven’t really warmed to online, even against a background where you don’t have to worry about things like your product not being in stock or whatever, however this really could be the tipping point for me. I’d probably go back to shops, that’s if there are any left by the time Boris’s mask fad fizzles out.
We've had online delivery for years. Out up with the annoyances of short dated items and ridiculous fruit and veg selections not sorted until the driver's gone (like 5 wide with of ginger root when is where for the tiniest piece available, or parties so green they were glowing).
When all the delivery slots disappeared, I found it less hassle, less stressful and better all round to just drive 20 minutes and do the shop on Thursday evenings. So much so I've refused to go online Shaun now that slots are available. My wife thinks I'm bonkers, but funnily enough I no longer find we've got bread that is dated for tomorrow, if the bananas look rubbish I'll get done bagged ones, etc.
The supermarket shop is one thing I won't be doing online again.
Slightly more masks tonight, but still a low percentage. Will be interesting to see what happens, I'm hoping for about 70% compliance to start with and then dropping away.
 

bramling

Established Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
9,309
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
This is Reasonable Excuse 4(c) -

P removes their face covering to avoid harm or injury, or the risk of harm or injury, to themselves or others;

(P = Person)

The autumn colds season isn't far away. If you sneeze or cough into your mask there's a reasonable chance you will cause "harm" to yourself if you don't remove the mask. If you keep the mask on, you're likely to touch it and then go around the shop touching other things.
I think this is what Jenny Harries was getting at when she said wearing a mask could cause more harm than good
It’s the same on trains, people fiddle with their masks or pull it down to their neck to eat, drink or talk, or in some cases put it down in the table in front of them.
 

Skimpot flyer

Member
Joined
16 Nov 2012
Messages
916
T
Yes - of course worldwide figures are rising. That just requires 1 person to contract it.

The flatlining is not necessarily an endorsement of the measures taken but it could be.

The number of new cases has dropped in the UK.
The argument that the numbers have flatlined because of the lockdown measures is going to be impossible to substantiate. At best, those that believe ‘lockdown worked’ seem to be using logic from another episode of TV show ‘Yes, Prime Minister’:
  1. All cats have four legs
  2. My dog has four legs
  3. Therefore, my dog is a cat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top