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

[duncanp]

The really good news is that the police are saying that it will be nigh on impossible to enforce the face masks in shops rule.

Police leaders warn new rules around face masks in shops will be 'impossible' to enforce

It will become compulsory to wear a facemask in shops from July 24

www.telegraph.co.uk

Police have warned it will be impossible to enforce new rules requiring people to wear face masks in shops.
The Government has said it will bring in new laws from Friday 24 July, that will mean anyone who does not wear a mask could be fined £100.
But within hours of announcing the rule change, the police said it was “absurd” to ask them to enforce it.
Ken Marsh, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, there were not enough officers available to hand out fines to those who flouted the law.
He said: "Shopkeepers need to step up to the plate and take some responsibility. They can quite easily put signs up on their doors 'No mask on, no entry, this is private property'.
"That's the first point we need to get across because this cannot all be laid on the shoulders of the police yet again.
"The second point is it will be nigh-on impossible for enforcement because you won't have a police officer on every shop door because there isn't enough of us.
"If a shopkeeper calls the police because someone hasn't got a mask on, they haven't got the power to detain them so that person can just walk away.
"We'll be driving around and around London looking for people who aren't wearing masks, it's absolutely absurd."

Critics have also questioned the sense of bringing in stringent new rules, but delaying their introduction for ten days.

Responding to the announcement the National Police Chiefs' Council issued a brief statement which said: "Once we have full details of the new legislation we will issue police officers with guidance on their role in enforcement."
John Apter, the chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales, said relying on the police to enforce the rules should be the “very last resort”
He said: “The announcement from Government that face coverings for those entering shops will be mandatory will, without doubt, add pressure to police officers who are already being stretched to the limit.
“The vast majority of the public have complied with the lockdown rules so far and I would hope that will continue and the public will do the right thing and wear face coverings in stores to help protect fellow citizens.
“I would call on Government to ensure there is an obligation on all shops to make the wearing of face coverings a condition of entry. If not, individuals should not be allowed entry.
“Where possible retail outlets could provide face coverings for those who need them to help encourage compliance.
“Enforcement must be the very last resort and involve only those few individuals who blatantly ignore guidelines and are a clear health risk to others.
“Only as this last resort should the police get involved. To expect my colleagues to be policing the supermarket aisles, looking for those shoppers not wearing a face covering, is unrealistic and unfair.
“We simply don’t have the resources, and this would fundamentally undermine the model of policing which is to police by consent.
“Of course, there will be occasions where police will have to get involved, and that shouldn’t be a surprise to anybody. However, this should be the exception as police officers have more than enough to deal with by policing the pandemic and responding to the many other calls they receive.”
But retailers have expressed concern that denying customers entry to shops because they are not wearing masks could lead to “flashpoints” and even violence.
James Lowman, chief executive of the Association of Convenience Stores, said his members were still waiting for the Government guidance, but had been told the rules would be based on the Scottish model.
“We will encourage our members to engage with the public and explain the rules, but we want to avoid confrontation. The safety of staff is paramount.
“We are concerned that the new rules might lead to confrontation between customers arguing with one another so we need to understand what to do in those situations.
“Our understanding is that there will not be a requirement on shop staff to report breaches of the rules to the police.”
He added: “We are pleased that the legal responsibility for enforcing this policy will rest with the police rather than shopworkers, but in reality it will be retailers and their colleagues trying to communicate and explain this to people with different views and approaches to complying with this policy.”
Retailers have also pointed out that the police rarely respond to reports of low level shoplifting so there are concerns regarding the response rate once the rules around face masks are introduced.

 

[greyman42]

Can you wear a crash helmet (full face) in place of a mask ?

I don't see why not unless they say it hides your identity. But then what does a mask do?

 

[Jonny]

Yeah, I'm dreading this now. The activists are going to have a field day with this, and not just the jobsworth's but the Karens too. Anyone that yells at me for not adhering to their interpretation of the rules is going to get it right back at them. I'm no longer in the mood to tolerate these idiots.

I agree, and if you come back with statements of "you're the sort of person who..." would be very useful to imply that they would do something nasty (not mask-related but otherwise illegal) without actually acusing them of anything.

How do you define "outbreak"? Shops may have a small effect in passing on Covid between 1 or 2 people only. Who i turn pass it on to 1 or 2 each, more likely now with relaxation to social distancing.

A face mask is really not an onerous ask for most, so let's just grin and bear it for a while....?

Are you sure it's not going to get extended and/or turn into something else?

(For visually impared users, video features a scene of an actor dressed as The Joker from the Batman franchise)

Well of course it doesn't actually do anything. We all know that. But the official line is that they are to protect others, not yourself.

What if they are a net liability in terms of other diseases, both rebreathing air (increased CO2, it's equivalent to a 50% narrowing) and stuff that grows on the mask.

Ah, the Cummings and Ferguson effect

Which is why we the people are very skeptical of anything the government says.

But wearing masks outside could be enforced and will no doubt be the mask mobs next target.
F-that if I it happens. I just won't do it, they can lock me up because I won't pay the fine either.

I think mandating masks outside would be the tipping point that leads to serious disorder. There’s already a lot of simmering anger and frustration just waiting to boil over. Add to that Johnson’s clueless judgement.

While I think Boris has played it well given the circumstances, outside masks would be a step too far. When a significant fraction is already opposed to mandatory masks in some indoors situations, it is just going to boil over.

They might have to though, not from a publicity perspective but from a health and safety perspective, that of their staff. It’s unreasonable to put their staff in the middle of a potential conflict situation.

It might just about be viable to have security refusing to let people in (though this in itself would create problems with the exemptions), but it would be very difficult to deal with people who take their mask off once in store.

Especially if it then causes a flare-up with a mask enthusiast on the shop floor, there will need to be a policy as to what staff are then expected to do, or not do as the case may be.

It is going to be very awkward, and unless you are used to coming up with witty comebacks on mask entheusiasts (along the lines of "you're the sort of person who... " so as to imply without accusing.

It is not in that act but there is legal power. Most of the coronovirus regulations are are under another act. For example, the main regulations start "The Secretary of State makes the following Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 45C(1), (3)(c), (4)(d), 45F(2) and 45P of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984"

... of which the amended form in force (at least in England) excludes mandatory treatment, including vaccination. That is why there would be merry h*11 to pay if anyone were to deal with vaccinated and unvaccinated people differently, or even give a reasonable appearance of such. Also, mandatory masks are sailing close to the wind on the treatment front, given their effect on the wearer's body.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/22/section/45E (as amended)

45E Medical treatment
(1)Regulations under section 45B or 45C may not include provision requiring a person to undergo medical treatment.
(2)“ Medical treatment ” includes vaccination and other prophylactic treatment.

 

[weastebusdepot]

I'm sure on the 24th the news reports will be stopping mask-wearing people in the street outside shops and asking their opinion, and all will be in favour of it. No one will be asking the opinions of the people who stayed away. It will be interesting to see if the statistics on people doing physical shopping actually go down rather than up as the Government are hoping.

In my case I'll stick with what I've been doing all along. Going our two or three times a week to do shopping locally for groceries or occasional homewares. I'll wear a mask for the duration of the time inside the shop, but it will stay in a plastic bag in my pocket for the walk to and from the shop. Anything else will be bought online if possible and they can do the "high street recovery" without me.

 

[greyman42]

People who oppose mask wearing in shops should boycott them on the 24th.

 

[Senex]

I wonder how far compelling everyone to use masks in shops is going to help trade in town centres recover. My personal experience is that shops have for some time felt pretty safe places. What is disturbing to the point of being frightening is the public space outside shops, where so many of the people one encounters are now making not the slightest effort to keep their distance and it's not always possible for you yourself to make sure you can steer comfortablyh clear of people making no effort to avoid you. Perhaps enforcing distancing would be more useful than enforcing mask-wearing.

 

[DB]

I wonder how far compelling everyone to use masks in shops is going to help trade in town centres recover. My personal experience is that shops have for some time felt pretty safe places. What is disturbing to the point of being frightening is the public space outside shops, where so many of the people one encounters are now making not the slightest effort to keep their distance and it's not always possible for you yourself to make sure you can steer comfortablyh clear of people making no effort to avoid you. Perhaps enforcing distancing would be more useful than enforcing mask-wearing.

But that's not a visible symbol in the same way - and that's what this is all about: politicians wanting to point to something and clai "look what we've done to keep you safe". Whether it actually has any effect seems to be a minor consideration.

 

[Wuffle]

The inconsistency of the government over this "pandemic" would be laughable if it wasn't so serious
There are so many differing scientific opinions some of which seem to change under pressure from certain politicians and agencies that you wonder just exactly what or who is driving reactions
My new theory is BoJo is tanking the economy so that Brexit can't be blamed

 

[DB]

The inconsistency of the government over this "pandemic" would be laughable if it wasn't so serious
There are so many differing scientific opinions some of which seem to change under pressure from certain politicians and agencies that you wonder just exactly what or who is driving reactions
My new theory is BoJo is tanking the economy so that Brexit can't be blamed

With this government, it's become impossible to tell the difference between underhand motives and plain incompetence.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

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 ?

 

[Huntergreed]

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.

 

[45107]

The inconsistency of the government over this "pandemic" would be laughable if it wasn't so serious
There are so many differing scientific opinions some of which seem to change under pressure from certain politicians and agencies that you wonder just exactly what or who is driving reactions
My new theory is BoJo is tanking the economy so that Brexit can't be blamed

I won’t comment about Johnson and Brexit as that is off topic.

Maybe the scientific opinions are changing because as time progress, knowledge of the virus improves and more evidence becomes available to back up (or deny) a certain point of view ?

 

[trebor79]

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.

Depends what the regulations actually say, when we see them, surely. Already hints the onus will not be on the shop staff to ensure compliance. And there seems to be a bit of a disagreement brewing between them and the police, who are also saying they don't see they will be responsible for enforcement.

 

[MikeWM]

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 ?

The shop certainly has no requirement to enforce the law (edit : unless the regulations will specifically require them to, which seems unlikely).

But if they choose to show a sign like that, I think you *could* argue that such a sign constitutes incitement to break the law, which is itself a crime under the Serious Crime Act 2007.

 

[duncanp]

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 ?

The shop could just put up a notice saying that they understand that there are some exemptions to the requirement to wear a mask, and then just not be to fussy about enquiring the reason for an exemption for anyone who is not wearing a mask.

Any shop that does this will get my custom.

I also hope shops put up a notice informing people that there are exemptions to the rule, and under no circumstances is it acceptable for people to confront or verbally abuse someone who is not wearing a mask. Enforcement of the rule should be up to shop staff, and not some self righteous, self appointed maskivist vigilante.

National Express West Midlands buses already do this, as beneath the notice saying You Must Wear A Mask there is a another one saying Please be considerate to other customers as some people have a valid reason for not wearing a mask.

 

[Scrotnig]

National Express West Midlands buses already do this, as beneath the notice saying You Must Wear A Mask there is a another one saying Please be considerate to other customers as some people have a valid reason for not wearing a mask.

How frighteningly sensible.....

 

[duncanp]

How frighteningly sensible.....

National Express West Midlands have been one of the better bus companies during ther pandemic.

Apart from the seats near the driver at the front, nothing else is taped off with notices saying Out of use due to social distancing and there is none of the codswallop that goes on in London about only allowing 6 people on a single decker bus, and 20 people on a double decker.

 

[BJames]

National Express West Midlands have been one of the better bus companies during ther pandemic.

Apart from the seats near the driver at the front, nothing else is taped off with notices saying Out of use due to social distancing and there is none of the codswallop that goes on in London about only allowing 6 people on a single decker bus, and 20 people on a double decker.

Slightly OT but this is now 11 on a single decker and 30 on a double decker.

Masks in shops wise, shops wouldn't be able to specifically state "masks optional here" but may have this kind of policy by not having signs up and not questioning anyone without one. Highly unlikely this would be any of the major stores though, they can't afford poor publicity, which is what the media would give.

I'm sure on the 24th the news reports will be stopping mask-wearing people in the street outside shops and asking their opinion, and all will be in favour of it. No one will be asking the opinions of the people who stayed away. It will be interesting to see if the statistics on people doing physical shopping actually go down rather than up as the Government are hoping.

Exactly. They'll likely broadcast the opinions that fit their agenda and ignore the people that disagree except perhaps one contrasting viewpoint, and then that'll be a nice representation of the population.

 

[ashkeba]

The really good news is that the police are saying that it will be nigh on impossible to enforce the face masks in shops rule.

Cutback Police in "Not Wanting More Work" Scandal?

 

[Jonny]

Depends what the regulations actually say, when we see them, surely. Already hints the onus will not be on the shop staff to ensure compliance. And there seems to be a bit of a disagreement brewing between them and the police, who are also saying they don't see they will be responsible for enforcement.

Cutback Police in "Not Wanting More Work" Scandal?

Lack of resources being the official reason? More like they can see that it is silly.

 

[Jonny]

Also, apparently micro-mildew can develop on masks in as little as 30 minutes, apparently. Having studied some science at university level, that is quite possible (depends on the mildew). This can set you up for more illnesses.

 

[ashkeba]

What if they are a net liability in terms of other diseases, both rebreathing air (increased CO2, it's equivalent to a 50% narrowing) and stuff that grows on the mask.

I thought the "increased CO2" fear was a hoax?

Partly false claim: Continually wearing a mask causes hypercapnia

Social media users have been sharing an image online and claiming that “continually” wearing a mask causes hypercapnia, due to breathing in exhaled carbon dioxide (CO2). 

www.reuters.com

While breathing in excessive amounts of CO2 for large amounts of time can be dangerous, it is unlikely that the general public would suffer from these complications by wearing a mask.

And you should be washing your face covering often enough that stuff doesn't grow on it much.

Also, mandatory masks are sailing close to the wind on the treatment front, given their effect on the wearer's body.

I do not see it as anywhere near as close to that wind as restricting when people can leave their homes, given the effect on the restricted person's mind.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

The shop could just put up a notice saying that they understand that there are some exemptions to the requirement to wear a mask, and then just not be to fussy about enquiring the reason for an exemption for anyone who is not wearing a mask.

Any shop that does this will get my custom.

I also hope shops put up a notice informing people that there are exemptions to the rule, and under no circumstances is it acceptable for people to confront or verbally abuse someone who is not wearing a mask. Enforcement of the rule should be up to shop staff, and not some self righteous, self appointed maskivist vigilante.

National Express West Midlands buses already do this, as beneath the notice saying You Must Wear A Mask there is a another one saying Please be considerate to other customers as some people have a valid reason for not wearing a mask.

That does seem sensible.

When the pubs reopened the media told us it would be mandatory to give your name and contact number at the door otherwise you would be refused entry but I've been pleasantly surprised to find that most pubs I've visited in the past few days have made this entirely optional. Let's hope the same applies to shops and masks!

 

[DelayRepay]

Perhaps, in the same way that we have/had pensioner hours and NHS hours, we should also have mask hours and no mask hours? Then people who wish to wear a mask could shop with other mask wearers, and people who do not wish to wear a mask could shop with other non-mask wearers.

Not only could this avoid confrontation, but I think you'd be able to collect some interesting data about transmission rates amongst the mask wearers vs the non mask wearers. Maybe.

 

[C J Snarzell]

Interestingly I went into my local bank today. The staff at the counter are sat behind a reinforced glass screen that is a common fixture in banks/building societies.

The lady cashier was wearing a visor (like the ones that make people look like they need a chainsaw in the hands). I asked her why she needed to wear a visor behind a reinforced screen. Her answer was simple ''It's to reassure some of our customers''.

Now apologises if I have missed something here - but isn't there something wrong about this? It just feels all wrong in my opinion.

CJ

 

[DelayRepay]

What if they are a net liability in terms of other diseases, both rebreathing air (increased CO2, it's equivalent to a 50% narrowing) and stuff that grows on the mask.

Is this likely though? There are certain professions that have regularly worn masks, long before we had Covid. My sister who works in care has been wearing masks since the start of March and hasn't noted any adverse effects.

 

[ashkeba]

Also, apparently micro-mildew can develop on masks in as little as 30 minutes, apparently. Having studied some science at university level, that is quite possible (depends on the mildew). This can set you up for more illnesses.

Maybe it can but is it likely?

And if you want to look for unlikely risks, some can catch fire in seconds and that could cause far more acute injuries. It's mainly those patterned "fashion" masks of multiple thin slightly gloss layers which will catch fire easily. Remember the children halloween costume scandal a few years ago? Some masks on sale are a very similar material.

 

[Huntergreed]

That does seem sensible.

When the pubs reopened the media told us it would be mandatory to give your name and contact number at the door otherwise you would be refused entry but I've been pleasantly surprised to find that most pubs I've visited in the past few days have made this entirely optional. Let's hope the same applies to shops and masks!

This sadly won't be the case.

The contact details thing was simply a guideline, the masks thing is a law, meaning it will be required and enforceable (although how do you enforce a law with genuine exemptions without proof of exemption required?'

I eagerly await the first 'SEVERE ASTHMATIC FINED FOR NOT WEARING MASK - POLICE CORRUPTION IN BRITAIN' headline or some nonsense like that.

 

[johnnychips]

I think @CaptainHaddock has raised the point before that there are not hordes of shop workers off ill, despite supermarkets having been open the whole time, but I read somewhere today that the masks ‘would protect shop workers, who are at higher risk’. I thought this might be a good point so I did a bit of Googling. Unfortunately I have lost the reference, but shop assistants make up 3.4% of the workforce but have only 2.8% of CV cases.

Last week, the big Tesco on Attercliffe Rd abandoned queues outside, got rid of the arrows; just kept a separate entrance and exit and direction to which till to use, and I thought ‘this is really great’. Got back to car to hear that Boris was considering masks - bloody hell!

 

[778]

I have just read an article on the BBC Website, about some of the big museums reopening in London next month (V&A, Science Museum and the Natural History Museum). It mentions that masks will not be compulsory but "strongly recommended". If masks are now mandatory in shops, I don't understand why they wouldn't be mandatory in museums as well? I would have thought that the risk of catching covid would be higher in museums, than it would be in some shops. I suppose this means that the only shops in England that will not require face coverings will be museum shops?

Also, who will be responsible for enforcing the mask wearing in shops on station platforms or concourses? Would it be the British Transport Police or station staff?