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

[Bletchleyite]

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.

What's wrong with reporting a suspected crime to the Police? What they will do is investigate it and discover no crime was in fact being committed.

It's far better than vigilanteism, which really must be discouraged.

 

[DB]

What's wrong with reporting a suspected crime to the Police? What they will do is investigate it and discover no crime was in fact being committed.

It's far better than vigilanteism, which really must be discouraged.

The police have better things to do, and the fact that someone is not wearing a mask is not sufficient cause to suspect them of a "crime".

Do you really think the police have the resources to go round questioning everyone not wearing a mask?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The police have better things to do, and the fact that someone is not wearing a mask is not sufficient cause to suspect them of a "crime".

Do you really think the police have the resources to go round questioning everyone not wearing a mask?

Well, if it's going to work someone will have to do it - there are just too many refuseniks who will falsely use the exemptions when they don't need to. My view is that you should need a doctor's note to be exempt and could present that as required. That'd still be better than e.g. France where I believe there are no exemptions at all.

Or they could just, you know, wear one?

 

[DB]

Well, if it's going to work someone will have to do it - there are just too many refuseniks who will falsely use the exemptions when they don't need to. My view is that you should need a doctor's note to be exempt and could present that as required.

Or they could just, you know, wear one?

You really are on another planet. Do you honestly think that doctors have time for this?

And not all of the accepted reasons are medical. One is 'severe distress' caused by wearing a mask. That is not something which a doctor could certify.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

The police have better things to do, and the fact that someone is not wearing a mask is not sufficient cause to suspect them of a "crime".

Do you really think the police have the resources to go round questioning everyone not wearing a mask?

There is nothing wrong with reporting a 'crime'. Indeed it should (generally speaking) be encouraged - hence 61016. The call handler will give it the appropriate priority and level of response (in this case very, very low priority and none, ever, response). The problem is a member of the public expecting a SWAT team to come through the windows within seconds because this major threat to life has been reported by them. Look at the twitter feeds of bus companies where passengers are blood boilingly angry that a person has boarded the bus and not personally explained to every other person on the bus their reasons for not having a face covering, and that the driver has not leapt out of the cab and physically dragged the passenger off the bus by the ears.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You really are on another planet. Do you honestly think that doctors have time for this?

The vast majority of people will already be diagnosed with the issues concerned, so it would just be a paper exercise in the majority of cases.

And not all of the accepted reasons are medical. One is 'severe distress' caused by wearing a mask. That is not something which a doctor could certify.

That's either a mental health issue (which could be properly diagnosed) or just an excuse in my book, I'm afraid. I don't particularly like wearing a mask, but not wearing one on those grounds would be an excuse. To be honest, I would probably remove that exception as it's the most likely one to be abused by people who simply don't want to wear one.

 

[DB]

There is nothing wrong with reporting a 'crime'. Indeed it should (generally speaking) be encouraged - hence 61016. The call handler will give it the appropriate priority and level of response (in this case very, very low priority and none, ever, response). The problem is a member of the public expecting a SWAT team to come through the windows within seconds because this major threat to life has been reported by them. Look at the twitter feeds of bus companies where passengers are blood boilingly angry that a person has boarded the bus and not personally explained to every other person on the bus their reasons for not having a face covering, and that the driver has not leapt out of the cab and physically dragged the passenger off the bus by the ears.

The response, if one is deemed necessary, should be for the guard to simply ask the person if they are exempt. There is no justification for loads of people being encouraged to waste the time of the police.

 

[adc82140]

Back to the shops thing, I've just for the first time in 20 years signed up to have a milkman. That in combination with home delivery from Iceland, and pay at pump fuel will keep me out of a retail environment for most things.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Back to the shops thing, I've just for the first time in 20 years signed up to have a milkman. That in combination with home delivery from Iceland, and pay at pump fuel will keep me out of a retail environment for most things.

Yes, I started having a milkman a few weeks ago. While there's been a small amount of wastage while I worked out the right quantities, now I have got it worked out (roughly a pint a day for me, though they don't deliver daily any more, it's 3 times a week) it is nice just to open the door to fresh milk in a proper reusable bottle.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

The response, if one is deemed necessary, should be for the guard to simply ask the person if they are exempt. There is no justification for loads of people being encouraged to waste the time of the police.

Indeed.
Guard: Excuse me, are you aware of the requirement to wear a face-covering whilst travelling on this train (ditto entering this shop)?
Passenger: Yes I am, I have a medical exemption.
All: move along now, nothing to be seen here.

 

[DB]

The vast majority of people will already be diagnosed with the issues concerned, so it would just be a paper exercise in the majority of cases.

That's either a mental health issue (which could be properly diagnosed) or just an excuse in my book, I'm afraid. I don't particularly like wearing a mask, but not wearing one on those grounds would be an excuse. To be honest, I would probably remove that exception as it's the most likely one to be abused by people who simply don't want to wear one.

If someone does have a diagnosis, that's still a massive number of people and an impossible expectation in the short time period.

Your attitude to a "mental health issue" is typical of the intolerance which is making this whole situation exceptionaly stressful for many people. Many people will not have a diagnosis because they don't think anything can be done about it, or because they have found the mental health profession to be useless and avoided it for years. What are you expecting them to do? Get a diagnosis within a week, with waiting lists of months? And what is a relevant condition anyway?

This whole situation really is bringing out the worst in people, and encouraging bigotry, intolerance and authoritarianism.

 

[WM Bus]

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.

Female bus driver from Acocks Green Depot got out the drivers compartment and was shouting something in front of the whole bus the other day as well.
" I do hope people are going to start putting a face mask on or people are going to start dying again. My Aunts got it and is in and likely not going to come out again"
To be honest seemed a bit unnecessary to shout that in front of the whole bus and create possible conflict. Would think it'd make more sense to politely/discreetly ask people to be honest. It seemed like she was implying those who may be generally exempt are killing people to me.
I'd not seen a single driver do that before to be honest.

 

[Mag_seven]

Can we please keep to the topic of this thread which is the requirement to wear face coverings in shops - thanks.

 

[87electric]

That's either a mental health issue (which could be properly diagnosed) or just an excuse in my book, I'm afraid. I don't particularly like wearing a mask, but not wearing one on those grounds would be an excuse. To be honest, I would probably remove that exception as it's the most likely one to be abused by people who simply don't want to wear one.

People who are living, and suffering, from mental health issues, however mild or serious, do not live in a black & white world like you seem to do. Your simplicity is staggering.

 

[Enthusiast]

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.

and shoppers would not be admitted without one unless exempt by age or medical reason.

As I keep saying, I don't know why the "medical reason" keeps being raised as an absolute requirement. There are seven reason listed in the (non-exhaustive) list of "reasonable excuses" for not wearing a face covering on public transport. Five of the seven are not medically related. So I don't know how the goons protecting Costco's premises are going to properly determine whether one of their customers is properly exempt by simply using "medical reasons".

If anybody declines to pay a fixed penalty for failing to wear a face covering it will be up to the police to take court action. The way that the Stautory Instrument is worded it will be for the prosecution to prove that no "reasonable excuse" existed, not for the defendant to prove that it did. It would be up to the Magistrates to decide whether an offence had been committed or not.

 

[DB]

If anybody declines to pay a fixed penalty for failing to wear a face covering it will be up to the police to take court action. The way that the Stautory Instrument is worded it will be for the prosecution to prove that no "reasonable excuse" existed, not for the defendant to prove that it did. It would be up to the Magistrates to decide whether an offence had been committed or not.

I rather doubt if the CPS would pursue it. The accused would only need to say (quite probably truthfully) that wearing a mask causes them severe distress (which is one of the accepted reasons for not wearing one). Nobody could 'prove' that this wasn't the case, and the criminal standard of proof requires that it has to be proved 'beyond reasonable doubt' in order to convict.

The government must know this - and are no doubt relying on peer pressure to try to coerce people into wearing them. This is potentially dangerous as it could well lead to people wearing them when they shouldn't in order to avoid being challenged, and this could aggravate health conditions. I don't imagine that the government cares about this though.

The only people likely to be fined are those who just mouth off to police when asked why they aren't wearing a mask.

 

[Richard Scott]

As I keep saying, I don't know why the "medical reason" keeps being raised as an absolute requirement. There are seven reason listed in the (non-exhaustive) list of "reasonable excuses" for not wearing a face covering on public transport. Five of the seven are not medically related. So I don't know how the goons protecting Costco's premises are going to properly determine whether one of their customers is properly exempt by simply using "medical reasons".

If anybody declines to pay a fixed penalty for failing to wear a face covering it will be up to the police to take court action. The way that the Stautory Instrument is worded it will be for the prosecution to prove that no "reasonable excuse" existed, not for the defendant to prove that it did. It would be up to the Magistrates to decide whether an offence had been committed or not.

What are the seven reasons or where can I find list, please?

 

[DB]

What are the seven reasons or where can I find list, please?

Not sure that it's seven now. The most recent list I can find is this one:

[Withdrawn] [Withdrawn] Face coverings: when to wear one, exemptions and what makes a good one

www.gov.uk

 

[Busaholic]

As I keep saying, I don't know why the "medical reason" keeps being raised as an absolute requirement. There are seven reason listed in the (non-exhaustive) list of "reasonable excuses" for not wearing a face covering on public transport. Five of the seven are not medically related. So I don't know how the goons protecting Costco's premises are going to properly determine whether one of their customers is properly exempt by simply using "medical reasons".

If anybody declines to pay a fixed penalty for failing to wear a face covering it will be up to the police to take court action. The way that the Stautory Instrument is worded it will be for the prosecution to prove that no "reasonable excuse" existed, not for the defendant to prove that it did. It would be up to the Magistrates to decide whether an offence had been committed or not.

Is a 'reasonable excuse' the same as an 'excusable reason', I wonder, only half in jest? I remember when I worked for the Probation Service attending a retirement do for a fellow Senior Probation Officer and her very short speech ending 'don't forget, lawyers will be the death of us all' which got a hearty applause from most present, including myself.

 

[BJames]

I know it's off topic but just to respond to these...

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.

I will write to EMR and will await their response. I'll leave the MPs out of it for now for much the same reason that others have mentioned - they're really unlikely to care, really EMR just need to sort this out.

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”.

I might have to do that myself some time - especially post-Covid, I'm keen to support independent and local businesses and it gives me a chance to explore places I've not been to before anyway.

Back to the thread...

As I keep saying, I don't know why the "medical reason" keeps being raised as an absolute requirement. There are seven reason listed in the (non-exhaustive) list of "reasonable excuses" for not wearing a face covering on public transport. Five of the seven are not medically related. So I don't know how the goons protecting Costco's premises are going to properly determine whether one of their customers is properly exempt by simply using "medical reasons".

If anybody declines to pay a fixed penalty for failing to wear a face covering it will be up to the police to take court action. The way that the Stautory Instrument is worded it will be for the prosecution to prove that no "reasonable excuse" existed, not for the defendant to prove that it did. It would be up to the Magistrates to decide whether an offence had been committed or not.

I suspect a lot of security guards in my local area as well in places like Sainsbury's Local will decide not to allow people into the shops unless they're wearing a face covering and won't have educated themselves in the exemptions list (credit to TOC staff, they almost always mention exemptions).

The only people likely to be fined are those who just mouth off to police when asked why they aren't wearing a mask.

I think so too. Much the same as everything else in life - be rude and you're not going to be done any favours.

 

[DB]

I suspect a lot of security guards in my local area as well in places like Sainsbury's Local will decide not to allow people into the shops unless they're wearing a face covering and won't have educated themselves in the exemptions list (credit to TOC staff, they almost always mention exemptions).

They will need to be careful - the equality act is involved here so there is the potential for prosecutions if any business does this. I would expect that the supermarkets will be well aware of this and make sure that any security staff they use know the rules. Smaller businesses could be a different matter.

 

[furlong]

45EMedical 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.

OED: prophylactic: adj. Protecting against disease, tending to prevent disease. Hence more widely: preservative, precautionary.
treatment: 3. Management in the application of remedies; medical or surgical application or service.

So another neat little paradox for the lawyers - like the fact that, in law, the government has kept all schools open to all students throughout this - and you can start to understand why TfL chose to issue a safety notice.

 

[Jonny]

If someone does have a diagnosis, that's still a massive number of people and an impossible expectation in the short time period.

Your attitude to a "mental health issue" is typical of the intolerance which is making this whole situation exceptionaly stressful for many people. Many people will not have a diagnosis because they don't think anything can be done about it, or because they have found the mental health profession to be useless and avoided it for years. What are you expecting them to do? Get a diagnosis within a week, with waiting lists of months? And what is a relevant condition anyway?

This whole situation really is bringing out the worst in people, and encouraging bigotry, intolerance and authoritarianism.

Exactly - and if you are wedged between diagnoses, some of which may require a DVLA notification and others do not, you might as well let the diagnostic process stall with the non-notifiable diagnosis. That is one situation that I have been in, and the notifiable diagnosis would hold some validity in my case but it was debatable if I fitted the diagnostic criteria for the notifiable diagnosis. In my case, the difference in diagnosis is not going to be of much benefit regarding treatment, and then circumstances change such that the from the occupational-disability benefit from the notifiable diagnosis would be nearly nil, it was an obvious call to let the diagnostic process stall. As a result, I do not trust the system very far and once I got the pills needed to get my thought processes back to a level of stability, I downplayed the diagnosis and got myself moved to GP-only care when I moved (between regions) back to my parents' house. I am sure there are others who would say similar, negative things about the system. This was before the whole pandemic business kicked off, so while I have a disability-related paper trail I prefer to keep my case largely closed.

 

[Bantamzen]

What's wrong with reporting a suspected crime to the Police? What they will do is investigate it and discover no crime was in fact being committed.

It's far better than vigilanteism, which really must be discouraged.

Not wearing a mask is not a crime, the Police have better things to do. If you encourage this kind of behaviour, more people will start to report people for not wearing masks, which uses up more resources that should be used for catching, oh I don't know, real criminals. The Police have already made it clear that they do not have the resources to even attempt to enforce this, so they don't need thousands of people ringing or texting them about stuff they are not there to deal with.

 

[duncanp]

...as they are fining people on the spot...

Err, no they are not fining people on the spot.


They can issue a fixed penalty notice, which is reduced by 50% if you pay within a certain amount of time. You also have the right to contest a fixed penalty notice.

The law provides for exemptions from compulsory muzzle wearing, and before issued a fixed penalty notice, the person issuing it should really follow a due process to establish whether an exemption applies.

Otherwise they are effectively convicting someone of an offence without a fair trial, or saying that "You are guilty, and it is up to you to prove you are innocent", which is completely and utterly wrong.

 

[VauxhallandI]

I’m a little confused here. Comments about small shops and interesting places going to wall because of this?

Why not buck that by putting a mask on and supported these places?

 

[Scrotnig]

I’m a little confused here. Comments about small shops and interesting places going to wall because of this?

Why not buck that by putting a mask on and supported these places?

Because I can’t. And I can’t go in without one due to the anxiety being challenged or even verbally attacked would cause.

 

[Smidster]

I’m a little confused here. Comments about small shops and interesting places going to wall because of this?

Why not buck that by putting a mask on and supported these places?

As much as anything it is a mental thing for me - In addition to them being very uncomfortable to wear it is tough to shake the fact that we associate masks with dirt and disease. Far from providing "reassurance" it makes you think that everyone around you is diseased and when you add that to the aesthetics it is something I would prefer to avoid.

It would probably be a different story if I had a real reason to visit places (like having friends to go to the pub with) but when you don't then why subject yourself to it?

Not at all logical or rational but welcome to my crazy mind

 

[VauxhallandI]

Because I can’t. And I can’t go in without one due to the anxiety being challenged or even verbally attacked would cause.

I have asthma, I have only worn a mask once and that was sitting in the barber’s chair.

It wasn’t great and the barber struggled to hear me but I will certainly give it a go. I wouldn’t find it a problem not wearing one should it affect my breathing but then again I’m a big chap and wouldn’t mind the confrontation.

I’m NOT talking about you here but it seems the well hard right are turning into the snowflakes they so proclaim not to be, interesting times.

A very posh old gentleman had a passing pop at me yesterday for walking down Southwold high street the wrong way, he probably resented me even being here mind.

 

[Huntergreed]

If it’s anything like things are up here in Scotland, footfall in most shops that I’ve seen has fallen dramatically. Many of my friends and family are choosing to shop online because spending over 10-20 minutes masked up in a shop is just not comfortable.

I really hope there’s a U-turn when the small independent shops cry out that they’re receiving vastly reduced custom due to this, it’s really not a good idea from what I’ve seen of it so far (and, funnily enough, cases have actually increased since she introduced it up here).