UK face coverings discussion

[adc82140]

Or just write your own letter and carry it with you. Here's a template:

Dear railway employee,

Here is my letter that says I'm exempt.


I'm exempt

This is all that's required by law. If you wish to challenge the law then please feel free to contact your MP/MSP/AM. In the mean time I must advise you that you are required to work within the law.

Thank you.

Yours Sincerely

A. Passenger.

 

[peri]

Actually that raises an interesting (though very tangential) point.

Early in the pandemic, I remember hearing about someone devising a face covering which had a transparent part above the mouth. I was delighted - since one of the main reasons I hate seeing people wearing masks is that it makes it difficult to gauge their facial expressions. I believe it was designed for those involved in lip reading.

Whatever happened to that?

Lots of different ones on amazon and lots of patterns to make yourself on the net, my wife made some and I found it odd that they did not steam up. Perhaps that will come with colder weather.

 

[MikeWM]

The hyper-pro-mask Guardian beginning to realise that 'actions have consequences'? Probably not, but anyway.

https://www.theguardian.com/society...y-are-being-stigmatised-for-not-wearing-masks

A number of rape and sexual abuse survivors have told the charity Rape Crisis they are so scared of being confronted and verbally abused for not wearing face masks that they are avoiding places where they may be challenged.

“A significant proportion of rape survivors had their mouths or noses covered, or were choked or smothered, as part of the abuse and violence they experienced,” said Kate Russell, the national spokesperson for Rape Crisis England and Wales. “Covering their face and nose now can trigger flashbacks, panic attacks and severe anxiety.”

All going quite well until the last couple of paragraphs:

The Oxfordshire Sexual Abuse and Rape Crisis Centre has compiled a list of ways in which some survivors of sexual violence have found it possible to wear face coverings.

“The list offers support and advice for survivors around face coverings and how they can perhaps make the experience of wearing a face covering less traumatic,” said Russell.

Ugh.

 

[DB]

The hyper-pro-mask Guardian beginning to realise that 'actions have consequences'? Probably not, but anyway.

https://www.theguardian.com/society...y-are-being-stigmatised-for-not-wearing-masks

All going quite well until the last couple of paragraphs:

Ugh.

That's pretty unpleasant - so basically the people concerned are expected to find a way to put up with wearing a mask? Perish the thought that measures could be taken to remove the stigma of not wearing a mask, eh!

 

[PaulMc7]

The hyper-pro-mask Guardian beginning to realise that 'actions have consequences'? Probably not, but anyway.

https://www.theguardian.com/society...y-are-being-stigmatised-for-not-wearing-masks


All going quite well until the last couple of paragraphs:



Ugh.

They're so out of touch with reality here. You've dealt with something traumatic so please use something that brings that back is the mindset that seems present

 

[LowLevel]

The hyper-pro-mask Guardian beginning to realise that 'actions have consequences'? Probably not, but anyway.

https://www.theguardian.com/society...y-are-being-stigmatised-for-not-wearing-masks


All going quite well until the last couple of paragraphs:



Ugh.

Or to take a different interpretation, they may want to wear a face covering and this is how others have managed it if so?

I know plenty of people who are exempt who still wear a face covering without suffering any particular harm because they wish to and actually get on OK with it. If they didn't, then they are free not to.

 

[AdamWW]

Or to take a different interpretation, they may want to wear a face covering and this is how others have managed it if so?

I know plenty of people who are exempt who still wear a face covering without suffering any particular harm because they wish to and actually get on OK with it. If they didn't, then they are free not to.

Having read it, I struggle to interpret the conclusion of the article as that the only solution is that the people affected have to learn how to wear a mask.

If they had left the last two paragraphs out, the article would have still stood on its own.

 

[MikeWM]

Or to take a different interpretation, they may want to wear a face covering and this is how others have managed it if so?

I know plenty of people who are exempt who still wear a face covering without suffering any particular harm because they wish to and actually get on OK with it. If they didn't, then they are free not to.

Which is fair enough - and I do think people should be actively encouraged when possible to not allow a traumatic experience to define them for the rest of their life.

But did you read the link from the Oxford people?

https://www.osarcc.org.uk/coping-with-a-face-covering-as-a-survivor-of-sexual-violence/

Remember, government guidance also states that you can be exempt from wearing a face covering “if putting on, wearing or removing a face covering will cause you severe distress”. This should only be a last resort, but you may find it useful if you decide that you are not able to wear a mask or face covering and are questioned as a result.

'This should only be a last resort' is a downright terrible way to explain this to people who are in this situation.

 

[NorthOxonian]

'This should only be a last resort' is a downright terrible way to explain this to people who are in this situation.

But the exemptions are only a last resort. We might not agree with the policy, but the whole point is that if you can wear them, even if you fall into one of the exempt groups, then you should try your best to wear one. They can't really publicly contradict this.

 

[DB]

But the exemptions are only a last resort. We might not agree with the policy, but the whole point is that if you can wear them, even if you fall into one of the exempt groups, then you should try your best to wear one. They can't really publicly contradict this.

There is a list of valid reasons for not wearing one. Nowhere in the legislation does it say that you should try your best to wear one even if you have a valid reason not to.

 

[Bletchleyite]

'This should only be a last resort' is a downright terrible way to explain this to people who are in this situation.

If it isn't a last resort not to wear one, then you're not really experiencing "extreme distress"?

You are exempt if you cannot wear one due to those reasons, not because you find it mildly unpleasant, as I expect everyone does - I do.

Before deciding to take an exemption you really should try different ones (the face-shaped fabric ones I find much less unpleasant than the single use medical ones, for instance) and see if there's a way to wear one (or a visor, in England) before taking the exemption as - a last resort.

There is a list of valid reasons for not wearing one. Nowhere in the legislation does it say that you should try your best to wear one even if you have a valid reason not to.

You only have an exemption if you cannot wear one and you have one of the situations listed. You aren't meant to just say "I have asthma, I'm not wearing one", for example (and Asthma UK have led the way in pointing that out - some asthmatics will find they cause a breathing problem, some won't, and there's only one way to know unless your doctor has explicitly told you not to) - it actually has to be that it will cause you a genuine problem. You can't really know that without putting one on at least once to see if it does!

And "extreme distress" is not "mild dislike or discomfort". It's something really serious - think phobia level. There would seem to be a few such people on here (@Scrotnig I figure I wouldn't be out of order in saying you would experience "extreme distress" if you had to wear one?), but not everyone who just dislikes the idea.

(this is getting a bit like the old adage of "how do you know you don't like food X if you've never had it?")

 

[PaulMc7]

If it isn't a last resort not to wear one, then you're not really experiencing "extreme distress"?

You are exempt if you cannot wear one due to those reasons, not because you find it mildly unpleasant, as I expect everyone does - I do.

Before deciding to take an exemption you really should try different ones (the face-shaped fabric ones I find much less unpleasant than the single use medical ones, for instance) and see if there's a way to wear one (or a visor, in England) before taking the exemption as - a last resort.



You only have an exemption if you cannot wear one and you have one of the situations listed. You aren't meant to just say "I have asthma, I'm not wearing one", for example (and Asthma UK have led the way in pointing that out) - it actually has to be that it will cause you a genuine problem. You can't really know that without putting one on at least once to see if it does!

(this is getting a bit like the old adage of "how do you know you don't like food X if you've never had it?")

I agree that you should try one but it's up to that person only whether they are suffering major distress from it. When you've got people online saying that because they can wear one despite having asthma etc everyone else who does can wear one it becomes incredibly toxic very quickly and it's also why I hate how judgemental people have been. When you've got people who have been through traumatic situations also being judged it goes too far for me and it's absolutely why you should mind your own business. It's bad enough someone with an exemption having to explain why they're exempt but when it's situations like that then they wouldn't want or deserve any questioning

 

[greyman42]

You aren't meant to just say "I have asthma, I'm not wearing one", for example

You do not have to state what your reason for being exempt is.

 

[island]

I can't seem to find this in the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions) (Scotland) Regulations 2020... Would one of you be kind enough to direct me to it? Thanks in advance

Regulation 2 (5) of the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 10) Regulations 2020.

 

[island]

You do not have to state what your reason for being exempt is.

But failure to do so if challenged by a police constable or a TfL officer could land you with a fixed penalty notice Or prosecution.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You do not have to state what your reason for being exempt is.

No, but in deciding whether you are exempt or not (and in a Police Officer also doing so) you will need to consider the whole law as outlined, which requires one of the listed criteria to be true AND cause you a problem with wearing one, not simply you having one of the criteria. Most asthmatics have relatively mild or exercise induced asthma and will not experience an issue, for example.

 

[Scrotnig]

They're so out of touch with reality here. You've dealt with something traumatic so please use something that brings that back is the mindset that seems present

It's because society and government have decided that nobody is to care about ANYTHING except the deadly killer virus.

Been raped and struggling with the trauma a mask brings? Tough, wear one or stay at home.

See also: cancer sufferers, disabled people, and many, many more.

 

[Scrotnig]

No, but in deciding whether you are exempt or not (and in a Police Officer also doing so) you will need to consider the whole law as outlined, which requires one of the listed criteria to be true AND cause you a problem with wearing one, not simply you having one of the criteria. Most asthmatics have relatively mild or exercise induced asthma and will not experience an issue, for example.

Stop trying to rewrite the law.

As was stated:

You do not have to state what your reason for being exempt is.

That's it. No fluff, no bluster.

 

[PaulMc7]

It's because society and government have decided that nobody is to care about ANYTHING except the deadly killer virus.

Been raped and struggling with the trauma a mask brings? Tough, wear one or stay at home.

See also: cancer sufferers, disabled people, and many, many more.

Yeah it's turned society into an absolutely horrible place. Hopefully it gets better as more people go back to work but at this point I would be very surprised if people got more understanding about exemptions

 

[Bletchleyite]

You do not have to state what your reason for being exempt is.

You may have to to a Police Officer. Good luck in not receiving a fixed penalty if they ask you and you don't. Police Officers absolutely have the right to ask questions to determine if an offence has been committed or not, in any area, not just this.

But the main point I was making is that the decision making process for you to work out if you are exempt or not is outlined in the legislation, and it isn't a simple "do you have condition X" test, it's "do you have condition X AND that condition makes it impossible for you to wear a mask".

"I have asthma, and I cannot breathe properly wearing a mask" -> exempt
"I have asthma, and I can breathe properly wearing a mask but don't really like them very much / don't agree with the law" -> not exempt
"I don't have a medical condition, but wearing a mask makes me seriously claustrophobic to the point of a panic attack" -> exempt (as an example)

 

[Richard Scott]

You may have to to a Police Officer. Good luck in not receiving a fixed penalty if they ask you and you don't. Police Officers absolutely have the right to ask questions to determine if an offence has been committed or not, in any area, not just this.

But the main point I was making is that the decision making process for you to work out if you are exempt or not is outlined in the legislation, and it isn't a simple "do you have condition X" test, it's "do you have condition X AND it makes it impossible for you to wear a mask".

If you state anxiety then that's the end of it, how does a police officer prove/disprove that?

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you state anxiety then that's the end of it, how does a police officer prove/disprove that?

They don't but they might ask you a couple of questions about it, just like if you were caught driving a car that didn't belong to you (let's say, for the sake of argument, your own insurance policy had the "third party extension" allowing you to drive other cars legally, to avoid that discussion) and you said "my mate said I could borrow it". In that case they might ask who your mate was, and ask what their phone number was so they could phone and confirm that you did indeed have permission to use the car, and check that name against the registered keeper.

Police are completely entitled to ask questions to establish if an offence, however minor, has been committed or not.

 

[adc82140]

Asking who you borrowed a car from is very different to prying into your medical history.

 

[MikeWM]

If it isn't a last resort not to wear one, then you're not really experiencing "extreme distress"?

You are exempt if you cannot wear one due to those reasons, not because you find it mildly unpleasant, as I expect everyone does - I do.

Before deciding to take an exemption you really should try different ones (the face-shaped fabric ones I find much less unpleasant than the single use medical ones, for instance) and see if there's a way to wear one (or a visor, in England) before taking the exemption as - a last resort.

I have to say that I find it pretty repugnant for an organisation that is meant to be helping people get over traumatic sexual abuse, to effectively suggest to try out all sorts of different things to try to find something they can cope with - quite possibly evoking all sorts of horrendous emotions and panic attacks with each one.

Whether that is the letter of the law or not, I also find it astonishing that people seem to think that is ok.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have to say that I find it pretty repugnant for an organisation that is meant to be helping people get over traumatic sexual abuse, to effectively suggest to try out all sorts of different things to try to find something they can cope with - quite possibly evoking all sorts of horrendous emotions and panic attacks with each one.

Whether that is the letter of the law or not, I also find it astonishing that people seem to think that is ok.

The vast majority of people have not experienced sexual abuse. This forum does love raking up small numbers of genuine exceptions to a rule in order to discredit it, doesn't it?

 

[PaulMc7]

The vast majority of people have not experienced sexual abuse. This forum does love raking up small numbers of genuine exceptions to a rule in order to discredit it, doesn't it?

Remember that it's incredibly tough to come out and talk about traumatic experiences like that so the number reported is miniscule compared to how many probably have experienced traumatic situations involving sexual abuse. Also remember that numbers add up very quickly too

 

[MikeWM]

The vast majority of people have not experienced sexual abuse. This forum does love raking up small numbers of genuine exceptions to a rule in order to discredit it, doesn't it?

Doesn't help much how small the numbers may be if you're unfortunate enough to be one of those people.

 

[Richard Scott]

The vast majority of people have not experienced sexual abuse. This forum does love raking up small numbers of genuine exceptions to a rule in order to discredit it, doesn't it?

The vast majority of people haven't and won't die from this virus, doesn't stop you going on about it. I'd be willing to bet more individuals have suffered sexual abuse than this disease and left vastly more traumatised as a result. Your comments do sometimes leave me in disbelief.

 

[talldave]

The vast majority of people have not experienced sexual abuse. This forum does love raking up small numbers of genuine exceptions to a rule in order to discredit it, doesn't it?

There you go again. This time belittling sexual abuse victims, who's numbers you're apparently an expert on.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There you go again. This time belittling sexual abuse victims, who's numbers you're apparently an expert on.

How am I belittling sexual abuse victims? All I am saying is that there are not very many of them.

Those who would experience extreme distress by wearing a mask due to sexual abuse should not wear one. That is very clear indeed.

Most people have not had an experience like that, and should therefore put the effort in to see if they can find a mask that works for them before deciding against wearing one, and not simply decide that based on scratchy, uncomfortable disposable blue/green ones.