UK face coverings discussion

[VauxhallandI]

It's a £3200 maximum fine for breaking the muzzle face covering rules.

I wonder how many will be handed out.

Oh I did see a lady in a supermarket with the sun flower lanyard.

I thought it was a guideline not a law?

Can someone explain please?

 

[AM9]

Have you genuinely not realised that it is being used deliberately as a term of contempt for the whole concept imposed by the government?

I know that there are some here who regularly use peurile misnomers (e.g. "Worst Great Western" etc.), which are diversions and show that they have nothing to contribute to the conversation in question. It seems to me that immature use of wrong words and made-up names has spread to a much more serious topic, which is then amplified by those who join the 'me too' bandwagon. Some of the COVID-19 threads are just echo chambers for those who write as if the pandemic isn't their problem.

 

[island]

I thought it was a guideline not a law?

Can someone explain please?

Face coverings have been required by law in England on public transport since 15 June, in shops, shopping centres, and banks since 24 July, and in a further range of indoor public spaces since 8 August.

 

[island]

I know that there are some here who regularly use peurile misnomers (e.g. "Worst Great Western" etc.), which are diversions and show that they have nothing to contribute to the conversation in question. It seems to me that immature use of wrong words and made-up names has spread to a much more serious topic, which is then amplified by those who join the 'me too' bandwagon. Some of the COVID-19 threads are just echo chambers for those who write as if the pandemic isn't their problem.

Quite. When I see the term “muzzle” it does nothing other than make me ignore the rest of the person’s post as it is clear they are too irredeemably biased for me to want to take time to consider their contribution to the debate.

 

[AM9]

You completely don’t get it, do you?
The person who frequents such shops goes there precisely because you can handle and look at the merchandise, chat with the staff and have some social interaction. They enjoy that element of browsing, so making those goods available online is not appealing for the shop’s core customers. ...

Shops' core custom has been in decline for over a decade (before the 2009 crisis) largely driven by the far more nuanced sales techniques of online selling. Once the restrictions are lifted from general high-street shopping, that sector will return to that same downward slope, probably about three years further down it than if the pandemic hadn't happened. Much as some, (me included) would like the old way to remain unchanged, the wasting away of the 'bricks and mortar' retail business, especially optional and non-essential sectors, will resume.

 

[adc82140]

My local high street has a lot of independent shops, and footfall seems to be OK. There's a big "shop local" promotion running at the moment. My local big town is full of chain stores and struggling. I can see the future of shopping being either online or independent.

 

[Huntergreed]

I see they’ve now increased the fine to £3,200, which will achieve nothing but further making those exempt feel excluded from society and encouraging self appointed vigilantes to be even harsher.

 

[adc82140]

Has anyone actually been fined the existing maximum amount? It's silly posturing by the government and quite ludicrous when you consider that if you kill someone by drink driving the fine can be less.

 

[_toommm_]

Just to check, we’re still allowed to (temporarily) remove our face covering to allow us to eat or drink? I’m struggling to find that part of the legislation online and the guard seems to disagree with me....

 

[talldave]

I see they’ve now increased the fine to £3,200, which will achieve nothing but further making those exempt feel excluded from society and encouraging self appointed vigilantes to be even harsher.

All a bit pointless. If you don't have £3,200 what are they going to do? These morons are on a power trip.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Has anyone actually been fined the existing maximum amount? It's silly posturing by the government and quite ludicrous when you consider that if you kill someone by drink driving the fine can be less.

You can only be fined the maximum amount if you are caught 5 times (now 6), and even that assumes that there is a record kept of the previous offences.
Even the most belligerent first-time offender would have to be incredibly stupid to not just say ‘I have an exemption’ when challenged, if spoken to on a second occasion?

 

[Huntergreed]

You can only be fined the maximum amount if you are caught 5 times (now 6), and even that assumes that there is a record kept of the previous offences.
Even the most belligerent first-time offender would have to be incredibly stupid to not just say ‘I have an exemption’ when challenged, if spoken to on a second occasion?

Surely, if fined before, that’s proof the person in question is not exempt and further fines would be warranted.

If you tell someone in authority “I have an exemption”, are they allowed to fine you anyway if they don’t think you do?

 

[Skimpot flyer]

All a bit pointless. If you don't have £3,200 what are they going to do? These morons are on a power trip.

Indeed.
And the logical conclusion if there was mass defiance, and refusal to pay, would be huge numbers of people in custody, unable to maintain social distancing and increase the risk of spreading the virus!!!

 

[VauxhallandI]

Face coverings have been required by law in England on public transport since 15 June, in shops, shopping centres, and banks since 24 July, and in a further range of indoor public spaces since 8 August.

I see, why do they keep calling it guidance then?

 

[Huntergreed]

Indeed.
And the logical conclusion if there was mass defiance, and refusal to pay, would be huge numbers of people in custody, unable to maintain social distancing and increase the risk of spreading the virus!!!

It would be absurd if anyone was given a custodial sentence for not wearing a mask, the thought of that is just completely ludicrous (but is it possible?)

 

[Mag_seven]

Just to check, we’re still allowed to (temporarily) remove our face covering to allow us to eat or drink? I’m struggling to find that part of the legislation online and the guard seems to disagree with me....

I thought guards were instructed by the RMT not to enforce mask wearing?

 

[_toommm_]

I thought guards were instructed by the RMT not to enforce mask wearing?

That’s what I thought. I politely pointed him to the legislation but he was adamant, all the while furiously tapping on a sticker saying ‘Please do not eat or drink on board’.

 

[Huntergreed]

That’s what I thought. I politely pointed him to the legislation but he was adamant, all the while furiously tapping on a sticker saying ‘Please do not eat or drink on board’.

Sounds like one of the self appointed vigilantes who feel the need to go above and beyond the law in order to fulfill their personal satisfaction of getting people to comply, I would politely point him to the legislation, then report the incident to the relevant TOC.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Surely, if fined before, that’s proof the person in question is not exempt and further fines would be warranted.

If you tell someone in authority “I have an exemption”, are they allowed to fine you anyway if they don’t think you do?

Of course not.
If records are kept, on some kind of database, of fines issued, the person in authority would need to know your name and address in order to check if you’d been fined previously.
I am not required to give such information to some self-important goon in a shop. It is sufficient to say ‘I have an exemption’. End of conversation. They are within their rights to ask me to leave, but I would tell them they would not get my custom in future, though.

 

[Yew]

I see they’ve now increased the fine to £3,200, which will achieve nothing but further making those exempt feel excluded from society and encouraging self appointed vigilantes to be even harsher.

Boris does have a nasty authoritarian streak if people don't do what he says. I suppose that's what you get when you elect a politician with a modus operandi of pandering to the extreme fringes of society.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I see they’ve now increased the fine to £3,200, which will achieve nothing but further making those exempt feel excluded from society and encouraging self appointed vigilantes to be even harsher.

It's the maximum fine for repeated offenders. I doubt it will ever be imposed, but if it is anyone on whom it is has really asked for it.

Boris does have a nasty authoritarian streak if people don't do what he says. I suppose that's what you get when you elect a politician with a modus operandi of pandering to the extreme fringes of society.

Eh? The UK's penalties are incredibly weak compared with pretty much every single other country other than the mess that is the USA.

£3200 for the first offence is more like what you'd get in a truly authoritarian country - and I bet they would comply!

 

[jumble]

I see they’ve now increased the fine to £3,200, which will achieve nothing but further making those exempt feel excluded from society and encouraging self appointed vigilantes to be even harsher.

I am so grateful to be living in London because we do not seem to be at all cursed with Nosey clowns who cannot mind their own business.
If you don't ware a mask no one says anything ( probably for fear of being assulted)
It is horrible wearing one on the tube lines without AirCon in this weather
Does anyone struggle with the fact that a lot of posters here sing the praises of masks unconditionally but the Welsh seem to think that masks are unnecessary in shops that are not crowded and do not treat their citizens like babies?



From

Public health guidance for the general public | GOV.WALES

Public health advice for living alongside coronavirus.

gov.wales

There is evidence to suggest that the wearing of face coverings gives people a false sense of security which makes them less careful about social distancing and handwashing. We know that these measures are the most effective way to reduce transmission of the virus, and don’t want to do anything that might lead to a reduction of those measures being observed.

The advice of the Welsh Government is that if places are crowded then face coverings are advisory. Where places are not crowded, it is a matter for the individual citizen to make that decision."

I do wear a mask because I respect the law but I wish we had the same choice here in England

 

[Bletchleyite]

The advice of the Welsh Government is that if places are crowded then face coverings are advisory. Where places are not crowded, it is a matter for the individual citizen to make that decision."

That would work if the purpose of a mask was to protect the individual. It's not; it's to protect everyone from the individual. Therefore it is legislated and I support that (I oppose legislation to protect the individual e.g. any proposal re bicycle helmets). It's for others, not you. If it was to be optional, it'd have to be based on asking everyone around you if they were happy with you not wearing one, and if only one was not then you wear, but that's just too complex.

 

[Huntergreed]

That would work if the purpose of a mask was to protect the individual. It's not; it's to protect everyone from the individual.

As stated before (many times), I don’t believe there any actual conclusive evidence that this is the case. If there was solid, conclusive evidence that masks made a big difference and would allow us to open more, then absolutely I would support them being mandated, but there is not, and given that countries who have mandated them often have an increase in cases (look at Scotland and England when they mandated them, in both countries cases increased. Also compare Spain (masks mandated) where cases are increasing and Sweden (masks not required at all) where cases are decreasing). I just don’t believe that the mandation is, in this instance, justified or, to use their own words, “guided by the science”.

 

[Yew]

Eh? The UK's penalties are incredibly weak compared with pretty much every single other country other than the mess that is the USA.

£3200 for the first offence is more like what you'd get in a truly authoritarian country - and I bet they would comply!

More that he is really enjoying using executive power to punish people if they don't do what he says, despite the fact he regularly misrepresents the law.

 

[AdamWW]

As stated before (many times), I don’t believe there any actual conclusive evidence that this is the case. If there was solid, conclusive evidence that masks made a big difference and would allow us to open more, then absolutely I would support them being mandated, but there is not, and given that countries who have mandated them often have an increase in cases (look at Scotland and England when they mandated them, in both countries cases increased. Also compare Spain (masks mandated) where cases are increasing and Sweden (masks not required at all) where cases are decreasing). I just don’t believe that the mandation is, in this instance, justified or, to use their own words, “guided by the science”.

This is something that it is had to get conclusive evidence on (how do you do a controlled trial?)

If people believe that nothing should be done without conclusive evidence that it is the right thing, then that's fine.

But if people think that if face coverings do help there would be conclusive evidence, I think that's not necessarily true.

And I do wonder - if cases were going down in England and Scotland now, would people be saying that it must mean masks work? Or would they say that infections would probably have dropped anyway and masks are therefore a waste of time?

 

[adc82140]

More that he is really enjoying using executive power to punish people if they don't do what he says, despite the fact he regularly misrepresents the law.

Nicely balanced though by the police federation who say that their members do not have the resources to police it, so really won't bother. I was involved in a minor hit and run this week. Got the registration, description of the driver and dashcam footage, but was told that the crime wouldn't be investigated (actually it was inferred that I was wasting police time) Leaving the scene of an accident is a more serious crime than not wearing a mask, so I'm not in fear of Boris getting out of control. What he says and what he can practically do are very different.

 

[island]

Just to check, we’re still allowed to (temporarily) remove our face covering to allow us to eat or drink? I’m struggling to find that part of the legislation online and the guard seems to disagree with me....

Yes, to the extent it is reasonably necessary to eat or drink (section 4 (e), The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings on Public Transport) (England) Regulations 2020). What is reasonable will depend upon the circumstances; clearly it will be reasonable for someone taking a four-hour train journey from London to Scotland to drink water at points in the journey, but to take the extreme counterpoint, it is unlikely to be reasonable for the passenger to sip 10ml of water every 30 seconds and thereby frustrate the requirement to wear a face covering.

Surely, if fined before, that’s proof the person in question is not exempt and further fines would be warranted.

Leaving aside that the knowledge of whether a person has been previously fined may not be readily available, it is possible for a person to be exempt at some times and not at others; for example, a person may be travelling with a deaf person, or may be travelling to escape a risk of harm.

If you tell someone in authority “I have an exemption”, are they allowed to fine you anyway if they don’t think you do?

Yes. It is then open to the person issued the fine to either pay it or wait to be prosecuted, and have their day in court. The court may well ask them to provide evidence of their exemption. What that evidence might consist of will depend on the exemption claimed.

I see, why do they keep calling it guidance then?

I don’t know who “they” are, but it is possible for something to be both law and guidance, and it is possible for websites to be out of date.

 

[Huntergreed]

This is something that it is had to get conclusive evidence on (how do you do a controlled trial?)

If people believe that nothing should be done without conclusive evidence that it is the right thing, then that's fine.

But if people think that if face coverings do help there would be conclusive evidence, I think that's not necessarily true.

I don’t support the idea that laws should be introduced without reasoning behind them. There’s absolutely no evidence whatsoever they help to reduce transmission in any way, it’s simply a guess by the government on how to make people feel “safe” and to pander to the hardcore lockdown enthusiasts screaming for tougher restrictions.

And I do wonder - if cases were going down in England and Scotland now, would people be saying that it must mean masks work? Or would they say that infections would probably have dropped anyway and masks are therefore a waste of time?

If there was a measurable decrease in countries who mandated masks then this would suggest they are effective, but given this is not the case it suggests otherwise.

 

[adc82140]

I see, why do they keep calling it guidance then?

More touchy feely. "Rules" don't win you votes at the next election.