UK face coverings discussion

[island]

Afraid you are very wide of the mark - have you not read the legislation? Nowhere does it say tha any proof is required: the cause of the distress is wearing the mask, none other is specified as being required, When it started is irrelevant, because it's only applicable to the specific case in question, the effect is significant distress - no more is required by the law, so nothing further could be requested by the prosecution.

There is no way the CPS would take non-mask wearing to trial unless the defendant repeatedly claimed 'I am not except but I refuse to wear one' - the law is written in such a way that anyone claiming an exemption according to the specific reasons stated in the law has an exemption.

That’s not how courts or laws work. Your repeated assertions that “the law does not say you require proof, so you do not require proof” have no merit or relevance.

If someone is prosecuted for an offence, the prosecution is tasked with proving that the offence was committed, beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecutors the length of England can and do daily successfully prosecute offences. The proof on the testimony of witnesses, including defendants, can be used for this. Unlike Scotland, where corroborating evidence is required, in England it is common for cases to proceed on the evidence of a single witness.

Prosecuting lawyers regularly use questioning techniques to get defendants to admit things they might not want to admit. The case would not stop dead when the defendant says “wearing a face covering would cause me severe distress”. The prosecutor would then go on and ask, for example, “when did you realise that a face covering would cause you severe distress”, “have you tried wearing one”, “what happened then”, “can you tell me what specifically happens when you wear a face covering”, and so on, attempting to catch the defendant out or present inconsistencies in his or her story. The prosecutor would then invite the court to draw a conclusion.

I think that scenario is highly unlikely. Have any cases proceeded in this way?

Not to my knowledge, hence why I wrote my post in the conditional (“would”).

 

[adc82140]

Defendant: "Putting on a mask causes me to have a panic attack"

Do you think a magistrate would ask them to put on a mask for a demonstration in the court room?

 

[DB]

If someone is prosecuted for an offence, the prosecution is tasked with proving that the offence was committed, beyond reasonable doubt.

As I have already pointed out

Prosecuting lawyers regularly use questioning techniques to get defendants to admit things they might not want to admit. The case would not stop dead when the defendant says “wearing a face covering would cause me severe distress”. The prosecutor would then go on and ask, for example, “when did you realise that a face covering would cause you severe distress”, “have you tried wearing one”, “what happened then”, “can you tell me what specifically happens when you wear a face covering”, and so on, attempting to catch the defendant out or present inconsistencies in his or her story. The prosecutor would then invite the court to draw a conclusion.

So the defendant says - 'wearing a face covering would cause me severe distress'. The other questions are simply not relevant as they don't alter the basic point. There is no requirement in the legislation to have tried wearing one (it is worded 'would cause you') - and even if they haven't tried it, that does not demonstrate that it wouldn't cause them distress to do so. Once someone has claimed that it would cause them severe distress, is it going to be virtually impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this is not true.

What you are advocating would be bordering on bullying of a potentially vulnerable defendant in a court of law - it is highly unlikely that the CPS would ever try to go down that route.

 

[MikeWM]

That is quite an accusation.

I stand by it 100%. It was blatantly clear to me in early July that there was a concerted organised effort between the government, the media and 'scientists' to promote masks. I've not reached any conclusions why that happened, but I'm quite certain it did.

I know there has been mention of evidence that the WHO had been put under pressure to change their policy.

'for political reasons' to quote the BBC (!) reporter who was told that, and put it to the WHO, who didn't deny it.

Where is the evidence that scientists in the UK, (or even 'scientists' as you seem to prefer to call them - why?) decided to lie?

For exmaple, one only has to look at the repeated public pronouncements of the Royal Society in that period, and compare that to what their research actually said, to see they were misrepresenting the facts. We went through this in detail at the time. Supposed top 'scientists' going around saying we should discard the tools scientists have used for centuries, and misrepresenting their own research, don't deserve to be called scientists.

 

[AdamWW]

For exmaple, one only has to look at the repeated public pronouncements of the Royal Society in that period, and compare that to what their research actually said, to see they were misrepresenting the facts. We went through this in detail at the time. Supposed top 'scientists' going around saying we should discard the tools scientists have used for centuries, and misrepresenting their own research, don't deserve to be called scientists.

I'd better go and look at the evidence again, because this does seem quite bizarre.

If the government could apply sufficient pressure on to result in this, they would be expending a lot of political capital, and I find it very hard to see why they would want to do that. I think it would be quite hard to cover up too.

 

[talldave]

I stand by it 100%. It was blatantly clear to me in early July that there was a concerted organised effort between the government, the media and 'scientists' to promote masks. I've not reached any conclusions why that happened, but I'm quite certain it did.

I think the plan is that once we're all conditioned (or battered into submission with ever scarier threats) on mask wearing, the freedom to not wear one will be the carrot to tempt us into having a vaccine.

As I refuse to risk my health with a damp snotty rag over my face, there won't be anything to tempt me into having a vaccine.

 

[MikeWM]

I'd better go and look at the evidence again, because this does seem quite bizarre.

See here for example. The conclusions that the President of the Royal Society was going all around the airwaves touting, bear no resemblance to the quality of evidence in their own paper. I said at the time and I say it again - it is downright embarassing behaviour from the Royal Society [1], and I'll find it hard to take them seriously ever again.

[1] Direct from the front page of their website : 'We are the independent scientific academy of the UK, dedicated to promoting excellence in science for the benefit of humanity'

I think the plan is that once we're all conditioned (or battered into submission with ever scarier threats) on mask wearing, the freedom to not wear one will be the carrot to tempt us into having a vaccine.

It does seem pretty clear that they are desperate to keep the fear going in any way possible until we can be vaccinated.

That doesn't answer the question 'why' though. Is it just all about making lots of money? (I'm aware there are a number of more exotic theories around, but some of those seem a little far-fetched even for a time when little makes sense).

I see Norway have just recommended (though not yet mandated) masks on public transport, despite arguing very coherently and logically just a few weeks ago that it would be wildly disproportionate to do so.

Again, draw your own conclusions.

 

[talldave]

It does seem pretty clear that they are desperate to keep the fear going in any way possible until we can be vaccinated.

That doesn't answer the question 'why' though. Is it just all about making lots of money? (I'm aware there are a number of more exotic theories around, but some of those seem a little far-fetched even for a time when little makes sense).

Perhaps they see a vaccine as making the problem go away? Government doesn't really want all this aggravation.

Perhaps politicians have shares in pharmaceutical companies but they're not going to gain that much in the short term.

We might be granting them with too much intelligence of course. Perhaps the reality is as it looks, that they're blundering around without any idea what they're doing!

 

[Yew]

Perhaps they see a vaccine as making the problem go away? Government doesn't really want all this aggravation.

Perhaps politicians have shares in pharmaceutical companies but they're not going to gain that much in the short term.

We might be granting them with too much intelligence of course. Perhaps the reality is as it looks, that they're blundering around without any idea what they're doing!

I've notied that this "Vaccine by september" has suddenly turned into "Early Next Year". Will it always be 6 months away? How much human suffering will these measures cause before a vaccine is found?

 

[talldave]

I hope that at some point someone will notice that the number of hospitalisations has dropped off a cliff whilst "cases"/"positive tests" haven't and that some of the draconian measures in place are pointless.

 

[DB]

I hope that at some point someone will notice that the number of hospitalisations has dropped off a cliff whilst "cases"/"positive tests" haven't and that some of the draconian measures in place are pointless.

I can already predict the response, which will be along the lines that it's mostly younger people now but if it's not contained then it will be killing grannies up and down the country in the blink of an eye..

 

[bramling]

Perhaps they see a vaccine as making the problem go away? Government doesn't really want all this aggravation.

Perhaps politicians have shares in pharmaceutical companies but they're not going to gain that much in the short term.

We might be granting them with too much intelligence of course. Perhaps the reality is as it looks, that they're blundering around without any idea what they're doing!

We do appear to be seeing a government behaving in "survival mode".

Which is, on the face of it, irrational as they have an 80-seat majority and aren't even a year into a 5-year term. *However*, neither of these factors apply to Boris Johnson in his role as leader, nor the future career prospects of individuals such as Matt Hancock or Grant Shapps (noticed how his face seems to be appearing quite a lot at the moment?).

Then there's Brexit, and we're just a few short months away from the end of the transition period, with little seeming to have really been achieved on that score this year (which, to be fair, is to a large extent understandable). And meanwhile we're seeing headlines like "worst recession everywhere".

Johnson is a boat in a rough see whose engine has failed and it's being blown in whichever way the wind is blowing at that moment, and we will end up wherever the tide takes us.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

A lot of people seem to think that a face mask over the chin is sufficient. I have made a point of calling people out for this if they don't look like the sort that would react aggressively to it.

Face masks may be uncomfortable, but they aren't the worst thing in the world. I just wish that minority of idiots would get over themselves.

 

[Journeyman]

Evidence, thankyou.

That's exactly what I was referring to - I heard it on the radio.

 

[trebor79]

I hope that at some point someone will notice that the number of hospitalisations has dropped off a cliff whilst "cases"/"positive tests" haven't and that some of the draconian measures in place are pointless.

This was being discussed on radio 4 this afternoon (the lack of hospitalisations, not the pointless nonsense we have to put up with).

 

[trebor79]

All this talk about the legalities and likely court arguments of you don't wear a face covering...
I've largely stopped wearing one, only bothering when my wife or son (he grasses me up for every infraction) is with me. Nobody bats an eyelid.
Really you'd have to be very unlucky to be challenged, and I think you have to really mismanage the situation to end up with the police in attendance, let alone land in court.
Before anyone accuses me of breaking the law, I get dermatitis if I wear them, so consider myself exempt. But sometimes I just can't face 30 minutes of discord and discussing coronavirus yet again with my wife.

 

[43066]

A lot of people seem to think that a face mask over the chin is sufficient. I have made a point of calling people out for this if they don't look like the sort that would react aggressively to it.

Face masks may be uncomfortable, but they aren't the worst thing in the world. I just wish that minority of idiots would get over themselves.

Sooner or later you’ll do that to the wrong person. Mark my words. For your own good, I suggest you wind your neck in.

All this talk about the legalities and likely court arguments of you don't wear a face covering...
I've largely stopped wearing one, only bothering when my wife or son (he grasses me up for every infraction) is with me. Nobody bats an eyelid.
Really you'd have to be very unlucky to be challenged, and I think you have to really mismanage the situation to end up with the police in attendance, let alone land in court.
Before anyone accuses me of breaking the law, I get dermatitis if I wear them, so consider myself exempt. But sometimes I just can't face 30 minutes of discord and discussing coronavirus yet again with my wife.

Absolutely. I suspect a lot of people are sick to death of it and compliance (while still high) seems to be reducing in a lot of settings, especially in the hot weather over the last few days.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Sooner or later you’ll do that to the wrong person. Mark my words. For your own good, I suggest you wind your neck in.

You may well be right, but if we all have that attitude then those that blatantly flout the regulations will continue to get away with it.

With recent events on the railway I can't be doing with people who think it's all just a joke. Earlier today I saw a couple of youths at Mirfield feigning a "jump" in front of passing expresses to impress the young lasses they were with. I didn't say anything because they looked a bit like they would react badly to it, but i was annoyed with myself for letting it slide. (For the record, I can handle myself pretty well if it comes to it, though I'd rather not have to).

If the drivers of those services are viewing this site, I'd like to apologise on behalf of the idiots who might have given you a scare.

 

[MikeWM]

While one would hope this is entirely unnecessary information, it would perhaps be nice to have some clarification about the decision tree here - as however unlikely, it seems sensible to anticipate a situation arising where a police officer refuses to believe a person has a valid exemption (or doesn't understand the regulation...)

- If a FPN is offered but refused, prosecution is presumably the only option. Presumably you can be arrested at that point (thanks to New Labour removing the concept of an 'arrestable offense' and so now all offenses (more or less) are arrestable)? It seems unlikely a police officer would be bothered with the effort of an arrest for this unless the circumstances were extreme, but...

- If a FPN is offered and accepted, is that an 'admission of guilt', or is that only the case when paying the fine? Can you dispute it and demand your day in court instead? And if you intend to do so, does that put you in a better, worse or no different position from refusing the FPN in the first place?

In other words, if an FPN is offered, however in the right you think you are, is it a good idea to accept it at that point?

The officer also has the power to use 'reasonable force' to remove you from the premises. Are they likely to try that after an FPN is issued, or instead of (or neither)?

 

[43066]

You may well be right, but if we all have that attitude then those that blatantly flout the regulations will continue to get away with it.

With recent events on the railway I can't be doing with people who think it's all just a joke. Earlier today I saw a couple of youths at Mirfield feigning a "jump" in front of passing expresses to impress the young lasses they were with. I didn't say anything because they looked a bit like they would react badly to it, but i was annoyed with myself for letting it slide.

If the drivers of those services are viewing this site, I'd like to apologise on behalf of the idiots who might have given you a scare.

Unfortunately the world is full of idiots! Always remember that people who are wearing no mask at all may well be exempt. I agree that wearing one incorrectly is idiotic - but then the government’s whole approach to the situation is idiotic.

I’d certainly recommend texting the BTP for people feigning jumping. It’s likely that they would be reported by drivers, and other trains cautioned through the same location.

 

[talldave]

A lot of people seem to think that a face mask over the chin is sufficient. I have made a point of calling people out for this if they don't look like the sort that would react aggressively to it.

Which makes you a bully. Do come back and tell us when you pick on the wrong person and get your come uppance and we can all have a good laugh.

 

[MikeWM]

Unfortunately the world is full of idiots! Always remember that people who are wearing no mask at all may well be exempt. I agree that wearing one incorrectly is idiotic - but then the government’s whole approach to the situation is idiotic.

It's worth pointing out again that some people wearing one around the chin may be trying their best to wear one but finding it difficult to do so for an extended length of time. I'm in that category - as such I've decided it is better not to try at all, but others may prefer to continue trying.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Which makes you a bully. Do come back and tell us when you pick on the wrong person and get your come uppance and we can all have a good laugh.

That's a fair point. When I've addressed people about it, I've done so in a measured way to remind them rather than trying to act as if I'm judge, jury and executioner. I've even forgotten to apply my own mask a couple of times, and if someone else points to theirs to remind me, I appreciate the reminder. Wearing masks isn't something the British public are used to, so it's understandable that we might have the odd lapse. Not everything needs to be a confrontation, and that's how I've been approaching these interactions. If someone takes exception and decides to lamp me one, I'll take that as it comes to be quite honest.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It's worth pointing out again that some people wearing one around the chin may be trying their best to wear one but finding it difficult to do so for an extended length of time. I'm in that category - as such I've decided it is better not to try at all, but others may prefer to continue trying.

That's why it's best to only wear one when you need to (such as in enclosed spaces, not on open air platforms for example). If you're moving from one shop to another it might feel easier to just keep it on in between, but in the hot weather you're probably better off removing it in between so it doesn't become uncomfortable.

 

[island]

While one would hope this is entirely unnecessary information, it would perhaps be nice to have some clarification about the decision tree here - as however unlikely, it seems sensible to anticipate a situation arising where a police officer refuses to believe a person has a valid exemption (or doesn't understand the regulation...)

- If a FPN is offered but refused, prosecution is presumably the only option. Presumably you can be arrested at that point (thanks to New Labour removing the concept of an 'arrestable offense' and so now all offenses (more or less) are arrestable)? It seems unlikely a police officer would be bothered with the effort of an arrest for this unless the circumstances were extreme, but...

- If a FPN is offered and accepted, is that an 'admission of guilt', or is that only the case when paying the fine? Can you dispute it and demand your day in court instead? And if you intend to do so, does that put you in a better, worse or no different position from refusing the FPN in the first place?

In other words, if an FPN is offered, however in the right you think you are, is it a good idea to accept it at that point?

The officer also has the power to use 'reasonable force' to remove you from the premises. Are they likely to try that after an FPN is issued, or instead of (or neither)?

Accepting an FPN does not imply an admission of guilt and your rights are preserved. If you later decide not to pay it, you are liable to be prosecuted. You can (I suppose) write in and make representations as to why you should not be prosecuted, but there is no legal framework for this and the regulations make no allowance for fixed penalty notices to be cancelled. The outcome (again I suppose) of successful representations is that the issuing authority simply does not prosecute.

The only negative consequence of accepting an FPN for a violation of the various regulations is that it counts towards the "doubling" of penalties for non-compliance, even if it is not pursued.

As to removing people from the premises, I think police would likely do that in the case of someone refusing to leave. If someone leaves promptly and passes the attitude test he or she may well avoid an FPN in the first instance. Use of force to remove someone would be a near to last resort.

You can be arrested for failure to wear a face covering where required, and the regulations provide that in addition to the usual reasons for arrest (enabling the prompt investigation of the offence, preventing the disappearance of the offender, enabling the offenders name or address to be ascertained, etc.) the regulations add a power for constables to arrest in the interest of protecting public health. As you say, the likelihood a police officer would arrest someone is very low; it would likely be a very last resort and would take a very severe failure of the attitude test.

 

[greyman42]

With recent events on the railway I can't be doing with people who think it's all just a joke.

Which recent events are you referring to?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Which recent events are you referring to?

The Stonehaven derailment. Whilst not directly related to the Covid situation, it does remind us that railway employees have an extra set of issues to deal with that the travelling public might not appreciate.

To be quite honest, my patience with idiots is at its limit. If that makes me an asshole then I guess I'm an asshole.

 

[DB]

You may well be right, but if we all have that attitude then those that blatantly flout the regulations will continue to get away with it.

So what?

If you are just a member of the public, then frankly it's none of your business.

 

[MikeWM]

Accepting an FPN does not imply an admission of guilt and your rights are preserved...

Thanks. Hopefully will never need to know this but better to know now than try to work it out with a police officer or two standing over you

You can be arrested for failure to wear a face covering where required, and the regulations provide that in addition to the usual reasons for arrest (enabling the prompt investigation of the offence, preventing the disappearance of the offender, enabling the offenders name or address to be ascertained, etc.) the regulations add a power for constables to arrest in the interest of protecting public health.

Yes, I just looked up that part. It seems to be a case of secondary legislation modifying primary legislation, albeit temporarily - I thought that wasn't allowed?

 

[BJames]

You may well be right, but if we all have that attitude then those that blatantly flout the regulations will continue to get away with it.

With recent events on the railway I can't be doing with people who think it's all just a joke. Earlier today I saw a couple of youths at Mirfield feigning a "jump" in front of passing expresses to impress the young lasses they were with. I didn't say anything because they looked a bit like they would react badly to it, but i was annoyed with myself for letting it slide. (For the record, I can handle myself pretty well if it comes to it, though I'd rather not have to).

If the drivers of those services are viewing this site, I'd like to apologise on behalf of the idiots who might have given you a scare.

So what?

If you are just a member of the public, then frankly it's none of your business.

I have to agree with DavidB on this. It's not really for the public to police it. True, there's not enough police to enforce it, but that's not the public's fault, and if it's bothering you I'd suggest moving away rather than confronting people. A lot of people who are exempt are already fed up of having to explain themselves regularly and if it's somebody wearing it on their chin, surely you want to reduce the time spent near someone you feel is a higher risk to yourself, rather than potentially starting up a conversation/argument/confrontation? This could end up with them getting closer to you and then actually resulting in a bigger risk to you and others than if you'd gone to the other end of the carriage or platform.

In response to the youths though this is disappointing to hear but strangely some people find this to be a fun way of passing the time.