UK face coverings discussion

[Bantamzen]

The law allows exemptions to the statutory requirement to wear a mask. No part of that requires any business to respect those exemptions, because any business can be stricter than the law if it wishes - even, for instance, when mask law is eventually wholly abolished, it would be totally legal for any business to choose to retain a requirement if they wished. The exception to this is if it involves a legally protected characteristic, which as I said tends to be narrower than many people think it is.

A law could be passed stating "no business may require people to wear a face covering other than under the provisions of this law", but the fact is that it has not been.

(It amazes me just how many people think all discrimination is undesirable and illegal. I wonder how those people think job interviews work?)

Like I said, I disagree. If a business were to refuse serving someone because they couldn't breath properly through a mask I feel that would be beyond what they could & should mandate. If were ever in that situation, I would certainly pursue the matter.

 

[yorkie]

But surely as exemptions are based on medical conditions this would fall under the “disability” protected characteristic?

For instance, would it be legal for a business to refuse to serve someone because they are in a wheelchair or because they have learning difficulties?

If they refuse to serve someone on this basis (and that includes removing their own masks for lip-readers) they are breaking the law, in my opinion.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have written to the Needles Landmark Attraction in the Isle of Wight. They are saying that government legislation means that all over 5s must wear a face covering (and funnily enough they are selling them). As they are a private enterprise, they can madate what they like, but they cannot claim that it's the law. I await their response.

Yes, it does wind me up when businesses use a false justification for their rule rather than standing behind it themselves. Airports are particularly good at this - anything they want to do that is unpopular is always for "security reasons" or "Government security reasons".

Businesses are entitled to make any rule they want (with some exceptions). If they want to make a rule that you must have a fluorescent pink face covering, for example, they can do that. But blaming others for their decision is pretty low. "Our policy is..." is the way to start any such notice.

But surely as exemptions are based on medical conditions this would fall under the “disability” protected characteristic?

For instance, would it be legal for a business to refuse to serve someone because they are in a wheelchair or because they have learning difficulties?

Where you get conflicts here are with relation to health and safety. So you might find that a business with only stepped access in a historic building might consider a reasonable adjustment to be that they will serve you outside, and the law does seem to back that up, rather than being happy to carry your wheelchair with you in it up the stairs. I suspect the H&S get-out might well be able to be legally applied to some smaller businesses (in terms of floorspace), e.g. "my store is too small for me to be 2m from you while you aren't wearing a mask, so I will serve you outside". But yes, it would pose a level of issue with some of the exemptions certainly.

 

[talldave]

As disability is a protected characteristic in the UK, that’s entirely correct I would believe.

I saw this sign in the cash converter in Paisley yesterday:

Does anyone know if this is legal? Clearly no exemptions are allowed by the wording.

I saw Foxtons had a similar approach. However on a more positive note, my partner visited a cafe in Kent that had a sign along the lines of: masks are for surgeons, builders and superheroes, don't wear one if you want to get served!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I saw Foxtons had a similar approach. However on a more positive note, my partner visited a cafe in Kent that had a sign along the lines of: masks are for surgeons, builders and superheroes, don't wear one if you want to get served!

Is inciting a breach of the law itself illegal, or is that only in specific areas? That notice makes it illegal for anyone other than those with legal exemptions to use that business.

 

[talldave]

Is inciting a breach of the law itself illegal, or is that only in specific areas? That notice makes it illegal for anyone other than those with legal exemptions to use that business.

It could well be illegal, but the business is thriving. We'll be going there again (by car!) for sure. The only people who would care are hiding in their bunkers reading Facebook.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It could well be illegal, but the business is thriving. We'll be going there again (by car!) for sure. The only people who would care are hiding in their bunkers reading Facebook.

I would not go in, not on the basis of safety per-se (provided 2m distancing was achievable) but because I do not like people attempting to incite me to break the law.

 

[Huntergreed]

I saw Foxtons had a similar approach. However on a more positive note, my partner visited a cafe in Kent that had a sign along the lines of: masks are for surgeons, builders and superheroes, don't wear one if you want to get served!

Is inciting a breach of the law itself illegal, or is that only in specific areas? That notice makes it illegal for anyone other than those with legal exemptions to use that business.

It could well be illegal, but the business is thriving. We'll be going there again (by car!) for sure. The only people who would care are hiding in their bunkers reading Facebook.

I would not go in, not on the basis of safety per-se (provided 2m distancing was achievable) but because I do not like people attempting to incite me to break the law.

Worth bearing in mind that this is a cafe not a shop, where masks are not required. They are simply saying that if people choose to use a mask whilst sitting in, they’ll choose to not serve you, very much happy to hear of places like this!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Worth bearing in mind that this is a cafe not a shop, where masks are not required. They are simply saying that if people choose to use a mask whilst sitting in, they’ll choose to not serve you, very much happy to hear of places like this!

Ah, sorry, I had the impression of it being a takeaway type place.

 

[Bantamzen]

Worth bearing in mind that this is a cafe not a shop, where masks are not required. They are simply saying that if people choose to use a mask whilst sitting in, they’ll choose to not serve you, very much happy to hear of places like this!

<Stifles laugh>

Ooops @Bletchleyite , dropped a clanger there....

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Aug 2020 ==

I've just seen a meme on my Facebook feed that got me thinking. It went something along the lines of "If covid is so deadly, why are there no bio-hazard bins in public to dispose of the masks?". So I did a little search on disposing of one-use masks, and lo & behold the advice is quite categorically that they must be sealed and not just chucked in the bin. So given that such masks are widely in use, and that they should be replaced regularly, why are there literally no public facilities for their safe disposal?

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Khan has been pushing for face covering usage outside in London for ages, I've seen on his twitter page. It's infuriating, but it's making him seem like confirming that he’s an idiot, as clearly being outdoors the risk of transmission is much lower. Otherwise, how does he explain Bournemouth's crowds over 2 months ago, with people travelling from various parts of the country, not leading to a spike?

Corrected that for you.
He suggests that the effect would be to make people ‘feel safe’ and they would return in greater numbers.
Pish.
Has he not noticed that the same arguments were used for mandating face coverings in shops... and the change resulted in less footfall ?
As if having to mask-up on the train/bus/tube on the way in wasn’t deterring visitors, now he adds a further reason to make a visit unattractive?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Aug 2020 ==

Up in Glasgow today, it’s quite disheartening to see young children of the age of 5 in face masks, who clearly find them very intimidating and have no reason why they need them other than that they mean “danger”.

I am, however, happy to hear (or I suppose not hear!) that the “no food and drink” announcement is no longer being played in Central station.

I am incredibly sad to see parents making a child wear a fence-covering. With very young children, I consider it tantamount to child-abuse, their young friends not being allowed to see their smile or other facial expressions.

 

[talldave]

Worth bearing in mind that this is a cafe not a shop, where masks are not required. They are simply saying that if people choose to use a mask whilst sitting in, they’ll choose to not serve you, very much happy to hear of places like this!

Yes, a cafe with indoor seating and outdoor seating so you're only vulnerable to the deadly killer virus whilst standing . It's a step up from a greasy spoon, but does a lovely full English! Interesting that most of the staff are getting on in years but none appear to be supportive of the nanny state's "feeling safe" project.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

It could well be illegal, but the business is thriving.

This is a glimmer of light, in a dark world.
It would be interesting if a rival cafe set up opposite, who demanded face coverings be worn at all times, except when eating and drinking, to cater for extremists.
I have no doubts as to which would get the most customers

 

[SouthEastBuses]

Seeing as the virus is no longer as dangerous as it was during lockdown, I will start to use buses again, but for my own safety, I will only ride on open top buses by sitting upstairs. Are face masks legally required to be worn on the upper deck of a open top bus too? Or can I ride on one without one?

 

[trebor79]

There's a pop up brasserie in Fowey. Completely normal, no masks, no sanitiser, no nonsense about distancing, no song and dance about disposable menus (it's a chalkboard on the wall). Just good grub served on long benches.
Mother in law muttered about distancing under her breath, "don't bloody go in then" muttered I!

 

[greyman42]

I saw Foxtons had a similar approach. However on a more positive note, my partner visited a cafe in Kent that had a sign along the lines of: masks are for surgeons, builders and superheroes, don't wear one if you want to get served!

Pre covid, you had pubs with notices up saying no one wearing football team colours would be served. It was no big issue.

 

[Huntergreed]

In Glasgow Central right now. The phrase “face covering” has been mentioned FIVE times between 16:50 and 17:00 over the tannoy. No wonder people are growing tired of it!!

 

[island]

If they have a protected characteristic in law (which is narrower than many think it is), yes. But otherwise, no.

Even if they have a protected characteristic at law, section 15 (1) (b) of the Equality Act 2010 is likely to give a get-out clause to businesses applying blanket face covering requirements.

I saw a small pharmacy during the week displaying a notice which stated that if you had an exemption from wearing a face covering you were not permitted to enter, but they would serve you at the front door.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Aug 2020 ==

Yes, a cafe with indoor seating and outdoor seating so you're only vulnerable to the deadly killer virus whilst standing .

Assuming the café has table service, face coverings are not legally required to be worn by customers at all on the premises, whether you are standing, sitting, eating in, taking away, or just using the loo.

 

[Journeyman]

I saw a small pharmacy during the week displaying a notice which stated that if you had an exemption from wearing a face covering you were not permitted to enter, but they would serve you at the front door.

Blimey. They're getting treated like lepers.

 

[route101]

In Glasgow Central right now. The phrase “face covering” has been mentioned FIVE times between 16:50 and 17:00 over the tannoy. No wonder people are growing tired of it!!

I noticed they have dropped the 'Stories' announcements.

 

[kez19]

In Glasgow Central right now. The phrase “face covering” has been mentioned FIVE times between 16:50 and 17:00 over the tannoy. No wonder people are growing tired of it!!

Is the announcer live or pre recorded? I would switch some music on

 

[Ianno87]

Took my kid to soft play for the first time post-lockdown. Clambering after them on the equipment whilst I wore a face a covering was...a breathtaking experience lets just say...

Up in Glasgow today, it’s quite disheartening to see young children of the age of 5 in face masks, who clearly find them very intimidating and have no reason why they need them other than that they mean “danger”.

I am, however, happy to hear (or I suppose not hear!) that the “no food and drink” announcement is no longer being played in Central station.

Corrected that for you.
He suggests that the effect would be to make people ‘feel safe’ and they would return in greater numbers.
Pish.
Has he not noticed that the same arguments were used for mandating face coverings in shops... and the change resulted in less footfall ?
As if having to mask-up on the train/bus/tube on the way in wasn’t deterring visitors, now he adds a further reason to make a visit unattractive?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Aug 2020 ==


I am incredibly sad to see parents making a child wear a fence-covering. With very young children, I consider it tantamount to child-abuse, their young friends not being allowed to see their smile or other facial expressions.

If the kid is old enough to understand and make a genuine, informed choice, then that's fine.

However, I was slightly disturbed to see a kid small/young enough to be in a harness (so ~18 months old tops) bedecked with a mini version of a disposible mask, an age at which mask wearing is specifically recommended against. The fact that companies even make these is worrying...

 

[johnnychips]

I think a lot of primary age kids will be like ‘why can’t I have a mask like you mummy/daddy?’

Just some general observations from today. In the Cabot Centre in Bristol and the Bull Ring in Brum, although there were signs saying to wear them throughout the centres, I would say it was 50/50; however a lot did put them on before entering shops.

And from a week spent around Bristol, the biggest non-compilers are teenage girls on buses. That surprised me: nearly all lads wore them.

Not giving an opinion on effectiveness of masks, just observing.

 

[trebor79]

My 6 year old has a mask that a friend of my mum's made for him from Spiderman themed material. He likes it and sometimes choses to wear it (usually outside). We never tell him to wear one and always make sure he understands he doesn't have to wear a mask before we go into buildings.

 

[yorkie]

In Geneva, compliance was broadly similar to the UK. However I suspect that exempt people would have fewer instances of unwanted conversations and less confrontation than in the UK.

One of the main differences is the standard of masks required is higher (@yorksrob would not be deemed compliant ); another difference is that masks are required when walking within a restaurant (e.g. if you are sat outside but need to go in to use the toilet, you need to put a mask on for that). A family near us were having a conversation with the staff; the staff asked how old the boy was, "13" was the answer. They said "just say you are 10 and you won't have to wear a mask".

Masks replace social distancing on trains over there, in line with WHO guidance. We are going about it in the wrong way in the UK.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Masks replace social distancing on trains over there, in line with WHO guidance. We are going about it in the wrong way in the UK.

I used a Southeastern and a Thameslink earlier on for a couple of short journeys. Masks replaced social distancing on those; there was nothing at all suggesting that all seats shouldn't be occupied, and people occupied them exactly as they normally would on off peak services, i.e. they grabbed a bay/row to themselves (as there were enough) but didn't pay attention to much else.

 

[43066]

Is inciting a breach of the law itself illegal, or is that only in specific areas? That notice makes it illegal for anyone other than those with legal exemptions to use that business.

You’re (again) adding 2+2 and making 5. How is that inciting a breach of the law? It’s perfectly legal for people who exempt from wearing masks to use businesses as normal.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You’re (again) adding 2+2 and making 5. How is that inciting a breach of the law? It’s perfectly legal for people who exempt from wearing masks to use businesses as normal.

I was referring to the sign in that business which stated that people would not be served if they wore a mask. What I did was miss that it was a sit in restaurant where they are not required anyway. However, if a takeaway or shop had such a sign, I would say it would only be possible for those who are exempt to use that business legally, and that having a sign saying that would be inciting others to use the business without a mask which is an offence.

 

[43066]

I have written to the Needles Landmark Attraction in the Isle of Wight. They are saying that government legislation means that all over 5s must wear a face covering (and funnily enough they are selling them). As they are a private enterprise, they can madate what they like, but they cannot claim that it's the law. I await their response.

Agreed, they shouldn’t be making that (incorrect) statement but, from personal experience, that business was perfectly professional about mask exemption a few weeks ago.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Aug 2020 ==

I was referring to the sign in that business which stated that people would not be served if they wore a mask. What I did was miss that it was a sit in restaurant where they are not required anyway. However, if a takeaway or shop had such a sign, I would say it would only be possible for those who are exempt to use that business legally, and that having a sign saying that would be inciting others to use the business without a mask which is an offence.

Noted (sorry I had slightly misread what you’d quoted).

But I suppose there’s nothing really to stop a business saying “no masks allowed” if the owner wishes to. I’m less confident than you that that would be incitement - it’s effectively a statement that that business can only be patronised by exempt members of the public - not an attempt to persuade those who aren’t exempt to break the law - but agreed it’s perhaps close to the wind depending on the wording (have a look at the offence of incitement).

But at the end of the day people are legally exempt if they decide they are due to the extreme distress “catch all” exemption. I fully respect any business owner taking a stand against the farcical, inconsistent, unenforceable rules around face coverings in this way!

 

[Huntergreed]

Had a ticket check yesterday where the announcement was “please have all tickets, railcards and face coverings ready for inspection”.

There was one person in my coach who was exempt (or at least they weren’t wearing one and claimed to be exempt). The guard checked their ticket, which was valid, then challenged them on the mask and asked them to produce a doctors letter. They were unable to and were visibly distressed. The guard went away and, I presume, phoned control, before coming back and, reluctantly, allowing the passenger in question to stay onboard.

I hope this is just a minority, but it’s clearly happening