Supermarkets and Covid-19

[Bantamzen]

I saw my first example of mask-rage yesterday in my local Morrisions. A bloke was busy ranting firstly at someone with an exemption, and subsequently anyone that would listen about the fact that the store let them in. He was really quite angry & getting aggressive until myself and a couple of other shoppers told him where to get off. But I fear this is going to become a very common sight.

 

[bengley]

https://twitter.com/thespurrshow?lang=en

This idiot was presenting temporarily overnight on LBC standing in for another presenter a few weeks ago and was only taking calls from pro maskers. He said he would openly go around challenging people not wearing masks in shops and on public transport and would publicly shame them on social media. Oh dear.

 

[Ascotroyal]

https://twitter.com/thespurrshow?lang=en

This idiot was presenting temporarily overnight on LBC standing in for another presenter a few weeks ago and was only taking calls from pro maskers. He said he would openly go around challenging people not wearing masks in shops and on public transport and would publicly shame them on social media. Oh dear.

Just read through the idiots twitter and he just full of hot air. As somebody who is exempt i am polite with shop or railway staff who ask if i have a mask. However when general members of the public give me the evils in shops or trains i now give them the evils back. Nobody has yet but if any member of public sticks their nose in and asks where my mask is my response wont be so polite. Im not putting up with that when going about my life.

 

[Wuffle]

Sadly a lot of the anger has been stirred up by the media after a story and the authorities particularly certain senior police officers
Politicians are always looking for a scapegoat to deflect blame away from them

 

[DB]

Politicians are always looking for a scapegoat to deflect blame away from them

Indeed. What have we had so far? Students, schoolkids, beach-goers, people attending protests, people in groups of more than the government has decided to allow, pubs, restaurants, non-essential shops, "people not complying with restrictions" (left vague and unspecified), people not wearing masks.

Have I missed any?

 

[takno]

Indeed. What have we had so far? Students, schoolkids, beach-goers, people attending protests, people in groups of more than the government has decided to allow, pubs, restaurants, non-essential shops, "people not complying with restrictions" (left vague and unspecified), people not wearing masks.

Have I missed any?

Those Covid patients in the hospital that shook Boris's proffered hand about a week before he got sick with it.

 

[bramling]

I am exempt but my employer made masks mandatory in the workplace on 4th November, subject to exemptions.
After a brief chat with my line manager (who knows my medical reason), I’ve been wearing a lanyard even though it’s not compulsory.
This week, however, a manager from a different shift wanted an ‘informal chat’ with each exempt person, ‘just to clarify why you’re not able to wear one, or even a visor’. He claimed the law had changed to cover distribution centres (it has, but not recently) but I politely told him that in respect of exemptions, the law was unchanged.
It turns out the real reason behind these chats was some colleagues are hinting they don’t feel safe at work.
The manager even tried the emotional blackmail angle, saying that if I could wear something, even if it’s only a visor, it might help others ‘feel protected’. As soon as I said that there was no evidence that masks work, he waved his hand across his face dismissively and said ‘I’m not interested in conspiracy theories’!
I was astonished.
I pointed out that at least one person with strong views on masks is regularly to found doing overtime, including on New Years Day, for enhanced pay and a day in lieu. Surely, if he felt that unsafe, wouldn’t he restrict his days at work to his contractual hours only?
I also pointed out that at least two individuals who are in the Critically Extremely Vulnerable group, who stayed at home throughout the first lockdown, have declined to stay home in this current lockdown. One of whom is... my line manager!!!
I am fast losing respect for those that have swallowed this fear agenda without any use of their brain.

My place has the same emotional blackmail, and we’ve had exactly the same with people who claim to be terrified being found doing overtime (in some cases doing tasks which they claim they can’t carry out as part of their normal workload as it’s purportedly too dangerous).

I too am sick of it, just like I’m sick of the fuss some people are making when passing in the street. It’s absolutely the right thing not to pander to it, as this makes it worse, but to treat it with the contempt it deserves.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jan 2021 ==

https://twitter.com/thespurrshow?lang=en

This idiot was presenting temporarily overnight on LBC standing in for another presenter a few weeks ago and was only taking calls from pro maskers. He said he would openly go around challenging people not wearing masks in shops and on public transport and would publicly shame them on social media. Oh dear.

It needs to be installed into these people that shaming people who aren’t wearing masks could and should be treated as a potential hate crime.

Anyone attempting to shame me will get a real dose of home truth. There’s plenty I’m more than happy to point out to these people.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jan 2021 ==

Sadly a lot of the anger has been stirred up by the media after a story and the authorities particularly certain senior police officers
Politicians are always looking for a scapegoat to deflect blame away from them

Cressida Dick is the worst, and this particularly grates knowing her none-too-distinguished history.

 

[londonteacher]

The issue is supermarkets are private property. They have the right to decide what restrictions they put in place and what exemptions they allow. No-one is entitled to go to a supermarket as there are other places to shop.

They have decided wear a mask or be questioned and potentially not allowed in. Whether we agree with it or not is irrelevant as they are not public property.

It's like me saying that no-one can come into my house without wearing a green shirt. I don't actually do that though!

 

[221129]

The issue is supermarkets are private property. They have the right to decide what restrictions they put in place and what exemptions they allow. No-one is entitled to go to a supermarket as there are other places to shop.

They have decided wear a mask or be questioned and potentially not allowed in. Whether we agree with it or not is irrelevant as they are not public property.

It's like me saying that no-one can come into my house without wearing a green shirt. I don't actually do that though!

People keep saying that as if it is true, clue, it isn't.

Private property or not, they are not allowed to refuse service due to a protected characteristic. Such as a disability....

 

[londonteacher]

People keep saying that as if it is true, clue, it isn't.

Private property or not, they are not allowed to refuse service due to a protected characteristic. Such as a disability....

You are right they can't refuse service and that's why people with exemptions are allowed to enter.

People refusing to wear masks however can be refused entry.

 

[bramling]

The issue is supermarkets are private property. They have the right to decide what restrictions they put in place and what exemptions they allow. No-one is entitled to go to a supermarket as there are other places to shop.

They have decided wear a mask or be questioned and potentially not allowed in. Whether we agree with it or not is irrelevant as they are not public property.

It's like me saying that no-one can come into my house without wearing a green shirt. I don't actually do that though!

They do, however, need to ensure they comply with legislation which does not discriminate against people based on a protected characteristic.

Having a sign up at the entrance reminding people of their responsibilities might be deemed reasonable, but having a policy which goes beyond that could very well not be, especially as government policy is very clear on exemptions.

Those businesses who have decided to go down a “no exemptions at all” line (such as Bridgnorth Cliff Railway) could be on dodgy ground if someone with the right legal background decided to challenge this. It’s one thing a non-consequential cliff lift making their own policy, however had something like a supermarket chosen to go down that road there would already have been repercussions, which is no doubt part of the reason they haven’t done it.

 

[londonteacher]

What if someone refuses to wear a face covering?​

If a customer refuses to wear a face covering, and they don’t have an exemption, you can decide to refuse them entry. If they fail to comply with this, you can call the police as a last resort.

Retailers will not have legal powers to enforce the wearing of face coverings on their premises, although they may choose to refuse entry to customers who refuse to wear a face covering whilst on the premises. The police have formal enforcement powers and can issue a fine to those refusing to wear a face covering.

FSB

People with disabilities are covered in the exemptions.

In my opinion, if shops want to go down this route all they need to do is ask someone without are they exempt. If they say yes then leave it be or as the above says call the police.

 

[DB]

You are right they can't refuse service and that's why people with exemptions are allowed to enter.

People refusing to wear masks however can be refused entry.

But as we've been through countless times, all someone needs to do to comply with the government rules is state that they are exempt. The guidance is clear that details should not be requested, so if someone states that they are exempt (and declines to give further details because it's none of the supermarket's business) and the supermarket refuses entry, that could very well land the supermarket in a sticky situation legally if the reason relates to a protected characteristic (which it's likely to in the majority of cases).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jan 2021 ==

FSB

People with disabilities are covered in the exemptions.

In my opinion, if shops want to go down this route all they need to do is ask someone without are they exempt. If they say yes then leave it be or as the above says call the police.

That's not quite what it says! The wording is:

If a customer refuses to wear a face covering, and they don’t have an exemption, you can decide to refuse them entry. If they fail to comply with this, you can call the police as a last resort.

So the advice is only to call the police as a last resort if they don't have an exemption - so if someone says yes then the retailer should not be contemplating calling the police.

 

[londonteacher]

But as we've been through countless times, all someone needs to do to comply with the government rules is state that they are exempt. The guidance is clear that details should not be requested, so if someone states that they are exempt (and declines to give further details because it's none of the supermarket's business) and the supermarket refuses entry, that could very well land the supermarket in a sticky situation legally if the reason relates to a protected characteristic (which it's likely to in the majority of cases).

True, however as you stated it is only guidance. Guidance is there to guide and does not have to be followed to the letter.

 

[DB]

True, however as you stated it is only guidance. Guidance is there to guide and does not have to be followed to the letter.

The government guidance also makes it clear that they should not be asking for specifics of exemptions or refusing entry to someone who says they are exempt.

 

[221129]

True, however as you stated it is only guidance. Guidance is there to guide and does not have to be followed to the letter.

However it will make a large organisation look a bit silly if it went to court.

 

[londonteacher]

So the advice is only to call the police as a last resort if they don't have an exemption - so if someone says yes then the retailer should not be contemplating calling the police.

I agree. However, I have witnessed and know of people who refuse to say that they have an exemption. I was at Morrisons recently and someone was asked if they had a mask they said no. They were then asked and said do they have an exemption. The man just walked in.

I'm not saying that people should have say what their exemption is as that would be wrong but people should at least say they have an exemption rather than be an idiot. The person in question also happened to be filming this with commentary for what I can only imagine was his social media.

 

[bramling]

FSB

People with disabilities are covered in the exemptions.

In my opinion, if shops want to go down this route all they need to do is ask someone without are they exempt. If they say yes then leave it be or as the above says call the police.

I have a suspicion that this is arising not due to people saying “I refuse to wear one and am not exempt”, but because of people who claim exemptions quite reasonably not wishing to wear an identifier, or perhaps not being believed (and perhaps in some cases people not respecting the principle of exemptions at all).

Most people will by now have clocked on to the fact that claiming exemption should be enough to get them out or having to wear one, so I’d be surprised if there’s that many cases of people marching into a shop and outrightly refusing. I suppose there may be a few who turn up having forgotten to bring one.

I have a strong suspicion this is not about people refusing to wear masks when not exempt, but more about people refusing to respect the existence of exemptions. Never underestimate the power of “it’s not fair I have to wear one so why shouldn’t he?”. Likewise remember how few people were bothered about masks in shops until the law changed, then suddenly it’s become such a massive issue for certain people.

 

[DB]

I agree. However, I have witnessed and know of people who refuse to say that they have an exemption. I was at Morrisons recently and someone was asked if they had a mask they said no. They were then asked and said do they have an exemption. The man just walked in.

I'm not saying that people should have say what their exemption is as that would be wrong but people should at least say they have an exemption rather than be an idiot. The person in question also happened to be filming this with commentary for what I can only imagine was his social media.

Yes, when challenged I will state that yes, I am exempt - but no further than that.

Tesco earlier in the week followed it up with 'can I see some proof'. I could have made an issue of this but couldn't be bothered so just pointed to the clearly-visible lanyard I was wearing and brought it to his attention. If this happens again (demands for proof) I probably will email their customer services with a complaint.

I do usually wear the lanyard - not because I think it's reasonable to force people to do so, but because I'm sick of the hassle I get otherwise.

 

[londonteacher]

I have a suspicion that this is arising not due to people saying “I refuse to wear one and am not exempt”, but because of people who claim exemptions quite reasonably not wishing to wear an identifier, or perhaps not being believed (and perhaps in some cases people not respecting the principle of exemptions at all).

Most people will by now have clocked on to the fact that claiming exemption should be enough to get them out or having to wear one, so I’d be surprised if there’s that many cases of people marching into a shop and outrightly refusing. I suppose there may be a few who turn up having forgotten to bring one.

I have a strong suspicion this is not about people refusing to wear masks when not exempt, but more about people refusing to respect the existence of exemptions. Never underestimate the power of “it’s not fair I have to wear one so why shouldn’t he?”. Likewise remember how few people were bothered about masks in shops until the law changed, then suddenly it’s become such a massive issue for certain people.

Definitely - all you need is people with a large following, due to the way they express themselves with clarity to some people, such as Nigel Farage, Katie Hopkins, Piers Corbyn, and others to denounce mask-wearing like they have and people then begin to make a fuss. Until those people spoke out very few people would complain. (Yes, some people did complain but not on the scale that we have now).

I am not for or against wearing a mask. I wear one because it makes me feel more comfortable especially at work.

 

[Ascotroyal]

Yes, when challenged I will state that yes, I am exempt - but no further than that.

Tesco earlier in the week followed it up with 'can I see some proof'. I could have made an issue of this but couldn't be bothered so just pointed to the clearly-visible lanyard I was wearing and brought it to his attention. If this happens again (demands for proof) I probably will email their customer services with a complaint.

I do usually wear the lanyard - not because I think it's reasonable to force people to do so, but because I'm sick of the hassle I get otherwise.

Like you that is the only reason i wear the lanyard. I expect its the same for lots of exempt people.

 

[MikeWM]

I am genuinely concerned, especially working in an environment that’s hardly sterile, that they may risk more harm than good, by introducing a route which transmit bacteria to the face.

I think this is a rather key point. You only have to look at the mask hygiene - or lack thereof - shown by most people, to see there may be an issue here.

If I thought that asymptomatic transmission was a non-trivial factor [1] and I thought masks were successful at trapping viruses [2], then I'd actually be calling for masks to stop being mandatory in most circumstances, as the people who don't really want to do it are quite possibly making things worse with their poor mask hygiene. Watch a member of supermarket staff for a few minutes, they'll usually touch their face, their mask, repeatedly. The hygiene was much better back in March/April when they weren't forced to wear the things.

([1] I don't - the evidence is weak and, at best, highly circumstantial)
([2] I don't (except for possibly a few minutes in a new clean one, though even then there may be a nebulising effect))

 

[kristiang85]

If I thought that asymptomatic transmission was a non-trivial factor [1] and I thought masks were successful at trapping viruses [2], then I'd actually be calling for masks to stop being mandatory in most circumstances, as the people who don't really want to do it are quite possibly making things worse with their poor mask hygiene. Watch a member of supermarket staff for a few minutes, they'll usually touch their face, their mask, repeatedly. The hygiene was much better back in March/April when they weren't forced to wear the things.

([1] I don't - the evidence is weak and, at best, highly circumstantial)
([2] I don't (except for possibly a few minutes in a new clean one, though even then there may be a nebulising effect))

Not to mention that mask wearing leads to a reduction in social distancing.

 

[RuralRambler]

People keep saying that as if it is true, clue, it isn't.

Private property or not, they are not allowed to refuse service due to a protected characteristic. Such as a disability....

But if a "wronged" person wishes to pursue it, then it's off to the courts where the first thing they'll have to do is provide evidence of their disability.

 

[Wuffle]

The first payout has been recorded to an individual discriminated against for not wearing a mask as they are exempt

Latest News - Kester Disability Rights

Kester Disability Rights

disabilityrights.org.uk

​

First face mask discrimination case nets £7,000​

A disabled woman assisted by Kester Disability Rights has been paid £7,000 in compensation by a service provider who refused her access to a service because she was unable to wear a face mask.
The pay-out was achieved through negotiation as there was no dispute that access had been denied, or that the Claimant had a disability exemption. The only thing to be agreed was the amount of compensation, not whether it was due or not.
Refusing access to people unable to wear face coverings due to disability is direct discimination - no different to denying access to a black or gay person for example.

 

[takno]

But if a "wronged" person wishes to pursue it, then it's off to the courts where the first thing they'll have to do is provide evidence of their disability.

I'm not convinced that's actually true, but in any case providing evidence to a court is a rather different matter to providing it to a nosey shopkeeper or security guard in the middle of a shop. In addition, you'd have have notice of it and would likely be more able to get a doctor to issue something to you.

 

[DB]

I'm not convinced that's actually true, but in any case providing evidence to a court is a rather different matter to providing it to a nosey shopkeeper or security guard in the middle of a shop. In addition, you'd have have notice of it and would likely be more able to get a doctor to issue something to you.

It doesn't have to be a disability - not all of the reasons are medical. The court would no doubt ask reasonable questions, but all that is necessary is to provide believable testimony to the court as to why one of the exemptions applies. There is no requirement to demonstrate a formally diagnosed disability, according to the government guidelines for the application of the law.

 

[island]

It doesn't have to be a disability - not all of the reasons are medical. The court would no doubt ask reasonable questions, but all that is necessary is to provide believable testimony to the court as to why one of the exemptions applies. There is no requirement to demonstrate a formally diagnosed disability, according to the government guidelines for the application of the law.

If a case reached Court and was not settled beforehand, as the much-cited Kester case was, the Claimant at Court (the person claiming exemption from wearing a face covering) would need to prove on the Balance of Probabilities that he or she has a condition meeting the criteria. He or she would be subject to Cross-Examination by the Defendant’s legal representative who will seek to cast doubt on the Claimant’s evidence, and if independent documentary proof of the Claimant’s alleged condition is not provided, it is not at all certain that a Court would state the Claimant had discharged his or her burden of proof.

 

[DB]

If a case reached Court and was not settled beforehand, as the much-cited Kester case was, the Claimant at Court (the person claiming exemption from wearing a face covering) would need to prove on the Balance of Probabilities that he or she has a condition meeting the criteria. He or she would be subject to Cross-Examination by the Defendant’s legal representative who will seek to cast doubt on the Claimant’s evidence, and if independent documentary proof of the Claimant’s alleged condition is not provided, it is not at all certain that a Court would state the Claimant had discharged his or her burden of proof.

And can you imagine the response from disability groups if, say, an autistic person was grilled in court by a barrister? No supermarket would want that sort of publicity.

How does someone 'prove' that they suffer from anxiety which makes them unable to wear a mask? The way the legislation is written means that there is no requirement for any formal diagnosis, and such diagnosis might be largely impossible in some cases anyway.

 

[island]

And can you imagine the response from disability groups if, say, an autistic person was grilled in court by a barrister? No supermarket would want that sort of publicity.

An autistic person would be able to provide proof, such as his or her diagnosis of autism, that would render any such “grilling” unnecessary.

How does someone 'prove' that they suffer from anxiety which makes them unable to wear a mask? The way the legislation is written means that there is no requirement for any formal diagnosis, and such diagnosis might be largely impossible in some cases anyway.

The same way you prove anything else, with evidence.