UK face coverings discussion

[Skimpot flyer]

The statement that ‘the risk gets even lower if everyone wears a face covering’ is purely a hypothesis. It cannot be demonstrated to be true.
If someone touches a contaminated surface and then puts on a face covering without first washing / sanitising their hands, they could put a viral load directly on the mask, and be breathing in the contaminant for the remainder of the journey. If there was no requirement to wear a face covering, the risk would be less

 

[Bletchleyite]

While that sort of behaviour is certainly completely unacceptable, it's also not really on for shop staff to be asking about masks - it's not their job to enforce it.

They are not generally required to do so, but if a shop owner wishes to ask about masks (e.g. by offering to give them out for free to those who don't have them[1]) and it is not against company policy for them to do so then that is entirely up to them. What they do need to do, though, is to accept "I'm exempt" at face value.

What is quite useful, demonstrated by that encounter above, is that most people who are not exempt but are trying it on don't, for some reason, seem to have the nous to just say "I'm exempt" anyway - almost all of them are cruising for an argument, which they will lose.

FWIW, provided disabilities etc are catered for (basically the legal exempt list) as a reasonable adjustment, there is nothing in law that would state that a shop owner could not require masks even were it not law. It's no different from any other form of dress code - nor indeed the more usual requirement to remove any face covering[2] so the CCTV can see you!

[1] I saw this being done at a motorway services yesterday and thought "What a good idea", and noted as I passed, already wearing one, that several people were taking them up on it. Another services was charging £1 for them from one of those "plastic egg" machines, which probably increased the number of "exemptions" at that site.

[2] I wonder if motorcyclists can just leave their helmet on while paying for fuel at the moment, or if they have to faff about removing it and putting on a mask?

 

[ainsworth74]

While that sort of behaviour is certainly completely unacceptable, it's also not really on for shop staff to be asking about masks - it's not their job to enforce it.

Depends on the risk assessment under which the shop is operating I'd have thought. I know at my place (not a shop but we deal with the public) we're going to be asking people to wear a mask unless exempt as part of reducing the risk of re-opening to the public. Which means asking people to wear a mask if they're not already and offering them a disposable one if they need it. We're not going to be quizzing them or shining bright lights in their faces demanding to know details of any exemptions but we are going to be asking.And I think it's perfectly reasonable for member of staff at any establishment to ask the question whether that be due to the premises being covered by a legal requirement or because it's been decided it's a necessary step as part of reopening for patrons and staff to wear masks.

 

[Darandio]

While that sort of behaviour is certainly completely unacceptable, it's also not really on for shop staff to be asking about masks - it's not their job to enforce it.

Nonsense. It's a relatively small store and she is well within her rights to do what she pleases.

 

[talldave]

Should you also ask people if they're carrying a firearm, knife, drugs, counterfeit money or stolen credit cards?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Should you also ask people if they're carrying a firearm, knife, drugs, counterfeit money or stolen credit cards?

In some places, where the risk from those items is high, it is not unknown to do exactly that, e.g. by way of airport-style security.

 

[bramling]

Nonsense. It's a relatively small store and she is well within her rights to do what she pleases.

Likewise potential customers are well within their rights to walk out, peacefully of course.

Having said that, I do feel sorry for shop owners especially the smaller ones, as they’re kind of damned if they do and damned if they don’t. If they’re seen not to be at least going through the motions over masks then there’s the risk of the social media furlough brigade being all over it, which for a small business could be ruinous.

 

[talldave]

In some places, where the risk from those items is high, it is not unknown to do exactly that, e.g. by way of airport-style security.

I'm talking about high street shops taking on a specific law enforcement role off their own backs.

 

[AdamWW]

But we all know by now that when cases are as low as they are currently, R is fairly meaningless number.

We don't all know that.

People keep saying (correctly) that at some point cases become too low for it to be meaningful, and then assert that we are at that point and that therefore the values being produced by the ONS and SAGE are meaningless (even though the Office of National Statistics believes otherwise). But I haven't seen any evidence.

 

[DB]

Having said that, I do feel sorry for shop owners especially the smaller ones, as they’re kind of damned if they do and damned if they don’t. If they’re seen not to be at least going through the motions over masks then there’s the risk of the social media furlough brigade being all over it, which for a small business could be ruinous.

Yes, that much is certainly true - the government, with their usual lack of proper planning, have put them in an awkward position.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm talking about high street shops taking on a specific law enforcement role off their own backs.

If they choose to do that that is entirely their choice. Their only sanction is based on trespass law, though, i.e. revoking the invitation to enter (or calling the Police if they believe an offence has been committed).

With regard to counterfeit money they sometimes do.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Whilst I don’t condone the man’s behaviour, what I find interesting is the age of person (and his wife) who were refusing to wear the masks.
If a much younger person was refusing, on the basis that he/she was in a low risk group, I can see their logic. The fact that they are in an age bracket where they may have less years of active life left than a teenager makes me wonder: are they perhaps tired of all these restrictions, that take any modicum of pleasure out of even mundane activities, and have decided ‘enough, we refuse to life our lives like this’?
The whole confrontation was avoidable. Shop workers should not act as agents of the state. Many supermarkets have told staff not to challenge non-wearers, just so scenarios such as this don’t occur.

 

[talldave]

If they choose to do that that is entirely their choice. Their only sanction is based on trespass law, though, i.e. revoking the invitation to enter (or calling the Police if they believe an offence has been committed).

With regard to counterfeit money they sometimes do.

A choice that in the above case has triggered an unpleasant confrontation. Whilst the behaviour reported is totally unacceptable, it reflects the pent up anger that is simmering amongst many. Savvy shopkeepers realise that not mentioning masks avoids such situations.

 

[Darandio]

Supermarkets and other larger stores can hold a large amount of people quite safely, this small shop clearly can't.

Normally i'd find it quite incredible that anyone would try and lay the blame at her door for this. But given which usual suspects are replying here, i'm really not surprised.

 

[DB]

Supermarkets and other larger stores can hold a large amount of people quite safely, this small shop clearly can't.

Normally i'd find it quite incredible that anyone would try and lay the blame at her door for this. But given which usual suspects are replying here, i'm really not surprised.

Nobody is trying to excuse the behaviour of the bloke who argued - that's quite clearly not acceptable.

However, there are plenty of cases in all sorts of situations where the practice is not to challenge in order to avoid things kicking off.

 

[talldave]

Supermarkets and other larger stores can hold a large amount of people quite safely, this small shop clearly can't.

Normally i'd find it quite incredible that anyone would try and lay the blame at her door for this. But given which usual suspects are replying here, i'm really not surprised.

I've seen small shops handle that with a "maximum 'n' customers please" sign.

 

[Darandio]

I've seen small shops handle that with a "maximum 'n' customers please" sign.

This shop actually has one. It still doesn't mean she has no right to make such a polite enquiry to customers. I've no interest in engaging with anyone who suggests otherwise.

 

[carlberry]

Whilst I don’t condone the man’s behaviour, what I find interesting is the age of person (and his wife) who were refusing to wear the masks.
If a much younger person was refusing, on the basis that he/she was in a low risk group, I can see their logic. The fact that they are in an age bracket where they may have less years of active life left than a teenager makes me wonder: are they perhaps tired of all these restrictions, that take any modicum of pleasure out of even mundane activities, and have decided ‘enough, we refuse to life our lives like this’?
The whole confrontation was avoidable. Shop workers should not act as agents of the state. Many supermarkets have told staff not to challenge non-wearers, just so scenarios such as this don’t occur.

Perhaps the shop worker is also the shop owner and is concerned about their own health and well being. You're suggesting that they shouldn't care about law breakers?

 

[Islineclear3_1]

There is no way many people will accept the current restrictions lasting until next year and the economic damage of that would be huge. Who is going to pay to furlough the entire entertainment industry for another 6 months? Sooner or later people will say 'enough is enough'

And, just to add: who is going to pay for all the pubs and non-essential shops from September that have shut down again when the schools go back?

 

[DB]

And, just to add: who is going to pay for all the pubs and non-essential shops from September when the schools go back?

I very much dount if they will close anything - it would be unacceptable to too many people.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

A choice that in the above case has triggered an unpleasant confrontation. Whilst the behaviour reported is totally unacceptable, it reflects the pent up anger that is simmering amongst many. Savvy shopkeepers realise that not mentioning masks avoids such situations.

They also realise that when you are already restricting the number of customers that can be in your shop at any one time (and potentially reducing your revenue), the risk that the potential customer turns on their heel, never to return, is a possibility

 

[DB]

They also realise that when you are already restricting the number of customers that can be in your shop at any one time (and potentially reducing your revenue), the risk that the potential customer turns on their heel, never to return, is a possibility

Possibly why Tesco have now removed restrictions - for many people (me included) it gives them an edge over supermarkets which still have queues and one-way systems.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They also realise that when you are already restricting the number of customers that can be in your shop at any one time (and potentially reducing your revenue), the risk that the potential customer turns on their heel, never to return, is a possibility

And shopkeepers do need to take that into account. But it is within their rights, if it's their shop, to decline the custom of anyone they wish other than on the basis of a protected characteristic. Choosing not to wear a mask is not legally that, nor does it have any moral basis of that either.

Possibly why Tesco have now removed restrictions - for many people (me included) it gives them an edge over supermarkets which still have queues and one-way systems.

That was an interesting gamble as a piece of market differentiation. It will be interesting to see if it's successful or not. Interestingly when Tesco did have restrictions they seemed to me to be the strictest by some margin.

 

[bramling]

Supermarkets and other larger stores can hold a large amount of people quite safely, this small shop clearly can't.

Normally i'd find it quite incredible that anyone would try and lay the blame at her door for this. But given which usual suspects are replying here, i'm really not surprised.

Not sure anyone’s laying blame, however as she found out she found herself in a conflict situation - which wouldn’t have happened had she not chosen to intervene over masks.

In the same way railway staff pick their battles carefully, avoiding conflict in the first place is good practice where possible.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Perhaps the shop worker is also the shop owner and is concerned about their own health and well being. You're suggesting that they shouldn't care about law breakers?

By asking why the customer is not wearing one, are they not presupposing the person is breaking the law?
Some people who are exempt are already staying away from retail and from public transport exactly because they don’t want to have to constantly explain themselves.

 

[Bletchleyite]

By asking why the customer is not wearing one, are they not presupposing the person is breaking the law?

That doesn't overly matter. They want masks to be worn in their shop, that's their choice. They have to make reasonable adjustments for disability, which would constitute respecting the legal exemptions.

Any business is entitled not to serve someone for any reason they wish that is not unlawful. If they decline too much business they might have trouble with viability, but again that's up to them.

 

[Freightmaster]

And, just to add: who is going to pay for all the pubs and non-essential shops from September that have shut down again when the schools go back?

I very much doubt if they will close anything - it would be unacceptable to too many people.

It would be unacceptable to the government too - why on earth would they spend millions on the 'Eat Out to Help Out'
scheme only to summarily close all the restaurants/pubs down a few days after the scheme ends??!





MARK

 

[DB]

It would be unacceptable to the government too - why on earth would they spend millions on the 'Eat Out to Help Out'
scheme only to summarily close all the restaurants/pubs down a few days after the scheme ends??!

There hasn't been a lot of consistency on display from the government over the past few months!

 

[jtuk]

There hasn't been a lot of consistency on display from the government over the past few months!

On the contrary, ever since Boris bottled it and "locked down" they've been consistently useless

 

[DB]

On the contrary, ever since Boris bottled it and "locked down" they've been consistently useless

They have been consistently useless, but that's about the only way they have been consistent!