UK face coverings discussion

[Dave91131]

Apologies if this point has been raised before, and mods please move to / create a new thread if deemed appropriate;

When the requirement to wear face coverings (unless exempt) in shops, restaurants etc ends, where would such premises stand in terms of implementing a "face coverings not permitted" policy if they wished to do so? And what do forum users think the chances of businesses doing so are? And what are views and opinions on this?

I'm thinking in much the same way as, for example, some fuel stations and service areas display signage instructing motorcyclists to remove crash helmets prior to entry.

Could they do this without leaving themselves open to legal / discrimination / other challenges and issues?

One point which immediately springs to mind is that pre-Covid some people wore (and continue to wear) non-medical face coverings for religious beliefs and reasons.

Interested to hear thoughts and views.

 

[trebor79]

If they introduce compulsory three-layer face coverings I will be making myself some reusable clip-on ear loops and using sheets of triple ply Andrex for masks! It's hard enough to breathe through a single layer (of close woven cotton), never mind three.

The whole concept bewilders me, in that presumably we are still permitted to breathe, in which case we are still expelling breath, which has to go somewhere so takes a sideways route out from behind your mask instead of going forwards. Same end result.

Yep. As someone who has worn a proper face-fitted mask for (non-medical) work I can tell you that they do make breathing more difficult. You can tell when they aren't fitted properly because you can breath normally.
All of these surgical, cloth and home made masks are absolutely useless for the stated purpose as 98% of your breath in and out just leaks round the sides of the silly things, or through the weave if that's the easier route (in which case it isn't going to filter anything, let alone a microscopic droplet or virus particle).
They are nothing more than a placebo to make people feel safe.

In fact, I'd wager that if the mandate was withdrawn, you'd see better distancing compliance again and millions of people too scared to come out of their homes, which is what the government wants.

Apologies if this point has been raised before, and mods please move to / create a new thread if deemed appropriate;

When the requirement to wear face coverings (unless exempt) in shops, restaurants etc ends, where would such premises stand in terms of implementing a "face coverings not permitted" policy if they wished to do so? And what do forum users think the chances of businesses doing so are? And what are views and opinions on this?

I'm thinking in much the same way as, for example, some fuel stations and service areas display signage instructing motorcyclists to remove crash helmets prior to entry.

Could they do this without leaving themselves open to legal / discrimination / other challenges and issues?

One point which immediately springs to mind is that pre-Covid some people wore (and continue to wear) non-medical face coverings for religious beliefs and reasons.

Interested to hear thoughts and views.

I don't think they can do this.
You can't override statute like that. The crash helmet thing is not a good analogy, because there is no law saying you must wear a crash helmet, other than when you are on the motorbike.

If shops etc were allowed to nullfy the mask mandate, then what would stop them nullifying age limits for alcohol, the obscene publications act, Sunday trading laws etc? You can't say "my shop my rules" - if those rules conflict with statute, statute wins.

 

[DustyBin]

And I will stop supporting it when presented with evidence that they make transmission worse.

I feel we will be stuck in this stand-off lacking evidence for an awful long time.

I suspect you're right.... My argument though is that not wearing a mask is the natural state of affairs and that those imposing change should have to provide the evidence, not the other way around. As you say, we'll have to agree to disagree!

 

[221129]

Yep. As someone who has worn a proper face-fitted mask for (non-medical) work I can tell you that they do make breathing more difficult. You can tell when they aren't fitted properly because you can breath normally.
All of these surgical, cloth and home made masks are absolutely useless for the stated purpose as 98% of your breath in and out just leaks round the sides of the silly things, or through the weave if that's the easier route (in which case it isn't going to filter anything, let alone a microscopic droplet or virus particle).
They are nothing more than a placebo to make people feel safe.

In fact, I'd wager that if the mandate was withdrawn, you'd see better distancing compliance again and millions of people too scared to come out of their homes, which is what the government wants.


I don't think they can do this.
You can't override statute like that. The crash helmet thing is not a good analogy, because there is no law saying you must wear a crash helmet, other than when you are on the motorbike.

If shops etc were allowed to nullfy the mask mandate, then what would stop them nullifying age limits for alcohol, the obscene publications act, Sunday trading laws etc? You can't say "my shop my rules" - if those rules conflict with statute, statute wins.

The quoted poster asked about how they would stand AFTER the statute is repealed.

 

[MikeWM]

I find the loss of non verbal communication with mask wearing quite disturbing. it removes much human contact from your day. I am sure this will cause mental problems for many.

On a related note to this, I would suggest people look into the 'still face experiments' that have been conducted in the past. Young children have been proven to require facial reaction to form emotional connections and develop correctly.

 

[packermac]

Apologies if this point has been raised before, and mods please move to / create a new thread if deemed appropriate;

When the requirement to wear face coverings (unless exempt) in shops, restaurants etc ends, where would such premises stand in terms of implementing a "face coverings not permitted" policy if they wished to do so? And what do forum users think the chances of businesses doing so are? And what are views and opinions on this?

I'm thinking in much the same way as, for example, some fuel stations and service areas display signage instructing motorcyclists to remove crash helmets prior to entry.

Could they do this without leaving themselves open to legal / discrimination / other challenges and issues?

One point which immediately springs to mind is that pre-Covid some people wore (and continue to wear) non-medical face coverings for religious beliefs and reasons.

Interested to hear thoughts and views.

Well it was reported on our local radio news that a shop keeper, in from memory Christchurch, did that back in the summer. He swiftly had his thinking readjusted by the local police according to the news article.

 

[Yew]

I will continue wearing my mask until someone shows me peer reviewed scientific evidence that it is doing harm. Why? because I have no problem wearing an extra piece of clothing if there is a possibility that it is helping reduce the pandemic. It doesn't need to be effective, for me to wear it, just to not be making the probelm worse. I have no difficulty or objection to wearing one. My partner on the other hand does have some difficulty. As she wears glasses, they often steam up whilst wearing a mask meaning she repeatedly has to take her glasses off to clean potentially coming into contact with her mask and face. In her scenario I could see the wearing of the mask slightly increasing the risk, but again, I have seen no evidence to demonstrate it.

For many of the libertarians on here that may seem a perverse way of viewing the world, if you align wearing a mask as an infringement on your civil liberties. Personally I don't as I regularly chose to wear some form of facecovering, (particularly in cold weather) anyway.

You're perfectly welcome to choose that if you wish, I have an issue with those who refuse to give me the same choice, under threat of significant fines, when the evidence simply isn't there.

 

[island]

When the requirement to wear face coverings (unless exempt) in shops, restaurants etc ends, where would such premises stand in terms of implementing a "face coverings not permitted" policy if they wished to do so? And what do forum users think the chances of businesses doing so are? And what are views and opinions on this?

I'm thinking in much the same way as, for example, some fuel stations and service areas display signage instructing motorcyclists to remove crash helmets prior to entry.

Could they do this without leaving themselves open to legal / discrimination / other challenges and issues?

One point which immediately springs to mind is that pre-Covid some people wore (and continue to wear) non-medical face coverings for religious beliefs and reasons.

As long as it did not discriminate based on a protected characteristic such as religion or disability, then I cannot see any issues.

 

[DustyBin]

I don't think they can do this.
You can't override statute like that. The crash helmet thing is not a good analogy, because there is no law saying you must wear a crash helmet, other than when you are on the motorbike.

If shops etc were allowed to nullfy the mask mandate, then what would stop them nullifying age limits for alcohol, the obscene publications act, Sunday trading laws etc? You can't say "my shop my rules" - if those rules conflict with statute, statute wins.

I think you've misread the post, he's referring to the situation after the end of the mandate. It's an interesting question and I hope it will be left to individual venues to implement their own policy in the same way they can implement a no hat policy (or any other dress code). They can't discriminate against religious dress obviously. There's a danger that masks become some kind of grey area in this regard, I can see people arguing they are essential as they can't breath clean air without one, the same as somebody with poor eyesight needs to wear glasses to see properly.... I'm sure it will be messy and divisive whatever happens!

 

[DB]

If they introduce compulsory three-layer face coverings I will be making myself some reusable clip-on ear loops and using sheets of triple ply Andrex for masks! It's hard enough to breathe through a single layer (of close woven cotton), never mind three.

The whole concept bewilders me, in that presumably we are still permitted to breathe, in which case we are still expelling breath, which has to go somewhere so takes a sideways route out from behind your mask instead of going forwards. Same end result.

The measures started off not very logical, and have consistently departed further and further from logic. No evidence for anything is required, and if it doesn't work that's because we need to do more of whatever it is.

And some of the restrictions come across as purely vindictive, particularly to people who live alone. I wonder whether any of those making all these rules live alone?

 

[Ken H]

As long as it did not discriminate based on a protected characteristic such as religion or disability, then I cannot see any issues.

not wearing a mask due to the reasons stated in the statutory instrument is considered a disability thing. Its also not allowed to ask for medical history, which is considered confidential.

 

[Cdd89]

we are still expelling breath, which has to go somewhere so takes a sideways route out from behind your mask instead of going forwards

I mentioned upthread that I saw this as a concern on trains/etc where people sit next to each other, e.g. the tube.

 

[P Binnersley]

They gave everybody two weeks to buy a face covering when the shops were open before implementing the rule. How long will they give people to "upgrade" with most shops shut. I brought a face covering from a local tailor. I suspect its only two ply. I can't go back and ask (because they are closed) and cutting it open defeats the object.

 

[py_megapixel]

Another media briefing from the English government's Director of Incompetence and idiot-in-residence Boris Johnson at 8 o'clock; we'll see what he has to say about masks...

 

[_toommm_]

Although I’m not sure realistically how the use of 3-layer coverings will be policed. I doubt they’re going to expect the police to inspect worn face masks to see if they comply or not.

 

[Mag_seven]

This thread has been kindly re-opened so I could provide an update of my ongoing interaction with my Council.

A quick summary of things so far that have been mentioned in this thread.

My local Tesco had incorrect mask regulation signage up as it did not mention that exemptions can apply.

I complained to Tesco HQ and after a couple of interactions they agreed and stated that they had sent the correct signage (showed me the image) to the store for display. After a couple more weeks of emails as the store had not followed up by changin* the signage I contact the Environmental section of my Council to ask them to intervene- this takes us through the month of October.

Subsequent telephone calls and emails with the department resulted in no action being taken and a denial that according to law they have the wrong signage. This was despite me supplying them with highlighted wording bot in the Statutory wording and the accompanying Guidance notes, also the email admission from Tesco themselves and a copy of the letter of admission that was posted here from Cancer Research (no personal info from that letter was included).

I was therefore left in the position of having to make a formal complaint to the council.

This was the response I received



Well you can imagine the frustration of receiving such a poor response which include more irrelevant information than anything directly evidencing their decision on the point in hand.

Therefore I was left with no option but to go to Complaint stage 2. I specifically asked them to provide the evidence that the Statutory Instrument did not read as I had read it. Whilst I am not a lawyer I read contracts on a regular basis so I am no stranger to legalese.

I received this response on 23rd December:




Whilst it is a relief to finally get to the agreement on the SI there are so many questions left.

When will Tesco do the change of signage? I haven’t been out since the 23rd to check.

What was the Legal thinking and how did it change?

How can the whole department be so wrong and incapable of critical thinking?

Can you imagine the condescension and tone of my interactions with their team. Overall they think you are an idiot and you will just disappear if they ignore, lie or inject enough irrelevant information in to the conversations.

This whole thing took 3 months (if indeed it is over) when it could have taken an hour.

As @VauxhallandI has now given their update we are now closing the thread once more as we are now staring to go again with the same old arguments.

If there is any actual significant development in the face covering situation then please contact us and we will look to have the thread reopened.

thank you