Is Face Coverings In Shops Compulsory

[nailit]

Just been into my local corner shop (with mask on) and no other customers were wearing them.
Queried it with the shop assistant who told me that the owner had decided that he was leaving it up to the customers whether to wear one or not.
Also been reported in my local rag that many big name stores are refusing to 'police' customers who dont wear a face covering.

So is this thing *law* or simply guidline's with threat of a fine?
(And how can you be fined for dismissing a 'guidline'?
Thanks.

[tonyav]

Ohhhhh
( I've heard about that Sweeney Todd bloke )

[tamborine]

full ppe for you Tony

https://ibb.co/LRKXf75

[tonyav]

Ohhhh
Book me an appointment, tambo ;-)

[tamborine]

Youre in at 6pm tomoro providing you bring fish n chips as am famished

[tonyav]

Will that be with mushy peas or curry sauce, tambo ?

[New Judge]

//The problem here, as I know from experience, is that Plod then say "YMB refused to make a statement" then the beak assume you are guilty.//

Unlikely, ym. The prosecution has to produce evidence to show that you are guilty. To be guilty you have to have entered a shop without a face covering and without a reasonable excuse. That’s what the prosecution has to prove and without your help they cannot do so. The statement that you didn’t make would only come into play if you had to rebut the prosecution’s evidence.

//How does that prevent the police taking the same approach as that in the seatbelt legislation?

If the police see someone without a face covering, is it not up to that person to show they have a reasonable excuse for not wearing the covering in the same way someone in a car has to demonstrate they fall within one of the seatbelt exemptions?//

Because of the way the two different legislations are worded, Corby. The seatbelt legislation (and S172 of the Road Traffic which require the keeper of a car to provide the driver’s details at the time of an alleged offence) make it an offence to fail to wear a seatbelt or to fail to respond to the request. That’s all the prosecution has to prove – that no seatbelt was worn or that a notice was served and no response was received. If the defendant wants to take advantage of one of the exceptions, the relevant Acts say that he must prove to the court why he is not guilty. For example, S172 says that the keeper is guilty if he does not respond. No ifs, no buts. All the prosecution has to prove is that a notice was served and that no response was received. It then goes on to say this:

“Subject to the following provisions, a person who fails to comply with a requirement [to provide the driver’s details] shall be guilty of an offence."

But then:

(4) A person shall not be guilty of an offence [of failing to provide driver’s details] if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was.”

So, as with the seat belt legislation, the “following provisions” provide the get-out clauses but to take advantage of them the defendant must prove his case. The face covering legislation is not worded in that way. It provides no “provisions” whereby the defendant must satisfy the court of his exemption. It says simply “No person may, without reasonable excuse, enter or remain within a relevant place without wearing a face covering.” That’s all. So the prosecution must prove that he entered or remained on the premises without a face covering and without a reasonable excuse. It is not the responsibility of the defendant to assist the prosecution in proving all the necessary elements of their case and if he says nothing there is no way they can prove he did not have a reasonable excuse.

[THECORBYLOON]

NJ, both SIs state a requirement to do a specific thing and both give exemptions to the requirement.

In what way, specifically, does the burden regarding seatbelts, change from the accused proving the exemption exists, to the police/Crown proving it doesn't, in the face covering legislation?

[dannyk13]

It is compulsory unless specifically exempt:-
From today, July 24, people will have to wear face masks in shops and supermarkets - and anyone refusing to do so will be fined up to £100.

[New Judge]

//In what way, specifically, does the burden regarding seatbelts, change from the accused proving the exemption exists, to the police/Crown proving it doesn't, in the face covering legislation?//

I don't know how much simpler I can put it, Corby. Let's try this:

The seatbelt legislation says (paraphrasing somewhat) "not wearing a seatbelt is an offence". That's all it says. It does not say "not wearing a seatbelt without a reasonable excuse" is an offence. So, all the prosecution has to prove is that the defendant was not wearing a seatbelt and if they do he has a case to answer where he must prove to the court that he had an exemption. If he fails to do that he will be convicted.

The face covering legislation says (again paraphrasing) "not wearing a face covering in a shop without a reasonable excuse is an offence". It does not say "not wearing a face covering in a shop is an offence." So to prove their case the prosecution must show that the defendant was in a shop without a face covering and without a reasonable excuse. That's what the legislation requires. By the end of the prosecution case if they have not proved that then defendant can make an application that he has "no case to answer." When considering that application the Magistrates must be sure that the prosecution has proved all the elements of its case and that they could (not necessarily would) convict based on that evidence. If they are not sure then the defendant does not need to provide a defence.

I understand perfectly the spirit behind the face covering legislation. But it has been sloppily (and probably hastily) drafted. I don't even think it requires a good brief to secure an acquittal and in fact the Magistrates themselves would very probably see the deficiencies in any prosecution brought under it as it stands. Of course if the defendant were to be asked by the police why he had no face covering and he simply said "Because I think it's a stupid law and I'm not going to comply" that would be different. But the scenario I envisage is not like that.

[Bobbisox1]

There's plenty of fashion statements knocking around, mouths with lipstick, doggie faces ,even trout pouts , I mean would ya???

[New Judge]

//Seems simple. If you can't wear a face-covering for 10-20-30 mins in a shop, don't go or stop complaining.
If you can wear wear one, do so out of courtesy if nothing else.//

But it’s not that simple. Many people cannot wear a face covering and are properly exempt (leaving aside the problems I believe exist in prosecuting the offence which I outlined above). They have a legitimate exemption. They should not be subject to “remonstrations” such as suggested by tamborine. As an aside he should bear in mind that he needs permission from the owner or manager of the shop before he photographs anybody in it and also remember that the only people authorised to instigate a prosecution under this legislation are the CPS who will insist on the involvement of the police before making the unlikely decision to prosecute, so good luck with that. Those people should not and will not be called upon to prove their exemption in the middle of a shop (or indeed anywhere else).

Because of this attitude there are people who are genuinely exempt but are fearful of confrontations when they are out. I have seen reports, on another forum I use, of their genuine distress and it’s frankly disgraceful that the “maskvists” are adopting this ridiculous attitude. I won’t go into the respective evidence for and against using face coverings (which I think I did on another post). I will just say that the “emerging evidence” which was mentioned when the legislation was announced ten days ago that face coverings help prevent spread has never actually emerged in any great strength. Conversely, evidence that coverings used incorrectly (which virtually everybody does because they have not been trained in their use) presents considerable risk to the wearer is available in abundance.

People should think long and hard before they treat every other person as a potential plague carrier and remonstrate with them for not covering their faces. Their circumstances are not known and their reasons for not doing so may well be genuine. This country needs to get out of this atmosphere of fear and intimidation. It’s not nice.

[mushroom25]

// People should think long and hard before they treat every other person as a potential plague carrier //

there's no escaping that. because it's known that some with the disease show no symptoms, everybody has to be treated as a walking covid timebomb, and that is the basis of practically every "covid secure" policy now in force.

[jourdain2]

^^^ Well said, NJ. It is not nice - what the heck has happened to our country and our people?

[aelmpvw]

well said indeed NJ, i social distance from my old mate when he comes round for a drink, then he shakes my hand on leaving. I'm not losing any sleep over it . . .

[THECORBYLOON]

NJ, the seat belts Regs make no reference to the contravention being an offence but the 1988 Road Traffic Act says, “A person who drives or rides in a motor vehicle in contravention of regulations under this section [wearing of seat belts] is guilty of an offence”

The face coverings Regs say, “6.—(1) A person who contravenes the requirement in regulation 3 commits an offence.”

Legislation for seat belts and face coverings both say offences are committed if the relevant Reg is contravened.

[TonyV]

ael thought bumping elbows was the "new" shaking hands?

[aelmpvw]

we'd probably miss elbows and both finish up in a heap

[New Judge]

//Legislation for seat belts and face coverings both say offences are committed if the relevant Reg is contravened.//

I quite agree.

//…but the 1988 Road Traffic Act says, “A person who drives or rides in a motor vehicle in contravention of regulations under this section [wearing of seat belts] is guilty of an offence”//

Indeed. And the regulation is that every driver and passenger must wear a seat belt:

Requirement for adults to wear adult belts
5.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of these Regulations, every person—
(a)driving a motor vehicle (other than a two-wheeled motor cycle with or without a sidecar);
(b)riding in a front seat of a motor vehicle (other than a two-wheeled motor cycle with or without a sidecar); or
(c)riding in a rear seat of a motor car or a passenger car which is not a motor car;

shall wear an adult belt.

Note that there is no mention of any "reasonable excuse" in that part of the legislation. It mentions only "the following provisions" (which clearly define - by an exhaustive list - the exceptions available). The prosecution has only to prove that they did not wear a belt and if they succeed, unless the defendant proves he has an exemption he will be convicted.

The face coverings Regs say, "6.—(1) A person who contravenes the requirement in regulation 3 commits an offence.”

Indeed again. And regulation 3 says this (which I think I’ve mentioned before):

“No person may, without reasonable excuse, enter or remain within a relevant place without wearing a face covering.”

So, a matter comes to court. Giving evidence the police officer describes how he witnessed the defendant in the shop without a face covering.

He is cross-examined by the defence advocate: “So how did you know he was there without a reasonable excuse?”

Officer: “Because I asked him whether he had a reasonable excuse and he made no reply.”

There would be no evidence that he had no reasonable excuse and it is not incumbent on the defendant to provide that evidence. His silence indicates nothing and if he gives no evidence in court an “adverse inference” cannot be assumed from that silence. The way the legislation is worded it must be shown that no reasonable excuse existed. I think I’ll leave it at that because, if for no other reason, it is most unlikely that many fixed penalties will be issued, let alone a matter proceeding to court.

[New Judge]

//there's no escaping that. because it's known that some with the disease show no symptoms, everybody has to be treated as a walking covid timebomb, and that is the basis of practically every "covid secure" policy now in force.//

I believe there is every escaping that. Currently about one person in 4,000 is believed to be infected in the UK. That is a very tiny minority. Every winter there are people around infected with influenza - either showing some symptoms or none. Every winter influenza kills tens of thousands of people in the UK. Nobody walks around with face masks on or avoids contact with anybody else.
Those who want to treat every other person as a potential plague carrier, shying away from them and avoiding everything they touch can do so. The best way they can achieve that is by staying indoors. Those who want to live a relatively normal life, accepting that life is risky in many ways, can go out and about.

What I don't like is attitudes like that displayed by tamborine who threatens to remonstrate with anybody not wearing a face mask. Many people have genuine exemptions and among the recognised "reasonable excuses" is anxiety. It is hardly going to encourage those people to return to some semblance of normality (which we all must, like it or not) if they see such threatening attitudes displayed. The answer for those afraid to go out is simple - stay in. But don't expect the taxpayer to fund you to do so and don't expect people who are unable to (which is potentially anybody) to adopt measures to "keep you safe". You can keep yourself safe if you want to.

[New Judge]

And for those doubting my worries, here's an extract from a recent post on one of the other forums I use:

"My son is an NHS worker in Sussex. Tonight he went into a Tesco Express in his home town, and he forgot his mask. Inside the store, he was confronted, abused and videoed by another guy and his mate. It got "in-yer-face" confrontational and luckily store staff stepped in to put an end to it. My son has reported it to the police and is awaiting a call back. The store has it on CCTV. He is shaken up, and will not be going into work tomorrow."

The sort of thing we'd all like to see a lot more of when treating everybody as a "walking covid time-bomb"?