Woman thrown out of Sainsbury's for not wearing a mask.

[Viviennemary]

When asked why she wasn't wearing one she told the police they were not allowed to challenge her or ask about her disability. (wrong apparently). She said she'd be taking them to court. Police have criticised ministers for giving conflicting advice. I think it's time this was cleared up. It's far too vague. So seems like people do need some proof of the reasons they can't wear a mask.

@C0NNIE

I think a lot of the non mask wearing is cultural and not related to disability.

I live in Scotland and it’s very rare here to see someone in a shop without a mask. Most times I shop in a large supermarket in a city and I see no one without a mask ( except small children of course ).

Then I see post on MN about many people not wearing them in shops in England

I’m pretty sure the rate of disability is the same here as in the rest of the Uk.

People in England are not too dissimilar to people in Scotland. Many English live in Scotland and vice versa.

I think it's more dependent on what "news" source you're seeing and paying attention to. Plenty places in England where people are wearing them. It's not a Scot/Eng divide!

@Coronawireless

Having a reason not to wear a mask, no matter what that may be, doesn’t entitle you to breathe Covid all over a supermarket and endanger others.

The law disagrees with you.

@CremeEggThief

Anyone who is medically exempt should be wearing the sunflower lanyard or carrying proof at all times. In lots of European countries you're supposed to have photo id on you every time you leave your home, after all.

Again, the law does not require this.

@LangClegsInSpace

The 'reasonable excuses' in the legislation specifically refer to people who cannot put on, wear or remove a face covering because of a disability within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. Also to those accompanying or providing assistance to someone who relies on lipreading.

www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/791/regulation/4

The explanatory memorandum that accompanies this legislation states:

7.6 Exemptions from this requirement exist for members of the public with a “reasonable excuse” for not wearing a face covering. A non-exhaustive list of circumstances in which a person has a reasonable excuse is set out in regulation 4, and generally relate to medical and equalities grounds. ... Nobody who has a reasonable excuse as set out in regulation 4 and is therefore not wearing a face covering should be prevented from visiting a shop or supermarket or other setting covered by these Regulations.

And also:

12.2 The Department has considered the fact that some people may be deterred from visiting the relevant settings where these Regulations apply due to them being required to wear a face covering either because they cannot source a suitable face covering or they have protected characteristics (e.g. a disability) which makes it difficult to wear a face covering ... The Department has also included a range of exemptions to ensure that this policy does not unfairly discriminate against those with protected characteristics. Furthermore, the policy will be supported by a communications campaign that will make clear that some people are exempt from these regulations and people should not be challenged by members of the public for not wearing a face covering. (my bold)

www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/791/memorandum/contents

So it's very clear that the government intends the exemptions to function, in part, as a reasonable adjustment to prevent unfair discrimination against disabled people.

The government guidance on face coverings says:

If you have an age, health or disability reason for not wearing a face covering:

- you do not routinely need to show any written evidence of this
- you do not need show an exemption card

This means that you do not need to seek advice or request a letter from a medical professional about your reason for not wearing a face covering.

However, some people may feel more comfortable showing something that says they do not have to wear a face covering. This could be in the form of an exemption card, badge or even a home-made sign.

Carrying an exemption card or badge is a personal choice and is not required by law.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/face-coverings-when-to-wear-one-and-how-to-make-your-own/face-coverings-when-to-wear-one-and-how-to-make-your-own#exemptions

The government guidance for shops says:

Some people don’t have to wear a face covering including for health, age or equality reasons.

Customers are permitted to remove face coverings for the purposes of identification or when speaking with people who rely on lip reading, facial expressions and clear sound for communication.

Some people don’t have to wear a face covering including for health, age or equality reasons. No one who is exempt from wearing a face covering should be denied entry if they are not wearing one.

www.gov.uk/guidance/working-safely-during-coronavirus-covid-19/shops-and-branches#shops-6-2

The Cabinet Office have issued further guidance on face covering exemptions to supermarkets. The guidance says:

4: Once an individual has said they are not able to/exempt, you must take their word and allow them to continue. A verbal confirmation alone is enough. You must not ask for proof of their medical exemption and it is not essential they show any form of exemption card at any point. (their emphasis)

www.frylaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/guidance_for_face_covering_exemptions.pdf

What is that people are still failing to understand?

Your first four links are gov.uk, or legislation sites, all of which are active and current. Your last link can only be found on other sites, none gov.uk (I did search). Have you a link to a live gov.uk version of this PP? Otherwise I fear it is not valid and been withdrawn for updating or other purposes.

I am so fucking sick of this

Little Stasi wannabes picking on women (it's always women) and people backing them up!!

She's right - she has NO obligation to share her information. I thought she behaved brilliantly. She was calm, she knew her rights, and the prick police officers refused to even look at the law she was presenting them (doesn't surprise me as they seem to like to make it up). I hope she does sue them.

The sad thing is there was probably a battered wife or a mugging victim who didn't get an audience with police after their attack because they're too busy implementing 1984 in Sainsbury's. Awful. I'm genuinely terrified with the way the world is going.

And shame on those of you who think this is OK.

Yes, this. Can’t believe what we’ve come to - and so quickly.

@Sparklfairy

Interestingly, we didn't have this problem with piss-takers when they brought in the priority hour/queue jumping for NHS workers, because there were hoops you had to jump through. You couldn't just rock up and say 'I'm NHS' and be let in instantly.

People would absolutely have taken advantage just as they are now if that was the case.

This post reminded me of this: www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/25/nhs-staff-warned-to-hide-id-after-spate-of-targeted-muggings

I clearly remember an email in our trust telling us NOT to travel around with lanyards around our necks on our way into/out of work on public transport in case someone stole it to queue jump or get a free coffee. Pathetic really!

It’s funny how there seems to be a real problem complying with mask wearing in supermarkets but we have yet to have anyone turn up to a dental appointment at our surgery without a mask or face covering.
Perhaps there is a little more compliance in healthcare settings.

@NikeDeLaSwoosh
I think everyone is aware of that. The anger comes from the approach this government has taken. It was always clear that the self certified exemptions were open to abuse. Further as previous posters have pointed out, many could wear a mask but are choosing not to ( and many who could claim exemptions are choosing to wear a mask or make other arrangements as they feel a sense of social responsibility). It is the law but it’s not a well thought out law.

@JamesMiddletonsMarshmallows

I am so fucking sick of this

Little Stasi wannabes picking on women (it's always women) and people backing them up!!

She's right - she has NO obligation to share her information. I thought she behaved brilliantly. She was calm, she knew her rights, and the prick police officers refused to even look at the law she was presenting them (doesn't surprise me as they seem to like to make it up). I hope she does sue them.

The sad thing is there was probably a battered wife or a mugging victim who didn't get an audience with police after their attack because they're too busy implementing 1984 in Sainsbury's. Awful. I'm genuinely terrified with the way the world is going.

And shame on those of you who think this is OK.

I'm sick of entitled smartarses who don't think that the rules apply to them.

If she hadn't behaved the way she did, then there would have been no need for the police to be involved.

I saw a father and his two adult children get on the tube last month, all of them wearing the fake exempt badge you can get off Amazon. Some of these people are just looking for a fight.

apolgies posted on the wrong thread have reported myself

@Livinginthecity

I saw a father and his two adult children get on the tube last month, all of them wearing the fake exempt badge you can get off Amazon. Some of these people are just looking for a fight.

I don't understand why people don't want to wear them if they aren't in an exempt group. It isn't a big thing to ask of people is it, I forget I'm wearing mine.

@JamesMiddletonsMarshmallows what about all the disabled people shes putting at risk. You seem to think that the only people that are capable of being disabled are the ones that are incapable of wearing a mask or staying at home. Of course, people with disabilities are suffering but because therapies and treatments are being cancelled and postponed because the hospitals are overwhelmed with covid patients no doubt in part because of people screaming discrimination at the hint of being a decent human being.

[quote Blackberrycream]@NikeDeLaSwoosh
I think everyone is aware of that. The anger comes from the approach this government has taken. It was always clear that the self certified exemptions were open to abuse. Further as previous posters have pointed out, many could wear a mask but are choosing not to ( and many who could claim exemptions are choosing to wear a mask or make other arrangements as they feel a sense of social responsibility). It is the law but it’s not a well thought out law.[/quote]
If you disagree with a law, then you need to follow the democratic process and lobby your MP to get it changed.

Not harass the most vulnerable members of society as they go about their business.

Is the law perfect? No, it never is.

You still need to follow it though.

Some people are taking the piss?

Probably, ‘‘twas ever thus.

And no, for about the 5th time, discrimination on the grounds of disability is unlawful.

Yes it is. However, one still has to argue one's case at an employment tribunal or in court. One can't simply self-identify as having been discriminated against and that be legally binding. There has to be another step of judicial adjudication.

And can I shout "Godwin"?

Don't you actually need "Hitler" for that Samphire, and not just 'Third Reich"?

(Apologies if "Hitler" was mentioned and I missed it.)

*@NikeDeLaSwoosh Genuine question, can you please explain which disability means a person cannot use a mask in a shop for 10-15 minutes?

And a disability, please, that is recognised by the medical profession as contra-indicating masks.*

Someone with severe mental health conditions or learning disabilities who can't fully understand the need to wear one would probably do. Plenty of people with these conditions are perfectly capable of living fairly independently with support, shopping etc, but can't understand why they need to stay indoors- so staying at home and letting someone else do the shopping isn't always an option.

@C0NNIE

I think a lot of the non mask wearing is cultural and not related to disability.

I live in Scotland and it’s very rare here to see someone in a shop without a mask. Most times I shop in a large supermarket in a city and I see no one without a mask ( except small children of course ).

Then I see post on MN about many people not wearing them in shops in England

I’m pretty sure the rate of disability is the same here as in the rest of the Uk.

England and Scotland are not massively different culturally. In my own anecdotal evidence, I have only ever seen one person not wearing a mask in my highly populated south east England city.

Whereas my parents in Scotland have multiple stories of non-masking wearing and failure to social distance.

I think more logically, the reason the non-mask wearing threads tend to be in England is because there are approx. 56 million people living in England versus 5 million in Scotland. England provides far more anecdotes for idiocy as there are simply more of us!

@CremeEggThief

Anyone who is medically exempt should be wearing the sunflower lanyard or carrying proof at all times. In lots of European countries you're supposed to have photo id on you every time you leave your home, after all.

I can buy a sunflower lanyard right now from Amazon. Doesn't mean I'm medically exempt, I'm not.

I'm sick of entitled smartarses who don't think that the rules apply to them.

If she hadn't behaved the way she did, then there would have been no need for the police to be involved.

Well quite. Wear a mask, or show your exemption card/lanyard etc if you can't. It's not hard, but some people are going out of their way to make it so, everyone knows you can get these anywhere, so even if you're not really exempt, you have the ability to say you are (I'm not condoning that, it's a fact) but then that's just too easy and doesn't grab headlines does it? It doesn't whip people up into a frenzy and get your face on the news does it? That's the only motivation here.

@JamieLeeCurtains

And no, for about the 5th time, discrimination on the grounds of disability is unlawful.

Yes it is. However, one still has to argue one's case at an employment tribunal or in court. One can't simply self-identify as having been discriminated against and that be legally binding. There has to be another step of judicial adjudication.

This isn’t true, It is the act of discrimination itself that is unlawful.

It’s like saying a murder isn’t a murder unless someone has been prosecuted.

You must be able to see this?

To seek a remedy, then yes, you would need to take the matter to the courts, but it is the act itself, combined with the necessary mens rea that constitutes the offence.

One argument was for the shop staff, but I think another one was that exposing people who can't wear a mask to other people who can't wear a mask was unfair and increased their risk

The second can't is actually won't, once you realise that you will get it

This isn’t true, It is the act of discrimination itself that is unlawful.It’s like saying a murder isn’t a murder unless someone has been prosecuted

No you're wrong. The act of discrimination is not discrimination if there is nothing to discriminate against. It's like saying a murder is not a murder unless someone is dead!

If you claim you have been discriminated against on disability grounds, but cannot show that you are actually disabled, you have not been discriminated against on disability grounds.

We're discussing the report in the OP's opening post, Nike. The one where the anti-mask pisstaker said she'd be going to court?