Supermarket refuses service without mask

[torn2020]

The supermarket in my small town has taken the decision to refuse entry to anyone without a mask, even if they're exempt/carrying a card/wearing a lanyard etc. Apparently the exemption cards "were being abused".

Judging from comments on the local Facebook group, there's overwhelming support for this.

I'm horrified/disgusted at the overt discrimination and lack of empathy. Would say I'll boycott but actually have no choice since I'm unable to wear a mask (due to PTSD from being choked and strangled as a child, for those who like to jump in and say I should just put up with it for a 5 min shop). Apparently mask exempt people "don't have the right to just go wherever they want".

AIBU at despairing at humanity just a little bit more today?

Or even to access cash @PennyDreadfuI. The only cash machines round here are inside the 2 supermarkets. If there was no mask exemption this means that some people would be unable to obtain cash.

Agreed. People who comment to say “this doesn’t happen in my country” are just showing that they don’t know any disabled people and/or live in countries either piss poor disability rights.

@MadameBlobby

Or even to access cash *@PennyDreadfuI*. The only cash machines round here are inside the 2 supermarkets. If there was no mask exemption this means that some people would be unable to obtain cash.

Good point. And you need to pay with cash to top up meter keys, for a start.

Perhaps the anti-exempt would like (often vulnerable) people to be unable to cook food, have a shower or heat their homes over the winter?

(And before anyone suggests asking someone to go to the cashpoint, sharing your PIN is fraud.)

MissLucy's analysis of the legislation is correct, the problem is yet again, the govt has issued "guidelines"- not laws, which contradict each other.

Guidelines say anyone can be exempt and should not be asked to prove it. Guidelines say shops etc can have whatever measures they feel they need/want. Guidelines say nobody can enforce mask wearing. Guidelines say shops can insist on masks

That's a Venn diagram with nothing in the middle.

Particularly as all of the above are only guidelines and so not legally enforceable by anybody. On either side of the diagram.

The govt needs to add mask exemption to the actual Covid legislation.

It won't, because that's too much like hard work.

And with cases rising worryingly, it's more likely to make the wearing of them stricter than relax it tbh.

OP (and anyone else affected) try your MP. Tweet and email. Get the message out there to them that the legislation is the problem- disability legislation exists, but as masks are still coming under "guidelines" the legislation on behalf of people who can't wear them doesn't.

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.

See part 6.1 here:

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

The govt needs to add mask exemption to the actual Covid legislation.

They have Here:

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

@SockYarn

The point of wearing a visor is to protect you from the judgey arses who will ask you why you're not wearing a mask.

We know it's pointless. We know it's probably as effective as wearing nothing at all. But it give you the confidence to go about your daily business without attack from the self-appointed covid stasi.

Yep

After the rule change this week, I can see more shops doing this and more than that, the abuse for exempt people getting a lot worse.

I've stopped going to any shop now. After the last lot of abuse, it got heated and I almost hit the person. That's not a situation I want to be in again.

It's got to the stage where the receptionist at my GP surgery had a pop yesterday, she shut up in the end after I showed her an email I received from the surgery to say there was no problem with me coming in without a mask.

This whole situation will get worse for the exempt.

While I am on the OP's side, I doubt we see many successful actions on the grounds of discrimination, as long as businesses can demonstrate a careful risk assessment and that they have made reasonable adjustments where required.

I can't agree. We have government guidance that says a reasonable adjustment is allowing exemptions; we have businesses, small and large, throughout the country, who make that adjustment. It's very difficult indeed to think of circumstances where an individual business could show that that wasn't reasonable for them. Even if their staff are particularly vulnerable, they would have to show why they can't take alternative steps such as putting in screens or having those staff members working away from the public.

Ah ok, sorry not in UK.
But I can still see why there's no middle in the Venn.
Because the same legislation also says shops and businesses are legally required to enforce measures. Whilst NOT refusing entry to people who have a valid reason not to (The word "valid" there is a minefield as well- because it's there, in the law, it kind of gives the business permission to ask to know the validity, yet then says the business can't ask)
Anyway, I'd still contact as many MPs as possible.

@PhilCornwall1

After the rule change this week, I can see more shops doing this and more than that, the abuse for exempt people getting a lot worse.

I've stopped going to any shop now. After the last lot of abuse, it got heated and I almost hit the person. That's not a situation I want to be in again.

It's got to the stage where the receptionist at my GP surgery had a pop yesterday, she shut up in the end after I showed her an email I received from the surgery to say there was no problem with me coming in without a mask.

This whole situation will get worse for the exempt.

My area is about to go into lockdown. It was bad enough before, but I'm absolutely dreading having to get on the bus, let alone going into shops/public spaces without a mask in the coming weeks.

How can anyone think it's ok for people who are doing something that's perfectly within guidelines to be made to feel like this? How can anybody think that the abuse and judgement is justified?

Because the same legislation also says shops and businesses are legally required to enforce measures.

No it doesn't. It says enforcement will be by a 'relevant person'.

(9) In these Regulations—

“relevant person” means—

(a) a constable;
(b) a police community support officer;
(c) in relation to any transport hub from or to which a TfL public transport service is provided, a TfL officer;
(d) a person designated by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this regulation.

www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/791/regulation/5/made

The guidance for shops explains what is expected of them:

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.

Businesses should take reasonable steps to encourage customer compliance, for example through in store communications or notices at the entrance. If necessary, police can issue fines to members of the public for non-compliance. Businesses will not be required to provide face coverings for their customers.

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

How can anyone think it's ok for people who are doing something that's perfectly within guidelines to be made to feel like this? How can anybody think that the abuse and judgement is justified?

Their justification will be covid and because of covid, they feel they can say what they want.

@PhilCornwall1

After the rule change this week, I can see more shops doing this and more than that, the abuse for exempt people getting a lot worse.

I've stopped going to any shop now. After the last lot of abuse, it got heated and I almost hit the person. That's not a situation I want to be in again.

It's got to the stage where the receptionist at my GP surgery had a pop yesterday, she shut up in the end after I showed her an email I received from the surgery to say there was no problem with me coming in without a mask.

This whole situation will get worse for the exempt.

So there needs to be an exemption card issued by the GP surgery to avoid the problems.

You really can't have "self certification" as it's open to abuse.

We don't have "self cert" for blue badges, benefits, etc., so there needs to be a system of proper certification.

It could give GPs something to do as they're clearly short of work at the moment.

@user1497207191 what about those who are exempt for non-medical reasons?

So there needs to be an exemption card issued by the GP surgery to avoid the problems.

I wonder if all the people who say this (while happily laying into people who are exempt) have ever thought about doing something more constructive than bitching on an internet forum. Write to MPs, disability organisations, campaign for a proper exemption process. Or is that just not as much fun as hiding behind a keyboard and attacking people who are already appallingly distressed by this?

@PhilCornwall1

How can anyone think it's ok for people who are doing something that's perfectly within guidelines to be made to feel like this? How can anybody think that the abuse and judgement is justified?

Their justification will be covid and because of covid, they feel they can say what they want.

And they’ve even given up pretending it’s about public health. It’s all mememememe, MY right not to be infected by the virus, what about ME? The exempt can just sit at home for months so long as I’m alright. Selfish in the extreme.

Some really interesting points - especially MissLucy and LangCleg - thanks! Quite prepared to admit I am talking out of my arse, and I have learnt some things from the discussion...

I understand there needs to be a balance between "health and safety" legislation (duty of a shop to protect its staff and customers) and their requirement to take into account the right of people to be exempt from face coverings. And that only a court will establish in a particular case if that balance had been correctly struck.

Presumably that decision could be different for a tiny little shop with a vulnerable owner with less opportunity to introduce other safeguarding measures (no space to SD/no space to put up Perspex etc), to a large supermarket? And there is no requirement on a shop to put in every conceivable measure to reduce risk before banning everyone without face covers - just that the measures need to be proportionate, and documented through the risk assessment? Otherwise every shop would have to serve everyone through click and collect (or even not open at all) to bring the risk down to its absolute lowest and provide the maximum protection to staff and customers.

The OP suggests that the "supermarket" (I'm assuming a largish shop) has identified a risk of covid spread through "people taking the piss and not wearing face covers". They have mitigated that risk through "banning everyone not wearing face covers". This seems to me (though I accept, sometimes case law decides funny things) to be utterly and obviously disproportionate and therefore likely discriminatory. Surely a mitigation of that risk would be to stop the "taking the piss" aspect first. So, for example, considering reminding people to wear a covering (properly) at the door, or preventing groups of more than one adult going in (unless a carer or similar?) to prevent the fabled group of 4 builders egging each other on and showing it to the man. As well as considering other measures that they may not already have or have slipped over time (limiting numbers in store/ enforcing SD/ installation of perspex screens/ increasing ventilation/ vulnerable staff on non-customer facing roles and so on). Large shops have so many tools at their disposal, the blanket ban would surely be a loooooong way down the list and given the limited effectiveness of masks "in the wild" anyway, these other measures which don't disproportionately affect a protected group may well be more efficient at meeting the "legitimate aim" of protecting the staff/ customers anyway? If insisting on face coverings for everyone is the only thing left they can do to prevent an unacceptable risk, it would suggest that the shop shouldn't really be open as it can't operate safely (as no-one is claiming face coverings are a 100% effective barrier against virus transmission).

It’s definitely the case in deciding whether something is a reasonable adjustment (eg “click and collect”) that a court would look at things like the size, resources, physical features etc of a shop. Eg a small independent credit union might not have to implement a ramp for wheelchair users due to cost but the branch of RBS next door would have to. The adjustment is reasonable for one but not the other.

In terms of discrimination I think the problem though shops of any size will face in imposing prima facie more discriminatory measures is the government guidance which has presumably decreed that some people can be exempt and this be proportionate and still in keeping with the aims of mask wearing.

Thanks Madame. Yes, I hadn't seen the shops guidance before, saying outright "No one who is exempt from wearing a face covering should be denied entry if they are not wearing one". Only the guidance on face coverings itself, which isn't so explicit and it could be interpreted as "you don't have to wear one but we are under no obligation to serve you if you don't, you disease ridden superspreader" . The shops guidance does seem very clear, and while it is only guidance, a shop would have to justify why they deviated from it, presumably.

I also heard Matt Hancock say shops could refuse entry to people without masks when they were first brought in, but (apart from the standard "assume he'll make 3 u-turns before breakfast" thing) I understood that as referring to people who just didn't want to wear one, or who had forgotten it or something. I know it may be difficult to tell the exempt from the pisstakers, but a polite "please could you wear a face covering" from a staff member on entry would be unlikely to be met with a rant on civil liberties by someone who is truly exempt, rather than a "sorry, no, I am exempt" and everyone goes about their day. No-one should be quizzed of course, but it seems reasonable that the shop does what it can to discharge its duty to protect people in this way, without anyone being offended or harrassed. Though I understand that no staff member wants or deserves the rant/abuse, and should not be subjected to it. Pisstakers can and will lie, of course, but if there's no drama, they may get bored, or even start to feel the tiniest bit of guilt after a while? (like toddlers...)

many were unmasked and some thought it was amusing to pull up their clothing in recognition that they were piss taking

Erm...maybe they had just forgotten their mask? If I had forgotten mine but really needed to go inside somewhere (eg petrol station - I think they'd rather I paid than did a runner, assuming no pay at pump facility) I would do exactly that if I had clothing that was easy to pull up eg wear a hoody back to front.

Posters who think that shops are automatically guilty of discrimination if they exclude people with masks are wrong. We don't know this until there is case law. There are far more nuances to this than most posters think

As I said early on in this thread, hairdressers and sports massage therapists effectively say no mask = no entry. And nobody complains about that. I am not sure why supermarkets/shops are considered different. I do virtually all my shopping online even though I do wear a mask around the shops, so I can't really see why it's such a massive imposition to ask people to avoid shops as much as possible if they can't wear a mask. That doesn't mean you can't nip in for milk/a birthday card or to get money out or to buy some knickers in M&S but people seem to get so offended at the notion that online might be a good alternative for most things.

And I wish the smug and uninformed expats would stay off these threads. Things are not more amazing in France or Spain or wherever, they are just different.

As I said early on in this thread, hairdressers and sports massage therapists effectively say no mask = no entry. And nobody complains about that. I am not sure why supermarkets/shops are considered different

Jesus no one is this thick surely?

1. You can’t socially distance from a hairdresser, unless she cuts your hair with a pair of long handled garden shears.
2. You can live without haircuts, but people, even those pesky mask exempt sorts, need to eat.

Posters who think that shops are automatically guilty of discrimination if they exclude people with masks are wrong. We don't know this until there is case law. There are far more nuances to this than most posters think

And if you knew anything about nuances, you’d know that the issue is not so much whether there is discrimination (indirect, discrimination arising) but whether it can be objectively justified/is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim

It is entirely possible that a shop (or anywhere) could be “guilty” of discrimination but still be able to justify it. Equally, they might not.

Our local supermarket has done this for the last two weeks, ‘head office’ have backed them up on their “right to refuse entry” on the basis that the staff in the supermarket have unanimously decided to refuse to serve non mask wearing people for their own safety.

They have offered alternatives,
You can call the store to order your shopping and it will be brought out to the car park or to the doors with a card machine to pay for it.
Or you can give a member of staff a shopping list and they will shop for you, but there may be a wait for this service.
They will also allow someone else to do your shopping for you but come out to let you pay with a card machine if you would prefer.

Tbh I think they are trying to be inclusive of people that genuinely can’t wear masks while protecting everyone else in the store and it has had a lot of support in our town.

It is being abused, just excuse after excuse. Do people think covid-19 is a joke? I didn't think it was funny last time I saw someone with it die.