Masks are voluntary. If you don't want to wear one you just self-cert as exempt. There is no need to have any proof of your illness and the BMA has been clear that doctors will not provide anything like that. You don't have to even tell some no-mark shop wallah what the nature of your exemption is.
Funny how the infection rates respond to them then isn't it. But I'm sure that's just co-incidence - the real reason I'm sure must be magic and sunlight.
Infecton rates respond to the muzzles? Really. Can't think why our rates are so high despite the muzzles then. If only there was some proof of muzzles reducing infections...
I'm not sure if an ITU doctor would really know? I mean I work in the red zone myself from time to time. I'm not convinced the muzzles have stopped me getting COVID when the majority of colleagues seem to have had it despite these wonderful muzzles.
Because the supermarket is just like the ITU with shoppers wandering intubated, with their canulae open to the air, dialysis machines or IV drips dragging along behind them and their shopping trolleys
I’m glad you took the time to create and then post on this thread clergs because otherwise we wouldn’t have had a clue what your feelings were on the matter.
I see that you also went to the trouble of creating and posting extensively on a dozen similar threads today in case anyone missed this one and were uninformed on the subject.
the law requires you to wear a mask in relevant places unless you have a reasonable excuse
a reasonable excuse includes that you cannot put on, wear or remove a face covering without severe distress
the fact that the definition of “severe distress” has not been tested in the courts (and likely will not be) does not mean masks are “voluntary” or that you can be a cvnt like laurence fox and declare you are in severe distress when you are not
ie you may not get caught but you are still breaking the law
Rham you are posting some seriously irrational stuff on this subject.
I keep hearing on the BBC about how mental health is suffering, and I was not sure exactly what that meant. But when I read your posts I think maybe I understand.
Really Chill? Why then does not the law require proof of said exemption in the same way that it does for seat belts? Or taxi drivers who claim to be allergic to dogs?
It is impossible to read the law in any other way than permitting self certification of exemptions. Even Derby plod haven’t tried to prosecute anyone for not wearing a mask!
It is impossible to read the law in any other way than permitting self certification of exemptions.
actually crypto it’s entirely possible to read the law exactly as it is written ie you must wear a mask unless you cannot put on, wear or remove one without severe distress
the fact that clergs thinks breathing your own breath is gross or masks are fash markers is not “severe distress” (there was some discussion of previous case law if i recall but i admit i can’t quote it back to you)
anyway i imagine there may be a test case when a rape victim is refused entry to asda but ultimately a court will need to rule on it
the only thing i think we can definitely say is it rises above a “self-certify” requirement - it is an test in the law, does it cause severe distress or not?
Would the decide as an objective exercise ie a reasonable person of ordinary firmness or as a subjective thing of how the defendant felt?
I can’t really foresee any possibility of conviction since it is hard to prove that the person isn’t being caused severe distress (I assume the burden then falls on the accused who has to prove to the balance of probabilities??)
Chill, I was replying to your 1733 which I reproduce below. It’s not my fault you removed the voluntary part from what you quoted. I didn’t look at the earlier post.
I don’t care for masks and doubt their efficacy when worn by members of the public. Mine are ill fitting, infrequently washed and live screwed up in my pocket until needed which no doubt compromises their usefulness. That said I wear them indoors because I see no real harm in complying, cannot be bothered with the hassle of justifying myself if challenged and see it as a civic duty if it makes others feel safer.
I would though draw the line at having to wear one when outdoors.
Caught out again chill? On this point and on the substantive issue. Or perhaps you’d care to explain where the certification/approval mechanisms were in the law?
What chuff said +1. There’s no good evidence they work, there is evidence they don’t (several articles about infection reduction in surgery have been posted here before and they evidence is they don’t make a difference) but it’s the law so I’ll do it and I wouldn’t want to deal with the hassle of pretending to be exempt (which a significantly higher than the hassle of wearing one).
tbh crypto i don’t even know if it would be considered an objective test by the court (i was gonna use that term earlier and backed off) - would they need evidence of “severe distress” to decide, by way of witness evidence etc?
the criminal bods would know better than me
i think though the fact that the statute says “severe” distress as opposed to simply “distress” means they would read in some sort of exceptional need tho
my hypothetical rape victim banned from asda would likely (and should) qualify for an exemption
They’d want reports from one or more shrinks testifying that someone was indeed severely distressed by wearing a face covering. Do you want to sit through hours with different experts questioning you to avoid putting a mask on for a few minutes?
"Chill do you have any thoughts as to how a court would approach it?
It being an objective test would be very difficult since I can’t imagine how a court would assess whether a rape victim’s anxiety is sufficient. "
If I were the prosecutor - I'd get disclosure of medical records, sift through them, and if the person never complained of anxiety to their GP invite the jury to conclude that the defendant is just making it up. Then it's a question of of whether the defendant decides to give their own evidence etc and how to deal with that.
Highly unlikely a prosecutor would conclude pursuing a rape victim is in the public interest I would have thought.
If a case is ever brought in this connection (which is very unlikely) it will be against one of these "freemen of the land" type of people. They might utter smth like "You can't make me wear a mask" during their arrest which could be used against them during the trial also - if you can show the remark is inconsistent with their claim about anxiety etc.
0
0
Masks are voluntary. If you don't want to wear one you just self-cert as exempt. There is no need to have any proof of your illness and the BMA has been clear that doctors will not provide anything like that. You don't have to even tell some no-mark shop wallah what the nature of your exemption is.
0
0
Funny how the infection rates respond to them then isn't it. But I'm sure that's just co-incidence - the real reason I'm sure must be magic and sunlight.
0
0
Infecton rates respond to the muzzles? Really. Can't think why our rates are so high despite the muzzles then. If only there was some proof of muzzles reducing infections...
0
0
Have a wander round the ITU and ask if the staff there think that "muzzles" serve a purpose?
0
0
I'm not sure if an ITU doctor would really know? I mean I work in the red zone myself from time to time. I'm not convinced the muzzles have stopped me getting COVID when the majority of colleagues seem to have had it despite these wonderful muzzles.
0
0
Because the supermarket is just like the ITU with shoppers wandering intubated, with their canulae open to the air, dialysis machines or IV drips dragging along behind them and their shopping trolleys
It's exactly the same thing.
0
0
And a bit of dishcloth is basically the same as kitemarked ppe
0
0
I’m glad you took the time to create and then post on this thread clergs because otherwise we wouldn’t have had a clue what your feelings were on the matter.
I see that you also went to the trouble of creating and posting extensively on a dozen similar threads today in case anyone missed this one and were uninformed on the subject.
Public service broadcasting at its best.
0
0
to be clear this is not and has never been the law
even clergs has stopped describing them as “optional”
0
0
Really chill? I’m pretty sure the law
procides for a list of exmeptions with no proof requirements? It certainly did for the earlier
lockdowns
0
0
no risky we’ve done this ad nauseum
the law requires you to wear a mask in relevant places unless you have a reasonable excuse
a reasonable excuse includes that you cannot put on, wear or remove a face covering without severe distress
the fact that the definition of “severe distress” has not been tested in the courts (and likely will not be) does not mean masks are “voluntary” or that you can be a cvnt like laurence fox and declare you are in severe distress when you are not
ie you may not get caught but you are still breaking the law
0
0
if you’d like to post about how you can order cocaine on the darkweb using a vpn and not get caught, that’s fine, but you’re still breaking the law
0
0
Rham you are posting some seriously irrational stuff on this subject.
I keep hearing on the BBC about how mental health is suffering, and I was not sure exactly what that meant. But when I read your posts I think maybe I understand.
0
0
Kg you should read nextdoor - they are a lot on there
0
0
Really Chill? Why then does not the law require proof of said exemption in the same way that it does for seat belts? Or taxi drivers who claim to be allergic to dogs?
It is impossible to read the law in any other way than permitting self certification of exemptions. Even Derby plod haven’t tried to prosecute anyone for not wearing a mask!
0
0
Chill, I did not say they were voluntary and neither did the post you were responding to. It said you ‘self certify’.
people lying to self certify is a different point. If the ages what they’re doing.
0
0
The ages? That’s
0
0
risky mate i will respond to crypto in kinder terms but are you a fvcking idiot who can’t read a post that is directly above yours on the same thread?
0
0
actually crypto it’s entirely possible to read the law exactly as it is written ie you must wear a mask unless you cannot put on, wear or remove one without severe distress
the fact that clergs thinks breathing your own breath is gross or masks are fash markers is not “severe distress” (there was some discussion of previous case law if i recall but i admit i can’t quote it back to you)
anyway i imagine there may be a test case when a rape victim is refused entry to asda but ultimately a court will need to rule on it
the only thing i think we can definitely say is it rises above a “self-certify” requirement - it is an test in the law, does it cause severe distress or not?
0
0
Would the decide as an objective exercise ie a reasonable person of ordinary firmness or as a subjective thing of how the defendant felt?
I can’t really foresee any possibility of conviction since it is hard to prove that the person isn’t being caused severe distress (I assume the burden then falls on the accused who has to prove to the balance of probabilities??)
0
0
*would the court
0
0
Chill, I was replying to your 1733 which I reproduce below. It’s not my fault you removed the voluntary part from what you quoted. I didn’t look at the earlier post.
0
0
this is literally the weakest argument you have ever made m7
the thread had less than 20 posts on it
stop digging
0
0
I don’t care for masks and doubt their efficacy when worn by members of the public. Mine are ill fitting, infrequently washed and live screwed up in my pocket until needed which no doubt compromises their usefulness. That said I wear them indoors because I see no real harm in complying, cannot be bothered with the hassle of justifying myself if challenged and see it as a civic duty if it makes others feel safer.
I would though draw the line at having to wear one when outdoors.
0
0
Caught out again chill? On this point and on the substantive issue. Or perhaps you’d care to explain where the certification/approval mechanisms were in the law?
no? I didn’t think so...
why not post again about being anti lockdown too
0
0
um there are no certification/approval mechanisms in the law
thats kind of my point
risky honestly do you have reading comprehension issues?
0
0
What Chuff said.
0
0
It's a civic duty to counter irrational fear
0
0
What chuff said +1. There’s no good evidence they work, there is evidence they don’t (several articles about infection reduction in surgery have been posted here before and they evidence is they don’t make a difference) but it’s the law so I’ll do it and I wouldn’t want to deal with the hassle of pretending to be exempt (which a significantly higher than the hassle of wearing one).
Outdoors can fook off though.
0
0
Another plus 1 for chuffster
0
0
So chill you ‘self certify’ then?
0
0
They exist to perpetuate fear
So wearing them extends the period you'll be in lockdown
And peer pressure is nasty
That said, no one else on this bus is wearing a mask so maybe I should do the pity thing
0
0
risky u have tied yourself backwards in knots
wot are u on about
this is embarrassing
0
0
Someone: You just self-cert as exempt
chill: this has never been the law
me: it is, where are the certification requirements
It is legal to self certify.
0
0
Chill do you have any thoughts as to how a court would approach it?
It being an objective test would be very difficult since I can’t imagine how a court would assess whether a rape victim’s anxiety is sufficient.
0
0
“Your anxiety is not sufficiently important” is not a good look is it. Maybe if sumption were the judge
0
0
tbh crypto i don’t even know if it would be considered an objective test by the court (i was gonna use that term earlier and backed off) - would they need evidence of “severe distress” to decide, by way of witness evidence etc?
the criminal bods would know better than me
i think though the fact that the statute says “severe” distress as opposed to simply “distress” means they would read in some sort of exceptional need tho
my hypothetical rape victim banned from asda would likely (and should) qualify for an exemption
i bet laurence fox would not
0
0
They’d want reports from one or more shrinks testifying that someone was indeed severely distressed by wearing a face covering. Do you want to sit through hours with different experts questioning you to avoid putting a mask on for a few minutes?
0
0
"Chill do you have any thoughts as to how a court would approach it?
It being an objective test would be very difficult since I can’t imagine how a court would assess whether a rape victim’s anxiety is sufficient. "
If I were the prosecutor - I'd get disclosure of medical records, sift through them, and if the person never complained of anxiety to their GP invite the jury to conclude that the defendant is just making it up. Then it's a question of of whether the defendant decides to give their own evidence etc and how to deal with that.
Highly unlikely a prosecutor would conclude pursuing a rape victim is in the public interest I would have thought.
If a case is ever brought in this connection (which is very unlikely) it will be against one of these "freemen of the land" type of people. They might utter smth like "You can't make me wear a mask" during their arrest which could be used against them during the trial also - if you can show the remark is inconsistent with their claim about anxiety etc.
0
0
When I say "disclosure" of medical records - I mean of course I'd ask the police to seize them.
0
0
completely agree with this tbh
didnt think about the freemen of the land gang but that’s most likely. they’ll litigate anything
Join the discussion