Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Roundtuit  
#1 Posted : 23 July 2020 16:24:08(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/791/introduction/made

I always wondered what it would be like to read a document that argues black is white is black is white...... 

captcha EAGH

Roundtuit  
#2 Posted : 23 July 2020 16:24:08(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/791/introduction/made

I always wondered what it would be like to read a document that argues black is white is black is white...... 

captcha EAGH

AcornsConsult  
#3 Posted : 24 July 2020 07:09:34(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
AcornsConsult

Thanks for the link. Interesting it must be reviewed in 6 months and renewed with a year.  Rather like the lockdown rules in that there is a built in degree of it being a temporary measure.

A Kurdziel  
#4 Posted : 24 July 2020 08:46:00(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

What is interesting is that yesterday afternoon I checked the legislation website and this Statutory Instrument had not yet been published and so I was unaware if the fact that not only did it affect shops but also “transport hubs” Not surprisingly when I got to my local train station nobody was wearing any face coverings probably because nobody had been told that they needed to wear one. The government announced this regulation nearly a month ago; why was it only published yesterday?

Are they all on holiday?

RVThompson  
#5 Posted : 24 July 2020 09:47:55(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
RVThompson

Not sure if that was a rhetorical question AK, but HoC website states that they are, from 22/07/2020 to 01/09/2020.

chris42  
#6 Posted : 24 July 2020 09:51:06(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

I think its use of the word "shop" was wrong, they should have stuck to the title of relevant place. This has now caused an unnecessary argument internally for us as we are not a shop as such, or particularly deal with members of the public ( more b2b), but sort of meet the definition.

Places like banks are not really shops for instance, but fall under this definition. It mentions transport hubs etc.

Chris

Brian Hagyard  
#7 Posted : 24 July 2020 14:53:45(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Brian Hagyard

It just looks like a complete mess to me - when is a shop not a shop? We have chosen to include our "customer Services" team as they "kind of" fit the definition of a "branch" (post office, bank)  but you could argue not. And people can vist a museum without a face coveringh untill they step into the museum shop! As for enforcement, the Police have the powers but wont enforce them uless there is a public safety risk - so like the poor bus driver in France that was beaten to death when trying to stop someone getting on the bus - no wonder our trade unions are telling members not to stop people. And as for exemptions that are not exemptions, and people dont need proof because no one would lie would they? But dont worry its Health and Safety we have the magic wand!

If the British government are so convinced people will follow the rules - because they are laws i expect all the speed camers to be taken down.

Sorry rant over - TGIF - is it home time yet?

thanks 3 users thanked Brian Hagyard for this useful post.
chris42 on 24/07/2020(UTC), biker1 on 27/07/2020(UTC), CptBeaky on 30/07/2020(UTC)
chris42  
#8 Posted : 24 July 2020 15:47:45(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

The legislation does not require a business to do anything, not even waste money to put up a notice. It applies to the public; they are the ones fined not the shop! So not work related in any way.

Chris

Roundtuit  
#9 Posted : 25 July 2020 10:24:50(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

I must stop watching parliament the latest comment being that gloves may be made mandatory.

Why don't they just cut to the chase - we are going back in to lockdown only instead of being at home we will be at work in full homemade PPE.

thanks 6 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
Wailes900134 on 25/07/2020(UTC), Kate on 27/07/2020(UTC), CptBeaky on 30/07/2020(UTC), Wailes900134 on 25/07/2020(UTC), Kate on 27/07/2020(UTC), CptBeaky on 30/07/2020(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#10 Posted : 25 July 2020 10:24:50(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

I must stop watching parliament the latest comment being that gloves may be made mandatory.

Why don't they just cut to the chase - we are going back in to lockdown only instead of being at home we will be at work in full homemade PPE.

thanks 6 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
Wailes900134 on 25/07/2020(UTC), Kate on 27/07/2020(UTC), CptBeaky on 30/07/2020(UTC), Wailes900134 on 25/07/2020(UTC), Kate on 27/07/2020(UTC), CptBeaky on 30/07/2020(UTC)
peter gotch  
#11 Posted : 25 July 2020 10:59:08(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

The way I read these Regulations says that if an e.g. HSE Inspector travels from their office in e.g. London to do an inspection in e.g. Surrey and gets the train to do so, they are in the "course of their employment" and thence exempted from wearing a face covering in an enclosed station or train.

No, I don't think that was the intention of the Secretary of State.

P

thanks 2 users thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
Kate on 27/07/2020(UTC), CptBeaky on 30/07/2020(UTC)
Kate  
#12 Posted : 27 July 2020 09:02:17(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

At first I thought that couldn't possibly be right, Peter, and that you must have misinterpreted the wording, but when I looked back and saw 2(h) it does appear to read that way.

thanks 1 user thanked Kate for this useful post.
nic168 on 04/08/2020(UTC)
biker1  
#13 Posted : 27 July 2020 09:57:10(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

If, as Michael Gove insists, we should rely on the good sense of the public, then we are screwed. Yet another unenforceable law as things are. The police don't have the resources to enforce it, the shop staff are extremely wary of tryiing to enforce it (although the big supermarkets do have security staff, so it would seem simple for them to monitor the entrance and refuse admission to anyone not wearing a face covering - from the look of some of them they would relish the power). And, typical for this government, a measure brought in four months late.

Roundtuit  
#14 Posted : 27 July 2020 11:27:01(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

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

Includes a pdf download "I am exempt from..." along with a print version.

Given some of the ranting video footage in the press over the weekend taken on public transport may be worth passing on to your employees with non-manifest disabilities otherwise the lynch mob will rule in the vaccuum left by authority.

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
Brian Hagyard on 27/07/2020(UTC), Brian Hagyard on 27/07/2020(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#15 Posted : 27 July 2020 11:27:01(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

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

Includes a pdf download "I am exempt from..." along with a print version.

Given some of the ranting video footage in the press over the weekend taken on public transport may be worth passing on to your employees with non-manifest disabilities otherwise the lynch mob will rule in the vaccuum left by authority.

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
Brian Hagyard on 27/07/2020(UTC), Brian Hagyard on 27/07/2020(UTC)
Brian Hagyard  
#16 Posted : 27 July 2020 13:19:27(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Brian Hagyard

while i understand the need for these - it still looks a bit of a free for all - no checks being made. Looking at the legislation its anyone who qualifies under section 6 of the equality act - which is me - as someof you may have gused if you read any of my none spell checked posts (like this one) I am dyslexic - so because i may not be able to spell face coverings means I dont have to wear one?

Still think its a total mess - but on the plus side out tis weekend and i saw very few people in shops without face coverings lets hope it has the desired affect.

Kate  
#17 Posted : 27 July 2020 13:34:00(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

I don't read it as meaning anyone with any disability covered by the Equality Act is exempt.  It says

4.—(1) For the purposes of regulation 3(1), the circumstances in which a person (“P”) has a reasonable excuse include those where—

(a)P cannot put on, wear or remove a face covering—

(i)because of any physical or mental illness or impairment, or disability (within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010(1)), or

(ii)without severe distress

meaning that it is only if the disability prevents you wearing it that you don't have to wear it.

Brian Hagyard  
#18 Posted : 27 July 2020 14:04:58(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Brian Hagyard

Nope you can read the or as a new line - Or at least thats the way i was taught to read legislation!.

P cannot put on, wear or remove a face covering because of any physical or mental illness

P cannot put on, wear or remove a face covering because impairment

P cannot put on, wear or remove a face covering because disability (within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010(1)), or

P cannot put on, wear or remove a face covering or without severe distress

They are individual examptions you dont have to "add" the together

Kate  
#19 Posted : 27 July 2020 14:21:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

I agree they are individual exemptions.  My point is they all contain "P cannot put on, wear or remove a face covering because of ..."

If whatever the thing is doesn't cause you to be unable to put on, wear or remove it, the exemption doesn't apply.

To take the example of dyslexia, it's not the case that "P cannot put on, wear or remove a face covering because of " dyslexia.  There may be some other reason they can't, but dyslexia isn't it, so the dyslexia doesn't exempt them.

Brian Hagyard  
#20 Posted : 27 July 2020 14:29:53(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Brian Hagyard

may be - ultimatley only a court would decide - i could say i cannot read the instructions! load of rubbish i know and - but still does not take away the "without severe distress" anyone could claim that and how do you test/disprove it - badly written rushed through legislation that could give solicitors a field day - except the police say they are not going to enforce it so it wont be challanged

thanks 1 user thanked Brian Hagyard for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 27/07/2020(UTC)
N Hancock  
#21 Posted : 27 July 2020 15:08:07(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
N Hancock

I think we need to be careful here as a society.  I have verbal dyspraxia so stuggle with certain words and im hypersensitve so wearing a mask would cause me 'distress'.  No idea if I would be exempt or not under the Vague legislation.  What I see though is mob rule coming into effect by the 'moral majority' and I dont think it will be long before someone is attacked or killed for not wearing a mask.

thanks 2 users thanked N Hancock for this useful post.
stevedm on 27/07/2020(UTC), nic168 on 04/08/2020(UTC)
peter gotch  
#22 Posted : 27 July 2020 16:25:25(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Brian

I think that you have proved here that you could read the instructions! ....and as you hinted they could be given to you by alternate means.

But whether or not your dyslexia might be such that using a facemask might cause you severe distress is one for the legal eagles.

Saw one of my near neighbours in a shop run by a well known retailer earlier today without a face covering. I know that their health is not good, but I wasn't going to ask them why they were not complying.

Not down to the retailer (rightly concerned about potential increase in work-related violence), not down to me. Enforcement power is with the Police who have other things to do.

P

AcornsConsult  
#23 Posted : 27 July 2020 17:03:58(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
AcornsConsult

i'd read the exemption about 'severe distress' as someone who has an absolute wobble at doing it rahter than just not liking it.  Surely as H&S practitioners we should be trying to work out simple ways to avoid us/them passing it on as well as us/them contracting it, and by the way if we can;t do it ourselves then there is some legislation thats a prompt to get our act together.   After all wearing a scarf, neck tube or polo neck jumper can suffice the legislation.  And where do we wear it, regardless of whether we call it a shop or prefer to have another name is rather semantics- how about anywhere that we are likely to be a risk to others or them to us!   Wouldn't it be fair to say taht for the truly vast majority of us that applying common sense does tend to mean legislation doesn't come into it, unless of course we are actively trying to defeat it.  

Roundtuit  
#24 Posted : 27 July 2020 19:08:08(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Would passing out due to hyper ventilating satisfy your moral majority position, and must I prove this each time I need to enter a shop?

The regulation does not require certificated exemption by a medical practitioner.

I have worked out that instead of a fitted face covering the disposable style "visors" whilst still mentally uncomfortable to wear do not result in me being an unconcious heap on the floor.

Wo betide the first crusader who dares try and tell me I am not wearing a face "mask" - the visor fits the regulatory requirement of covering nose and mouth.

Edited by user 27 July 2020 19:09:49(UTC)  | Reason: position

thanks 6 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
N Hancock on 27/07/2020(UTC), Kate on 28/07/2020(UTC), nic168 on 04/08/2020(UTC), N Hancock on 27/07/2020(UTC), Kate on 28/07/2020(UTC), nic168 on 04/08/2020(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#25 Posted : 27 July 2020 19:08:08(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Would passing out due to hyper ventilating satisfy your moral majority position, and must I prove this each time I need to enter a shop?

The regulation does not require certificated exemption by a medical practitioner.

I have worked out that instead of a fitted face covering the disposable style "visors" whilst still mentally uncomfortable to wear do not result in me being an unconcious heap on the floor.

Wo betide the first crusader who dares try and tell me I am not wearing a face "mask" - the visor fits the regulatory requirement of covering nose and mouth.

Edited by user 27 July 2020 19:09:49(UTC)  | Reason: position

thanks 6 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
N Hancock on 27/07/2020(UTC), Kate on 28/07/2020(UTC), nic168 on 04/08/2020(UTC), N Hancock on 27/07/2020(UTC), Kate on 28/07/2020(UTC), nic168 on 04/08/2020(UTC)
peter gotch  
#26 Posted : 27 July 2020 20:57:02(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Acorns - HM Government is actively encouraging bypassing of the general principles of prevention. Using face coverings as an excuse to damp down on more effective precautions such as physical distancing.

If HMG was more open about the need for action based on a delicate balance between risk to health and risk to the economy, the public might be more supportive.

But HMG doesn't trust the voters (or those with no vote) to use the common sense that you refer to.

Hence diktats at short notice. So quarantine for anyone coming from anywhere in Spain whatever the real risk, but no quarantine for those coming from the SW of France, near a hot spot, nor Gibraltar?

thanks 2 users thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 29/07/2020(UTC), nic168 on 04/08/2020(UTC)
Brian Hagyard  
#27 Posted : 28 July 2020 07:59:14(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Brian Hagyard

I am sorry if anyone thought i was saying that exemptions should not be made - i understand the need i was simply trying to show what i thought was a badly worded piece of legislation. Sadley Roundtuit i think this will lead to people being abused in the street even when they are genuine - i just hope that we dont see anyone else beated to death like the French bus driver.

AcornsConsult  
#28 Posted : 29 July 2020 06:57:24(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
AcornsConsult

Originally Posted by: peter gotch Go to Quoted Post

Acorns - HM Government is actively encouraging bypassing of the general principles of prevention. Using face coverings as an excuse to damp down on more effective precautions such as physical distancing.

If HMG was more open about the need for action based on a delicate balance between risk to health and risk to the economy, the public might be more supportive.

SD is a great prevention and we could do it as infinitude, but surely there comes a time to help a change to allow a CV form of normality.   Also agree about the balance, the message about CV-v- business but it's been pretty much the message from the start and it take only a pimple of common sense to apppreciate that it has a huge business / financial impact.    I wonder if some measures being taken are rather OTT!

peter gotch  
#29 Posted : 29 July 2020 12:14:00(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Acorns - of course some of the measures are OTT, or perhaps more accurately do not reflect the result of competent assessment of the risks.

Covid hotspots in NE Spain so HMG imposes quarantine to all parts of Spain on the basis that the virus could jump across the sea to island resorts. But doesn't take their risk assessment to its logical conclusion and apply the same standards to Gibraltar (can't do that - they speak English and have the Union as part of their flag, so there would be outrage from Little Englanders) or SW France.

But HMG have only themselves to blame. 

They didn't explain and haven't explained that the idea of NO risk is unattainable.

AND have yet to accept that the health benefits of opening indoor gyms (with suitable precautions) many of which are still closed outweigh the health disbenefits of allowing pubs and restraurants to open (with or without suitable precautions).

Let alone make any real progress in dealing with the adverse impacts that are going to result from shutting large parts of the NHS down as Covid is regulated as a bubble of its own, separated from all other aspects of the world around. So, "avoid public transport" "if possible" even if the outcome is air pollution increasing again as but one example. All fine, up to a point, if you have a car, not if you don't and are effectively shut off from society as a result.

thanks 1 user thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 29/07/2020(UTC)
Users browsing this topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.