Masks

I just give up with some people. My next door neighbour who is in her 80's
finally came out of her self imposed prisonment. A couple of days ago she went
out with her sister,she sat in the back of the car instead of the front,social
distancing I suspect. Yesterday she asked if i would take her to the doctors.
On the way she told me she had her mask with her,at that point I am afraid
I got a little annoyed as the excuse she has been using for her imprisonment
is that she has asthma. I asked her if she was aware of the dangers of wearing
a mask with that condition and does she not look into anything. No i dont look
at anything she replied, although I have tried repeatedly to tell her in the past.
She then gets out of my motor and puts on her mask.
I guess its sod the lot of them when things really get ramped up . I'll look after
my family only ,the rest will no doubt get what they deserve.

You just can’t help some people mate and there will always be those who follow and those are are followed.

Sadly older people are the worst but I suspect it’s also because they are not of the internet age and only get their news via BBC fake news and it is far too late (well, almost certainly) for them to change now.

My approach is to educate / pass on advice ONCE. Take it or leave it

Me too mrblue, get wound up everytime I hear "masks", so try to get away & not be bothered any more


(1545)

Headteachers could face legal action for making pupils wear face masks when schools reopen in September

Evening Standard
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/headteachers-could-face-legal-action-for-making-pupils-wear-face-masks-a4511396.html

At least 10 schools nationwide have decided to make coverings compulsory or "strongly encouraged" for pupils despite Government guidance not mandating their use in classrooms

Headteachers who "irrationally" force school pupils to wear face masks amid the coronavirus pandemic could face legal action for doing so, a law firm has warned.

School leaders were cautioned that if they refuse to back down over plans to make face masks compulsory when classrooms fully reopen in September, they may face a judicial review, the Daily Telegraph reported on Tuesday.

George McLellan, an expert in public law at DLA Piper, told the newspaper that schools which press ahead with imposing face masks would be acting in a “manifestly absurd” manner and using "disproportional" power as Government guidance does not mandate their use in such settings.

“The primary ground for judicial review would be unreasonableness or irrationality,” he said. “The concern with masks is that there is no rational basis for them to be required. We would say there is a lack of proportionality of requiring children in schools to wear masks.”

Molly Kingsley, co-founder of the parents’ campaign group UsForThem, meanwhile said that her organisation would join with DLA Piper in backing parents who wished to bring a judicial review against their children’s school.

“Based on the anger we have seen among our group, there is a very visceral reaction among parents to face masks in schools,” she said. “This is something parents would want to challenge and we would want to support them.”


Mr McLellan's comments came after Health Secretary Matt Hancock said last week that ministers are not recommending masks be used in schools because “if you're in a classroom with kids all day then a mask doesn't give you protection”.

Mr Hancock said face coverings helped prevent the spread of Covid-19 during short interactions with strangers, but that social distancing and hand washing were more effective means of reducing transmission of the virus during periods of prolonged contact with other people.

However, contradicting the Government's stance, at least 10 schools nationwide have decided to make coverings compulsory or "strongly encouraged" for pupils.

Education unions have also backed the wearing of face masks in schools and urged ministers to extend legislation mandating their use in shops and on public transport to classrooms.

The UK’s biggest teacher union said it has raised concerns with the Government over the issue, and highlighted the “lack of consistency” with guidance on other public places.

Avis Gilmore, deputy general secretary at the National Education Union, told The Telegraph they will “continue to question” minister's advice on face masks ahead of schools fully reopening in September.

Dr Patrick Roach, the general secretary of the NASUWT teachers' union, meanwhile told the newspaper that official advice for face masks in schools is “out of step” with guidance to other employers.

"Teachers and other staff working in schools also want to be assured that they will be afforded the same level of protection as other workers,” he said.

Dr Roach added that children over the age of 11 being required to wear coverings when they visit shops and banks suggested there is a "strong argument" that face masks should also be made compulsory for children when they return to secondary schools later this year.

But a Department for Education spokesperson said the Government had "set out the controls schools should use, including cleaning and hygiene measures, to substantially reduce the risk of transmission of the virus when they open to all children from September".

"This does not include the wearing of face coverings as we believe the system of controls laid out adequately reduced the risk of transmission to both staff and students," the spokesperson told The Telegraph.

FFD 19:12 & watch from there - very interesting, the narrative shown was written in 1918?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffc_642Lao8

FFD 45:00 in the same vid above - its ALL a SCAM, group of US doctors have come out & said so. The vid was banned on YT & may be there on bitchute.

Watch the whole program, this episode is quite informative.

Lets put this into perspective Government claim it is advice and law, which is it as it cannot be both.
Government claim its law and tell shop staff to enforce it, so they are asking shop staff to enforce law? is this really there job and are they allowed to do it, actually no as if they try to detain you for what is a summary offence both they, and their employer are now in a world of legal (and lawful) pain.

Po-lice enforce law and not shop staff, so why are they expecting shop staff to act as Lice?
Isn't impersonating a po-lice officer a criminal offence; isn't making a citizens arrest for anything other than an endictible offence also a criminal offence of unlawful detention, oops now into real law with lawful.
How many shop staff even know the difference, very few I doubt.

If it is advice then it can be accepted OR ignored as its a choice.

All the major stores and chains have large legal teams on the payroll and they will automatically prevent the stores or chains by telling them NOT to put their staff in such a position and they will instruct barristers to give further clarification and they have all said DO NOT PUT THE STORE IN THE POSITION OF BEING HELD LIABLE THROUGH VICARIOUS LIABILITY.