Here we go

Interesting you should mention that. Quite a few people who I've known for years have suddenly become David Icke fans.
The one's who generally tend to be against everything. The one's who believe this is all an illuminati conspiracy. Also the one's who are now claiming the wearing of masks to be Masonic led.

 

It'll certainly suit the back benchers that like to get stuck up rent boys.

 

Just hope they have to wear them in Parliament then we may not have to hear all the ***** they keep spouting or it may come across as unclear messaging so no change there.

So we reduce social distancing to get closer to others and then suddenly masks are available so get em on to prevent the spread aye reight. Been a total clusterfuck reight from the start.

 

the OP has confused Civil Liberties with Civil Rights.

 

Cybil is always right, ask Basil.

 

Stop thi skriking and get yersen one of these.

https://www.barnsleyfcdirect.co.uk/gifts-souvenirs/souvenirs/hats-and-caps/1564_face-mask.html

 

No I haven't.

 

My view, for what it's worth:
There is sound scientific evidence that masks can help prevent the airborne transmission of the virus if worn by someone who is infected. Masks can help protect others if you have it, they won't protect you if you don't.
Because of that scientific evidence there is a case for legislation making the wearing of masks compulsory in certain situations.
However, such legislation is an infringement on civil liberties however much people may argue it's not.
As such such legislation should be reviewed regularly, to keep up with the science, to monitor the effectiveness of the legislation and to only infringe on civil liberties when necessary.
I understand the argument for face masks. I understand the suggestion wearing them should be compulsory in certain places. I don't agree but I understand it. I understand why such a law has been passed. I don't understand those that don't believe it's an infringement on freedom and civil liberties. I don't understand the glee expressed at having civil liberties eroded. This legislation may be necessary but its introduction should be a sombre time for us all. And I really don't understand the vitriol directed at people standing up for the civil liberties of everyone.

I directed this message at you, not because I believe you're guilty of anything I've described above, but because I believe you'll give a reasoned response.

 

I can't get my head round why people are so against wearing a mask to go shopping. It's not a big deal is it? Stick a mask on for an hour whilst you do your weekly shop and nip to Cortonwood or Town or whatever. Then take it off. You aren't being shackled in chains or a tag put on you. It's a mask.

It's utter madness why it's been introduced now like. Why suddenly 4 months into a pandemic we have to wear them. I'd love to hear the rationale behind the timing.

But just stick one on.

 

but I am at Liberty to suggest you have confused Civil Rights and Civil Liberties ??

 

There's no ulterior motive to this. What possible ulterior motive could there be. It's simply for everyone's health and safety in these exceptional circumstances, as one of the bridging measures until a vaccine or effective treatment is found. I would have thought you would have embraced it, as a way of reopening the country and restoring a semblance of normality.

 

Serious two part question (it might already have been asked, so apologies if that is the case).

A) What's your view on drink driving? B) Do you consider its prohibition an erosion of civil liberties?

 

Firstly, I agree with everything you've written above. People, including myself, take our civil liberties for granted and don't give them a moment's thought under normal circumstances. In times of crisis, we tend to be worrying about other things, and anyone shouting out about civil liberties is tarred as a troublemaker. It's entirely reasonable, right and proper to be concerned about mask-wearing and the impact on civil liberties. These things are not trivial matters, even if - compared to the effects of Covid itself - they may appear to be.

There is often a negative reaction whenever someone is perceived to be rocking the boat or challenging authority. I've seen it first hand in the way that some of my co-workers were scathing in their condemnation of union reps, who despite actively working in all our best interests, were labelled as trouble-causers. The truth is that we need people who are prepared to stand up, question, challenge. We'd all be worse off without them.

As for mask-wearing itself, I'm puzzled with the timing of this latest instruction. It feels either too late for the first spike and too early for the (assumed) second spike, although time will tell - it may be that the government is getting us used to wearing masks before the second spike arrives.

 

Out of interest, which Civil Liberty do you believe it infringes?

Freedom of Speech? (No - it doesn't stop you saying anything you want within the grounds of the hate speech laws)
Freedom of Conscience? (No - it doesn't stop you having thoughts or views)
Freedom of Religion? (No - it doesn't stop you worshiping your god or choosing not to)
Freedom of expression? (Debatable - it doesn't stop you expressing views and doesn't stop you expressing those through a choice of face covering but does mandate you wear something over your face)
Freedom of Assembly? (No - it doesn't stop you meeting other people - although other regulations do in some situations at the moment)
Right to Security & Liberty? (No - if anything it makes those who are unable to wear masks for health reasons more secure and free than before)
Right to Privacy? (No - If anything it gives you more privacy in outside settings as your lower half of the face is covered)
Right to equal treatment under law? (No - everyone is treated the same)
Right to a fair trial? (No - everyone is treated the same)
Right to life? (No - if anything it improves the risk to health for the majority)
Right to own property? (Nope)
Right to defend oneself? (Nope)
Right to bodily integrity? (Arguable possibly - although a face covering is a lot different to the woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy).

Have I missed one? Or which one of these do you think it infringes? There are two that are tenuous arguments at best.

 

Of course having to wear a mask infringes our Civil Liberty - but so do hundreds of things we do or don't do on a daily basis.
What's the problem?

I have no issue with wearing a mask - it reduces the chances of my getting Covid 19 and reduces the chances of my passing it on if I have it.
And by wearing a mask it enhances everyone's Human/Civil Right to health.

 

People could argue it makes their day better if they don't have to look at my ugly mug

 

But doesn`t yer ugly mug give them a feeling of being far superior in the looks dept Daws.

 

Well I’m not a lawyer, or an expert on ‘civil liberties’, whatever that means? but my two pennorth is...

the law has required people to wear ear defenders, protective footwear, breathing apparatus, high vis etc for many years.

And I’ve never once heard someone refuse to wear such because of ‘civil liberties’. I’ve known total bellends refuse to wear appropriate PPE because they think they know ‘better’.

God forbid what’s gonna happen in future now we’ve given them a lofty sounding phrase to support their desire to be a bellend.

 

i take it you drive? seatbelts an infringement too?

 

If the Government are serious abart this then supply shops with the required masks, for me they are probably just masking other things that they don`t want in the media limelight.

When it was more appropriate to wear these we were told it aint worth the hassle.

Divide and Conquer.