Police were in the Market Kitchen last night

What I don't understand is why any person who has respiratory issue wouldn't want to wear a mask to prevent them catching what is a respiratory illness and would probably finish them off

 

No idea mate. If I had to hazard a guess I’d say it’s probably because they don’t work, otherwise why would they not have been advised to do so pre Covid to prevent the myriad of other respiratory illnesses that would have finished them off? Otherwise we could have saved all the miners with emphysema and COPD if only they’d worn a bit of cloth on their face.

 

It’s because they have a degree of difficulty in breathing without a mask and wearing one only exacerbates it

 

You are missing the point by a mile. A landlord does not need to state or proffer a reason to refuse to serve someone therefore how can he be prosecuted for discrimination if he hasn’t offered one.

 

This is correct, people with COPD etc will find it a lot harder.

 

It’s because the mask doesn’t safeguard the wearer, it protects others from the wearers potential to spread the virus.
It might seem draconian to some, but couldn’t people who can’t wear a mask just keep out of places where it’s necessary to wear one?

 

Pedants corner The publican ,especially if he is also the Landlord (it is his property after all, it could argue has a duty of care to his customers and staff. If he feels that in the present circumstances the non-mask wearer is a health risk to his customers then he would be well within his rights to refuse to serve them and ask them to leave. As for lip readers they wear the mask when asking to be served and then when seated at a table with their deaf granny lower it or remove it so you , frankly, are just 'mischief making' with a nonsensical analogy. These are NOT normal times. Health comes before 'rights' of someone who wants to prove a point re equality laws and not be reasonable by providing proof without being asked. After all, landlords can ask for identity proof before serving someone they if they feel is under age.
Also if asked "are you treating me differently?" he can answer with a "No" "everyone NOT wearing a mask will be treated the same" You are talking illogical b*llox

 

Rubbish! See post 128#

 

my daughter has been sent home today. Entire year 6 on self isolation for 2 weeks due to
Impossibility of social distancing. Happy days.

 

The conversation would be:
Good afternoon landlord , I’d like a pint please.
Good afternoon sir, could I ask you to put a mask on please.
I don’t have to landlord for medical reasons
I do not wish to serve you sir, kindly leave the premises.

Your own post.

Your post suggests the reason for refusal is for not wearing a mask.

As soon as that person say medical grounds its game over.

You can either serve them or commit an offence.

And I understand the rights of refusal. However you cant refuse service due to a medical exemption. (Barri g usual caveates ie pissed as a rat under age danger to themselves )

Even if you demand proof you are commiting an offence and the Government guidelines themselves state not to challenge.

The Act is designed so someone with a protected characteristic can enjoy the same rights and freedoms as you. Be it any of the examples above.


A good landlord should only say 'not a problem what would you like' and bring as little attention as possible to the customer, their being exempt and letting them enjoy life. Not making a fuss...

Theres always going to be someone who plays the system be it a face mask to playing fortnight.

Its how the world works we both know that.

However, this constant demonising of people who are exempt regardless of reason doesnt bode well with me.
Demanding that a small minority of people

• Dont leave their house
• Wear a badge to identify themselves
• Carry their medical history about to prove exemptions
• Sign exemptions from treatment
• Refuse service regardless of exemption
• Over zealous policing
• Guilty til proven innocent
• The sigmatisation that some are enduring

Has far too many connotations to 1920s/30s Europe to my liking.

There are people who I have seen reply to some posts be it here or social media would quite happily call the police if they heard a creak in the loft space.

 

Its not just those with respiratory issues - some invisible disabilities (autism and similar) can cause people problems with wearing masks.

 

you get a crime ref number even quicker now lol

 

Doesn`t inhaling exhaled air carry its own health problems?

 

Pickfords?

 

No I have never been involved with the running of a pub. As for the rest please see my post #117 to save repeated myself

 

You couldnt be so far wrong if you tried.

There is a massive difference between Dodgy Dave and his Spamdemic refusal to wear a mask and someone who cant wear one for medical reasons.

The lip reading is based on .gov guidence.

And lets be right if Mrs Tekkeytyke who has spent hours getting ready looks a million dollars and is really looking forward to going out even with the intrepidations of the current world is exempt from wearing a mask and you took her out for a meal and at the door the front of house said no mask no entry regardless there would be reams of posts from you kicking off.

We'd be on Covid 21 by the time youve untwisted your head.

 

I follow the rules, I wear a mask because it doesn't impinge on anyones life and if it makes people feel safer then why not? i I don't drink anymore, so the selfish side of me could say fk the pubs I don't care if they all shutdown because they peddle an attractively packaged poison, but as I'm not selfish and I retain independent thought I assert my right to question policies based on SOME experts advice for which there is an equally compelling argument against, especially when the advice being followed does impact other people (unlike say, wearing masks).
It seems to me that society has been moving generally away from a moralistic view when judging actions and rules since probably the time of the enlightenment - where there are absolutes of right and wrong - and more towards a utilitarian manner of judgement - which tries to maximize happiness and well-being to all people effected by an action, regardless of some fixed moral set or rules. I don't think you can argue from a utilitarian point of view that continuing to apply lock downs to control this virus optimizes the happiness and well-being of the population effected. You can argue from a moral standpoint that all life is to be preserved at all costs, in which case, fine, I hope you also don't agree with abortion or the death penalty or euthanasia - In which case you have a consistent moral stance and good for you.