Health & Safety Risk Assessment on Wearing Facemasks?

im actually used it now, I get up and do my usual check list

Car key
House keys
Phone (most important) :ROFLMAO:
Wallet

And now mask is on the list..
Its just the way it is now.


I understand if people can't wear a mask for medical reasons but I'm sorry, you can buy a face visor online for 5 quid!!
Agreed my missus has copd and is exempt from wearing a mask but like she says just because you have medical, conditions dosnt stop you wearing a face covering to do your bit in the fight.

Plus you get people downloading and laminating exempt cards
 

A demonstration on how effective face masks are.​


Can't say I'm surprised that's exactly how effective I saw masks,
which was initially confirmed by the World Health Organisation and most of our government.

My idea of protecting against virus was backed up by the evidence shown by the film "Contagion", a full protection suit
where the oxygen is fed into. lol (to believe anything else would protect you, you're just kidding yourselve on IMO)



2021 02 08 Image 002.png





Link to video demonstration:​



Code:
https://www.facebook.com/IrelandStandsTogether/videos/695223424487133
 
Sometimes I come across some fantastic memes, here's one and if I had a shop or business accessed by the public, I'd put this notice up for all to see.
Obviously I'd need to change the wording slightly so as to refer to UK legislation, of which we do have in the UK. It's just a shame that we've so many
horrible retailers like Morrisons actively discriminating against disabled and trampling all over people's human rights.



img_216 (X).jpg
 
You do realise that the human rights act can be bypassed in certain situations don't you???
The first of these is that rights can be legitimately restricted by governments. Under the ECHR, lawful interference occurs when rights are restricted for the purposes of “national security, public safety… the economic wellbeing of the country… protection of health… [and] the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”.

The second caveat is that articulated by Wendy Parmet, the director of the Center for Health Policy and Law at Northeastern University, who posits that nobody possesses the right to do something that could injure the health of [their] neighbours. In essence, the right to bodily autonomy does not generate a corresponding right to infringe on the health and safety of others.

So you can moan and bluster all you want.
The realities do not grant anybody the right to refuse to wear a mask when it is mandated. Nor do we have a right to harm others simply because the wearing of a mask is inconvenient. The bottom line is clear. In accordance with government advice, the law, and the prevailing scientific evidence, all those who are not medically exempt should be wearing face masks.
 
You do realise that the human rights act can be bypassed in certain situations don't you???
The first of these is that rights can be legitimately restricted by governments. Under the ECHR, lawful interference occurs
when rights are restricted for the purposes of “national security, public safety… the economic wellbeing of the country… protection of health… [and] the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”.

I didn’t realise the European Human Rights Act can be bypassed, although I’m not surprised to hear that the government can.
I guess I’ve never been in the habit of looking through law in detail although that’s a nice booklet you’ve shared here that I may
read later because I’m sure I’ve heard that the UK regretfully signed up to the ECHR upon “leaving’” the EU… (Such a disappointing
decision by the UK on that one)

Your post has made me realise that mistakenly, I’ve omitted to mention the Equality Act 2010 in my post, which as it happens was
more in my thoughts at the time of writing, although the poster is displayed in Canada mentioning “human rights”, of where I know
even less about their laws that they rely upon.

It is of course the people who are medically exempt from wearing face masks that I am considering here that I feel the Canadian
poster is addressing too. As I say I don’t know Canadian rules on mask wearing, but here in the UK you can be medically exempt
from wearing a facemask, in which case one of the reasons can be having a disability (the poster mentions physical or mental disability)
The fact is, retailers in the UK have been in breach of the Equality Act 2010., with regard to their treatment of disabled people,
who are medically exempt from wearing a facemask. Whether they’ve been in breach of the European Human Rights Act also,
I’m not too sure, as I haven’t heard of any lawyer mention this Act specifically.

The second caveat is that articulated by Wendy Parmet, the director of the Center for Health Policy and Law at Northeastern University,
who posits that nobody possesses the right to do
something that could injure the health of [their] neighbours.
In essence, the right to bodily autonomy does not generate a
corresponding right to infringe on the health and safety of others.

So you can moan and bluster all you want.
The realities do not grant anybody the right to refuse to wear a mask when it is mandated. Nor do we have a right to harm others
simply because the wearing of a mask is inconvenient. The bottom line is clear. In accordance with government advice, the law, and
the prevailing scientific evidence, all those who are not medically exempt should be wearing face masks.

I'm not moaning about anything, I'm just doing my best to promote the rights of disabled people in accordance with the law, one being
the Equality Act 2010

It is interesting to note the words of a law firm.
Code:
A face “covering” falls to be regulated under the Consumer Protection Regulations. The Face Coverings Regulations are therefore - prima facie - unlawful and should not be enforced.

In the view of our legal team, the Face Coverings Regulations are ultra vires the Government’s powers but that legal argument is ongoing.


Your article shared by "The New York Times", in my opinion shows a lot of unecessary confrontation between retailers and customers, when if they followed the
good example of the Canadian retailer by just displaying an appropriately written poster serving notice could all be easily avoided. There's
absolutely no need for retailers to confront people, that is and only is the job of law enforcement. (and even then in the UK within the law)
 
The quotes were taken from this article Behind the masks: is it really a rights issue? — Human Rights Pulse
And it's taken from a UK perspective.

Thanks for sharing link, always a good idea to put either quote or code tags around things that are not your words and a link to the source.

As I see it, there's two main concerns here, the rights of those
(1) who object to wearing a face mask on the grounds of their safety
(2) and those who on the grounds of being medically exempt are treated.

It's good information you're sharing though, but the interesting thing I find about law is the multitude of different ways it can be interpreted depending on particular circumstance.
 
If you can't wear a mask you should at least wear a visor.
No excuses

I've got a Scottish government that's went from stating a face visor was ok, intitally, to now, that's its not OK. So, how
wearing something that's considered ineffective is of any use I don't know. Is it more to show that you're obediaent and compliant?
I thought the whole purpose expressed by government was on the grounds of safety.
 
Back
Top