Welcome to the new Britain.
Footage shows two officers from West Midlands Police handing the female customer a fixed penalty notice, saying that she has ‘broken a guideline’.
A policewoman explains that she can take the fine to court and show her ‘burden of proof’ while the shopper claims that she is exempt from wearing a face covering.
Towards the start of the clip, the male police officer says: ‘What we’re going to do, we’re going to take this lady’s details.’
This is what it has come to, petty little uniformed bullies imposing fines when they have no business doing so. There is no requirement under the legislation to prove exemption from wearing a mask and you are perfectly able to show an exemption card on your mobile phone, which this woman did. It is not the case that you need to prove it in court.
The conversation should have been a brief two seconds query followed by “I am exempt.” That, then should have been it.
The man filming asks ‘what for?’ before the policeman urges him to listen to the other officer, who says: ‘If we give you a fixed penalty notice, what it then does, you take it to court and you show your burden of proof then to the court.’
The female customer says ‘I don’t need to’, before the policeman responds: ‘Yes you do.’
No, you don’t.
If you have an age, health or disability reason for not wearing a face covering:
- you do not routinely need to show any written evidence of this
- you do not need show an exemption card
This means that you do not need to seek advice or request a letter from a medical professional about your reason for not wearing a face covering.
However, some people may feel more comfortable showing something that says they do not have to wear a face covering. This could be in the form of an exemption card, badge or even a home-made sign.
Carrying an exemption card or badge is a personal choice and is not required by law.
Despite this, these two carried on harassing an innocent member of the public with their ignorance of the law.
The policeman replies: ‘You showed me a card that you printed on the internet. That’s not valid’, to which the customer responds: ‘So?’
He responds: ‘Because you haven’t got a certificate or a doctor’s note, the onus is on yourself.’
Christ almighty. No. It. Is. Not! That is the law, you cretin.
These two are a disgrace to their uniform. Let’s hope that someone like Crimebodge takes up the baton.
Edited to add, if you have the stomach for it, the comments show that it is not only the police who are ignorant of the law.
I was brought up to respect the police. The erosion of that respect started when I started riding motorbikes and found myself being pulled up for imaginary traffic violations. Nowadays my contempt for them is bottomless. Their image was pretty tarnished before the current crisis arose. They could have taken this as an opportunity to restore their reputation. Instead they have confirmed that our low opinion of them was far too high.
Likewise. These two need tearing off a strip then sacked. They are nothing more than nasty Stasiesque bullies. Their ignorance of the law is – or should be – staggering. It is, unfortunately, now the norm.
Well when even the Met Commissioner publicly suggests that non-mask wearers be shamed how can we expect lowly constables to behave intelligently, with knowledge and with integrity?
When did ‘guidelines’ become law?
Precisely. Idiots.
When common porpoise indoctrinated plod started conflating “requirement”, “rule”, “recommendation” and “law” to suit their own level of incompetence.
At least one, or more likely, both of these morons should be disciplined for overreaching their authority. The onus is on them to determine if an offence, against legislation rather than ‘guidelines’ has been committed. If their actions are sanctioned by their senior officers, then those officers should also he disciplined. As a now, thank goodness,retired Police officer, I would hesitate to be associated in any way with the actions taken place. The main problem is that they would have received instructions from those e-learning officers, which leads me more towards the alleged conspiracy theories that this is a ploy to keep the ordinary citizens under a more lengthy political, rather than a virus related, lockdown. Is this going to be the new normal? How long before the public begin to react? How many tins of beans do I need to keep in my cupboard?
Here is the apology from West Midlands Police: https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/news/apology-issued-over-misunderstanding-face-mask-exemption-sandwell-store
Note they only apologise for the error of stating it is a legal requirement to show an exemption card.
That’s another case. Seems they don’t learn easily.
“The officers have been spoken to regarding their understanding of the guidance and current legislation around the wearing of face masks.
We’ll also ensure that this is shared with all of our officers across the force, so we are certain that we’re all clear on the current guidelines.”
Since the guidelines have been in place since July and it takes about five minutes to read and understand them, you’d think they’d have managed to do that before last month.
Yes, I suppose it would take five minutes given that they are hard of thinking.
Both of them should be instantly dismissed for gross misconduct. Furthermore they should be prosecuted for malfeasance.
The same goes for all the officers above them in the chain of command who have supported their actions.
There should be no leniency whatsoever for this kind of corrupt behaviour.
Golden rule no. 1. Always record any interaction with an authority, be polite. We have the Internet. ?
Just FYI, both my wife and my daughter are nurses working in the NHS.They both state, quiet categorically, that no Doctor will give a ‘mask-exemption’ note to anyone. No police officer should demand one.
That is true, I am exempt for various lung problems and asked my GP and my consultant and both said they will not supply a letter of exemption. I bought an exemption badge and so far have had no problems. Since the consultant told me it was dangerous for me to wear a mask he should be willing to provide proof if required.