Jump to content

Know your rights thread

Mr H

Recommended Posts

Hi I think it would be really useful, if there could be a thread or forum, where people can look at to know what "rights" they have.


I say this because there is a lot of Government manipulation and intimidation imposed upon the public to get them to take certain actions during this pandemic, such as wearing masks, amongst other things. And I think it would be good for people to know what is actually the real legal standpoint on some of these issues, because I know a lot of people who are genuinely scared, who do not wish to comply, but do out of being scared out of their wits of the consequences.



  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mr H said:

Hi I think it would be really useful, if there could be a thread or forum, where people can look at to know what "rights" they have.

Good one.  Here's a bit of the mask stuff I put on the other thread yesterday:

Notice of EXEMPTION from requirement to wear a face covering

1.    I have a reasonable excuse not to wear a face covering

All UK regulations and government guidance imposing restrictions in response to Coronavirus have provided a “reasonable excuse” exemption.

  •          Severe distress is given as one example of an acute immediate reaction. If the Police question you - then to say it would cause you
    “Severe  distress” is an ENTIRELY acceptable and ‘reasonable excuse’.
  •          To avoid harm or injury, or the risk of harm or injury Harm or injury, or risk of it.

  •             People already suffering from, anxiety, generalised anxiety disorder, paranoia and depression among others mental impairments.

  •         Asthma and many other respiratory conditions, many of which will not ordinarily be apparent to others.

2. Shops: Government advice is not to challenge people to wear face covering

This is for GOOD REASON. If a retailer or service provider do so, they & their employees may be PERSONALLY LIABLE for AN OFFENCE liable on summary conviction to pay a fine of up to £5,000-section 112 (Aiding contraventions) of the Equality Act 2010AN ACT OF DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION and be ordered to pay to any individual who suffers injury to feelings compensation between £900 and £9,000  see section 119 (Remedies) of the Equality Act 2010



  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 8/15/2020 at 4:17 PM, sickofallthebollocks said:

People already suffering from, anxiety, generalised anxiety disorder, paranoia and depression among others mental impairments


Do i need to carry any kind of proof that i have any of the above diseases, if challenged by police

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jack121 said:


Do i need to carry any kind of proof that i have any of the above diseases, if challenged by police

It's a fair question Jack.
My thoughts on the matter are;  if questioned by the Police,  after stating that it would cause severe distress - how can they ask you to prove it?  How could you prove it?  Other than grab a face-mask and start shouting & screaming in anguish?

This is the problem for the police, they can't ask you to put a mask on to 'prove-it', the whole thing is unworkable as far as they can see it, the clauses are there - that if wearing a mask will place you under 'severe-distress'  then don't wear one.  There is no way to prove it, for either party.

So, if stopped by an officer for not wearing one - the 'reasonable excuse' is:  It would cause me severe distress, anxiety etc...

There is no way to prove otherwise.  Utiliize the 'reasonable excuse'.

This is why the general public are effectively giving their consent - by wearing one, and not using the 'excuse' that they have been provided with.
If everyone who does not agree with wearing one just didn't - and utilized the provided reasonable excuse- then there would be alot more people without face masks on I think.

I think most of the public incorrectly think they will get an automatic fine the moment they walk in a shop.


Edited by sickofallthebollocks
spelling & added line.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it the case that there are people who simply don't wish to comply with mask wearing whom have been directly harassed or threatened with fines for not wearing one? I'd be interested to know if that kind of thing is happening. In my own instance, It's on my medical file that I am asthmatic, so I would use that as my 'excuse', even though, in reality, I still wouldn't actually want to wear a mask even if I wasn't. In my experience, I only ever get asked why I'm not wearing one, at which point I say "I'm exempt", and then the conversation ends. I haven't had one member of the public challenge me, so I'd be genuinely amazed that there are people whom are being abused by their fellow human beings for not wearing a mask. Is this a thing?

Edited by Ethel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People have a misguided idea that they have rights. Obviously you can argue There are laws, statutes etc, but the problem is that rights depend and change upon the will off the law makers in the country which you live within. Today you can have a protection against i.e: religious persecution, tomorrow could be changed.

As everyone has seen with the Corona virus debacle, so called rules and rights are fluid and changed constantly to suit whatever benefactor the government are trying to please and appease at that moment.  Plus the Herculean micromanaging of every detail means that it’s almost impossible, (if not impossible), to be able to interpret the correct way to act on upon advice or rights, whether you wish to or not.  Intended deliberately  of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Blackstone on natural rights:


With regard to the first of these, the declaratory part of the municipal law, this depends not so much upon the law of revelation or of nature as upon the wisdom and will of the legislator. This doctrine, which before was slightly touched, deserves a more particular explication. Those rights then which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as are life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture. Neither do divine or natural duties (such as, for instance, the worship of God, the maintenance of children, and the like) receive any stronger sanction from being also declared to be duties by the law of the land. The case is the same as to crimes and misdemeanors, that are forbidden by the superior laws, and therefore styled mala in se [wrong in itself], such as murder, theft, and perjury; which contract no additional turpitude from being declared unlawful by the inferior legislature. For that legislature in all these cases acts only, as was before observed, in subordination to the great lawgiver, transcribing and publishing his precepts. So that, upon the whole, the declaratory part of the municipal law has no force or operation at all, with regard to actions that are naturally and intrinsically right or wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...