We have a zero-tolerance policy for racism, hate speech, and abusive behavior. Offenders will be banned without warning.
Our sub has participation requirements. If your account is too new, is not email verified, or doesn't meet certain undisclosed karma criteria, your posts or comments will not be displayed.
Please report any rule-breaking content to help us maintain community standards.
Considering they are already riding illegal ebikes\motorcycles with no consideration for the laws they are already breaking, what makes people believe they will suddenly listen to a face covering ban?
The law was changed where police used to be held to the standards of the reasonable driver which is obviously flawed because police receive higher training than members of the public and hold exemptions not afforded to the public so the standard was changed to the standards expected of a reasonable police driver
The issue you have now is after a steady flow of officers getting thrown under the bus following pursuits there is little faith among PCs that the organisation will not do the same to them following a collision caused by the subject vehicle. Not to mention that there is an overzealous IOPC absolutely frothing to stick officers on for rubbish and drag out investigations that go on for years whilst these scrotes are elevated in the national rags as these lovable cherubs who no doubt were aspiring musicians, footballers, second coming of Christ etc with a cheeky personality (blight on the local estate) and a smile that lit up the room
Knocking these knobs off the bikes would stop it pretty quickly but they all know that the officers trained to do this are few and far between and will purposefully ride as dangerously as possible putting themselves and the public at as much risk as they can to cause pursuits to be called off.
The public have repeatedly asked for this kind of policing and it's now what they've got. Robust policing does work, see the Met knocking off moped riding phone theives at any oppotunity causing a 36% decrease in a year. Word would very quickly get round that it's not worth running from the old bill on one of these bikes unless you're prepared for a brush with the tarmac
Because police can arrest them for doing so. They are more than likely armed as well and upon arrest they will get into trouble for the rest of the offences. Problem is they then get a slap on the wrist and no real punishment
So they are already breaking laws and possibly carrying weapons but a face covering being illegal will be the tipping point that will allow police to start knocking them off their bikes and arrest them?
It's so you don't have to wait for the illegal part to happen. Someone walking down the street with a facemask cannot be investigated randomly, now they can.
But as the poster mentioned below, this now brings the problem for people who wear face masks for other reasons.
Twats are the reason we can't have nice things
Their eBikes are overpowered and are, in all likelihood, unlicenced and uninsured. And the scroats probably do not hold a driving licence. Additional laws are not necessary to effect a stop/arrest.
These calls are worrying, as they will more than be supported. It makes the job of the police easier to employ facial recognition software, which effectively removes the legal trigger (eg: suspicion of a crime being commited) to the act of demanding identifying.
I hate that these scroats hide their faces and ride around terrorising people on machines that make them difficult to apprehend, but the enactment of such a law will make little difference to how they behave, but it will further infringe upon public freedoms. If we keep eroding public freedoms we will eventually live in a police state.
Agreed, they don't. But let me escalate it, someone minding their own business walking down the street with a machete doesn't need to be investigated randomly either.
BUT unfortunately we live in a society where someone doing this has a far higher chance to be doing it to cause problems.
The facemask thing as far as I am aware is either done for religious reasons or crime without the risk of getting caught.
Right now the police cannot do anything since wearing a mask is not an issue and can only act once it is FAR too late and now cannot even follow up.
To be honest, I agree with you and thankfully live somewhere where this isn't an issue. But watching footage, I do feel for innocent people who's lives are getting wrecked and just being told "we will follow up on this" without anything being able to be done
There’s a massive difference between carrying a machete and wearing a covering your face.
There’s plenty of legitimate reasons to cover your face. Living in a world where you the police can arrest you for the way you are dressed is beyond draconian.
Absolutely not on both points. I cover my face with my scarf all the time when it’s cold and windy.
Then let’s just say it’s illegal to cover your face. Do you think these people are going to go, “oh I can’t commit crimes, as covering my face up would be illegal”?
These people are already committing multiple crimes they could be arrested for, but they’re not because the police can’t be arsed/underfunded/overstreched (delete as appropriate).
Making covering your face illegal would solve nothing.
I thought it would be the equivalent of hiding your number plate on a car.
The kind of person to do that is usually up to something and because it is illegal, police can investigate immediately without having to gather further evidence.
Now as I said you do have a point, innocent people will get wrapped up in this which isn't fair, but your statement that it would solve nothing because people would still commit crimes, isn't completely true.
If it was enforced, you could stop the perpetrator before they commit the crime rather than waiting until they commit the crime or when they get away and can't be traced.
Since at the moment, you can't stop them. And to bring the licence plate up, if it wasn't illegal then people would commit crimes without getting caught even if people do it by accident, plate gets dirty etc.
And as I said I agree but completely understand the suggestion.
Because the alternative seems to be accept that people will get away with crimes because they can cover their face without any pushback to avoid surveillance.
Because big corporations and the government want to push facial recognition and crackdown on protests so they're getting their mates in the media to create a moral panic against face coverings.
As a local, they've been allowed to get away with this for far too long. What was one small group of youths has grown to god knows how many groups all over teesside. Police have, until very recently, let it go unchecked. I've sent in countless reports, images, complaints, etc since just after covid times and not once have I had a formal response from the police.
Probably harder to witness them doing dangerous things on bikes, and to catch them afterwards. Plus police need probable cause to search them to find weapons.
But someone committing a crime isn’t going to think twice about committing the extra crime of wearing a mask. Then they just won’t give the police probable cause and not wear the mask when not committing crimes. Not hard to put a balaclava in your pocket.
I get people are frustrated but banning face coverings will not solve anything. Need to hold politicians accountable for letting public services die rather than offering quick fixes that won’t do anything.
Probably not, but it seems like they're having trouble dealing with the problem so they're trying alternative ideas. Not sure what else you could do other than searching all people of a certain age, which is probably illegal, they wouldn't have enough officers for and would also be fairly simple to evade.
Yes but the government potentially could, which is surely what we're discussing? I don't think anyone thought the police could just come up with new laws at will.
So you think it will be a reason to stop people for no reason?
But if it was illegal they’d just cover their face when actually committing crimes. Not like a balaclava doesn’t fit in a pocket. It’ll have no difference and won’t change anything.
I get people are frustrated but it wouldn’t fix anything, there isn’t a quick fix to deep rooted problems in society and public services.
The point is they can get in trouble for the vehicle offences anyway and be arrested...so banning face coverings will accomplish absolutely 0 other than criminalise the odd person who walks around to keep their face warm.
From someone who has never done office work, the only places I’ve seen people in balaclavas like these were in extreme cold climates. Never seen one on site anywhere in Britain, woolly hats, helmet liners, snoods , yes. Full on balaclavas, no.
Lets ban the yobs, who are committing crime and riding illegal bikes from wearing face coverings.
Thats going to stop it, with the ban on face coverings, fearing prosecution the yobs will give up their life of crime.
Or the police could just arrest them for the crimes they are already committing. The yobs will most probably be known to the police, the police can go after them.
Anyway the majority of crimes are committed by a small number of repeat offenders. Police in the past have had success raiding the homes of those suspected to be causing trouble like this and seizing evidence and the bikes etc...
Probably smarter to mix it up and ban the parents from certain places within the local area if it continues. Pressure the parents to notice a daily impact or at least fuck off elsewhere with their family.
Because then the police arrest you. Thats the issue, there is a two tier justice system, and the whole thing is set up to punish people who follow the rules.
Just as an example, we have package thief in our area who regularly breaks in to the foyer of our flat and steals packages. We made police reports, with CCTV footage, nothing, nada. Yet if I caught the thief one day and gave him a beating, the police would arrest me the very next day. Two tiers.
No, the “solution” is to have an implicit understanding with the police, so the police don’t pursue action against communities fighting back. But then you end up in a situation where vigilantism becomes commonplace and once you go down that path it’s very hard to go back. So the police should just do their fucking jobs.
If the police did their jobs, there wouldnt BE any need for vigilantism - this is the very reason we established a police force - so we wouldnt have to act in vigilante style possees like its the wild west - the foundational assumption is though that the police do their job. IF they dont, all bets are off.
This isn't two tier policing, this is a lack of resources or horrendous mismanagement of the police or evidential problems. If what you submit is as clearcut as you say and clearly shows who the culprit is and the police do nothing, they are either mismanaged or lack the funding.
Pretending that there's a diktat from on high to make sure that bad evil people obviously doing theft aren't arrested but good normal people doing vigilante justice are is silly and conspiratorial thinking.
Also, obligatory: vigilante justice is not justified outside a breakdown of the social contract between people and government. We are nowhere near that point and would be at least ten years away if everything continued to get worse. You do not have a right to beat someone up and assault them because they stole your stuff.
I am not saying it’s intentional. It’s much easier to arrest a tax paying citizen with a fixed address than a thug wearing a balaclava on an electric bike. I absolutely get that, but it does result it two tier policing, intentional or not. I definitely agree with you about vigilantism, but how much are people supposed to take? 5, 10, 15 packages? People will lash out eventually.
That just isn't what two tier policing is, though.
That's like saying it's two tier policing because it's easier to arrest anyone in the UK than it is, say, a Russian agent doing a poisoning.
It has to be intentional to be two tier policing. A fact of life (ie the difficulty differential that comes with investigating certain crimes resulting in different arrest rates) isn't two tier policing. If it was, I would suggest we in fact have X-tier policing, where X is the number of different crimes on the books multiplied by the number of circumstances impacting how easily those crimes are prosecuted.
I kicked some little bike yobs out of our little town centre park recently. They looked rather surprised that someone actually held them to account, didn’t cause any fuss.
I 100% agree with you. Very strongly do. But you know the scrotes will get a light telling off, and the residents will get the jail.
Can't have people standing up for their own communities, doing the police forces work for them.
I get the worry about it escalating into vigillante groups. but if the police are so ineffectual for this type of crime, then something else has to happen.
Because the police still think they ought to have a monopoly on the use of policing powers and thus violence. This is despite the fact that the very basis for our police force's continued existence and operation is public consent - and the basic requirement that the police uphold the law. Should they fail to do so, its morally legitimate for people to act together to police themselves - indeed it is every person's legal and moral duty to police themselves and the community - its just the police's "full time" job to do so.
Frankly, with things the way they are, there is simply too much personal risk for a person to act here without being considered the wrong side of the "vigilante" line.
A town has backed its MP in declaring war on balaclava-clad yobs who terrorise their community on souped-up e-bikes.
Residents of Darlington, County Durham, and the towns that surround it, are plagued by gangs of youths on off-road and electric bikes who cause havoc while disguising themselves behind balaclavas and ski masks.
The issue has become so prevalent that traffic cops have coined the term the 'Balaclava Club' as they wage a daily battle to keep the public safe from riders as young as 12 years old.
There was a warning that the danger riders are modifying standard electric bikes, buying kits online that can make them go at double their intended speed.
You'd think the police be able to do something like douse them with ink then pick them up later when they turn up to school looking like a smurf.
No need to put themselves, the public, or even the little scrotes in danger with a chase.
That, and put a hold on benefits for families whose kids get done for antisocial behaviour like this. If they can afford the bikes, a few weeks of stopped child support isn't going to make them destitute.
Yeah except one of these precious little angels who has a smile that lights up the room will continue riding with paint on their face, crash it into a wall turning their small brains into a small quantity of paste. Then there's riots and the same papers/people calling for action will say the police killed these fuckers and the law will be revoked.
The best police is to allow cops to knock them off with force when under certain speeds. Broken limbs are a risk, but a lot lower risk than allowing them to carry on with impunity and kill themselves and others.
Also, you'd only have to do it for a few months before the message gets out that it's not worth it.
Sadly, chief constables around the country care more about their image and their job than actually preventing crime or helping victims.
Thankfully I’ve been noticing a lot more now that whenever there’s a new article about one of these little cherubs getting hurt or killed people are a lot quicker to say they deserved it. There’s always a few comments like ‘this is disgusting they’re just a child/think about their families etc’ but generally the attitude towards these scumbags seems to be swaying. People are sick of being terrorised and seeing hard working people have their pride and joy stolen/being a victim of theft themselves.
Give the police the powers of arrest they need. they includes taking these dickheads off the bikes with force, using cop cars, using Stringer strips, using clothes lines. Allow the police to stop all motor and e-motors bikes, if they fail to comply, bike is seized and destroyed.
Face Coverings.... load of tosh, so not prevent these children from getting the bikes, from committing the acts, you just want to take their photo's... These asshats are not overly concerned with following and obeying the local and national laws, a £25 fine for a face covering is not going to bother them in the least.
Having a volvo run you down and your bike ran through a compactor. That will get the message over to them in short order
Problem is the police can stop and arrest them all they want but the courts will just let them off and kick them back out on the streets to re-offend.
The amount of articles I've seen the past few years about people getting off with slaps on the wrist for horrendous crimes is staggering.
While I'm sure the police can also do more, I cant help but feel that if I were a police officer that I'd be fed up seeing people you've arrested endlessly let back out
Covering your face in public is historically something you only did if you were up to no good. Or riding a motorbike. Anyone covering their face in public was treated with suspicion, and rightly so.
However, I can't see a ban on this happening anytime soon, and if it did happen, exemptions would be made for 'cultural and religious reasons', which would render the whole thing pointless as anybody can claim it's their culture.
If we have exemptions for Muslim women on culture grounds then it will be a short while before someone getting arrested claim there a Muslim woman too.
The whole thing is ridiculous waste of time, just hand out some asbos.
No one in these parts gives two hoots though. So little police action has led to the issues going unchecked for a few years. Only now is some action being taken. Parents just don't take responsibility for their children.
Yeah that will show them! Maybe we should ban illegal ebikes and make it illegal to ride a motorised vehicle without registration, a licence, insurance too.
Because the point is anarcho tyranny. Poor criminals can do what they want, the middle class with extractable income are the ones that get disproportionately punished in the British surveillance state
We can't just keep banning things that are tangentially related to crime, it doesn't stop crime happening and criminals famously don't follow laws so it's not going to impact them anyway
Is it really tangentially related? It's pretty much always the dodgy boys that wear them, and you see them wearing them around town even when they're not on bikes. I think that people get emboldened by being able to get away with smaller socially unacceptable things, and wearing a face covering in public is part of that.
Is it really tangentially related? It's pretty much always the dodgy boys that wear them, and you see them wearing them around town even when they're not on bikes
You think that no one else is covering their face for any reason other than to commit crime? Yes, it's tangentially related in the same way that tracksuits and trainers are
I think that people get emboldened by being able to get away with smaller socially unacceptable things, and wearing a face covering in public is part of that.
Since when has someone covering their face been new or socially unacceptable? People cover their faces in cold weather all of the time
Again, criminals aren't going to be affected by this because they'll do it anyway and the police aren't going to come out specially just because a covered face has been reported, it's just going to affect regular people who put a mask on because they have a cold
Apart from when people are cycling, I pretty much never see anyone "normal" covering their face, it's just not cold enough for it. There is a massively high correlation between face coverings and anti-social behaviour. I think that the police should have the ability to stop and search someone that is wearing a face mask and to have them identify themselves.
criminals aren't going to be affected by this because they'll do it anyway
Ok, so let's make carrying knives legal because criminals are just going to do it anyway.
I pretty much never see anyone "normal" covering their face, it's just not cold enough for it
So that means no one should ever get to make that choice for themselves?
There is a massively high correlation between face coverings and anti-social behaviour.
How is adding one more law for these people to break going to help? Unless we straight up arrest and imprison people for it then they're still out in the world to do what they want
I think that the police should have the ability to stop and search someone that is wearing a face mask and to have them identify themselves
Why are you so happy for people's freedoms to be thrown away? Maybe we should stop people wearing coats too in case people use them to hide things? Some people hide illegal things in their houses, maybe the police should have the power to search houses if they think the exterior looks suspicious too?
Ok, so let's make carrying knives legal because criminals are just going to do it anyway.
You say this as if making it illegal to carry knives has stopped criminals doing it, which it hasn't, non-criminals carrying knives isn't a problem because they aren’t doing criminal things with them
The only possible good thing is that if a criminal is caught they can be taken off the streets before they do something harmful, but really that's clutching at straws because until someone does something harmful we have no way of knowing whether or not they intended to cause harm so it's not exactly a great benchmark
Edit: in case it isn't clear, I believe the same here as with knives, until someone actually does something wrong we really shouldn't criminalise the things that aren't actually harming people. Having them as an aggravating factor? Sure, but simply existing with an item shouldn't be a crime
So that means no one should ever get to make that choice for themselves?
Correct, just like how when you enter a bank you have to take your motorbike helmet off. You don't get to choose everything when it comes to public interactions. You are arguing for ultimate freedoms, and ignoring the fact that my freedom can encroach on yours, and a healthy society is one balanced with balanced freedoms.
How is adding one more law for these people to break going to help?
Identifying these people helps if they end up being prosecuted for something else, but it also is an opportunity to get them connected with social programs.
Maybe we should stop people wearing coats too in case people use them to hide things? Some people hide illegal things in their houses, maybe the police should have the power to search houses if they think the exterior looks suspicious too?
The difference is that everyone wears coats. Everyone lives in a house. These are not markers for illegal activity.
we have no way of knowing whether or not they intended to cause harm
If they have a knife, it doesn't really matter. This person is carrying it with the idea that they might need to use it. It 100% a good idea to stop people from carrying knives. It's not clear whether or not knife control works, but it definitely doesn't make the problem worse.
Correct, just like how when you enter a bank you have to take your motorbike helmet off. You don't get to choose everything when it comes to public interactions
Except a bank is a private establishment, which is why they can set their own rules despite the fact that it's a public place, the same can't be said for the entire outside
You are arguing for ultimate freedoms, and ignoring the fact that my freedom can encroach on yours, and a healthy society is one balanced with balanced freedoms.
Not at all, ultimate freedom would mean allowing people to infringe upon each other's rights, I simply acknowledge that it's unreasonable to remove freedom in public on the basis of "I don't like something" when no one is being harmed and their rights aren't being infringed. Person A isn't harming Person B simply because Person A has a face covering
Please explain how one person covering their face is encroaching upon the freedom of another
Identifying these people helps if they end up being prosecuted for something else, but it also is an opportunity to get them connected with social programs.
So you're just against privacy at this point? Everyone needs to be immediately identifiable just in case they do something at some point?
Can I have your name, home address, work address, and photo just in case you commit a crime and I need to be able to identify you later?
The difference is that everyone wears coats. Everyone lives in a house. These are not markers for illegal activity.
But lots of illegal activities are committed by people in those groups just as lots of legal activities are committed by people who cover their faces, the fact remains that covering your face is also not a marker of illegal activity just because some people do it to commit crimes in the same way that some people hide things under coats but it doesn't mean every coat is used to hide things
This honestly just boils down to you not liking face coverings and you don't care about things that don't impact you, all criminals wear shoes and would find it harder to commit crimes if they were barefoot but you aren't here saying that shoes should be illegal
If they have a knife, it doesn't really matter. This person is carrying it with the idea that they might need to use it
If only there was a use for knives besides stabbing people, oh wait, there actually is
Again, non criminals doing things doesn't matter and criminals aren't going to follow the law
Except a bank is a private establishment, which is why they can set their own rules despite the fact that it's a public place, the same can't be said for the entire outside
I personally don't think this distinction matters all that much when it's the standard rule in every bank - are you going to just never go into a bank? If you need an example for public, you're not allowed to be naked, you wouldn't be allowed to wear a t-shirt with a graphically violent image on it.
Please explain how one person covering their face is encroaching upon the freedom of another
Indirectly. If these people are terrorising towns, and part of that is an inability to identify them, then I see that as encroaching on people's freedom to live peacefully.
Everyone needs to be immediately identifiable just in case they do something at some point?
It depends on what you mean by "identifiable". I'm not saying that everyone needs to have papers at the ready, but you should be recognisable so that someone could retrospectively confirm who you were. Society requires that people have a level of accountability, and part of that is people knowing who you are, even if it's just by face.
the fact remains that covering your face is also not a marker of illegal activity
Are you telling me there's no correlation? That you couldn't use it as a predictor at all?
You keep bringing up other examples - coats, houses, shoes, the difference is that everyone wears/has these and these cannot be used as a predictor.
This honestly just boils down to you not liking face coverings and you don't care about things that don't impact you
This is clearly dishonest and just a refusal on your part to understand my perspective. I wouldn't care if the majority of people that covered their faces weren't yobs, but they are.
If only there was a use for knives besides stabbing people, oh wait, there actually is
Sure, everyone in central london is either a freelance chef travelling to a kitchen or a craftsman going out to whittle some wood.
If you're going to carry on intentionally misrepresenting my viewpoint, there's no point in continuing this conversation.
I personally don't think this distinction matters all that much when it's the standard rule in every bank - are you going to just never go into a bank?
The distinction matters greatly because having to meet a condition to enter a private building isn't the same as having to meet a condition to leave your house
Not going into a bank is also ridiculously easy considering everything is online
you're not allowed to be naked
This is false, it's completely legal to be naked as long as you don't do it with the intent of causing distress
Indirectly. If these people are terrorising towns, and part of that is an inability to identify them, then I see that as encroaching on people's freedom to live peacefully.
So if I go out with a covered face I'm encroaching on your freedom even if I don't terrorise anyone?
Simply existing with a covered face isn't encroaching on someone's freedom to live peacefully, just because someone doesn't like something doesn't mean they're being harmed
It depends on what you mean by "identifiable". I'm not saying that everyone needs to have papers at the ready, but you should be recognisable so that someone could retrospectively confirm who you were
This is a flawed premise from the start because it's thwarted by something as simple as night time and changing clothes
Society requires that people have a level of accountability, and part of that is people knowing who you are, even if it's just by face.
Are you telling me there's no correlation? That you couldn't use it as a predictor at all?
Do you honestly think that profiling people by appearance just because someone is an acceptable way for the police to behave? Come on dude, think for at least a second before you speak
I don't think we should be predicting crime based on clothing, tools, or looks
You keep bringing up other examples - coats, houses, shoes, the difference is that everyone wears/has these and these cannot be used as a predictor.
Neither can face coverings, because there are legitimate reasons someone might want to cover their face, the fact remains that you cannot accurately predict behaviour from appearance. You like to think that you can because some criminals have used face coverings but that doesn't mean you're correct
There are brown people in the news at the moment because they raped someone, does this mean that we can predict rapists by their skin colour? Obviously not
This is clearly dishonest and just a refusal on your part to understand my perspective
I completely understand your perspective, I just fundamentally disagree that we should profile people based on clothes and continue to ban things simply because criminals have used them
I don't see how my interpretation is dishonest or a refusal to understand your point. You stated that there's no legitimate reason to wear face coverings because it doesn't get cold enough, a decision that you can only make for yourself, and you've made it clear that you think everyone should have uncovered faces so they can be more easily recognised
Why is my conclusion that you dislike face coverings and don't care if it won't impact you incorrect based on the information you've presented?
Sure, everyone in central london is either a freelance chef travelling to a kitchen or a craftsman going out to whittle some wood.
It's funny that you misrepresent my point while complaining that I'm misrepresenting you, it's perfectly correct to point out that knives have legitimate uses beyond crime and it's also correct that non-criminals having knives presents no threat. You would make sense if the given examples were the only uses, but they're not
Banning face coverings would be ridiculous. Can't pull a scarf up over your mouth without getting harassed by the police really the way you want to live?
The issue to me is not enough policing. I've cycled on and off and in the winter months and right in traffic, I like a face covering. Reduced fumes and warmer face. I mean half those ebikes aren't legally ridden anyway, so making things illegal is useless unless you enforce it.
I would be all for it but this will be likely be used against protestors and hunt saboteurs probably more than it will be used against the illegal e-bike riding yobs.
The bikes are illegal and police do nothing about that, they ain’t gonna do anything about criminals wearing balaclavas. But soon it will be a ban in hoods and scarves too, and if you dare try to keep your face warm you’ll end up in the nick.
A face covering ban. This will have a fair amount of millage in it. There are going to be exemptions and then there will be objections to "if they can wear a face covering why can't I?" I am not just talking about religious dress either, ski masks, Cycle helmets, motor cycle helmets and a multitude of other perfectly normal face coverings...even hoodies can be used to cover the face lol. Will they then also introduce a ban on masks? Will there then be exemptions on when you can and cant wear a mask?
As already said it is laughable that they are thinking of introducing this law when in my town you can't move for E-scooters and not only scroats using them btw, commuters using them, Fast food delivery drivers use them.
Yeah I will look forward to seeing this introduced lol
So I've seen posties wear them. Cyclists wear them, horse riders wear them. Plenty of outdoor workers wear them (or at least a snood pulled up over the nose) to keep warm. A simple blanket ban isn't good enough as it restricts many legitimate people.
However all they need to add is a clause similar to offensive weapons where if you have something without lawful authority or good reason then it's an issue
Ever tried cycling in negative temperatures? For several miles?
Or a motorbike at -10 and 70mph for an hour?
Or have a circulation problem?
Banning face coverings will do nothing to stop people willing to break the laws we already have. The real issue is we don't have any Police to actually target lower level crime or the justice or prison system. Or the mental health and social care and education to prevent people turning to crime in the first place.
It won't stop me covering my face if it is literally freezing and I need to cycle to work or appointments. It definitely won't stop me wearing a balaclava and full face motorcycle helmet.
Banning all face coverings is utterly bizzare. Should we ban scarfs too? Larger sunglasses?
Remove punishment from people who self-defend, regardless how “excessive” force it is. It is stupid to punish people who simply want to defend themselves from dumbasses who intently choose to be cancer of society and being aggressive in the first place. To be aggressive is to choose to get hurt and being guilty of causing chaos first. There’s no such luxury to judge what defence is considered excessive - UK Police is lacking resources and an average civilian is running out of patience as well as being outnumbered.
Ban face coverings and them being sold in the UK. Anyone with the face cover gets a fine...it its a minor mom and dad pay at the police station when they pick up the brat. Problem will be solved quickly.
Lmao good luck finding a police officer to give a shit. Good luck with the face coverings when the next bout of whatever the fuck makes the rounds. This whole country is arse end up.
How come I can't buy say a part of scissors without giving I'd and yet a 12 year old can buy a motorcycle unchecked? Also why are we still allowing the sale of these things when they've only ever been used to cause a nuisance and never being used legally? Just ban the sale of these bikes, get some kind of gps tag police can fire onto the ones already driving about and track them down to their homes problem solved.
but why does your meeting your mates involve terrorising other people in your local area, if you and your mates dont, good on ya, but if your on Surons etc and pissing people off, then your a gang and a problem.
When I was a kid we raced around on bikes and skateboards. “Terrorizing” is a (deliberately) loaded word the media is employing to describe kids having fun.
Attention r/uknews Community:
We have a zero-tolerance policy for racism, hate speech, and abusive behavior. Offenders will be banned without warning.
Our sub has participation requirements. If your account is too new, is not email verified, or doesn't meet certain undisclosed karma criteria, your posts or comments will not be displayed.
Please report any rule-breaking content to help us maintain community standards.
Thank you for your cooperation.
r/uknews Moderation Team
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Considering they are already riding illegal ebikes\motorcycles with no consideration for the laws they are already breaking, what makes people believe they will suddenly listen to a face covering ban?
Fingers crossed the police can knock the buggers off the bikes. I remember that law changing for somewhere a while back
The good old walking stick has never been in more requirement ! xD
The law was changed where police used to be held to the standards of the reasonable driver which is obviously flawed because police receive higher training than members of the public and hold exemptions not afforded to the public so the standard was changed to the standards expected of a reasonable police driver
The issue you have now is after a steady flow of officers getting thrown under the bus following pursuits there is little faith among PCs that the organisation will not do the same to them following a collision caused by the subject vehicle. Not to mention that there is an overzealous IOPC absolutely frothing to stick officers on for rubbish and drag out investigations that go on for years whilst these scrotes are elevated in the national rags as these lovable cherubs who no doubt were aspiring musicians, footballers, second coming of Christ etc with a cheeky personality (blight on the local estate) and a smile that lit up the room
Knocking these knobs off the bikes would stop it pretty quickly but they all know that the officers trained to do this are few and far between and will purposefully ride as dangerously as possible putting themselves and the public at as much risk as they can to cause pursuits to be called off.
The public have repeatedly asked for this kind of policing and it's now what they've got. Robust policing does work, see the Met knocking off moped riding phone theives at any oppotunity causing a 36% decrease in a year. Word would very quickly get round that it's not worth running from the old bill on one of these bikes unless you're prepared for a brush with the tarmac
Because police can arrest them for doing so. They are more than likely armed as well and upon arrest they will get into trouble for the rest of the offences. Problem is they then get a slap on the wrist and no real punishment
So they are already breaking laws and possibly carrying weapons but a face covering being illegal will be the tipping point that will allow police to start knocking them off their bikes and arrest them?
they can see they have a face covering and so have a reason to stop them? It's to give them the reason. Don't knock if it if this would work.
Why don’t the police just arrest them for breaking the laws they’re already breaking? Why do we have to invent new laws?
It's so you don't have to wait for the illegal part to happen. Someone walking down the street with a facemask cannot be investigated randomly, now they can.
But as the poster mentioned below, this now brings the problem for people who wear face masks for other reasons.
Twats are the reason we can't have nice things
Their eBikes are overpowered and are, in all likelihood, unlicenced and uninsured. And the scroats probably do not hold a driving licence. Additional laws are not necessary to effect a stop/arrest.
These calls are worrying, as they will more than be supported. It makes the job of the police easier to employ facial recognition software, which effectively removes the legal trigger (eg: suspicion of a crime being commited) to the act of demanding identifying.
I hate that these scroats hide their faces and ride around terrorising people on machines that make them difficult to apprehend, but the enactment of such a law will make little difference to how they behave, but it will further infringe upon public freedoms. If we keep eroding public freedoms we will eventually live in a police state.
Someone minding their own business walking down the street doesn’t need to be investigated randomly.
Agreed, they don't. But let me escalate it, someone minding their own business walking down the street with a machete doesn't need to be investigated randomly either.
BUT unfortunately we live in a society where someone doing this has a far higher chance to be doing it to cause problems.
The facemask thing as far as I am aware is either done for religious reasons or crime without the risk of getting caught.
Right now the police cannot do anything since wearing a mask is not an issue and can only act once it is FAR too late and now cannot even follow up.
To be honest, I agree with you and thankfully live somewhere where this isn't an issue. But watching footage, I do feel for innocent people who's lives are getting wrecked and just being told "we will follow up on this" without anything being able to be done
There’s a massive difference between carrying a machete and wearing a covering your face.
There’s plenty of legitimate reasons to cover your face. Living in a world where you the police can arrest you for the way you are dressed is beyond draconian.
This is obfuscation through pedantry. Literally no one wears a full face balaclava in public for any reason that isn't at best anti social purposes.
Absolutely not on both points. I cover my face with my scarf all the time when it’s cold and windy.
Then let’s just say it’s illegal to cover your face. Do you think these people are going to go, “oh I can’t commit crimes, as covering my face up would be illegal”?
These people are already committing multiple crimes they could be arrested for, but they’re not because the police can’t be arsed/underfunded/overstreched (delete as appropriate).
Making covering your face illegal would solve nothing.
I thought it would be the equivalent of hiding your number plate on a car.
The kind of person to do that is usually up to something and because it is illegal, police can investigate immediately without having to gather further evidence.
Now as I said you do have a point, innocent people will get wrapped up in this which isn't fair, but your statement that it would solve nothing because people would still commit crimes, isn't completely true.
If it was enforced, you could stop the perpetrator before they commit the crime rather than waiting until they commit the crime or when they get away and can't be traced.
Since at the moment, you can't stop them. And to bring the licence plate up, if it wasn't illegal then people would commit crimes without getting caught even if people do it by accident, plate gets dirty etc.
And as I said I agree but completely understand the suggestion. Because the alternative seems to be accept that people will get away with crimes because they can cover their face without any pushback to avoid surveillance.
But if they’re committing crimes already, I don’t think they’re going to care that covering your face is illegal.
So we're back to burka bans are we? If the laws as they are where inforced maybe like some kind of anti social behaviour order..
Because big corporations and the government want to push facial recognition and crackdown on protests so they're getting their mates in the media to create a moral panic against face coverings.
As a local, they've been allowed to get away with this for far too long. What was one small group of youths has grown to god knows how many groups all over teesside. Police have, until very recently, let it go unchecked. I've sent in countless reports, images, complaints, etc since just after covid times and not once have I had a formal response from the police.
So how does banning face masks help?
You tell me.
It doesn’t, that’s my point.
Precisely. And I never mentioned masks.
They aren't allowed to knock them off bikes
So making face masks illegal means they could knock them off bikes?
Nope. Expect nothing to change much
Probably harder to witness them doing dangerous things on bikes, and to catch them afterwards. Plus police need probable cause to search them to find weapons.
But someone committing a crime isn’t going to think twice about committing the extra crime of wearing a mask. Then they just won’t give the police probable cause and not wear the mask when not committing crimes. Not hard to put a balaclava in your pocket.
I get people are frustrated but banning face coverings will not solve anything. Need to hold politicians accountable for letting public services die rather than offering quick fixes that won’t do anything.
Probably not, but it seems like they're having trouble dealing with the problem so they're trying alternative ideas. Not sure what else you could do other than searching all people of a certain age, which is probably illegal, they wouldn't have enough officers for and would also be fairly simple to evade.
There is no quick fix. Communities and public services have been left to rot for decades. We need to build them back.
I completely agree, but the local police force can't exactly do all that, they can only operate within their remit
They can’t make wearing face coverings illegal either.
Yes but the government potentially could, which is surely what we're discussing? I don't think anyone thought the police could just come up with new laws at will.
Because stop and search gets controversy, yet its pretty obvious if you are wearing a face covering
So you think it will be a reason to stop people for no reason?
But if it was illegal they’d just cover their face when actually committing crimes. Not like a balaclava doesn’t fit in a pocket. It’ll have no difference and won’t change anything.
I get people are frustrated but it wouldn’t fix anything, there isn’t a quick fix to deep rooted problems in society and public services.
Because if you ban face coverings it's a short step to increasing hate on religious face coverings
The point is they can get in trouble for the vehicle offences anyway and be arrested...so banning face coverings will accomplish absolutely 0 other than criminalise the odd person who walks around to keep their face warm.
The police are too busy arresting people for writing mean comments online to catch any of these knife welding gangs.
shush you bloody fool. That one has been battered to bits. She was arrested for inciting violence.
The one who put a song quote on Facebook in memorandum for her friend who died? Doesn't sound that violent to me.
[removed]
This sub is meant to be for everybody, try to treat others as you would want to be treated here and ‘remember the human’.
Try to avoid personal attacks as this discourages discussion. Critique the idea not the person.
I think the idea is that you can just grab them off the streets beforehand. In theory. Because police don't patrol no more.
It is also rolling back more of everybody’s rights rather then deal with the people causing the problem.
What about normal people who wear them to keep warm. UK deffo going down the most dystopian route
Most normal people don't wear them. It's only the scrotes who do.
Full face helmets. Buff over mouth and nose when cold, masks to stop infections. Religions face coverings.
But yeah mostly scrots.
Absolute bullshit from someone whose clearly never done none office based work.
You're the exception. Most covered faces have something to hide.
You mean, most of the ones you see on your feed.
Go outside and touch grass for once.
And why are you treating it as a personal attack?
Because it is a personal attack.
Are you a scrote???
From someone who has never done office work, the only places I’ve seen people in balaclavas like these were in extreme cold climates. Never seen one on site anywhere in Britain, woolly hats, helmet liners, snoods , yes. Full on balaclavas, no.
Fair enough
This is fine as long as you get one with your face printed on it.
I don't know which would be scarier
Lets ban the yobs, who are committing crime and riding illegal bikes from wearing face coverings.
Thats going to stop it, with the ban on face coverings, fearing prosecution the yobs will give up their life of crime.
Or the police could just arrest them for the crimes they are already committing. The yobs will most probably be known to the police, the police can go after them.
Pointless arresting them anyway because they won’t get any meaningful sentence that would act as a deterrent.
I have one question MR SC_W33DKILL3R
How do you go after someone who you don’t know because they have a face covering?
Did you think of that.
No.
You only thing of yourself. Because you are a W33DKILL3R
Bit odd...
Anyway the majority of crimes are committed by a small number of repeat offenders. Police in the past have had success raiding the homes of those suspected to be causing trouble like this and seizing evidence and the bikes etc...
Yeah W33DKILL3R, stop only thinking about yourself!
The parents need punishing as well as the Scrotes
I agree but I doubt the parents give a shit either
They will care about fines
Probably smarter to mix it up and ban the parents from certain places within the local area if it continues. Pressure the parents to notice a daily impact or at least fuck off elsewhere with their family.
No they won’t, they are probably all benefit scoundrels that will be made to pay back £1 a month
[removed]
Because then the police arrest you. Thats the issue, there is a two tier justice system, and the whole thing is set up to punish people who follow the rules. Just as an example, we have package thief in our area who regularly breaks in to the foyer of our flat and steals packages. We made police reports, with CCTV footage, nothing, nada. Yet if I caught the thief one day and gave him a beating, the police would arrest me the very next day. Two tiers.
Solution is simple. Wear a mask.
No, the “solution” is to have an implicit understanding with the police, so the police don’t pursue action against communities fighting back. But then you end up in a situation where vigilantism becomes commonplace and once you go down that path it’s very hard to go back. So the police should just do their fucking jobs.
If the police did their jobs, there wouldnt BE any need for vigilantism - this is the very reason we established a police force - so we wouldnt have to act in vigilante style possees like its the wild west - the foundational assumption is though that the police do their job. IF they dont, all bets are off.
😂
This isn't two tier policing, this is a lack of resources or horrendous mismanagement of the police or evidential problems. If what you submit is as clearcut as you say and clearly shows who the culprit is and the police do nothing, they are either mismanaged or lack the funding.
Pretending that there's a diktat from on high to make sure that bad evil people obviously doing theft aren't arrested but good normal people doing vigilante justice are is silly and conspiratorial thinking.
Also, obligatory: vigilante justice is not justified outside a breakdown of the social contract between people and government. We are nowhere near that point and would be at least ten years away if everything continued to get worse. You do not have a right to beat someone up and assault them because they stole your stuff.
I am not saying it’s intentional. It’s much easier to arrest a tax paying citizen with a fixed address than a thug wearing a balaclava on an electric bike. I absolutely get that, but it does result it two tier policing, intentional or not. I definitely agree with you about vigilantism, but how much are people supposed to take? 5, 10, 15 packages? People will lash out eventually.
That just isn't what two tier policing is, though.
That's like saying it's two tier policing because it's easier to arrest anyone in the UK than it is, say, a Russian agent doing a poisoning.
It has to be intentional to be two tier policing. A fact of life (ie the difficulty differential that comes with investigating certain crimes resulting in different arrest rates) isn't two tier policing. If it was, I would suggest we in fact have X-tier policing, where X is the number of different crimes on the books multiplied by the number of circumstances impacting how easily those crimes are prosecuted.
We forgot this is actually how you deal with cunts in a community,
[deleted]
Ha, thats assuming the police arent a bunch of useless idiots. Which they are.
Nah they're more about protecting property and the interests of political donors.
It's never been a thing, before e bikes it was dirt bikes and Quads
Because then everyone but the little cunt serves jail time and punishments.
I kicked some little bike yobs out of our little town centre park recently. They looked rather surprised that someone actually held them to account, didn’t cause any fuss.
Because if the little bastards are underage, then unfortunately the law prevents things like that, as much as they might deserve it.
I 100% agree with you. Very strongly do. But you know the scrotes will get a light telling off, and the residents will get the jail.
Can't have people standing up for their own communities, doing the police forces work for them.
I get the worry about it escalating into vigillante groups. but if the police are so ineffectual for this type of crime, then something else has to happen.
Neighbour 'hood' watch.
Because the police still think they ought to have a monopoly on the use of policing powers and thus violence. This is despite the fact that the very basis for our police force's continued existence and operation is public consent - and the basic requirement that the police uphold the law. Should they fail to do so, its morally legitimate for people to act together to police themselves - indeed it is every person's legal and moral duty to police themselves and the community - its just the police's "full time" job to do so.
Frankly, with things the way they are, there is simply too much personal risk for a person to act here without being considered the wrong side of the "vigilante" line.
A town has backed its MP in declaring war on balaclava-clad yobs who terrorise their community on souped-up e-bikes.
Residents of Darlington, County Durham, and the towns that surround it, are plagued by gangs of youths on off-road and electric bikes who cause havoc while disguising themselves behind balaclavas and ski masks.
The issue has become so prevalent that traffic cops have coined the term the 'Balaclava Club' as they wage a daily battle to keep the public safe from riders as young as 12 years old.
There was a warning that the danger riders are modifying standard electric bikes, buying kits online that can make them go at double their intended speed.
Bad reporting. Those are electric off road motorcycles, not e-bikes.
You'd think the police be able to do something like douse them with ink then pick them up later when they turn up to school looking like a smurf.
No need to put themselves, the public, or even the little scrotes in danger with a chase.
That, and put a hold on benefits for families whose kids get done for antisocial behaviour like this. If they can afford the bikes, a few weeks of stopped child support isn't going to make them destitute.
Yeah except one of these precious little angels who has a smile that lights up the room will continue riding with paint on their face, crash it into a wall turning their small brains into a small quantity of paste. Then there's riots and the same papers/people calling for action will say the police killed these fuckers and the law will be revoked.
The best police is to allow cops to knock them off with force when under certain speeds. Broken limbs are a risk, but a lot lower risk than allowing them to carry on with impunity and kill themselves and others.
Also, you'd only have to do it for a few months before the message gets out that it's not worth it.
Sadly, chief constables around the country care more about their image and their job than actually preventing crime or helping victims.
Thankfully I’ve been noticing a lot more now that whenever there’s a new article about one of these little cherubs getting hurt or killed people are a lot quicker to say they deserved it. There’s always a few comments like ‘this is disgusting they’re just a child/think about their families etc’ but generally the attitude towards these scumbags seems to be swaying. People are sick of being terrorised and seeing hard working people have their pride and joy stolen/being a victim of theft themselves.
You mean a police drone with a paintball gun?
School? I’m sure they go to school
Give the police the powers of arrest they need. they includes taking these dickheads off the bikes with force, using cop cars, using Stringer strips, using clothes lines. Allow the police to stop all motor and e-motors bikes, if they fail to comply, bike is seized and destroyed.
Face Coverings.... load of tosh, so not prevent these children from getting the bikes, from committing the acts, you just want to take their photo's... These asshats are not overly concerned with following and obeying the local and national laws, a £25 fine for a face covering is not going to bother them in the least.
Having a volvo run you down and your bike ran through a compactor. That will get the message over to them in short order
Problem is the police can stop and arrest them all they want but the courts will just let them off and kick them back out on the streets to re-offend.
The amount of articles I've seen the past few years about people getting off with slaps on the wrist for horrendous crimes is staggering.
While I'm sure the police can also do more, I cant help but feel that if I were a police officer that I'd be fed up seeing people you've arrested endlessly let back out
Covering your face in public is historically something you only did if you were up to no good. Or riding a motorbike. Anyone covering their face in public was treated with suspicion, and rightly so.
However, I can't see a ban on this happening anytime soon, and if it did happen, exemptions would be made for 'cultural and religious reasons', which would render the whole thing pointless as anybody can claim it's their culture.
Suddenly there all trans and mulsim... Really this is asbo level stuff, stop them and check their bike licences etc.
What does trans and Muslim people have to do with anything?
If we have exemptions for Muslim women on culture grounds then it will be a short while before someone getting arrested claim there a Muslim woman too.
The whole thing is ridiculous waste of time, just hand out some asbos.
Or... It's really cold.
Does it ever get cold enough in the UK that you need to cover your whole face? I've never felt the need to.
Its not a ban on face coverings we need. We need more police and for them to be tougher on these folk.
Speeding through the streets on an illegal bike and refuse to stop? Ram them
Shame about the source of the info.
No one in these parts gives two hoots though. So little police action has led to the issues going unchecked for a few years. Only now is some action being taken. Parents just don't take responsibility for their children.
control your kid, or we stop your benefits.
Why not arrest and jail them for having illegal ebikes? Then arrest and jail the people modifying the ebikes, first?
We really should ban face coverings.
It's a no brainer.
We don't get weather cold enough to warrant a balaclava IMO and anyone who needs it for health reasons should be exempt.
What's the point in this government creating a surveillance state if you can just hide your identity?
Yeah that will show them! Maybe we should ban illegal ebikes and make it illegal to ride a motorised vehicle without registration, a licence, insurance too.
oh wait don't we have this already in place ? :)
Almost like laws don't work on lawless people.
Because the point is anarcho tyranny. Poor criminals can do what they want, the middle class with extractable income are the ones that get disproportionately punished in the British surveillance state
What exactly would making face coverings illegal solve here?
The lowest temperature recorded in the UK is -27c. I don't think you know what you are talking about.
We can't just keep banning things that are tangentially related to crime, it doesn't stop crime happening and criminals famously don't follow laws so it's not going to impact them anyway
Is it really tangentially related? It's pretty much always the dodgy boys that wear them, and you see them wearing them around town even when they're not on bikes. I think that people get emboldened by being able to get away with smaller socially unacceptable things, and wearing a face covering in public is part of that.
You think that no one else is covering their face for any reason other than to commit crime? Yes, it's tangentially related in the same way that tracksuits and trainers are
Since when has someone covering their face been new or socially unacceptable? People cover their faces in cold weather all of the time
Again, criminals aren't going to be affected by this because they'll do it anyway and the police aren't going to come out specially just because a covered face has been reported, it's just going to affect regular people who put a mask on because they have a cold
Apart from when people are cycling, I pretty much never see anyone "normal" covering their face, it's just not cold enough for it. There is a massively high correlation between face coverings and anti-social behaviour. I think that the police should have the ability to stop and search someone that is wearing a face mask and to have them identify themselves.
Ok, so let's make carrying knives legal because criminals are just going to do it anyway.
So that means no one should ever get to make that choice for themselves?
How is adding one more law for these people to break going to help? Unless we straight up arrest and imprison people for it then they're still out in the world to do what they want
Why are you so happy for people's freedoms to be thrown away? Maybe we should stop people wearing coats too in case people use them to hide things? Some people hide illegal things in their houses, maybe the police should have the power to search houses if they think the exterior looks suspicious too?
You say this as if making it illegal to carry knives has stopped criminals doing it, which it hasn't, non-criminals carrying knives isn't a problem because they aren’t doing criminal things with them
The only possible good thing is that if a criminal is caught they can be taken off the streets before they do something harmful, but really that's clutching at straws because until someone does something harmful we have no way of knowing whether or not they intended to cause harm so it's not exactly a great benchmark
Edit: in case it isn't clear, I believe the same here as with knives, until someone actually does something wrong we really shouldn't criminalise the things that aren't actually harming people. Having them as an aggravating factor? Sure, but simply existing with an item shouldn't be a crime
Correct, just like how when you enter a bank you have to take your motorbike helmet off. You don't get to choose everything when it comes to public interactions. You are arguing for ultimate freedoms, and ignoring the fact that my freedom can encroach on yours, and a healthy society is one balanced with balanced freedoms.
Identifying these people helps if they end up being prosecuted for something else, but it also is an opportunity to get them connected with social programs.
The difference is that everyone wears coats. Everyone lives in a house. These are not markers for illegal activity.
If they have a knife, it doesn't really matter. This person is carrying it with the idea that they might need to use it. It 100% a good idea to stop people from carrying knives. It's not clear whether or not knife control works, but it definitely doesn't make the problem worse.
Except a bank is a private establishment, which is why they can set their own rules despite the fact that it's a public place, the same can't be said for the entire outside
Not at all, ultimate freedom would mean allowing people to infringe upon each other's rights, I simply acknowledge that it's unreasonable to remove freedom in public on the basis of "I don't like something" when no one is being harmed and their rights aren't being infringed. Person A isn't harming Person B simply because Person A has a face covering
Please explain how one person covering their face is encroaching upon the freedom of another
So you're just against privacy at this point? Everyone needs to be immediately identifiable just in case they do something at some point?
Can I have your name, home address, work address, and photo just in case you commit a crime and I need to be able to identify you later?
But lots of illegal activities are committed by people in those groups just as lots of legal activities are committed by people who cover their faces, the fact remains that covering your face is also not a marker of illegal activity just because some people do it to commit crimes in the same way that some people hide things under coats but it doesn't mean every coat is used to hide things
This honestly just boils down to you not liking face coverings and you don't care about things that don't impact you, all criminals wear shoes and would find it harder to commit crimes if they were barefoot but you aren't here saying that shoes should be illegal
If only there was a use for knives besides stabbing people, oh wait, there actually is
Again, non criminals doing things doesn't matter and criminals aren't going to follow the law
I personally don't think this distinction matters all that much when it's the standard rule in every bank - are you going to just never go into a bank? If you need an example for public, you're not allowed to be naked, you wouldn't be allowed to wear a t-shirt with a graphically violent image on it.
Indirectly. If these people are terrorising towns, and part of that is an inability to identify them, then I see that as encroaching on people's freedom to live peacefully.
It depends on what you mean by "identifiable". I'm not saying that everyone needs to have papers at the ready, but you should be recognisable so that someone could retrospectively confirm who you were. Society requires that people have a level of accountability, and part of that is people knowing who you are, even if it's just by face.
Are you telling me there's no correlation? That you couldn't use it as a predictor at all?
You keep bringing up other examples - coats, houses, shoes, the difference is that everyone wears/has these and these cannot be used as a predictor.
This is clearly dishonest and just a refusal on your part to understand my perspective. I wouldn't care if the majority of people that covered their faces weren't yobs, but they are.
Sure, everyone in central london is either a freelance chef travelling to a kitchen or a craftsman going out to whittle some wood.
If you're going to carry on intentionally misrepresenting my viewpoint, there's no point in continuing this conversation.
The distinction matters greatly because having to meet a condition to enter a private building isn't the same as having to meet a condition to leave your house
Not going into a bank is also ridiculously easy considering everything is online
This is false, it's completely legal to be naked as long as you don't do it with the intent of causing distress
So if I go out with a covered face I'm encroaching on your freedom even if I don't terrorise anyone?
Simply existing with a covered face isn't encroaching on someone's freedom to live peacefully, just because someone doesn't like something doesn't mean they're being harmed
This is a flawed premise from the start because it's thwarted by something as simple as night time and changing clothes
Do you honestly think that profiling people by appearance just because someone is an acceptable way for the police to behave? Come on dude, think for at least a second before you speak
I don't think we should be predicting crime based on clothing, tools, or looks
Neither can face coverings, because there are legitimate reasons someone might want to cover their face, the fact remains that you cannot accurately predict behaviour from appearance. You like to think that you can because some criminals have used face coverings but that doesn't mean you're correct
There are brown people in the news at the moment because they raped someone, does this mean that we can predict rapists by their skin colour? Obviously not
I completely understand your perspective, I just fundamentally disagree that we should profile people based on clothes and continue to ban things simply because criminals have used them
I don't see how my interpretation is dishonest or a refusal to understand your point. You stated that there's no legitimate reason to wear face coverings because it doesn't get cold enough, a decision that you can only make for yourself, and you've made it clear that you think everyone should have uncovered faces so they can be more easily recognised
Why is my conclusion that you dislike face coverings and don't care if it won't impact you incorrect based on the information you've presented?
It's funny that you misrepresent my point while complaining that I'm misrepresenting you, it's perfectly correct to point out that knives have legitimate uses beyond crime and it's also correct that non-criminals having knives presents no threat. You would make sense if the given examples were the only uses, but they're not
"We don't get weather cold enough to warrant a balaclava"
Uh, speak for yourself? I ride a motorcycle and it gets incredibly fucking cold in winter when commuting.
Banning face coverings would be ridiculous. Can't pull a scarf up over your mouth without getting harassed by the police really the way you want to live?
Listen to yourself. Wishing to ban a balaclava or scarf round the face in a cold country, absolutely bananas.
Then there should be NO exceptions.
True.
But I'm saying like people who have that skin disease where it's ridiculously sensitive to sunlight or something idk.
IE would not apply to 99.9999% of the world.
That's a major loophole. Nobody needs face coverings for health reasons. Maybe a respirator but that's different.
The issue to me is not enough policing. I've cycled on and off and in the winter months and right in traffic, I like a face covering. Reduced fumes and warmer face. I mean half those ebikes aren't legally ridden anyway, so making things illegal is useless unless you enforce it.
I would be all for it but this will be likely be used against protestors and hunt saboteurs probably more than it will be used against the illegal e-bike riding yobs.
The bikes are illegal and police do nothing about that, they ain’t gonna do anything about criminals wearing balaclavas. But soon it will be a ban in hoods and scarves too, and if you dare try to keep your face warm you’ll end up in the nick.
Face coverings aren’t the problem.
There needs to be a common sense no punishment for appropriate civilian interference.
I've got these little cunts up and down at all hours near me.
Half of them look 18 or over.
Why am I not allowed to give one a smack and hold him while the police come without losing my job?
A face covering ban. This will have a fair amount of millage in it. There are going to be exemptions and then there will be objections to "if they can wear a face covering why can't I?" I am not just talking about religious dress either, ski masks, Cycle helmets, motor cycle helmets and a multitude of other perfectly normal face coverings...even hoodies can be used to cover the face lol. Will they then also introduce a ban on masks? Will there then be exemptions on when you can and cant wear a mask? As already said it is laughable that they are thinking of introducing this law when in my town you can't move for E-scooters and not only scroats using them btw, commuters using them, Fast food delivery drivers use them.
Yeah I will look forward to seeing this introduced lol
You guys don't need a ban on face coverings you need a way to protect yourself from the people the government won't stop.
Yes we do, but we also need that protection to not be able make it into schools and kill innocent kids. Got any ideas?
Pepper spray, and tasers would be a start.
What does this even mean?
Good enough for France
At least yobs on e-bikes are better for climate change than motorbikes. Good to see our criminal underclass youth taking it seriously. /s
So I've seen posties wear them. Cyclists wear them, horse riders wear them. Plenty of outdoor workers wear them (or at least a snood pulled up over the nose) to keep warm. A simple blanket ban isn't good enough as it restricts many legitimate people. However all they need to add is a clause similar to offensive weapons where if you have something without lawful authority or good reason then it's an issue
The problem is, they're also worn by cyclists and bikers. So adding an exception for good reason wouldn't really work here.
It's never cold enough here to warrant anyone NEEDING to wear a face covering, the benefits from banning them far outweigh the negatives
Ever tried cycling in negative temperatures? For several miles?
Or a motorbike at -10 and 70mph for an hour?
Or have a circulation problem?
Banning face coverings will do nothing to stop people willing to break the laws we already have. The real issue is we don't have any Police to actually target lower level crime or the justice or prison system. Or the mental health and social care and education to prevent people turning to crime in the first place.
It won't stop me covering my face if it is literally freezing and I need to cycle to work or appointments. It definitely won't stop me wearing a balaclava and full face motorcycle helmet.
Banning all face coverings is utterly bizzare. Should we ban scarfs too? Larger sunglasses?
I grow a full beard every winter. Do we ban beards?
Well, they obviously give terrorists vibes so of course /s.
I wish I could say what needed done without getting my account a warning
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Nothing brings down real estate prices like a good old fashion gang war
Give them a specific place to ride them and only there, otherwise they will be confiscated and crushed.
We should be able to knock these clowns off their bikes, impound them, and arrest the knobs until the police come and collect them.
Just anyone on a bike?
Just get a bunch of adults in the same gear to beat them up...
War? With guns and killing and stuff? Interesting. Progressive, I think it will work.
Remove punishment from people who self-defend, regardless how “excessive” force it is. It is stupid to punish people who simply want to defend themselves from dumbasses who intently choose to be cancer of society and being aggressive in the first place. To be aggressive is to choose to get hurt and being guilty of causing chaos first. There’s no such luxury to judge what defence is considered excessive - UK Police is lacking resources and an average civilian is running out of patience as well as being outnumbered.
Rubber bullets and the legislation for police to use them would be better.
Vigilanteism when?
Ban face coverings and them being sold in the UK. Anyone with the face cover gets a fine...it its a minor mom and dad pay at the police station when they pick up the brat. Problem will be solved quickly.
Lmao good luck finding a police officer to give a shit. Good luck with the face coverings when the next bout of whatever the fuck makes the rounds. This whole country is arse end up.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
How come I can't buy say a part of scissors without giving I'd and yet a 12 year old can buy a motorcycle unchecked? Also why are we still allowing the sale of these things when they've only ever been used to cause a nuisance and never being used legally? Just ban the sale of these bikes, get some kind of gps tag police can fire onto the ones already driving about and track them down to their homes problem solved.
Intimidated by what exactly? This is very one sided.
It used to be if someone was wearing a full face mask covering they were automatically assumed to be a criminal and stopped by police.
Now it's just a 'fashion statement' that allows young thugs to be ready at a moments notice to be parasites.
There should be a complete ban on balaclavas and face masks.
It’s hard being a kid. The adults are always telling you to get off the computer so you go out and meet your mates and then you get called a gang.
Yeah it’s either computer games or braking the law with your friends…
but why does your meeting your mates involve terrorising other people in your local area, if you and your mates dont, good on ya, but if your on Surons etc and pissing people off, then your a gang and a problem.
When I was a kid we raced around on bikes and skateboards. “Terrorizing” is a (deliberately) loaded word the media is employing to describe kids having fun.
So the phone snatching, drug distribution and assaults on random people doesn't fit your definition of terrorising?
There’s nothing about any of that in the article.
Wtf is this shit?
Who writes this shite?