UK Law on head covering in public places

But I didn't start this thread for that argument, but the general law. I only mentioned this after bassai asked me why

 

"Law" and "public this" and "private that" aside I think your friend should take the helmet off because by not doing so he looks like a crim and would make people feel uncomfortable.
I know seeing some nugget walking into Tesco in a crash helmet would set my alarm bells off.
Sounds like your friend could do with stopping being such a "I know my rights!!" douchenozzle, have a word with himself and take the helmet off?

 

Private businesses have the right to refuse anyone they like, as long as they are not breaking anti-discrimination laws. Company policy doesn't matter, as that is not law.

This is how clubs can refuse entry to people wearing trainers, or restaurants can refuse entry to topless people. It's not illegal to wear trainers, is it?

 

He can argue all he wants about keeping his helmet/balaclava on all he wants. Its down to the descretion of the premises. They have the right to refuse and kick you/your mate out for non compliance of their rules (as long as its not based on religious/cultural/ethnic prejudice).

Yes the walking space/aisles is technically a public place only because it 'temporarily' becomes one as the store/business owners allow it to.
In every place you walk into, you are signifying that you will adhere to their rules as you do so.

Bit obvious really. Oh and reaching over and stealing from the till counts as burglary in the UK. As you are then entering private area (the till area) and then stealing.

 

I got that, I was just curious why your friend was arguing over it

 

Am I the only one who finds the argument that something be allowed on those grounds a bit... odd. I certainly prefer the more tolerant and diversified approach over the alternative but from argument we judge people on their choices. Ones religion or culture is a choice (and the resultant behaviour of head covering) equal to the person who chooses to wear it for any number of other reasons.

That's one I've never been able to reconcile.

 

It's a practical and ethical consideration as much as a moral one.

Firstly, lots of people wear crash helmets to commit robbery. Very few wear full veils for the same reason. Secondly, not many people would give up their religion to be allowed in shops, which would lead to all sorts of social and economic problems, so it's an ethical choice to make exceptions.

There are a number of practical laws based on religious practice like this in the UK, such as Sikhs being allowed to carry ceremonial knives, and also they do not have to wear a motorcycle helmet, because you can't buy one that fits over a turban.

 

I never thought about it actually.

I think most of this comes down to perceived intention though. It's fairly easy to assume why someone might wear a turban or a niqab, for example. Much less so if someone's walking into a store (etc) with a balaclava/ski mask/etc on. Tends to send a different image, whether that is right or wrong.

You've got me thinking now.

 

If thousands of women wearing the niqab started committing armed robbery, I reckon the law would probably change to some degree.

 

Yeah, it probably would.

Also, I had the weirdest mental image of Monty Python's "Hells' Grannies" play through my head when I read that.

So thanks for making me spray my cup of tea

 

Once again though, it's down to the shops discretion. It's not wrong to be wearing the helmet or balaclava. But it's their rules to follow that for their own safety and the safety of others, if they request you to take it off.

You CAN refuse to. You can absolutely refuse to take your helmet off.

They just won't serve you and kick you out of the shop. And that obviously escalates the situation.
- biker refuses to leave when asked
- security/staff calls Police
- Police comes down to a call about a man in a store wearing a helmet/balaclava.
- Police turn up and go "oh, thank god, you're not a robber"
- Police explains both rights of customer and staff.
- Biker gets kicked out anyway after about 25mins. And then gets the... "should've just taken your helmet off mate" line.
- Biker leaves with/without his goods and grumbles about paying 5p for a plastic bag.

 

Nothing worse than an armchair lawyer.

I'm curious, why exactly was your friend so intent on being a douche to people working for minimum wage in a supermarket?

 

He's a douche in general. We have had many arguments, and he comes up with the most weird theories and answers.

 

My responses to him happened like this.

"LOL".

"Why were you wearing a helmet in doors?"

"The guard had every right to ask you to remove your helmet".

Thats when he started telling me about the law and this and that. That's why I started the thread.

 

By the way Rice is never wrong, and anyone who says otherwise is either stupid or out to get him.

 

Why this was started

 

As you can see, even though it may seem I was arguing FOR him I was arguing AGAINST him, and trying to show him some consensus. Because generally I'm making things up. (In his mind)

 

NOTE: I love the Sikhs and am using them purely to exemplify my point.

But beyond considerations like this... why would a Sikh man be allowed a beard, long hair, and refusal to wear basic issued gear, on the basis that he chooses to be a Sikh and the consequent requirements which follow but I would not be simply because I choose to have long hair and a beard.

I mean from ethical and practical circumstance there, allowing someone to have shrapnel embedded in their skull because they don't have a helmet or can't get a seal on their respirator drops your unit by at least one man potentially endangering the others.

So he gets to wear a beard because his chosen social organization which is associated with a non-scientific attempt to explain the workings of the universe requires it?

I still see religion as a choice and therefore every subsequent action which follows from that also as a choice or a consequent choice. Why does someone else's choice to do the same action get invalidated because they don't have an archaic codified traditional mysticism behind it?

 

Of course what you're saying is logical and morally correct.

However, I believe it is impractical to apply.

If it makes you feel better, don't think of it as a choice, think of religion as a disease. In most cases it is hereditary, but some people catch it later in life. Remission is possible, but not likely. Then you might not feel so bad about making exceptions for the religious folk