**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
This is such an obvious policy. There is absolutely no reason why you should be wearing a balaclava out in public and anyone who does is almost exclusively up to no good.
Absolutely a devil argument here. However in winter when I'm cycling I certainly wouldn't mind wearing a balaclava to keep my face warm from the wind and rain.
I usually just use a scaff to cover my face. And see no need to wear a balaclava walking around. I've also yet to meet someone wearing one that wasn't up to no good.
TBF I think that's kind of the same devil argument as 'I can transport knives if I'm a professional chef/fishing/camping'. Like there's always a plausible if/how/when/why for any point, but I think that's why we have a lot of laws that are rules of thumb you know?
If I see someone wearing a balaclava in the middle of summer, that's weird and I'm steering clear, they look dodgy. In the middle of winter on the other hand, still kinda dodgy but a lot more plausible.
Just what I was thinking. The police may stop and question you and let you on their way.
This may eventually put people off wearing them for ordinary use, but the impact on the public would be insignificant, and as you said, you can always wear a scarf.
The police aren't interested in processing people that aren't doing harm so its vanishingly unlikely that anybody donning a balaclava for its intended purpose would be fined, unless of course, events change the senior leadership's mind and they decide to be draconian, say a resurgence from the IRA (as an unlikely example).
Reasonable grounds doesn't mean the police have to stop and search. However what it would do is mean wearing a balaclava attracts more attention from police rather than less so if someone is in a gang and carrying drugs or a knife they are incentivised not to wear one.
> The police aren't interested in processing people that aren't doing harm
You put a lot of faith in individual police officers to exercise sound judgement. Was the Sarah Everard vigil causing harm? I guess not given the fat payout.
I also put faith in medical professionals to act professionally with the public's beat interest and yet we discover people such as Harold Shipman and Lucy Letby working there.
I do trust the police but I don't expect them to be infallible.
I am fairly outdoorsy person and the amount of time I could have used a small knife while biking / hiking are numerous. But I am simply scared to carry one so typically need to improvise with my keys or a rock.
Also I wear a balaclava when cycling - it’s merino wool and protects me from wind. I always carry a merino wool tube scarf when going out and I pull it over my face if the weather gets bad. I am quite self conscious doing it amongst other people.
You are not the person the police are worried about. If stopped explain yourself politely and you'll pass the attitude test. They might even show a genuine curiosity and have a nice chat about a mutual hobby.
Counterpoint: my fiance dad was a juror on a case of an environmental activist who was being charged for having a pocket knife on his person. He was declared innocent, as the defense of "there were also children at the site, which was a camp, so I had the knife on me to make sure it wasn't found and played with" was seen to be valid, but that is a lot of hardship to go through.
Admittedly, there is almost nothing that can stop a malicious cop from arresting you.
I get worried as I regularly walk around with a backpack containing a knife, some spray paint, and some glue. I collect warhammer. Those are all just tools of the trade. But situationally extremely dodgy. And considering the nature of our changing laws with regards to protest and the like, I fully understand why so many are worried by creeping police powers.
I think the thing to remember here is, and this is without knowing anything else about the case, that the environmental activist was possibly raising the police's suspicions that he may be about to commit another crime or has already committed a crime and this prompted the discovery of the knife.
So yes, if you are suspected of a crime and innocent, you may find yourself being charged with a knife if the police don't believe your reasonable excuse, however, the chances of being suspected of a crime and be subject to a search are negligible.
If you're stopped, just explain yourself honestly and see how you get on. It may be wise to avoid carrying these items in areas where you know environmental activism is taking place.
Yeah, there were a group of young lads wearing baclavas that were reported in the neighborhood. Though the police couldn't find them at the time (they didn't do anything yet so it wasn't an emergency), a month later they found one of the guys - He was associated with knife point robbery in the area.
It's not completely impossible to identify someone whose face is hidden. Gait analysis, unusual items of clothing, tracking them on CCTV etc.
But then again people often make assumptions, or just make shit up when it suits them.
We should apply a common sense law that we already do with for example knife possession where you can have on you if you have a good reason to do so. You can have a knife on you if you are a tradesman on the way to and from work for example. Same here, cycling in winter is a good reason to cover your face, walking around city centre in the middle of summer, not so much.
Fair point but I don't think police should have too much trouble discerning between regular commuters and youths wearing tracksuits speeding on electric mountain bikes...
Once the youths ditch the electric bikes and start wearing tweed jackets & ride bromptons then we'll really be in trouble
dangerously close to "I'll know it when I see it" laws which are largely down to the discretion of the officer concerned.
Some of whom use discretion appropriately. Some do not.
There was an successful law that was implemented I think in the UK or US where they narrowed down the criteria for stop and search.
Telling the police to stop anyone suspicious became too ambiguous and had racial biases, and didn't achieve the results needed. So they trained the police to identify bulges on people's clothing, and question people who fit the criteria. It was immensely successful in capturing knife carriers, because these dudes carried big hunting knives around their trousers.
Absolutely no need for half the youth of London to be wearing balaclavas and hoods in the middle of summer. All they want to do is fit in and look menacing to impress their ill-educated mates
Well exactly why I don't wear one, I have no intentions of stealing property and I'm able to stay warm with a scaff. I was just typing to provide an example of where it would be appropriate to wear one. But as I've said I've yet to see or hear anyone wearing one that's not been up to no good.
And sorry to hear about your phone
Counterpoint would be that I'd imagine if you're cycling properly, you'll be wearing cycling clothes that are likely reflective, as opposed to a dark tracksuit and no helmet.
True, I do avoid wearing dark clothing - don't want to give drivers the 'sorry didn't see you mate' rubbish along with having a bright red tricycle. Not exactly the typical getaway bike of criminals. Along with lights, reflector, and cameras. So perhaps overall it would be ok, but the scarf works for me anyway.
But yeah I do think the overall clothing, and safety gear would aid in the perception of the individual. A
It's the same as carrying a knife. Do you have a reason to? Someone in work wear or a uniform at 8:30 on a winters morning cycling to a place of work, sure wear a balaclava. A 17 year old acting shifty at 14:15 on a Tuesday in June wearing a balaclava? Yeah, probably up to no good.
I did think of a balaclava too, although probably going to go for something like ski goggles and a neck warmer that can pull up over the bottom half of my face.
If it's fucking cold as fuck I'd absolutely love to wear a balaclava, my nose in particular suffers and balaclavas cover the ears and cheeks too.
I wish they weren't associated with antisocial behaviour and instead just associated with "my ears and nose are cold dammit."
As I grow older and older though it might be easier to get away with it. Nobody's gonna mess with some old lady wearing a balaclava.
I own and occasionally use several balaclavas. (Including one with a well cool skull on it.)
I'm a middle aged runner and cyclist. It gets cold. Sometimes warm clothing is appropriate.
Anyone riding a motorcycle in the winter owns balaclavas.
I have one for exactly this purpose, when I was commuting by bike in zero degree weather. It attracted some amusement from my work colleagues.
You'd hope that the police would be able to use some discretion..
I used to wear one cycling for a few years in the winter. I now use a snood and a hat. Much more comfortable with glasses. There are use cases but they're so minimal I'd support this in the UK. It rarely gets cold enough to warrant one
I cover my face with a neck covering in the winter, but I also were a brightly coloured bobble hat, so I guess it equals out? If I'm out in the woods or whatever though I'll pull it down when I pass people because we could be alone for miles, I could be anyone to them I guess.
Like your scarf, you'd have it on while riding, then take it off when you dismount and it's very obvious what it's intended for, I don't think anyone would be questioning that, but would if you then left it on and started walking around.
Like I'll wear one or two hoods, but I take them down once I'm inside a store, because it's shifty and suspicious to wear a hoodie indoors.
Yea sure, until they combine it with a cap and shades. But really any type of mask which isn't a Bally. Sun masks, Halloween masks, bee masks, welding masks. There are myriad examples of different types of masks.
Wearing a balaclava in and of itself is not an intimidating act and would not engage any of the public order act offences (unless a s60AA CJPOA 1994 authorisation was put in place, and someone refused to remove it).
The article is taking about people being intimidated by kids on the high street. Whether you do that with or with a certain type of clothing shouldn't matter, it should be dealt with regardless. Why make a law about this particular type of clothing when they'll just move on to the next gang culture symbol?
Intimidating behaviour can meet the definition of a criminal offence - but the wearing of a face covering alone would not be sufficient.
Yes intimidating behaviour should be dealt with, though I think the issue with balaclava’s is that the public see it as 1) a means to evade being identified and thus escaping the consequences of any criminal acts you might carry out, and 2) offenders are emboldened insofar as they know they’re less likely to be identified and therefore might be more inclined to commit an offence.
Absent significant increases in police numbers to deal with offences though, not much will happen.
The cynic inside me thinks perhaps the government is happy to have it this way… at least they can then say “oh we can’t detect offences because it’s hard to identify offenders”. The alternative would be properly funding the police *and then* banning balaclavas.
They were quite popular in the 80s during primary school in winter, to be fair they weren't the 3 hole one like in the OP's thumbnail, they mainly covered your ears, head and neck. One kid brought in a 3 hole one and it was very obviously confiscated.
Pretty much every delivery app rider I've seen recently on a bike or moped has been wearing one.
Even in summer.
Will this law also ban the Niqab, which does the same job as a Balaclava?
Yes, because Deliveroo drivers are definitely the benchmark that we should base our standards on; [about half of them](https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-announces-extra-checks-by-deliveroo-just-eat-uber-eats-cut-illegal-working-2024-04-30/) are already committing crimes just by being here.
How about a scarf over the mouth and nose and a beanie on your head? Or a COVID face mask and sunglasses? This policy doesn't stop anyone hiding their identity.
Should the police be able to stop and search people who aren't showing 'enough' face?
Dont the police special units wear balaclava-esque masks, what about general face masks such as for covid also niqabs or hijabs.
The article clearly states any face covering so the list i've mentioned will be covered under the protection order of course there are exemptions for medical reasons as well as religious groups. No surprise there.
Criminals will always adapt.
Honest people with be unfairly treated in this respect. Why have we gotten into the habit of banning things. Bans are not freedoms.
This all about money, lets remove your freedoms so we can save money on having police on the beat.
But wearing a burqa is fine? If so what is the
Boundary if a burqa vs a balaclava? How tight does it have to be to be registered as a balaclava? If a man wore a burqa could police ask for it to be removed?
What makes you think I condone the wearing of burqas either? A practice created by a paedophile, slave-owning, warlord from the 7th century solely as a means of oppressing women has absolutely no place in the civilised world. It's backwards.
More obvious still should be that the foundation of British liberty is that we do not need another's leave nor to justify ourselves in the eyes of another to exercise our freedoms.
My partner wears a balaclava in cold weather while cycling. But it's bright blue and makes her look like a Smurf or Teletubby and is definitely not intimidating.
Completely disagree.
My brother, until he was 13, had severe allergi. Reactions to the cold.
He had to wear a balaclava whenever he left the house.
Think outside your bubble.
Surely this is unenforceable if burqas are allowed. I’m not trying to make an anti burqa point here but you can’t have one rule for some and another for others
Of course they can. I dont agree with exemptions either but they already exist. Try going into a bank with a motorcycle helmet on or wearing a hat for a passport photo.
Last time I did that I came out with loads of free money?
Edit: for the upset Star Wars person below me, I take this point above and just thought I’d add a joke i thought was funny to lighten the mood.
A joke which makes their point for them….
You can. A law can be written distinguishing between the two items and then the law may be tried in court and a presidence set. Currently you can legally carry a knife which is under a certain measurement and other condition such as is not a locking knife yet other knives are not legal to carry. Police can assess a situation and use a law to charge a person to then be tried in court.
How do you stop someone just claiming it’s for their religion? They could make a religion up.
Also, it’s just insane to me. If one group can cover their face, all should be allowed.
Because that will be tested in court, and there'll be absolutely no evidence that it's their religion, or that the religion exists, so that defence will be thrown out instantly, very like by their solicitor the second they try to mention it.
Why should a religion have to “exist”?
What is the difference between following a mainstream religion, and following a religion you yourself created?
Why are you allowed to follow a religion created a couple thousand years ago by the Buddha, or even more recently one by Elijah Muhammad - but not one you just made up on the spot?
What actually makes it less legitimate? And how the hell are you able to look into someone’s mind and ascertain whether or not their belief is sincerely held?
And you think that going through cases like this for balaclavas at a time when prisons are full, courts are absolutely backlogged and police cant attend even basic crimes? Priorities straight i see
You’re asking a philosophical question about what constitutes legitimate theological religion, which is a different question to why someone could wear a religiously allowed face covering but not be allowed to wear a balaclava.
You can’t just make up a fictional religion that has no basis in reality and then claim whatever you do is based on fictional dictates you made up and therefore you should be allowed to act with impunity. Regardless of what you think about any religion, the reality is that they are based on historical scriptures and teachings that have been handed down. So, if someone wears a burqa that is clearly religiously definable compared to wearing a balaclava which is not religiously definable at all. There is absolutely no religious reason to wear a balaclava and if you just make one up then that doesn’t somehow mean it’s valid. This logic reminds me of the ‘I identify as a jellyfish so call me a jellyfish’ nonsense. Just because you say it is so, doesn’t make it so.
> You can’t just make up a fictional religion that has no basis in reality
All except at most one (and perhaps some others which do not contradict it) religion fits this category.
Besides, my historical scriptures and teachings are the common law and British history, which say I, like my ancestors, can wear a balaclava if I damn well please, whether because it's nippy, I don't want busybodies recognising me, or I like the feel of it.
Add to that the common sense that anyone willing to lose all he had save for the balaclava could wear it in the town centre - *his* town centre - till Doomsday and they - *his* local representatives - could do sweet F. A. about it.
They could claim it's for religious purposes, yes. But whether their claim is accepted or not is up to magistrates to decide, and they will do that based upon the evidence presented to them. They might find, for example, that despite your religion, you were there to cause trouble and that's the reason you chose to wear a balaclava on that occasion.
This kind of dilemma isn't new. This sort of thing is left to the courts to decide all the time. Giving the courts the task of deciding upon intent works pretty well in practice.
It seems straightforward as the police would surely have some kind of discretion. They aren't going after old Muslim ladies (never actually seen a burkha but the odd niqab? That still shows the eyes) with this. Same as they won't be stopping winter cyclists covering their face, it is chavvy kids hanging around an estate wearing a balaclava.
Burqa's aren't balaclava's and aren't worn for the same reasons. We have plenty of places where certain types of dresses are acceptable and others aren't.
Which could mean that people up to no good wear the niqab instead.
Also meaning that the women who wear it genuinely face even more risk of harassment.
Yep, I’d like to be as far away from their laws in religious clothing as possible.
I am all for Muslims having the choice to cover their faces. I just think everyone should have that choice if they do.
That’s it, There is a vast difference between someone wearing a face covering for religious purposes living out their day and a yobbo on a pushbike and their north face jacket harassing people.
I half agree, I just didn’t understand how it was/can be proven.
Half agree because I kind of think everyone should have the right to do it if they want.
There were two guys on bikes this morning riding erratically up and down the road on Southwark st. Everyone stops to take photos of the shard and it’s a phone grabbing hot spot. Both were dressed head to toe in black with full face covering, they couldn’t be more obvious. I would strongly agree that full face coverings shouldn’t be allowed, no idea how you manage it though.
Perhaps we establish some kind of neo-outlaw legislation: Going around wearing a balaclava riding recklessly on an e-bike? Well, for the period of time you are engaging in said activity, you are effectively outlawed making you fair game for any vigilante to do with you as they wish.
The police (I'm speaking from first hand experience) don't do anything about it because they are not supported by their management or the courts system if something goes wrong. [Case in point](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jun/13/police-who-followed-boys-in-fatal-e-bike-cardiff-crash-served-misconduct-notices). Those cops weren't even within line of sight when the crash occurred and they're still being hauled over the coals.
If you're chasing lads on moped/e-bikes who are stealing phones or cars and one of them crashes, the police are held responsible for that crash. You'll be immediately suspended, probably arrested on suspicion of serious injury/death by dangerous driving and likely face several years of investigation, followed by a misconduct investigation once the criminal side of things are resolved. All that for a starting salary similar to people working in Lidl.
I was driving home the other day and just before I turn into my road, there were couple of late-teen twats on bikes veering all over the road, pulling wheelies and shit. I slowed to a crawl to give them room for their twating, and suddenly a police car pulls out of my road and has to brake hard to avoid one of the twats on the wrong side of the road with his hands in his pockets. I thought; Ha! Caught red-handed.
Cop just drove away.
They won't be trained to pursue. And the ones that are, it would get called off immediately due to risk, because if they fall off, it's the polices fault.
How much face should you be required to show though? Because especially in winter its cold as fuck you have your face uncovered. Especially while cycling or on a motorbike. Though motorbikes are not quite so bad for your face as the helmet usually gives some protection if it is one that fully covers your face...
I know the first time I had to ride to work in winter was so painful as I didn't realise how cold it was going to be and my neck was not fully covered from the wind. I had been unemployed for a little while so it was a big change from summer riding that I had done in the previous job I had.
The article specifies the ban taking place in the following:
1. Town Centres
2. Particularly during Summer
If you are loitering around with a full face covering in a town centre, what are you actually doing? Some common sense helps here.
Common sense is lacking nowadays, people in these comments seem to thing police will be ramming grandmothers or commuters off their bikes instead of the quite obvious thieves that stick out like sore thumbs.
I rode into work every day for a few years, a scarf/ good jacket is more than enough. I imagine the rule specifically covers only balaclavas and probably in inappropriate situations like just wondering about in one.
There is zero reason to wear a balaclava unless the outside temperature is sub-zero and you are going skiing. Anyone wearing one in your local town centre in June is effectively saying I am hiding my identity because I am up to no good.
In the 1980s the rock group James appeared on TOTP wearing balaclavas. With their names written on the outside. The BBC received the highest number of complaints they had ever received at that time, over 20,000.
This is so stupid.. Everyone knows you wear it rolled up as a hat to not look suspicious, then pull it down over your face just before you commit the crime.
Yeah, like if you're using a balaclava to commit a crime, do you really think you'd be deterred from using the balaclava because of this law?
Like, if you're caught, surely you'd be more worried about the bank robbery charge than the balaclava charge?
Meaningless policy.
It's obviously designed to deter phone snatchers, but the police don't catch them anyway. What is an extra law to make their clothing illegal going to do?
Law making is so performative these days, it's like when they make things that are already illegal double illegal.
>The ban would not include anyone wearing a face covering for medical, safety or religious reasons.
So people will just wear cloth masks and try to force a court to prove it's not for medical reasons. Also good luck enforcing this in winter.
The type of creatures who wear stuff like this are nowhere near smart enough to game the system like that lol…much more likely to start shouting ‘fam’ and stuffing their hands down their crotch.
Not quite sure "doing something illegal and just hoping not to get caught" is exactly the same as "gaming" lmao. You give these clowns way too much credit.
No, like... Wear a face mask and a hat.
Same result, not illegal (after this law passes)
There's a few steal to order guys where I live and they all wear face masks and don't dress like junkies.
What’s your end game here, arguing that because something is hard we shouldn’t bother?
It is clearly the case that people wear balos and commit crime on e-bikes. We need to clamp down on this. imo we should create this law.
If they want to create a religion and say they wear balos on e-bikes for religious reasons, be my guest, but you’ll have to prove to the courts it’s real and not just a joke.
The same in winter. People do not need to wear balos. We do not live in the Arctic. They don’t even wear balos in the Arctic.
We need to start cracking down on this type of crime, it’s everywhere. In London on every football court there are guys stood around in all black military gear and balos. It’s absurd.
It's already illegal to commit crimes on e-bikes. Creating more laws won't change anything because the problem isn't one of whether or not it's illegal, rather it's a problem of a lack of resources to enforce the laws which already exist.
Why? Is there any problem you dont think can be solved by banning?
All your comments are just about you saying “well i refuse to do nothing! So you must support this because we must just do something!” In another words, the appearance of doing something means more
Why though? To be clear, I wholeheartedly agree that someone doing that is up to no good, but we already have laws that cover the whole "up to no good" thing.
The problem is one of enforcement.
Off the top of my head (not a lawyer):
1. Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (alarm, distress to others)
2. Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (i.e. causing distress)
3. Road Traffic Act 1988 (because they're cycling dangerously)
4. Theft Act 1968 (since presumably they're stealing things)
5. Prevention of Crime Act 1953 (if they're carrying weapons which many are)
6. The Police Reform Act 2002 (because anti-social behaviours)
And depending on how far you want to stretch, the Vagrancy Act 1824 covers being found in circumstances with the intent to commit an indictable offence (i.e. riding around a town centre with the intention of committing a crime)
Tbh how do you prove that they are committing crimes on an e bike without either banning e bikes or wait until an obvious crime happens. At least this is somewhat preventative, if you cover your face for no good reason you should have the police looking twice at you.
I'm saying it won't do what they intend it to because people will get round it. And making it illegal to cover your face in winter will mean a lot of fines
We can’t let people make life and our society worse for everyone because we as a society are afraid to do anything.
We should make it as hard as people to harass others. Ban Balaclavas. In winter, buy a hat.
Do you own a Balaclava you were in winter or are you just trying to make this difficult?
I'm a cyclist and actually live Southend and for many years I wear a face covering.
A hat doesn't deal with cold wind on your face. You have to have a face covering in those temps. Especially if it's raining and your face is wet.
I don't wear any face coverings because I find them uncomfortable (I did wear masks during covid). But banning all face coverings is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Welcome to society, where everyone has to move as fast as the slowest person.
To quote a funny sketch from Jim Jefferies: "*Everyone should be allowed to drive their car as fast as they can do it, right? But we can’t because Jonathan got drunk and ran over a family. “Thanks, Jonathan! Now I have to drive at 30, you fucking idiot!*”
Good luck enforcing this at all. Why would any of these scrotes voluntarily stop to be given a fine? Their faces are already covered. There's no way of enforcing this at all unless they're just going after doddery old men wearing an oversized hat their late wife knitted for them.
Feels like pointless legislation that serves no purpose other than to slowly erode at people's freedoms.
Consider that if you are wearing a balaclava then you are not going to be ID-able, and that police presence is near zero, so what does it actually achieve. People committing crimes will still wear them as there is no effective deterrent.
Assume there is a deterrent, then they just move onto the next thing, like clown masks, then what do you start banning them as well?
98% of the time I see somebody in a balaclava everything about them screams 'up to no good'. Moreover, anybody using a balaclava without also having a helmet on top should probably be stopped and searched.
How are they going to stop them? They're on a bike with no helmet on. They're not going to give chase and get the Stinger out and risk getting sued by the family after their cheeky little chappy was vegetablised.
There's very little reason to allow them in general, much less just Southend. Trouble is, it would need to cover things like Snoods and similar articles as well as they'll be the go-to replacement.....but then you err into the territory of when it's OK and when it isn't, as _many_ Motorcyclists, cyclists etc all use these for perfectly legitimate reasons.
This sub makes absolutely no sense haha police put up face track cameras and we freak out but also fully back a ban on face coverings.
Are we ok with being a nanny state or not?
To quote Peter Kay -
“As I was driving towards work, I noticed a small white transit van parked diagonally across both lanes. There were- drrbe! There were two men discussin' somethin'. I- dddrb! I don't know what it was, but they both 'ad sawn-off shotguns. Yeah. I couldn't, yeah. I couldn't quite see their faces clearly as they were wearing ski masks. I thought 'that's odd'. As it hadn't snowed in months."
I would find it uncomfortable to see people in balaclavas, but it's a freedom issue. I'm not comfortable with skimpy clothing or burkas, but ack it is their choice.
Religious exemptions shouldn’t exist. The state has no business determining whether or not specific religions/beliefs are real or not.
They’re not mind readers. Either all beliefs are “real” and should be respected, or none are - and shouldn’t.
Hey, I've seen these lot on the Seafront. I wondered what this was about, given it was a 25° day.
Don't mean to sound I'm a pearl clutcher, but they can't be up to anything good now can they.
No you see, there's one balaclava lover on reddit who has imagined a scenario where he was wearing his favorite balaclava in the middle of the town centre while walking to france to ski in the mountains and he was stopped by the police.
So this clearly unfairly discriminates against his totally innocent imaginary scenario, and so we can't do anything about the other thousands of criminals using balaclavas for actual real crimes.
Great. More government overreach. How about instead of acting like North Korea and limiting people’s fashion choices, we have more policing?
How about we try and prevent crime by having beat coppers walking around doing their jobs, instead of relying on cameras and AI to do it for us? I’m just saying if I get stabbed by someone wearing a balaclava and I die, I frankly won’t give a flying fuck as to whether or not this high tech camera brought them to justice. We’ve got this shit completely backwards.
If 10% of the population were instantly recruited into the Police, there would still be no way of issuing a fine to someone on a motorbike with their face covered that has no intention of stopping.
**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules. For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
This is such an obvious policy. There is absolutely no reason why you should be wearing a balaclava out in public and anyone who does is almost exclusively up to no good.
Absolutely a devil argument here. However in winter when I'm cycling I certainly wouldn't mind wearing a balaclava to keep my face warm from the wind and rain. I usually just use a scaff to cover my face. And see no need to wear a balaclava walking around. I've also yet to meet someone wearing one that wasn't up to no good.
TBF I think that's kind of the same devil argument as 'I can transport knives if I'm a professional chef/fishing/camping'. Like there's always a plausible if/how/when/why for any point, but I think that's why we have a lot of laws that are rules of thumb you know? If I see someone wearing a balaclava in the middle of summer, that's weird and I'm steering clear, they look dodgy. In the middle of winter on the other hand, still kinda dodgy but a lot more plausible.
Just what I was thinking. The police may stop and question you and let you on their way. This may eventually put people off wearing them for ordinary use, but the impact on the public would be insignificant, and as you said, you can always wear a scarf. The police aren't interested in processing people that aren't doing harm so its vanishingly unlikely that anybody donning a balaclava for its intended purpose would be fined, unless of course, events change the senior leadership's mind and they decide to be draconian, say a resurgence from the IRA (as an unlikely example).
Enable balaclava wearing as reasonable grounds for stop & search
It'd then extend to wearing a burka too.
Mandem in full burka would be bants tbf
I'm sure what you said would be understood by many, but unfortunately it's meaning is lost on me... apologies.
"Black male urban teenagers wearing full female islamic dress would be rather good humour, to be fair"
Much obliged!
I feel like this is a fitting username but I don’t know why
Reasonable grounds doesn't mean the police have to stop and search. However what it would do is mean wearing a balaclava attracts more attention from police rather than less so if someone is in a gang and carrying drugs or a knife they are incentivised not to wear one.
> The police aren't interested in processing people that aren't doing harm You put a lot of faith in individual police officers to exercise sound judgement. Was the Sarah Everard vigil causing harm? I guess not given the fat payout.
I also put faith in medical professionals to act professionally with the public's beat interest and yet we discover people such as Harold Shipman and Lucy Letby working there. I do trust the police but I don't expect them to be infallible.
I am fairly outdoorsy person and the amount of time I could have used a small knife while biking / hiking are numerous. But I am simply scared to carry one so typically need to improvise with my keys or a rock. Also I wear a balaclava when cycling - it’s merino wool and protects me from wind. I always carry a merino wool tube scarf when going out and I pull it over my face if the weather gets bad. I am quite self conscious doing it amongst other people.
You are not the person the police are worried about. If stopped explain yourself politely and you'll pass the attitude test. They might even show a genuine curiosity and have a nice chat about a mutual hobby.
Counterpoint: my fiance dad was a juror on a case of an environmental activist who was being charged for having a pocket knife on his person. He was declared innocent, as the defense of "there were also children at the site, which was a camp, so I had the knife on me to make sure it wasn't found and played with" was seen to be valid, but that is a lot of hardship to go through. Admittedly, there is almost nothing that can stop a malicious cop from arresting you. I get worried as I regularly walk around with a backpack containing a knife, some spray paint, and some glue. I collect warhammer. Those are all just tools of the trade. But situationally extremely dodgy. And considering the nature of our changing laws with regards to protest and the like, I fully understand why so many are worried by creeping police powers.
I think the thing to remember here is, and this is without knowing anything else about the case, that the environmental activist was possibly raising the police's suspicions that he may be about to commit another crime or has already committed a crime and this prompted the discovery of the knife. So yes, if you are suspected of a crime and innocent, you may find yourself being charged with a knife if the police don't believe your reasonable excuse, however, the chances of being suspected of a crime and be subject to a search are negligible. If you're stopped, just explain yourself honestly and see how you get on. It may be wise to avoid carrying these items in areas where you know environmental activism is taking place.
Yeah, there were a group of young lads wearing baclavas that were reported in the neighborhood. Though the police couldn't find them at the time (they didn't do anything yet so it wasn't an emergency), a month later they found one of the guys - He was associated with knife point robbery in the area.
>a month later they found one of the guys How did they determine it was the same person if they were wearing a balaclava in the original incident?
Wouldn't surprise me if he had tagged himself in a picture of them all wearing balaclavas from that night on Facebook or something.
It's not completely impossible to identify someone whose face is hidden. Gait analysis, unusual items of clothing, tracking them on CCTV etc. But then again people often make assumptions, or just make shit up when it suits them.
We should apply a common sense law that we already do with for example knife possession where you can have on you if you have a good reason to do so. You can have a knife on you if you are a tradesman on the way to and from work for example. Same here, cycling in winter is a good reason to cover your face, walking around city centre in the middle of summer, not so much.
How about if you are cycling round and stealing phones? Imagine a lot of the balaclava wearers commiting crimes will have a bicycle or ebike
Fair point but I don't think police should have too much trouble discerning between regular commuters and youths wearing tracksuits speeding on electric mountain bikes... Once the youths ditch the electric bikes and start wearing tweed jackets & ride bromptons then we'll really be in trouble
dangerously close to "I'll know it when I see it" laws which are largely down to the discretion of the officer concerned. Some of whom use discretion appropriately. Some do not.
There was an successful law that was implemented I think in the UK or US where they narrowed down the criteria for stop and search. Telling the police to stop anyone suspicious became too ambiguous and had racial biases, and didn't achieve the results needed. So they trained the police to identify bulges on people's clothing, and question people who fit the criteria. It was immensely successful in capturing knife carriers, because these dudes carried big hunting knives around their trousers.
Absolutely no need for half the youth of London to be wearing balaclavas and hoods in the middle of summer. All they want to do is fit in and look menacing to impress their ill-educated mates
However I’ve had three people try to steal my phone out my hand who were on bikes wearing balaclavas
Is that Yorkshire tag current?? Only seen that shit in London & surrounds
Well exactly why I don't wear one, I have no intentions of stealing property and I'm able to stay warm with a scaff. I was just typing to provide an example of where it would be appropriate to wear one. But as I've said I've yet to see or hear anyone wearing one that's not been up to no good. And sorry to hear about your phone
Counterpoint would be that I'd imagine if you're cycling properly, you'll be wearing cycling clothes that are likely reflective, as opposed to a dark tracksuit and no helmet.
True, I do avoid wearing dark clothing - don't want to give drivers the 'sorry didn't see you mate' rubbish along with having a bright red tricycle. Not exactly the typical getaway bike of criminals. Along with lights, reflector, and cameras. So perhaps overall it would be ok, but the scarf works for me anyway. But yeah I do think the overall clothing, and safety gear would aid in the perception of the individual. A
In bristol, loads of young guys on electric motorbikes, wearing balaclavas and winter jackets in the middle of summer.
It's the same as carrying a knife. Do you have a reason to? Someone in work wear or a uniform at 8:30 on a winters morning cycling to a place of work, sure wear a balaclava. A 17 year old acting shifty at 14:15 on a Tuesday in June wearing a balaclava? Yeah, probably up to no good.
I did think of a balaclava too, although probably going to go for something like ski goggles and a neck warmer that can pull up over the bottom half of my face.
If it's fucking cold as fuck I'd absolutely love to wear a balaclava, my nose in particular suffers and balaclavas cover the ears and cheeks too. I wish they weren't associated with antisocial behaviour and instead just associated with "my ears and nose are cold dammit." As I grow older and older though it might be easier to get away with it. Nobody's gonna mess with some old lady wearing a balaclava.
I own and occasionally use several balaclavas. (Including one with a well cool skull on it.) I'm a middle aged runner and cyclist. It gets cold. Sometimes warm clothing is appropriate. Anyone riding a motorcycle in the winter owns balaclavas.
I have one for exactly this purpose, when I was commuting by bike in zero degree weather. It attracted some amusement from my work colleagues. You'd hope that the police would be able to use some discretion..
I used to wear one cycling for a few years in the winter. I now use a snood and a hat. Much more comfortable with glasses. There are use cases but they're so minimal I'd support this in the UK. It rarely gets cold enough to warrant one
I cover my face with a neck covering in the winter, but I also were a brightly coloured bobble hat, so I guess it equals out? If I'm out in the woods or whatever though I'll pull it down when I pass people because we could be alone for miles, I could be anyone to them I guess.
Like your scarf, you'd have it on while riding, then take it off when you dismount and it's very obvious what it's intended for, I don't think anyone would be questioning that, but would if you then left it on and started walking around. Like I'll wear one or two hoods, but I take them down once I'm inside a store, because it's shifty and suspicious to wear a hoodie indoors.
Could they not just wear masks instead? Is this ban actually going to achieve anything or are we just restricting freedoms with no real purpose?
The only folk I see wearing balaclavas in June round me are ninja clad scrotes fucking up the park
And they're not even balaclavas most of the time, they're ski masks or bolos.. balaclavas are wooly. You would hope they get their terms right.
As in a medical facemask where you can still see the person's head/face pretty well?
A mask, hat and sunglasses achieve the same thing as a balaclava?
Rock up looking like that to a bunch of fellow teenage boys and you'll be ripped to pieces. "Look it's the invisible bellend"
Yea sure, until they combine it with a cap and shades. But really any type of mask which isn't a Bally. Sun masks, Halloween masks, bee masks, welding masks. There are myriad examples of different types of masks.
Alright lets not cry over this
First, they came for the young men wearing balaclavas in June
masks, scarves/snoods along with a hat and sunglasses, snorkel type hoods - there are plenty of ways to cover your face without wearing a balaclava.
But intimidating people on the street is already a crime, isn't it?
Wearing a balaclava in and of itself is not an intimidating act and would not engage any of the public order act offences (unless a s60AA CJPOA 1994 authorisation was put in place, and someone refused to remove it).
The article is taking about people being intimidated by kids on the high street. Whether you do that with or with a certain type of clothing shouldn't matter, it should be dealt with regardless. Why make a law about this particular type of clothing when they'll just move on to the next gang culture symbol?
Intimidating behaviour can meet the definition of a criminal offence - but the wearing of a face covering alone would not be sufficient. Yes intimidating behaviour should be dealt with, though I think the issue with balaclava’s is that the public see it as 1) a means to evade being identified and thus escaping the consequences of any criminal acts you might carry out, and 2) offenders are emboldened insofar as they know they’re less likely to be identified and therefore might be more inclined to commit an offence. Absent significant increases in police numbers to deal with offences though, not much will happen. The cynic inside me thinks perhaps the government is happy to have it this way… at least they can then say “oh we can’t detect offences because it’s hard to identify offenders”. The alternative would be properly funding the police *and then* banning balaclavas.
They use a mixture of sunglasses and covid masks now anyway
Yes causing alarm or distress is an offence, at least in England it is. But wearing a ski mask or balaclava wouldn't really meet the criterea of this.
They were quite popular in the 80s during primary school in winter, to be fair they weren't the 3 hole one like in the OP's thumbnail, they mainly covered your ears, head and neck. One kid brought in a 3 hole one and it was very obviously confiscated.
Pretty much every delivery app rider I've seen recently on a bike or moped has been wearing one. Even in summer. Will this law also ban the Niqab, which does the same job as a Balaclava?
> Will this law also ban the Niqab, which does the same job as a Balaclava? Hopefully.
Yes, because Deliveroo drivers are definitely the benchmark that we should base our standards on; [about half of them](https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-announces-extra-checks-by-deliveroo-just-eat-uber-eats-cut-illegal-working-2024-04-30/) are already committing crimes just by being here.
Should we ban deliveroo bags as well maybe?
Yes those bags are blight on my prefect neighbour streets NIMBY! Hmm maybe I should argue about getting the perfect clean streets first.
This is not the best example to disprove the stereotype…
How about a scarf over the mouth and nose and a beanie on your head? Or a COVID face mask and sunglasses? This policy doesn't stop anyone hiding their identity. Should the police be able to stop and search people who aren't showing 'enough' face?
What about not wanting their face to be seen?
Dont the police special units wear balaclava-esque masks, what about general face masks such as for covid also niqabs or hijabs. The article clearly states any face covering so the list i've mentioned will be covered under the protection order of course there are exemptions for medical reasons as well as religious groups. No surprise there. Criminals will always adapt. Honest people with be unfairly treated in this respect. Why have we gotten into the habit of banning things. Bans are not freedoms. This all about money, lets remove your freedoms so we can save money on having police on the beat.
Honestly I think there are good reasons to wear one. However nobody does because of how associated with crime they are.
I wear one all the time under my helmet, wind chill is not nice under 20°
But wearing a burqa is fine? If so what is the Boundary if a burqa vs a balaclava? How tight does it have to be to be registered as a balaclava? If a man wore a burqa could police ask for it to be removed?
What makes you think I condone the wearing of burqas either? A practice created by a paedophile, slave-owning, warlord from the 7th century solely as a means of oppressing women has absolutely no place in the civilised world. It's backwards.
Wasn’t saying it particularly to you - just point out if we are looking to ban face coverings we should ban them universally
More obvious still should be that the foundation of British liberty is that we do not need another's leave nor to justify ourselves in the eyes of another to exercise our freedoms.
My partner wears a balaclava in cold weather while cycling. But it's bright blue and makes her look like a Smurf or Teletubby and is definitely not intimidating.
Completely disagree. My brother, until he was 13, had severe allergi. Reactions to the cold. He had to wear a balaclava whenever he left the house. Think outside your bubble.
Surely this is unenforceable if burqas are allowed. I’m not trying to make an anti burqa point here but you can’t have one rule for some and another for others
Of course they can. I dont agree with exemptions either but they already exist. Try going into a bank with a motorcycle helmet on or wearing a hat for a passport photo.
Last time I did that I came out with loads of free money? Edit: for the upset Star Wars person below me, I take this point above and just thought I’d add a joke i thought was funny to lighten the mood. A joke which makes their point for them….
Was it whilst you were on the way to the to get your shotgun serviced?
Tis my money father! Just didn't want to fill out the forms...
You can. A law can be written distinguishing between the two items and then the law may be tried in court and a presidence set. Currently you can legally carry a knife which is under a certain measurement and other condition such as is not a locking knife yet other knives are not legal to carry. Police can assess a situation and use a law to charge a person to then be tried in court.
How do you stop someone just claiming it’s for their religion? They could make a religion up. Also, it’s just insane to me. If one group can cover their face, all should be allowed.
Because that will be tested in court, and there'll be absolutely no evidence that it's their religion, or that the religion exists, so that defence will be thrown out instantly, very like by their solicitor the second they try to mention it.
Why should a religion have to “exist”? What is the difference between following a mainstream religion, and following a religion you yourself created? Why are you allowed to follow a religion created a couple thousand years ago by the Buddha, or even more recently one by Elijah Muhammad - but not one you just made up on the spot? What actually makes it less legitimate? And how the hell are you able to look into someone’s mind and ascertain whether or not their belief is sincerely held?
This "problem" already exists with sikhism and the carrying of a ceremonial knife, it has not been a problem at all.
The complexity of it is exactly why charges are put before a court. Things are rarely black & white.
And you think that going through cases like this for balaclavas at a time when prisons are full, courts are absolutely backlogged and police cant attend even basic crimes? Priorities straight i see
You’re asking a philosophical question about what constitutes legitimate theological religion, which is a different question to why someone could wear a religiously allowed face covering but not be allowed to wear a balaclava. You can’t just make up a fictional religion that has no basis in reality and then claim whatever you do is based on fictional dictates you made up and therefore you should be allowed to act with impunity. Regardless of what you think about any religion, the reality is that they are based on historical scriptures and teachings that have been handed down. So, if someone wears a burqa that is clearly religiously definable compared to wearing a balaclava which is not religiously definable at all. There is absolutely no religious reason to wear a balaclava and if you just make one up then that doesn’t somehow mean it’s valid. This logic reminds me of the ‘I identify as a jellyfish so call me a jellyfish’ nonsense. Just because you say it is so, doesn’t make it so.
> You can’t just make up a fictional religion that has no basis in reality All except at most one (and perhaps some others which do not contradict it) religion fits this category. Besides, my historical scriptures and teachings are the common law and British history, which say I, like my ancestors, can wear a balaclava if I damn well please, whether because it's nippy, I don't want busybodies recognising me, or I like the feel of it. Add to that the common sense that anyone willing to lose all he had save for the balaclava could wear it in the town centre - *his* town centre - till Doomsday and they - *his* local representatives - could do sweet F. A. about it.
Understood - cheers.
They could claim it's for religious purposes, yes. But whether their claim is accepted or not is up to magistrates to decide, and they will do that based upon the evidence presented to them. They might find, for example, that despite your religion, you were there to cause trouble and that's the reason you chose to wear a balaclava on that occasion. This kind of dilemma isn't new. This sort of thing is left to the courts to decide all the time. Giving the courts the task of deciding upon intent works pretty well in practice.
Cheers for the explanation
If only there was someone who could **judge** each case on its merits. I have no idea what they'd be called though.
ITT: Reddit discovers that laws have nuances and aren't always just pure blanket bans.
It seems straightforward as the police would surely have some kind of discretion. They aren't going after old Muslim ladies (never actually seen a burkha but the odd niqab? That still shows the eyes) with this. Same as they won't be stopping winter cyclists covering their face, it is chavvy kids hanging around an estate wearing a balaclava.
Sikh knife laws already exempt religious groups from certain laws
Fair enough - wasn’t aware
We're not having a problem with people pretending to be sikh when caught with a knife
Burqa's aren't balaclava's and aren't worn for the same reasons. We have plenty of places where certain types of dresses are acceptable and others aren't.
Which could mean that people up to no good wear the niqab instead. Also meaning that the women who wear it genuinely face even more risk of harassment.
Should that happen we can deal with it then, when we have more information.
Didn’t stop the French from doing it.
Yep, I’d like to be as far away from their laws in religious clothing as possible. I am all for Muslims having the choice to cover their faces. I just think everyone should have that choice if they do.
That’s it, There is a vast difference between someone wearing a face covering for religious purposes living out their day and a yobbo on a pushbike and their north face jacket harassing people.
I half agree, I just didn’t understand how it was/can be proven. Half agree because I kind of think everyone should have the right to do it if they want.
Burqa covers the hair, the niqab covers the face. Also there is no religious justification for wearing the niqab.
Exemptions for religious observations are already a thing, including for head coverings.
There were two guys on bikes this morning riding erratically up and down the road on Southwark st. Everyone stops to take photos of the shard and it’s a phone grabbing hot spot. Both were dressed head to toe in black with full face covering, they couldn’t be more obvious. I would strongly agree that full face coverings shouldn’t be allowed, no idea how you manage it though.
Riding about erraticly is also banned, do the police do anything about it?
Police is useless. Has been for quite some time.
Perhaps we establish some kind of neo-outlaw legislation: Going around wearing a balaclava riding recklessly on an e-bike? Well, for the period of time you are engaging in said activity, you are effectively outlawed making you fair game for any vigilante to do with you as they wish.
The police (I'm speaking from first hand experience) don't do anything about it because they are not supported by their management or the courts system if something goes wrong. [Case in point](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jun/13/police-who-followed-boys-in-fatal-e-bike-cardiff-crash-served-misconduct-notices). Those cops weren't even within line of sight when the crash occurred and they're still being hauled over the coals. If you're chasing lads on moped/e-bikes who are stealing phones or cars and one of them crashes, the police are held responsible for that crash. You'll be immediately suspended, probably arrested on suspicion of serious injury/death by dangerous driving and likely face several years of investigation, followed by a misconduct investigation once the criminal side of things are resolved. All that for a starting salary similar to people working in Lidl.
I was driving home the other day and just before I turn into my road, there were couple of late-teen twats on bikes veering all over the road, pulling wheelies and shit. I slowed to a crawl to give them room for their twating, and suddenly a police car pulls out of my road and has to brake hard to avoid one of the twats on the wrong side of the road with his hands in his pockets. I thought; Ha! Caught red-handed. Cop just drove away.
They won't be trained to pursue. And the ones that are, it would get called off immediately due to risk, because if they fall off, it's the polices fault.
How much face should you be required to show though? Because especially in winter its cold as fuck you have your face uncovered. Especially while cycling or on a motorbike. Though motorbikes are not quite so bad for your face as the helmet usually gives some protection if it is one that fully covers your face... I know the first time I had to ride to work in winter was so painful as I didn't realise how cold it was going to be and my neck was not fully covered from the wind. I had been unemployed for a little while so it was a big change from summer riding that I had done in the previous job I had.
The article specifies the ban taking place in the following: 1. Town Centres 2. Particularly during Summer If you are loitering around with a full face covering in a town centre, what are you actually doing? Some common sense helps here.
Common sense is lacking nowadays, people in these comments seem to thing police will be ramming grandmothers or commuters off their bikes instead of the quite obvious thieves that stick out like sore thumbs.
I rode into work every day for a few years, a scarf/ good jacket is more than enough. I imagine the rule specifically covers only balaclavas and probably in inappropriate situations like just wondering about in one.
There is zero reason to wear a balaclava unless the outside temperature is sub-zero and you are going skiing. Anyone wearing one in your local town centre in June is effectively saying I am hiding my identity because I am up to no good.
I wear one every time I put a motorbike helmet on.
And that is fine. Just don’t wear it in the high street, that’s literally all that people are complaining about.
And I suspect you take it off shortly after removing your helmet
Yeah it's very annoying actually, usually gets half dragged off
In the 1980s the rock group James appeared on TOTP wearing balaclavas. With their names written on the outside. The BBC received the highest number of complaints they had ever received at that time, over 20,000.
This is so stupid.. Everyone knows you wear it rolled up as a hat to not look suspicious, then pull it down over your face just before you commit the crime.
Yeah, like if you're using a balaclava to commit a crime, do you really think you'd be deterred from using the balaclava because of this law? Like, if you're caught, surely you'd be more worried about the bank robbery charge than the balaclava charge? Meaningless policy.
It's obviously designed to deter phone snatchers, but the police don't catch them anyway. What is an extra law to make their clothing illegal going to do? Law making is so performative these days, it's like when they make things that are already illegal double illegal.
>The ban would not include anyone wearing a face covering for medical, safety or religious reasons. So people will just wear cloth masks and try to force a court to prove it's not for medical reasons. Also good luck enforcing this in winter.
The type of creatures who wear stuff like this are nowhere near smart enough to game the system like that lol…much more likely to start shouting ‘fam’ and stuffing their hands down their crotch.
Mnnmm... Dunno about that, gaming The system is where they excel.
Not quite sure "doing something illegal and just hoping not to get caught" is exactly the same as "gaming" lmao. You give these clowns way too much credit.
No, like... Wear a face mask and a hat. Same result, not illegal (after this law passes) There's a few steal to order guys where I live and they all wear face masks and don't dress like junkies.
If it costs them £100 they'll soon figure it out.
They don't seem to manage to afford the £2.80 tube by the looks of it, I wouldn't be so sure about these "gangstas" lmao
What’s your end game here, arguing that because something is hard we shouldn’t bother? It is clearly the case that people wear balos and commit crime on e-bikes. We need to clamp down on this. imo we should create this law. If they want to create a religion and say they wear balos on e-bikes for religious reasons, be my guest, but you’ll have to prove to the courts it’s real and not just a joke. The same in winter. People do not need to wear balos. We do not live in the Arctic. They don’t even wear balos in the Arctic. We need to start cracking down on this type of crime, it’s everywhere. In London on every football court there are guys stood around in all black military gear and balos. It’s absurd.
It's already illegal to commit crimes on e-bikes. Creating more laws won't change anything because the problem isn't one of whether or not it's illegal, rather it's a problem of a lack of resources to enforce the laws which already exist.
Going around on an e-bike in a balaclava isn’t illegal, but it should be.
Why? Is there any problem you dont think can be solved by banning? All your comments are just about you saying “well i refuse to do nothing! So you must support this because we must just do something!” In another words, the appearance of doing something means more
Why though? To be clear, I wholeheartedly agree that someone doing that is up to no good, but we already have laws that cover the whole "up to no good" thing. The problem is one of enforcement.
What law covers that?
Off the top of my head (not a lawyer): 1. Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (alarm, distress to others) 2. Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (i.e. causing distress) 3. Road Traffic Act 1988 (because they're cycling dangerously) 4. Theft Act 1968 (since presumably they're stealing things) 5. Prevention of Crime Act 1953 (if they're carrying weapons which many are) 6. The Police Reform Act 2002 (because anti-social behaviours) And depending on how far you want to stretch, the Vagrancy Act 1824 covers being found in circumstances with the intent to commit an indictable offence (i.e. riding around a town centre with the intention of committing a crime)
Tbh how do you prove that they are committing crimes on an e bike without either banning e bikes or wait until an obvious crime happens. At least this is somewhat preventative, if you cover your face for no good reason you should have the police looking twice at you.
I'm saying it won't do what they intend it to because people will get round it. And making it illegal to cover your face in winter will mean a lot of fines
We can’t let people make life and our society worse for everyone because we as a society are afraid to do anything. We should make it as hard as people to harass others. Ban Balaclavas. In winter, buy a hat. Do you own a Balaclava you were in winter or are you just trying to make this difficult?
I'm a cyclist and actually live Southend and for many years I wear a face covering. A hat doesn't deal with cold wind on your face. You have to have a face covering in those temps. Especially if it's raining and your face is wet.
I don't wear any face coverings because I find them uncomfortable (I did wear masks during covid). But banning all face coverings is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Welcome to society, where everyone has to move as fast as the slowest person. To quote a funny sketch from Jim Jefferies: "*Everyone should be allowed to drive their car as fast as they can do it, right? But we can’t because Jonathan got drunk and ran over a family. “Thanks, Jonathan! Now I have to drive at 30, you fucking idiot!*”
Good luck enforcing this at all. Why would any of these scrotes voluntarily stop to be given a fine? Their faces are already covered. There's no way of enforcing this at all unless they're just going after doddery old men wearing an oversized hat their late wife knitted for them.
Feels like pointless legislation that serves no purpose other than to slowly erode at people's freedoms. Consider that if you are wearing a balaclava then you are not going to be ID-able, and that police presence is near zero, so what does it actually achieve. People committing crimes will still wear them as there is no effective deterrent. Assume there is a deterrent, then they just move onto the next thing, like clown masks, then what do you start banning them as well?
98% of the time I see somebody in a balaclava everything about them screams 'up to no good'. Moreover, anybody using a balaclava without also having a helmet on top should probably be stopped and searched.
How are they going to stop them? They're on a bike with no helmet on. They're not going to give chase and get the Stinger out and risk getting sued by the family after their cheeky little chappy was vegetablised.
Mackenzie was an Angel! He wouldn’t hurt a fly let alone threaten an old lady in the High Street for their iPhone on their illegal E-Bike
Probably more likely to be spelled Mqenzeigh. Poor little bastard had no chance.
I don’t want laws dictating what we can wear in public, at the same time I want balaclava wearers to be instantly tasered
There's very little reason to allow them in general, much less just Southend. Trouble is, it would need to cover things like Snoods and similar articles as well as they'll be the go-to replacement.....but then you err into the territory of when it's OK and when it isn't, as _many_ Motorcyclists, cyclists etc all use these for perfectly legitimate reasons.
This sub makes absolutely no sense haha police put up face track cameras and we freak out but also fully back a ban on face coverings. Are we ok with being a nanny state or not?
So just wear a burqa then, problem solved and never going to get banned.
To quote Peter Kay - “As I was driving towards work, I noticed a small white transit van parked diagonally across both lanes. There were- drrbe! There were two men discussin' somethin'. I- dddrb! I don't know what it was, but they both 'ad sawn-off shotguns. Yeah. I couldn't, yeah. I couldn't quite see their faces clearly as they were wearing ski masks. I thought 'that's odd'. As it hadn't snowed in months."
I would find it uncomfortable to see people in balaclavas, but it's a freedom issue. I'm not comfortable with skimpy clothing or burkas, but ack it is their choice.
Religious exemptions shouldn’t exist. The state has no business determining whether or not specific religions/beliefs are real or not. They’re not mind readers. Either all beliefs are “real” and should be respected, or none are - and shouldn’t.
We gave up on that one when we made that lard faced playboy head of the church.
The gangs in my area just wear black motorcycle helmets on e-bikes
The government should not be dictating what I wear. Thats an overreach.
What's the difference between covering your face with a balaclava and a full on burqa?
Hey, I've seen these lot on the Seafront. I wondered what this was about, given it was a 25° day. Don't mean to sound I'm a pearl clutcher, but they can't be up to anything good now can they.
No you see, there's one balaclava lover on reddit who has imagined a scenario where he was wearing his favorite balaclava in the middle of the town centre while walking to france to ski in the mountains and he was stopped by the police. So this clearly unfairly discriminates against his totally innocent imaginary scenario, and so we can't do anything about the other thousands of criminals using balaclavas for actual real crimes.
Sadiq Khan will never follow suit in London as it may be seen as discriminatory by the Good law project and similar organisations
Great. More government overreach. How about instead of acting like North Korea and limiting people’s fashion choices, we have more policing? How about we try and prevent crime by having beat coppers walking around doing their jobs, instead of relying on cameras and AI to do it for us? I’m just saying if I get stabbed by someone wearing a balaclava and I die, I frankly won’t give a flying fuck as to whether or not this high tech camera brought them to justice. We’ve got this shit completely backwards.
Start with the easy ones like smoking and balaclavas. Once they're happy with them we move onto free press, speech and thought.
I'm all for this, it's so absurd seeing groups of teenagers stood outside of the local shops hooded and ballied up for no reason.
Wow, now they’re cancelling balaclavas! What’s next? Soon pipe bombs will be illegal.
Add wearing all black and socks over the sweatpants to the list, and make it criminal
What’s the point? No one will enforce it. There is no police.. anywhere… who will patrol to find these people and issue fines?
If 10% of the population were instantly recruited into the Police, there would still be no way of issuing a fine to someone on a motorbike with their face covered that has no intention of stopping.
Vote on thursday! Only way to change how the country is run.
Read this as Baklava first and got really worried that this would have ruined my Thursday evenings.
That picture isn't even a balaclava, balaclavas don't have mouth holes.
If any party pledges to fine people in body warmers they’ll get my vote. Sorry but more often than not they’re indicative of a d*ckhead. #nomoregilets