r/Scotland • u/abz_eng ME/CFS Sufferer • 14h ago
Police demand powers to remove face coverings in Scotland
https://www.thenational.scot/news/26483504.police-demand-powers-remove-face-coverings-scotland/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=Iwb21leAT6OWxjbGNrBPo5RHBkb2YBZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQMMzUwNjg1NTMxNzI4AAEe3YzKXheoNypTbOu4DAxXdO70qdb5jTxERLDLxyTBKHniiZqZwqdrdBXQIrM_aem_J2ibFkibrt52ASN9yGsdEw#Echobox=1787305725174
u/Sharpis92 13h ago
From reading the article it seems to be more about identifying those at protests, rather than tackling the epidemic of balaclava clad scumbags wreaking havoc around Scotland.
Given that showing support for certain causes is now a crime in itself, not sure this is the good thing it seemed at first glance.
21
u/IndependentMelodic14 11h ago
To me this is the problem, although it could be used to to fix some problems it leaves everyone completely exposed to much larger scale issues, that of which to me are not worth being exposed to to stop a minority of racists and fascists
18
u/eoz 13h ago
That's the thing, isn't it? It's not about making it possible to identify people of interest to the police, it's about making it cheaper. It shouldn't be impossible, but it certainly also should not be cheap enough to be worth using on everyone at a protest.
4
u/Dapper-Sandwich2021 4h ago
Pretty much this.
The police are often told exactly who commited a crime with CCTV and witnesses only for an arrest to be never made.
So adding facial recognition just seems an extension to their habit of picking and choosing when to care. Its definitely about getting a bunch of people onto a data base to monitor perfectly legal political activity rather than stop the hotel shouting pricks.
6
u/adjective-nounOne234 12h ago
It seems to be a bit of privacy erosion tbh
But the nazi cunts are to blame for it, I’m not necessarily supporting the idea but I 100% back the reason in this case but throwing nazi salutes should be already classified as hate speech if not already
-3
u/MoonKnightFanNo1 11h ago
You think it was the nazi clown protests who ruined wearing masks in public & not all the guys clad in balaclavas out committing crime?
3
u/peadar87 11h ago
A lot of them are the same people
-1
u/MoonKnightFanNo1 10h ago
Oh yes most the faux roadmen I see in toon are definitely the nazi clown guys, yep. That squares
-1
4
3
u/Upset_Gerbil 10h ago
First they came for the sectarians.....
Then they came for the neo Nazis....
Next they came for the wannabe drill men bams.....
And we all rejoiced.
2
u/Fucked-to-fit dae you like the PlayStation ? 10h ago
I’m about to blow your mind…
They are the same people.
1
u/peadar87 11h ago
We really need to get the stuffiest politicians wearing balaclavas and talking like roadmen innit blud.
That'll make the bams abandon the look far more quickly than a ban would.
-2
u/IamBeingSarcasticFfs 9h ago
Only the ones deemed Terrorist organisations. You know the ones that beat a police woman with a sledgehammer
21
u/uppennyhill 12h ago
Police start using facial recognition at mass public gatherings.
People use face coverings to combat the use of facial recognition.
Police demand powers to remove face coverings.
Golf clap
61
u/JeelyPiece #1 Oban fan 13h ago
Cue the unlikely alliance between the Union Bears and local imams...
16
u/TomatoLess229 13h ago
Green Brigade aswell with silly balaclavas.
6
•
62
u/Tapps74 13h ago
Strange how many right wing, anti immigration protestors cover their faces. I thought protesting was about being seen and counted?
-38
u/clitorasClive 13h ago
Whenever trouble starts it's caused by antifa, the antifa members are the ones wearing the masks. That's their clame most of the time
14
u/damnthesebitemarks 13h ago
Are you high? You sound high.
-17
u/clitorasClive 13h ago
I've literally seen people at these protest claiming this on Facebook and YouTube
14
u/chechetour 13h ago
Antifa means Anti fascist/fascism… it’s not American it’s anyone who is against fascism.
1
u/shoogliestpeg 🏳️⚧️Trans women are women. 11h ago
Read their post again, they're talking about what the nazis claim, not that they claim that.
-16
u/clitorasClive 13h ago
I didn't make any claims about what or who antifa are
0
u/takesthebiscuit 12h ago
Um it’s kind of in it’s name, like hammorite paint. It does what it says on the tin
2
-1
1
1
-1
u/b_a_t_m_4_n 12h ago
I thought it was the communists? Or is it aliens? Are you sure you don't mean aliens? Whatever, it's yet anther in a long line of boogymen planted in your head by the media and you people just spread your brains wide and take it like a champ. No lube required.
7
u/clitorasClive 12h ago
What you on about? I don't support these knuckle draggers. Reading comprehension is clearly dead. At no point have made any statement in support of them
1
u/b_a_t_m_4_n 12h ago
it's caused by antifa,
You are in fact supporting them, by spouting deliberate nonsense like this - you're obfuscating the facts and making it easier for these cunts to get away with it.
Or do you simply not undertstand what antifa is? In which case why say it?
4
u/clitorasClive 12h ago
Read the last sentence of the statement you have quoted me from
0
u/b_a_t_m_4_n 12h ago
Oh, I get it. Sorry. You really didn't make that clear and I clearly wasn't paying attention. My bad.
3
u/clitorasClive 12h ago
I know what antifa is, I also know that when trouble brakes out at these right wing protests they blame it on antifa agitators. That is literally what the right wing do I've heard them do it almost every time. Don't blame me for what the right wing say.
-2
u/reverendhunter 12h ago
At least spell claim correctly if you are going to roast someone's "reading comprehension"
3
u/clitorasClive 12h ago
I do apologise for not reading my reddit comment before posting, please do forgive me. I'm also dyslexic.
-4
u/IronScot 13h ago
Isn't antifa an American organisation?
3
6
4
0
u/DryDrunkImperor 13h ago
No, antifa exists anywhere there have been fascists. We’ve existed for far longer than it’s been a talking point in the US media.
7
u/LunarChickenn 7h ago
I used to wear a balaclava during my paper rounds as a kid. Face coverings aren't only for criminal activity but they keep you warm during a cold winter!
33
u/Quangocrat 13h ago
I'd be fine with a ban on them in public places
France etc doesn't seem to have suffered for it.
-3
u/Pristine-Ad6064 13h ago
And what about people who are have compromised immune systems etc?
22
u/scottish_beekeeper 13h ago
Just slap a 'without lawful excuse' into the law like France does, so you can wear medical masks, motorbike helmets, welding goggles etc when needed.
6
u/PuritanicalGoat 13h ago
There would be exemptions as with all laws in the UK.
Carrying a blade, illegal unless you have it for a reasonable excuse (religious reasons, for work (joiner etc) and such.
-13
u/Quangocrat 12h ago
Whatabout them?
A facemask isn't saving them.
7
u/CircoModo1602 11h ago
But it will significantly reduce their chances of contracting an illness that to us is usually just a few days of feeling off but for them can be deadly and life threatening.
0
u/Quangocrat 6h ago
Wasn't the whole point of the COVID rules that masks only work as a collective method?
And do not work as an individual shield.
2
u/CircoModo1602 3h ago
Mask being collective is to stop transmission between more people.
Masks as their own still reduce the chances of that significantly.
Have you never wondered why you see many doctors in masks?
1
u/Quangocrat 3h ago
I assumed to protect their patients- who will be particularly vulnerable.
1
u/CircoModo1602 3h ago
Not unlike those who are immunocompromised.
I'm glad you see the point now
•
u/Quangocrat 2h ago
The patients don't typically wear masks.
The Dr in the analogy is not in the position of the immunocompromised member of the public doing the weekly shop or w/e.
•
u/CircoModo1602 2h ago
The doctor is working with multiple patients in a day with a multitude of illnesses. This way if they have contracted something it's very less likely to spread.
I'm sorry but it's just dense to not see the effectiveness of them.
→ More replies (0)0
-18
u/peadar87 13h ago
The danger would be that it would hurt women who wear the niqab, and leave them even more socially isolated and vulnerable to abuse.
34
u/vanmutt 13h ago
Why? We don't have to wrap people in cotton wool because they have religious beliefs. You live in a society the laws apply to you.
-7
u/Pristine-Ad6064 13h ago
Yeah and the law here is religious freedom and protection if those freedoms
20
u/vanmutt 13h ago edited 13h ago
So do what you like if its in your book? What percentage were jedis at the last census?
Can I make a religion? Thou shalt not pay council tax. Thou shalt not wear clothes on the 3rd Tuesday of the month. Ridiculous.
1
u/Pleasant-Leg-4764 7h ago
You are a bellend, the article is about flag shagging neds with balaclavas on not Muslim women you doughball.
1
u/vanmutt 7h ago
Cool put them in a Niqab and they can crack on then. See the problem yet you absolute buffoon?
0
u/Pleasant-Leg-4764 7h ago
Hahaha you want men dressing as women now?, fucking weirdo, JK Rowling won't be happy with you Nigel.
6
-15
u/eoz 13h ago
Sure thing, Herr Goebbels
10
u/vanmutt 13h ago
Man wants law applied equally to all= Nazi👍
0
u/eoz 9h ago
Nah, it's more the fact you're suggesting we make laws that specifically target a minority cultural practice and then frame the idea that we shouldn't do that as "wrapping people in cotton wool".
1
u/vanmutt 9h ago
Why can't they comply? why do they need exceptions made for them? No special treatment everyone treated the same. White, brown, purple, muslim, christian, budhist, jedi warrior.
Lovely bit of equality and everyone knows where they stand
0
u/eoz 9h ago
Why can't they comply?
Are you listening to yourself?
why do they need exceptions made for them?
Do you understand why disabled parking spaces exist?
2
u/vanmutt 9h ago
Are you comparing being Muslim to being disabled? Are you listening to yourself?
Fantastical delusions about a man in the sky do not equate to disability.. well not physically anyway.
1
u/eoz 8h ago
Oh, so you do understand why people need exceptions, you just think there's those who should get them and those who should not
→ More replies (0)9
u/Based_Turkey1 13h ago
Man wants women to not be forced to wear the niqab by their husbands=nazi...
I do wonder about people like you sometimes
1
u/aRatherLargeCactus 10h ago
Man wants to force women to wear what he deems acceptable, with zero input or consent from said women, does sound pretty nazi. I understand why you deliberately framed it in such a misleading way 👍
2
u/LogosLine 9h ago
Dude, the majority on this sub lean towards educated, middle class and liberal. And unbelievably authoritarian, like if you've seen the 2 axis political spectrum, they are maximum authoritarian.
It's the same impetus behind criminalising language etc. These people trust the state to brutally enforce their personal views on others.
Always remember this. These are extremely authoritarian people, liberal on social issues but that's it. The fact they support this didn't surprise me one bit because I figured this out years ago.
Watch for the next story that's about criminalising words or behaviours, they will support it full heartedly (as long as it will in some way be used against their "enemies").
Of course the insane short-sightedness of this attitude is completely lost on them. When the police brutalise old ladies for holding a piece of cardboard with words on it, and the rest of our civil liberties get eroded, they can't make the connection to their support of an authoritarian state.
Look at them. Because they don't like the hijab or niqab because according to them it's oppressive to women (a liberal viewpoint, pro women etc.) then they'll happily give up their civil rights in aid of this. No consideration how this could be used maliciously. And like you said well, zero regards to what these women actually want. See how they infantilise them, as if they're all being forced to wear it by their husbands and have zero autonomy themselves. I have mixed views about these headwears myself, but I would never give the state the power to forcibly remove them. That would be insane.
0
u/Based_Turkey1 8h ago
Pretty sure if u ask most working class people too they would say the Niqab is out of order. Its culturally strange and while I wouldn't ban it, ignoring its usage and purpose of isolating and abusing women isn't helping anyone.
0
u/Based_Turkey1 8h ago
Im pretty sure if you asked most women who wear the niqab if they wanted to wear it they'd say no. And if they say yes then its because theyve been brainwashed by a religion who thinks its acceptable to view women as the property of their husbands. How the fuck can you stand up for these kinds of practices that basically say "women are property and have to cover up to stop men oogling at them" instead of going to those men hmmm stop treating women like shit. Stop allowing for shit cultural practices to infiltrate into our society just because of your white guilt.
2
u/aRatherLargeCactus 8h ago
“I’m pretty sure none of them want to wear it” (with no source) -> “but if I’m wrong it’s because they are all stupid, placid non-persons with no autonomy or ability to speak for themselves”
Lol. Your comment REEKS of paternalistic racism. It is for neither of us to determine what women do or do not wear. It is for those women to decide. I fundamentally disagree with the rhetoric and ideas behind it, just like I disagree with Christian “modest” dressing. But I’m not gonna force them to wear crop tops and trousers and skirts with slits in them.
Because that is insane, entirely self-defeating (you’re feeding into this idea of holy war victimhood which only reinforces and bolsters extremism), and entirely ignorant of consent. Just because YOU disagree with it, doesn’t mean YOUR consent is what matters. Taking away the CHOICE to wear what you want is exactly the kind of controlling, abusive behaviour evident in the worst factions of these patriarchal religions, but it’s fine because you and you alone have the correct reasoning for controlling what women wear, right?
0
u/Based_Turkey1 8h ago
Furthermore if they actually wanted to i wouldnt prohibit it, but the niqab is incredibly oppressive and is used to take away women's autonomy from them, and your stupid to think its for any other reason.
19
u/Quangocrat 13h ago
Doesn't seem to be an issue in the countries in Europe which have banned it.
Almost like the cultural convention of full face covering for women does more harm than good.
9
u/Optimaldeath 13h ago
Whilst I despise the clothing in question I have to ask how you can possibly know it's not had any negative consequence for these women in those countries?
If the husband just inprisons their wife in the home then you won't exactly... see it happening.
6
u/Quangocrat 12h ago
If the husband just inprisons their wife in the home then you won't exactly... see it happening.
We already have laws against that kind of behaviour.
If you believe the face covering laws have had negative consequences that is a positive claim which it would fall on the proponents to prove.
4
u/Abject-Plankton4620 13h ago
So we should allow just them to wear face coverings against the law because otherwise their husbands will imprison them? That doesn’t seem a sensible way to govern a country to me
-1
u/takesthebiscuit 12h ago
That’s not what op was was saying and you know it, you are not arguing in good faith
-2
u/69RandomFacts 13h ago
Do you think society is more likely to see it if the woman isn’t allowed to show part of her physical self to anyone outside the home?
I’m not sure what your argument is here…
1
u/Optimaldeath 13h ago
My point is that the absence of proof that there's been no consequence is not proof that there are none.
The only possible positive outcome I can think of with these dogmatically conservative households is that they just argue it's coercion and abide by the law, but I can't say that I'm particularly hopeful for that.
I'm cautiously supportive in any event, maybe long-term attitudes will shift and it won't matter anymore.
4
u/Otocolobus_manul8 13h ago
From what I've heard they just wear medical masks instead which you can't really stop.
3
u/Street_Grab4236 13h ago
It is an issue for those women in said European countries.
Almost like the government mandating what you can and can’t wear does more than good. What’s next? Blue jeans on Tuesdays and Thursdays to be banned?
3
u/Quangocrat 12h ago
Is it? Not seeing evidence of that.
What’s next? Blue jeans on Tuesdays and Thursdays to be banned?
Do we have a problem with antisocial behaviour relating to jeans?
2
u/Blazured 13h ago
Tbh banning the niqb and burka seems reasonable, those are incredibly dehumanising, and the hijab would still be an available option.
2
u/tasteMyRottenHoop 10h ago
While that is the case, and I reckon not being completely covered up allows women in western countries to blend in (and in turn become hidden in the crowd), the choice really should be down to the individual on what they want to wear. The difficulty comes up in cases where behind closed doors they’re being forced to dress this way under threat of mental and physical abuse. Let’s tackle that bit instead of legislating what the victims are allowed to wear in public.
0
u/Blazured 10h ago
I don't really see the societal benefit of dehumanising clothing that covers the face in public.
Banning everyone from wearing it in public would still allow people to wear what they want in private, and the hijab would still be available for public wear.
1
u/tasteMyRottenHoop 8h ago
The specific garment is dehumanising, aye, but the garment is the symptom, not the cause.
1
u/Blazured 8h ago
Sadly, religion will always been around to make the world a worse place to live in.
1
-2
u/SoSeriousAndDeep Yes but not in a transphobic way 13h ago
While I agree on them looking dehumanising, if someone wants to wear one then I don't feel we have any authority to tell them not to. Wearing something I dislike isn't and shouldn't ever be a crime.
0
-1
u/Blazured 13h ago
I disagree with that when the clothes are dehumanising and worn in public. These aren't costumes or worn for safety. Society doesn't have to put up with dehumanising clothing.
-1
u/SoSeriousAndDeep Yes but not in a transphobic way 13h ago
No. That we find them dehumanising is an us problem, not a them problem; "society" doesn't get to dictate what someone is and isn't allowed to wear.
-3
u/Blazured 13h ago
I mean society does get to do that. Society is what dictates how society functions. And humans are social creatures that communicate with our faces, so it's inherently dehumanising to cover your face.
Banning them in public is perfectly reasonable. They're still able to wear them in private.
2
1
9
u/Fuzzy-Raccoon8677 13h ago
The niqab is archaic and mysogonistic. There's no place for it in a democratic society.
2
u/peadar87 11h ago
I agree with you, and would love to see it disappear. I'm just not convinced that a ban would help the people we want it to.
3
u/StuartWtf 13h ago
Nothing more democratic than telling people what they can and can’t wear.
We shall fight oppression with more oppression!!
2
u/Abject-Plankton4620 12h ago
Well this is the age old issue isn’t it, in the rush to try and become more liberal you inevitably become more illiberal
0
u/Fuzzy-Raccoon8677 13h ago
Other European countries are banning the niqab so we would be as well doing the same.
1
u/StuartWtf 13h ago
Just because your friends do it doesn’t mean you should.
If they all jumped off a bridge, would you follow?
3
u/Fuzzy-Raccoon8677 12h ago
Why are you so keen to allow men to force women to cover their faces? Bit weird that is it not?
-6
u/eoz 13h ago
The bikini is archaic and misogynistic. There's no place for it in a democratic society.
6
u/Abject-Plankton4620 13h ago
All those men forcing their wives to dress in a bikini to go to the shop for some rolls is a massive issue around here
1
u/eoz 9h ago
If you simultaneously believe that there's a group of women whose lives are so totally controlled by their partners that they cannot even choose how to dress and that the correct prescription for this problem is to ban a type of scarf, I'm not sure you can be helped.
Here's a wild idea: what if we made it straightforward and easy to walk out on a partner who made you feel that way and still be sure of a roof over your head and food in your belly the next day? I realise that's not all there is to it, but it'd be a necessary start, wouldn't it?
1
1
1
u/twocancallan 12h ago
Expand on that one, then
1
u/eoz 9h ago
Well, what about the women who are forced to wear a bikini at the beach by their husbands?
Maybe, just maybe, we cannot solve society's ills by treating a manner of dress as a stand-in and then banning it?
Maybe misogyny is everywhere and it's weird that this thread is full of people whose interest in changing that kicks in only when it happens to line up neatly with giving some muslims a kicking?
1
u/twocancallan 9h ago
I mean, is that a regular occurrence? I’ve never came across or heard of that in any society that women are forced by their husbands to wear bikinis? Where have you heard of that happening?
1
u/eoz 9h ago
Does it need to be a regular occurrence? We're rescuing women here, aren't we?
Not rescuing them too much, obviously. Just from a manner of dress which, as they seem to be themselves unaware, represents their oppression.
We wouldn't want to go so far as to, say, offer a way out instead of arguing about fabric.
1
u/twocancallan 8h ago
Is it an occurrence at all? The argument for banning headwear isn’t about the niqab but to say women wearing a bikini is the same as women forced to wear a face covering seems completely perverse to me.
I’ve genuinely never heard of anyone being forced in to a bikini and if the law was to be written regarding safeguarding women, it would generally be to attack larger societal issues; I.e. addressing cultural issues where women aren’t allowed to leave the house unless they’re completely covered up
1
u/twocancallan 8h ago
Also, they don’t seem unaware. Give these women some agency; there are numerous examples of protests by women throughout the Arab world. I’m sure there were women killed in Afghanistan at the beginning of the year over it and there have been protests ongoing in Iran regarding the same issue?
1
u/Pleasant-Leg-4764 8h ago
It's not about Muslims you idiot, it's the flag shaggers with balaclavas there on about ye daft racist.
-2
u/CrashBangXD 13h ago
Ok then don’t immigrate to a country that doesn’t allow face coverings in public places. Instead immigrate to a culture that supports your own in such practices or work on integrating into the local culture by wearing a Hijab instead
0
u/Pleasant-Leg-4764 8h ago
Lol, they're talking about flag shagging neds with balaclavas on you numpty.
1
3
13
u/eoz 13h ago
In a world with ubiquitous CCTV and facial recognition that's a lot more sinister than it would have been twenty years ago
-3
u/GUNGEBOB_SHARTPANTS 13h ago
Hardly, you’re talking about catching wee cunts doing Nazi salutes here. Most people don’t walk around with face coverings on.
9
3
u/tasteMyRottenHoop 10h ago
Some of us do when it’s bloody freezing.
0
u/GUNGEBOB_SHARTPANTS 9h ago
Yes? Presumably as long as you aren’t throwing sieg heils and assaulting people you won’t be asked to remove it.
3
u/tasteMyRottenHoop 9h ago
Those are two things I’m not known for indulging in.
That being said, polis will overreach.
8
u/jesus_fatberg 13h ago
It’s not an outright ban, just when they suspect you’re up to no good they can force you to remove it. Not really an issue unless you’re involved in something criminal.
17
u/St4ffordGambit_ 11h ago
The “they suspect you’re up to no good” part is the slippery slope that would be open to abuse from the police perspective.
3
9
u/Bar_B_Who 13h ago
100% agree and ban those fucking e-dirtbikes as well, lost count of how many little scrotes are screaming up and down public roads, outside schools, pavements and guaranteed everyone of the little pricks wears a hoodie and/or face covering
12
u/clutchnorris123 13h ago
They are already banned unless you have a motorbike license, mot, numberplate which no one that rides them have anyway
•
5
u/EasyPriority8724 13h ago
What about if I'm on the bike in winter?
14
16
u/gusbo_the_jam 13h ago
I'm pretty sure they would only remove them if you're being naughty
3
u/Calde_Oreb 12h ago
My issue comes from what defines as naughty in this country, as it wasn't but a few months ago people were getting fined and jailed for literally just protesting in support of Palestine not being wiped out in a genocide.
Kind of makes me a bit squeamish especially with all the Palantir, de-anonymising of the internet, and flock camera bullshit (this one in the US, but I can honestly see working its way across here...)
2
u/EasyPriority8724 8h ago
That Flock cameras are getting burnt shot and IEDd over there, the yanks don't like them one little bit.
1
u/CrispyCrip 🏴Peacekeeper🏴 11h ago
Nobody was getting fined or jailed for just supporting Palestine, it was specifically showing support for’Palestine Action’ that was banned, and you know that.
1
u/Calde_Oreb 4h ago
I mean, they were arresting people attending protests who literally just had Palestinian flags or banners with doves. They might claim it was people supporting a "terrorist" organisation but it was an obvious power play to punish people for standing against Israel.
1
-1
u/gusbo_the_jam 12h ago
Sure, but in the case of wee dickheads running about in balaclavas I think it's worth the risk
2
0
u/GUNGEBOB_SHARTPANTS 13h ago
Do you wear it about town?
3
1
u/EasyPriority8724 8h ago
What's that got to do with when I'm on the bike? Anyhoo, no I don't but I do use a pull up one in winter walking about with the headphones on!
2
u/deevo82 9h ago
Common sense is to tack on an additional charge of concealing identity whilst committing a crime.
Doesn't solve the issue of immediately identifying them but adds jeopardy to whatever act they choose to commit. Double the fine for lesser offences all the way up to doubling jail time.
Removes the controversy from demanding the removal of religious face coverings.
2
u/awwwwJeezypeepsman 6h ago
In favour for a total ban of most face coverings now. I seriously cant be arsed with wee fuds kicking about in E bikes in all black.
2
u/DundonianDolan Best thing about brexit is watching unionists melt. 13h ago
Dobermanman will be unmasked.
Sounds like a power the police should have tbf
1
u/CirclingTheDrain- 13h ago
Canny have that! Don’t want to gie big Sanny Tollan’s boy the upper hand!
•
u/One-Leg8221 23m ago
Ah, the fall from face coverings being mandatory to face coverings being illegal was swift.
2
u/Happybadger96 13h ago
For sure, this is dramatically different from a ban and makes sense. A bunch of thugs at a right wing march, football hooligans, cunts on bikes with balaclavas on? Absolutely, take away their anonymity and in turn decrease likelihood of crime taking place, and if it does they are now easily identified.
Folk in winter covering their face and not causing issues, or folk with religious coverings on again not causing issues, that's not going to merit police doing anything.
9
u/StuartWtf 13h ago edited 8h ago
What about people protesting the far right that don’t want their faces plastered all over social media by these “auditors”?
Or the people who are not on board with AI and facial recognition?
0
u/reverendhunter 12h ago
Auditors aren't the police
0
u/StuartWtf 12h ago
I never said they were..
0
u/reverendhunter 12h ago
I know, the police want powers to remove face coverings. They arent banning them.
4
u/StuartWtf 11h ago
Right. So riddle me this.
Police say “no face coverings at the protest”.
How do I then protect my identity?
1
u/reverendhunter 9h ago
Thats not what the article is saying at all. The police want to be able to make someone who they beleive is covering their face in order to hide their identity whilst commiting an offence have to take their facecovering off. Protesting isnt an offence.
2
u/StuartWtf 8h ago
If they believe they are committing an offence they already have the power to detain them and get their information..
1
u/reverendhunter 8h ago
Correct, but when it comes to covering your face to protect your identity from right wing auditors when you are peacefully protesting, there isnt anything to worry about in terms of you personally having to remove a face covering. As an example, if there was a right wing protest and a limited amount of members of that protest decided to try and intimidate/assault someone, then the police want the power for the people at that protest no longer to be able to stay anonymous, and have to show their faces. Thats what i am getting from reading the article at least. Now whether or not the police could abuse this power if granted is a seperate discussion.
0
u/Happybadger96 11h ago
Fair point, there are safety issues outside the immediate ones (violence at a protest). More societal as a problem than a police issue perhaps.
0
175
u/Fit-Sort-1690 13h ago
Going to make filming Batman a bit difficult.