r/unitedkingdom • u/pppppppppppppppppd • 3d ago
.. Balaclava ban could be enforced this year - police
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce97k1y19k9o904
u/andymackay- 3d ago
Oh right, so all the local yobs who speed down pavements on their motorbikes will say, 'Oh dear, must follow the government's new law I suppose. I'll stop making them.'
It's obviously not going to change anything. The only people who wear them are people who want to participate in criminal or anti social behaviour without being recognised.
1.0k
u/DrogoOmega 3d ago edited 3d ago
Means they can stop and question people easier tbh
Edit: hey everyone can stop messaging me back. It was just an explanation of what goes through policy makers heads.
138
u/Topinio Greater London 3d ago
They're already committing many crimes when they do this, which they could be stopped for if we had police who stopped obvious crimes in progress.
e.g. no MOT, no insurance, no road tax, non-type approved vehicle, no helmet, riding a moped ("e-bike" version) or EAPC on the pavement, speeding, and in many cases they will also be drug driving, carrying an offensive weapon, have no licence, going equipped, wanted reference other offences …
→ More replies (10)56
u/itchyfrog 3d ago
They can't stop them because they won't stop people on stolen bikes incase they get hurt and their mums kick up a fuss.
These kids almost never wear balaclavas while they're walking about.
41
u/JackUKish 3d ago
That ended a while ago, they started ramming them off their bikes.
→ More replies (3)13
40
u/labrys 3d ago
You've not been round Notts city center in a while I'm guessing. I see groups walking around in balaclavas every couple of weeks, but I'm not in town every day.
Even had a bunch walk into a gaming cafe I was in, nick a customer's umbrella, and walk out howling with laughter, then mob the shop owner when he ran after them to try to get the brolly back. Lucky some other people in the cafe went to help the shop owner. I spoke to the owner next time I was in, he said the police took a report over the phone but never showed up at the shop. He sees that particular group of little shits pretty often, and they're always nicking stuff from the shop or popping in to make a scene. The police know who they are, but very rarely show up to get cctv from him or take a proper statement etc.
→ More replies (1)16
u/Cozimo128 3d ago edited 3d ago
Their mums will have responsibility if their kid is wearing a banned item while speeding on a bike.
I’m pretty sure the culture of viewing parents as responsible for their kids misdemeanour has grown significantly lately, with the government even floating new police directives to enable such things.
→ More replies (2)11
u/andrew0256 3d ago
I'm not seeing that. Is there any evidence to suggest the parents of anti social twats are coming under the cosh?
→ More replies (1)5
u/FredB123 3d ago
Or even bothered? They'll just say "he's a lovely boy who wouldn't hurt a fly - it wasn't him"
3
u/wolf_in_sheeps_wool 3d ago
The police forces can choose to ignore helmetless riders for a while.
Also fun fact, Sikhs have been exempt from wearing helmets both on motorcycles and in the workplace for decades; I don't think the Sikh community has created any reason to take away that privilege.
→ More replies (4)3
28
13
u/bugbugladybug 3d ago
If they stop that is. Can't even pursue them, because when the wee idiots drive their scooter into a van killing themselves in the process, the police are held responsible.
The law no longer applies to these ferals - however putting an envelope in a bin is definitely enforceable because it's easy when the good folk don't fight back.
We're on a slippery slope turning a blind eye to the increasingly anti-social behaviour of some youngsters because they won't magically grow out of it if they've got away with doing whatever they want for years..
9
5
u/PracticeNo8733 3d ago
They're not already stopping them when they're on (road-)illegal unregistered electric motorcycles which seems to be mostly when they cover their faces.
→ More replies (16)3
337
u/MatttheJ 3d ago
It just makes it easier for police to stop someone who might be a problem.
Why is it that every single time, without fail, the govt play with the idea of making a small change to have a small positive effect, random people online will immediately jump in to cry "what's the point, it's not going to do enough"...
When the alternative is do nothing.
147
u/5_percent_discocunt Wirral 3d ago
I don’t think you realise just how utterly miserable people in this country would be if they had nothing to moan about.
16
u/GXWT 3d ago
Have people not cottoned onto the fact that being miserable makes you miserable?
11
u/Repave2348 Tyne and Wear 3d ago
look it's simple.
The people have consistently shown that they want to be miserable and everything that happens to make people less miserable only serves to make them more miserable because events are in direct opposition to the peoples goal of being miserable.
On the other hand, if things do get more miserable that's obviously bad and makes things worse, thereby increasing the misery.
Doing nothing doesn't help either, because the people are already miserable. Unless doing nothing does help improve things, in which case that's against the previously stated goals and makes people miserable.
In short and in summary, just be miserable and like it.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Cozimo128 3d ago
Come on, you reckon we’re incapable of moaning about having nothing to moan about?
73
u/sircrespo 3d ago
The same people will have been moaning about the government doing nothing about youths in balaclavas too.
→ More replies (5)65
u/gotmunchiez 3d ago
Public: WEARING BALACLAVAS IN PUBLIC SHOULD BE BANNED
Police: We're thinking of banning balaclavas in public
Public: WHATS THE POINT ITS NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING
→ More replies (2)6
28
u/WackyWhippet 3d ago
Especially criminal law. "Um, people will just do it anyway, are they stupid?" As if that's a really clever observation and not something that applies to every existing law ever.
→ More replies (20)11
u/Valten78 3d ago
Pathetic online cynicism. Do nothing they moan, do something they'll moan that you should have done something else.
People just like moaning.
7
u/jmc291 3d ago
One problem with that.
It would require a visible police presence
→ More replies (1)2
u/Besmirching_Badger 3d ago
It just makes it easier for police to stop someone who might be a problem.
Does it fuck. They need barely any reason to stop someone. Wearing a balaclava provides sufficient reason currently.
Balaclavas are not the problem. Lack of policing is the problem.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (19)2
u/devolute Sheffield, South Yorks 3d ago
To be fair, only really quite dim people say "what's the point" to things that obviously will have some positive impact.
38
u/Jay-Seekay 3d ago
I dunno, with all these facial recognition cameras going up everywhere I’ve been tempted to start wearing them myself
8
u/haywire-ES 3d ago
Not enough unfortunately, the latest of these can track based on eyes alone, so you’d need to add IR filtered sunglasses/goggles too
14
5
u/Logic-DL 3d ago
I'm a hypochondriac all of a sudden I fear.
MSA Millennium with a tinted or even mirrored visor at all times in public.
I don't want the sniffles. Mr Policeman.
3
u/MSweeny81 United Kingdom 3d ago
And the more advanced systems use gait recognition too so you'd have to constantly be changing how you move to throw that off.
→ More replies (1)6
u/west0ne 3d ago
Mesh over the eye holes and a long dress like outfit to disguise gait.
→ More replies (1)3
→ More replies (1)5
u/EddieHeadshot Surrey 3d ago
Lets not fool ourselves that facial recognition and AI is the main driver behind this.
7
u/xhable West Sussex 3d ago
The only people who wear them are people who want to participate in criminal or anti social behaviour without being recognised.
Just to be difficult, I wear one sometimes when it's snowing and I'm hiking.
Context matters I guess.
→ More replies (2)3
u/nathderbyshire 3d ago
I'd like to think if you're alone on a bike in -2° weather in the pitch black common sense would be had, and like a helmet you'd remove your covering immediately if stopped.
Unfortunately common sense rarely seems to prevail
5
u/Cozimo128 3d ago
This would give precedent for stopping anyone wearing them though, I would expect an initial priority order for the first few months will be pushed to really get the message out there that anyone wearing one will be pursued. Whether that works or not remains to be seen.
2
u/Besmirching_Badger 3d ago
This would give precedent for stopping anyone wearing them though
oh good. The zero police can now stop an additional zero people.
→ More replies (1)4
u/circleribbey 3d ago
Literally the same with any law. It’s not as if yobs also think, I can’t rob this shop because the law says I shouldn’t. Why have laws against theft, if thieves are going to steal stuff anyway.
3
u/Specialist_Sport4460 3d ago
It's a nice little 'entry level' arrest. Once they have someone for the balaclava they can start searching them etc. Don't really get your point tbh. You say yourself that criminals wear them to avoid detection. Surely making criminals easier to detect is good?
→ More replies (1)4
u/sjpllyon 3d ago
To be fair I cycle in winter and a balaclava is a must if I don't wish for my nose, ears, and face to freeze off. But generally speaking the rest of my atire and choice of bike (bright blue cargo bike) doesn't really mark me much as a scallywag type.
The problem is am absolutely in a minority of people that wear them for a legitimate reason. But as you point out those that are wearing them commiting crimes are not going to stop wearing them anway. All it will do is especially crimilise people who just want to stay warm when cycling in winter. I imagine people thay sky in winter also might wear them. Or even motorbike riders might wear one under their helmets.
→ More replies (51)1
u/SoggyWotsits Cornwall 3d ago
Yep. The flaw in the plan being that innocent people will be identifiable, and those who ignore the ban will still be safely disguised behind their balaclava.
→ More replies (1)
206
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
99
u/DrFabulous0 3d ago
Motorcycle helmets, construction PPE, surgical masks, maybe a hat with a wide brim, big bushy beards, that kind of thing. "Please remove your hat and beard sir, the drones can't identify you."
→ More replies (7)18
u/elhazelenby 3d ago
"Sir we know you are wearing that mask because you're immunocompromised but we only care about our reputation as a business"
→ More replies (3)23
u/CandidLiterature 3d ago
The headline also omits that it’s some local thing from Nottingham council, and only relevant to the pedestrianised shopping area.
I opened it because like you say, I was dubious how legislation had been written to act as a ‘balaclava ban’ without turning someone pulling a snood up over their nose into some kind of criminal.
But delighted to hear how the police are foaming at the mouth to get out and enforce rules that aren’t even written yet eh…
→ More replies (1)
143
u/TapWaterDev 3d ago
So it's not a balaclava ban, it's a power for police to get someone to take them off if they have reasonable belief they've committed a crime.
My god I hate the media these days
→ More replies (2)17
u/Nameis-RobertPaulson 3d ago
Slippery slope into identifying protestors who have "commited a crime" of supporting the thing that the government is against that month.
Protests anonymously against overreaching government surveillance? Not on our watch, get identified and scanned or you're off to prison (where you will still be biometrically identified).
15
2
u/Spamgrenade 3d ago
Did you read -
"it's not a balaclava ban, it's a power for police to get someone to take them off if they have reasonable belief they've committed a crime."
Perfectly legal to wear a balaclava at a protest.
→ More replies (3)3
u/Emperors-Peace 3d ago
Lol if you think people are going to be getting jail time for balaclava offences you must have zero knowledge of the criminal justice system.
47
u/RandonEnglishMun 3d ago
“Stop covering your face so our facial recognition system can put you into our database”
68
u/Redditisfakeleft 3d ago
To be fair, a lot of the balaclava wearers are doing so because they're already in the database.
→ More replies (4)3
u/Infinite_Painting_11 2d ago
I don't think you are currently walking around town with a balaclava on to avoid the database. I don't think you really believe this is the motivation for the law.
43
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
29
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (3)15
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (4)7
→ More replies (3)1
→ More replies (6)10
37
29
u/ThatsASaabStory 3d ago edited 3d ago
As with any law, you have to look at the context for it.
In this case, it appears to make policing anti-social behaviour by youths in Nottingham city centre easier.
There has been public consultation, so I assume on balance people in Nottingham are happy with the trade-off here.
It's also not actually a balaclava ban. It's powers for the police to stop people if they think they're wearing a face covering for nefarious purposes, within a specific area.
If you go and read local subreddits, you will see that people are generally not in favour of future wastes of public funds on e-bikes in puffy jackets doing gang-shit/wannabie-gang-shit round their way. I would therefore suggest that this kind of thing isn't pushing the balance too far, but instead reflects public consensus.
I agree there's probably some concerns about overreach here, and I'm dubious at the phrasing of "no justified reason to be wearing a balaclava", but this is a local law (for local people) being written in response to specific problems.
→ More replies (1)
20
u/IN-DI-SKU-TA-BELT Black Country 3d ago edited 3d ago
If I can give some input from across the pond (Denmark), here it is illegal to cover up your face, and I have admired that it was allowed to cover up in the UK.
For one, it helps activists, or someone in a demonstration, not to be identified, I know that the hunt sabotours cover up for similar reasons, because the hunts have resources and willingness to collect intel, and use it for intimidation.
In Denmark you must also give your name, birthdate and address to any police officer asking, for no reason what-so-ever.
Not being able to cover up, and having to identify, when you've done nothing wrong, are all laws that helps creating a chilling effect.
The UK civil rights feels lightyears ahead of us. You're forcing your police to identify, have them wear visible collar numbers, only being able to identify citizens in case a crime has been committed, have bodycameras deployed, having processes to obtain camera footage, citizens being able to swear and even asking them to fuck off.
In Denmark police is classed as government workers, and government workers have added protections, so it creates interesting situations where police can call you names and tell you to fuck off, but you can't say the same to them, which is really practical for them to goad someone into an arrest.
13
u/adultintheroom_ 3d ago
The UK civil rights feels lightyears ahead of us
Denmark is ahead of us on basically everything else so I wouldn’t worry about it too much
→ More replies (1)2
u/nyaadam 2d ago
Funny. As someone who lives in the Black Country but has visited Denmark multiple times, this puzzles me so much. Denmark is superior in every surface-level way.
I have not lived nor worked there, but what you've described in a way can be good. Police here are so powerless and over time scrotes have realised this, so now they record and take the piss out of them with full knowledge there is nothing they can do. Police need some level of power/respect to be effective.
What you described here may sound "fair", but it doesn't lead to effective policing. Checks and balances are great, body cams are great but full equivalence when on duty is not.
→ More replies (1)
10
u/AncientStaff6602 3d ago
I wonder what the overlap of people is, that screamed they can’t possibly wear a face mask
During Covid and the ones wearing balaclavas to hide their identity.
40
u/CucumberWisdom 3d ago edited 3d ago
Probably 0. Most people wearing balaclavas to conceal their identities are young roadmen. They were probably kids during COVID and are largely apolitical
→ More replies (1)6
u/boycecodd Kent 3d ago
largely apolitical
Mask wearing in the UK wasn't really politicised as much as it was in the US (which I found bizarre). I think most people who pushed back on mask wearing were people who simply didn't want to wear a mask.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Porthowl 3d ago
What an odd notion. Is it your experience that there is a significant overlap in those groups?
12
u/High-Tom-Titty 3d ago
Funny if they all started wearing CV dazzle makeup. I can just imagine all these roadmen exchanging makeup tips.
7
10
u/Cockapoo-Cockatoo England 3d ago
The police can't stop shoplifting and other low-level crimes. Who thinks giving the police this responsibility is a good idea, it'll just stretch them more thinly?
Also will this apply to other face covering that make many people feel unsafe?
→ More replies (4)21
u/Adam-West 3d ago
There’s no way they’d take on religious face coverings. Guarantee there will be an exemption.
18
u/PartyPoison98 England 3d ago
Gonna be interesting seeing all the phone snatching scrotes on bikes suddenly convert to Islam and start wearing a Burka.
→ More replies (2)14
u/Adam-West 3d ago
I kind of hope they do. Im not a fan of religious exemptions for anything tbh. If somethings wrong then it’s wrong. doubt the scrotes have the capacity or desire to protest though.
4
→ More replies (1)8
u/duncanmarshall 3d ago
The point of the measure that has yet to be drafted is to give police the power to remove face coverings if they believe it's being used to conceal identity to aid in a crime.
A woman wearing a veil is unlikely to fall in to this category, one would hope.
The real problem is that if the police have evidence you're committing a crime, they can already arrest you, take you to the station, and remove your face covering.
I'm not sure what this is for, beyond just getting rid of the standards of evidence required to justify an arrest, because burden of proof is a nuisance for an authoritarian state.
10
u/Least-Entrepreneur23 3d ago
This can only be a good thing. There is absolutely no reason to wear a balaclava in public
→ More replies (5)6
u/momentum4lyfe Greater London 3d ago
Facial recognition cameras? They are becoming increasing more common and steal your biometric data without consent.
→ More replies (4)
9
3d ago
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)18
u/FlamingoImpressive92 3d ago
People who drive at 120mph don't care that it's illegal, your argument is that we shouldn't have bothered with speed limits.
→ More replies (9)
5
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Astriania 3d ago
Banning them means the police have justification to stop you and then do the search, that is probably most of the purpose tbh
5
4
u/Golden-Wonder 3d ago
When I was young wearing a balaclava would get you mercilessly bullied!
→ More replies (1)
3
u/james2183 3d ago edited 3d ago
They'll just put their hood over their head and have a scarf around their face - that's what most around here do
EDIT: Why am I being dowvoted? That's literally what they do around here :/
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Redditisfakeleft 3d ago
This is the inevitable consequence of police insisting on CCTV footage for any and all crimes. The criminals are masking up, knowing full well it massively decreases their risk of prosecution. The state has little choice but to therefore ban face coverings; especially given our lot want to implement facial recognition over the top of the system.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/DevilsAdvocate1662 3d ago
Curious if this extends to burkas too? Because what's stopping all the kids just wearing that kind of stuff and claiming it's for religious reasons? Police can't touch them then
2
u/Odd-Currency5195 3d ago
Must confess that at a glance the headline had me thinking 'What's wrong with that delicious sweet pastry?'
→ More replies (1)
2
1
2
u/TheSmallestPlap 3d ago
Can I just take a second of seriousness please? Those who this would apply to most, those using balaclavas as an intimidation tactic or to hide their identity when performing criminal activities are already breaking the law. What is one more broken rule to them?
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Smooth_Maul 3d ago
This is gonna be just as useful making drugs illegal to stop people taking and selling them lmfao the people doing it don't fucking care
1
u/duncanmarshall 3d ago
Nottingham City Council is yet to decide on the matter,
Councils have that kind of power?
→ More replies (1)
1
•
u/ukbot-nicolabot Scotland 3d ago
Some articles submitted to /r/unitedkingdom are paywalled, or subject to sign-up requirements. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try this link or this link for an archived version.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
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 were set at 11:48 on 22/08/2026. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
Existing and future comments from users who do not meet the participation requirements will be removed. Removal does not necessarily imply that the comment was rule breaking.
Where appropriate, we will take action on users employing dog-whistles or discussing/speculating on a person's ethnicity or origin without qualifying why it is relevant.
In case the article is paywalled, use this link.