The Wearing Of Face Masks

2020 health professionals are advising that facemasks be also worn in order to combat the spread of Covid-19. UnitedPeople does not argue with this stated advice.

  • * We do NOT tell people "Don't wear them". Those that can, should as needed and proper requested.
  • * We do advise citizens to follow all possible health and safety guidelines they can, that are asked by medical professionals to be carried out in the interest of all. It's much appreciated by many with serious concerns & all ages. Thank you all.

What this page solely aims to do, is clarify any possible lies, any deception and state the law word for word as it stands - not as some wrongly PR spin it, by design or by deliberate method! Please follow health professional sensible advice.


Stating the inaccurate.

The text below exists (as of 14th of August 2020) on the regarding mask wearing advice - click HERE to access it. The text we go to for examining, is below. Section "Who should not wear one".

NOTE: the words "has special needs and who may feel upset or very uncomfortable wearing the face covering". By that reading it's inferred that you have to have "special needs", to then may feel upset, etc, wearing one.


The First Clarification.

What is "special needs" as defined as in the law, if it exists there? For that we have to refer to the Statutory Instruments document (LINK) called:


Reasonable Excuse - Section 5. Without prejudice to the generality of what constitutes reasonable excuse for the purposes of Regulation 4(1), a person has reasonable excuse if -

(a) the person cannot put on, wear or remove a face covering -
(i) because of any physical or mental illness, impairment or
disability, or
(ii) without severe distress,

We have deliberate bolded the word "or" because it's very important to note. Look at the text content of the state website (not the act) again. The website states "has special needs and who may etc..."

The state has changed "or" (in the act) to "and" (on the website)... You can suffer from the conditions as act detailed in section (i) or as detailed in section (ii).

According to the actual act text, you do not have to be of both (i) and (ii) to be exempt. See for yourself if you have to. Reread the above act wording. It's there clear to see.

* It's "or" - not "and" as the incorrect government website is saying. A very important legal point incorrectly put out on a state website. Government elected are now spouting (due to own agenda) incorrectly that both must apply for a person to be exempt. The act clearly does not state this.

You don't have to be of total "special needs" (LINK) condition, just to be exempt. In fact, if someone refers to you via "special needs" and you are not of that legal defined category, this could bring up a further case of discrimination and possible defamation, committed - and committed also in an open public place.

* Further reference: "Education For Persons Educational act 2004. LINK

The Second Clarification.

So you have an exemption. In a shopping center, in a shop or other property, who has the right to (a) stop you for not wearing a mask and/or (b) try evict you for not wearing a mask?


...responsible person”, in relation to a relevant premises, means each of the

(a) the occupier of the relevant premises,
(b) the manager of the relevant premises, and
(c) any other person for the time being in charge of the relevant

“worker”, in relation to a relevant premises, means a person working at the
relevant premises under a contract of employment or a contract for service.


(a) = the occupier of a building - living there or even possible owning it.
(b) = the manager of the centre or the shop.
(c)  = another person full-time or temp' put in charge of the location.

The act also states that "worker" means a person working at the relevant premises under a contract of employment or a contract for service. They are separate from those listed as above, that can act questioningly towards you or have the power to call Garda to the current location. The act does not empower others other than the three above listed, to act in making a call for Garda or further reinforcement of any description. Still doubt it? Read the act again. It's very specific.

A security guard is a "worker". A security person is not at any point, a top appointed person of a center/shop, totally over all and everyone that is under it's roof, full-time at any point. A security guard doesn't manage stock control, control deliveries/goods exiting, staff rosters and more. A security guard is in charge of security. They are not in top charge of the total shop/centre and/or all those within it.

The owner or current manager would have to be legal designated and empowered, to be that person over everything - an important legal point as defined by the act - who solely then has the legal authority to call for Garda assistance if thought needed for person who do not have an exemption. Everyone else centre/shop present, does not have that authority.

It's there in the act to see for oneself if read as it is actually wrote - not tried respun to suit an agenda or protect a power tripping ego. Steal something, they have a legal right to call Garda.

Not wear a mask, it's not in the act they are awarded that right UNLESS they seek the approval first of the top most person in charge = owner or manager of the day. That person then must make the call.

NOTE: Unlike current passed legislation that allows specific within it, the removal of persons from public transport for mask wearing defiance, the HEALTH ACT 1947 (SECTION 31A – TEMPORARY RESTRICTIONS) (COVID-19) (FACE COVERINGS IN CERTAIN PREMISES AND BUSINESSES) REGULATIONS 2020 does NOT have within it, the awarding of a legal right, to remove persons from a location.

Again, read the words of the act. Try and find where the act allows a person(s) to be removed by a staff member, security guard, etc. They are not awarded a legal right to remove a citizen by the aforementioned act. It's simply just not there. This omission has very important legal and liability ramifications for someone acting outside the specifics of the 2020 act.


The above has been made available by Tracey O'Mahony,
Barrister-at-Law. B.A., LL.B, B.L. - Twitter: @TraceyOMahony81 - LINK

Upon being stopped for not wearing a mask, you should present a copy of the above, signed and dated. It's possible a person with proper act legislative given authority, might also ask to keep it. We recommended you allow this even though you don't have to. We feel it's better to be polite and professional than cause confrontation to what is likely, a worker just carrying out part of their possible job description given to them. If you are out and about, bring a number of signed copies.

The airport document

Irelands already resident public are being told that those coming in are being told to self isolate or quarantine themselves for two weeks after arriving from hotspot countries. This is being told to the public to reassure them that the state is doing all it can and to reassure them they are further safer for they doing this.

Most do be reassured by what the government says is being done - but then most haven't been given the opportunity to actually see or read the form being given to passengers. It's content (or lack of it) tells a different story.

Examine the above images by clicking on them.

What is NOT in the text or anywhere on the pages, is the following.

1.  No providing of a state quarantine order.
2.  No information on how to quarantine or self isolate.
3.  No 2 week/14 day demand that they must comply with something not actually described.
4.  No mention of face coving method advice or related legislation which they must adhere to like others already in Ireland.

Just to be clear. The forms states that passengers must fill in the form. They are at least required to fill in the form, stating where they can be found for the first 14 days. No mention of quarantining as a demand or even suggestion. Passengers may be contacted with 14 days just to confirm what they put on the form. That's what the form says. Read the exact words as they are wrote.

The form says (under "Offences and penalties") there are (in short) penalties for not filling in the form or providing inaccurate information regarding ability to contact you via the info you detailed.

The form says "a member of An Garda Síochána may direct a person who is not complying with the requirements in respect of this form, to so comply."
- That's what is says - but hang on - where does it actually say what those "requirements" are? We can assume self-isolation or quarantining because we at home already have been told this by TD's and Garda - but where does it says ANY OF THIS on the form they are given. By the way, this is what many passengers are only given. Nothing else in leaflet, form or oral advice or order.

The forms says (in short) that passengers must give info on their location for the next 14 days where they can be contacted for confirming the information on the form as still accurate. Read it, all of it. That's what it says.
* No actual clear legal order or advice, to actually quarantine or self-isolate for 14 days. 

The public are told that's the purpose of the form - but when you actually read it as written, it's all about data confirming a location for 14 days - not about signing a legal agreement confirming a traveler will actually quarantine/self-isolate away from others!

Nothing is said on the form about doing this, how to do it or stating any passed act/law order to do it. Nothing about an order to stay away from others. Nothing at all in hint or clear message.

A passenger from a from another country could read this form as wrote - as only having to confirm where they are staying for 14 days/2 weeks while daily out and about in the capacity of being a tourist or returning person - and that's it.

Face Masks Research

There are still ongoing current debates about the advantage of wearing a facemask. On YouTube, one health specialist reportedly videoed himself doing a 22+ mile run wearing a proper surgical facemask and then reporting that the wearing of one had no significant detrimental affect to him physically or mentally. In another video on Youtube, there is another hospital specialist who puts on six on them in one go and apparently shows with the use of proper monitoring equipment that again, there are no apparent damaging affects.

We state the case that these exist - not that they are true or false in their claims - just that they exist and we are aware of them.

Oddly, since the outbreak of CV19, a lot of research into the disadvantages of constantly wearing facemasks by the public in particular, has disappeared from journals and the research sections of the internet. However, not everything has vanished. After Sars occurred in the 2002-2004 period (the outbreak was first identified in Foshan, Guangdong, China, on 16 November 2002) further research was done on this very matter because people were wearing them for long periods.

The research was carried out by University of Oxford. The result was a seriously detailed paper that started of as follows:

Protective Facemask Impact on Human Thermoregulation: An Overview

The use of protective facemasks (PFMs) negatively impacts respiratory and dermal mechanisms of human thermoregulation through impairment of convection, evaporation, and radiation processes. The relatively minor reported increases in core temperature directly attributable to the wearing of PFMs suggest that associated perceptions of increased body temperature may have a significant psychological component or that regional or global brain temperature changes are involved. Modifications in PFM structure, components, and materials might allow for improved heat dissipation and enhanced compliance with use. LINK

QUOTE: "A total of 195 articles from the literature was retrieved along with 42 web-based relevant articles and one textbook chapter. Of these, 84 literature references serve as the database for this study, including 80 journal articles, 3 electronic references from medical, governmental, and news agency sources, and 1 book chapter"

This was research done between 2011 and 2012, was carried out by skilled trained professionals and they also cite on the Oxford website a very long list of references with triple links to each individual one. We share this information in order so that others can either question it and shoot it down - or confirm its apparent already strong standing amid the medical community of Europe - possibly even further.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.