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 or 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.

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 advice.


This pages exists to help those wrongly challenged. In other words, genuine cases where people who cannot wear one. Others who can, we 100% recommend that they should. Please stick with all good professional health 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.


Apparently an ex-member of UnitedPeople could be connected to the public releasing of the leaflet you see below. It's come from an apparent art-right group with apparent views that border on lunacy.

If you are handed this leaflet - treat it as you would treat any piece of rubbish to be put in the nearest bin to you.

WE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS LEAFLET AND WHAT'S MORE, WE WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH THOSE PRODUCING IT. THEIR EXTREME VIEWS ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY UNTEDPEOPLE - AND MOST ASSUREDLY NOT WANTED. There are some - a lot in fact - crazy crack-pot claims on the form below. It is the stuff of raving and unfounded madness. 



We would like to give big thanks to Aidan O'Brien (Twitter LINK) for rightly drawing our attention to the alt-right leaflet above. We were unaware of it but when drawn to it by Mr O'Brien, and a further error on our page, we immediately too steps to correct/clarify matters. Mr O'Brien was 100% right to point certain matters out and we thank him for it.

Sadly, when we tried to clarify more matters, Mr O'Brien raised, perhaps in a poor attempt to tar all with same brush, then blocked us from posting a further response to him, using very poor language. Unfortunate but we still wish him well.