Here is how you do, on grounds that come from autism work too.
To Livingston Designer Outlet, a central shopping mall there, today Jul 16:
Almondvale Boulevard is a perfectly publicly open street. I walked round the corner to check.
Exit is not like entry. The emergency conditions around entry, around controlling numbers and hand sanitising and enforcing masks, are well known and everyone can see that they would justify limiting entry to the points where those things are organised. Entry enters us into the situation of your shoppers' health. Exit does not. Exit is our return to the outside world and simply ceasing to be your concern.
Hence, no health protection is achieved at all by forbidding exit at any unlocked door. Indeed oppositely, that keeps us mingled inside your premises for longer. If a person sent from one exit to another is infective, they infect the folks around them during that unnecessary walk. Frustration and rational anger caused by it will increase involuntary face touching, and with Covid, that increases both infectivity and personal infection risk.
Nothing is achieved at all, and your shoppers' health is risked more, by forbidding exit at the door on the corner of Almondvale Boulevard and calling it only a staff exit. It does not lead to a special staff space, it leads straight onto a public street that is open. Ordering us not to exit there constitutes confining the public unexpectedly inside a potentially infective space against our will. There is no functional or health difference whatever between staff and shoppers leaving the premises at that exit.
If you have a guy there preventing entry, you are perfectly able to count us out there if that matters, which it appears not to as I could see no one counting us out at the Almondvale Avenue entrance.
Hence it would be an act against public health, suable by anyone infected as a result, to put on any airs and graces whatever of having in theory the power to decide to do it: and to make any other response whatever including none than to stop this oppression. The following particular responses, in taking part in autism work I have flagged up as being exploitations of vulnerabilities, then cited that because of the vulnerable groups' invisibility, that in fact establishes that these responses can never be given to any of the public at all, about anything ever. On Covid related matters, it also would be suable acts against public health to give any of these responses, instead of automatically only the answer of upholding personal fairness:
- Be noncommittal,
- Use the word "unfortunately" or any synonyms of it,
- Deny that they should do anything or answer substantively until an indefinitely deferrable eventuality,
- Ignore, or omit to answer, any of the entire content of the evidence available from the person being answered,
- Declare unilaterally that any step not reasoningly accepted as upholding personal fairness is "their decision",
- "I'm sorry but .." or "I'm afraid .." or "I/we note your comments..." or "I understand how you feel but..." a tough bruising assertion of decision not to fix it,
- Declare unilaterally that any of these types of answer, or any answer not standing up to reasoning, is a last word,
- Assert that these are what people will do,
- Give no answer at all because of being prevented from giving these types of answer,
- Declare any matter of fairness closed, or unilaterally close down contact, before its entire content has been fairly answered, and at a stage preventing this from being ascertained from logical scrutiny of answers given.
It is always right to end with that notice, passing it on until its observation by all bodies engaging with the public becomes generally established.
Maurice Frank
Jul 17. This is not an answer. This attempts to play the device of decision assertion while blaming the government for it. They are perfectly capable of including the corner exit in a footfall count. Notice no mention at all of the practicalities of using that exit, or of the face touching point:
Good morning, thank you for your email. We would advise the following points:
- In relation to the new operating procedures within the Outlet, we are following Scottish Government guidelines
- We have implemented a one way system within the Outlet to assist with social distancing
- We are managing capacity in and out of the building via automatic footfall counters
- We have sanitisation stations available throughout the Outlet, including exits
- The exit door has been chosen to support guests accessing the south car park and public services, along with access to The Centre
- The welfare, safety and wellbeing of both guests and staff are at the forefront of the decision making.
Kind Regards,
Morag Eadie
Centre Administrator – Livingston Designer Outlet
