Residents across the city back the new measure that will be enforced soon.
Nottingham is the first UK city to issue a ban of this kind (Image: Getty)
A ban on certain face coverings will soon be enforced across a major UK city. Balaclavas and “skeleton masks” will be banned in Nottingham as part of what the police are calling a crime crackdown. The city is the first in the UK to impose such a restriction, with Nottingham City Council leader Neghat Khan urging that residents should be able to go about their lives “without feeling frightened or unsafe”.
Police and community protection officers in Nottingham will have the authority to demand that the face coverings be removed where they have reasonable grounds to believe they are being used to hide an individual’s identity for criminal or antisocial purposes. Those who refuse to comply with the rule could face a £70 on-the-spot fine, while prosecution carries a maximum penalty of £1,000.
Cllr Khan said: “We are taking decisive action and becoming one of the first cities in the country to introduce a restriction of this kind. This is not about telling people what they can wear or targeting those who have a genuine reason for covering their face.
“It is about giving authorised officers the power to act where a face covering is being used to help conceal a person’s identity in connection with crime or antisocial behaviour, or where it is worn in a manner that intimidates, harasses, alarms or distresses others.”
Over 90% of the more than 2,200 residents who responded to a public consultation backed the measure. However, it does not ban all face coverings. Exemptions have been made for religious, cultural, health, work, weather and personal safety purposes.
Officers on the ground will judge whether a covering is being worn for a legitimate reason.
The ban is part of the police’s crackdown on crime and anti-social behaviour (Image: Getty)
Data compiled by Nottinghamshire Police recorded upwards of 180 incidents in the city centre linked to face coverings or balaclavas in the year to June 2026.
The ban is part of Operation Reclaim, a multi-agency initiative tackling youth antisocial behaviour, illegal e-bikes, drug dealing, rough sleeping, weapon carrying and retail crime across the city centre.
Nottinghamshire Police and Crime Commissioner Gary Godden said: “This restriction makes it easier for police and partners to stop crime and antisocial behaviour in its tracks by taking away the veil of anonymity that some people try to hide behind.”
Balaclavas and Masks Will Be Banned in UK City – But Burqas Are Exempt
A new crackdown on face coverings has come into force in Nottingham, giving police and authorised council officers powers to require people to remove balaclavas and other masks in certain circumstances.
The measures have attracted considerable attention because religious face coverings, including garments worn for religious reasons, are exempt.
The policy has consequently triggered a wider debate about public safety, religious freedom, personal identity and the limits of police powers.
However, describing the measure simply as a blanket “ban on masks” is misleading.
The Nottingham rules are designed to target face coverings when officers reasonably believe they are being used to conceal someone’s identity in connection with crime, antisocial behaviour or intimidation.
People wearing face coverings for legitimate reasons, including religious, medical, health, work or other specified purposes, are not automatically subject to the restriction.
The new powers form part of a wider attempt by Nottingham authorities to address concerns about antisocial behaviour in the city centre.
New Powers in Nottingham
The restrictions were introduced through an amendment to Nottingham’s city-centre Public Spaces Protection Order.
Under the new rules, police and authorised council officers can require someone to remove a face covering when they believe it is being used to hide the person’s identity for the purpose of committing a crime or behaving antisocially.
The powers also cover circumstances in which a covering is being used in a way that causes intimidation, harassment, alarm or distress.
Officers can issue on-the-spot fines of £70 and may confiscate face coverings.
People who repeatedly breach the restrictions could face further legal measures, including a criminal behaviour order that could restrict their access to the city centre.
The policy therefore focuses on the circumstances in which a face covering is being used rather than treating every covered face as unlawful.
That distinction is important.
A person wearing a medical mask, for example, is not automatically committing an offence.
Nor is someone wearing a religious garment simply because it conceals part or all of their face.
Why Balaclavas Became a Focus
Nottingham authorities say concerns about balaclavas have increased over the past year.
Evidence collected by Nottinghamshire Police and the council identified more than 180 city-centre incidents involving face coverings or balaclavas between June 2025 and June 2026.
Around three-quarters of those incidents occurred around major city-centre locations including Old Market Square, Clumber Street and the area around the Victoria Centre.
Police have linked some incidents involving masked individuals to antisocial behaviour and criminal activity.
Nottinghamshire Police City Commander Superintendent Chris Pearson said officers had seen young people wearing balaclavas in connection with incidents involving drug dealing, weapons and disorder.
The police argument is that concealing a person’s identity can make enforcement more difficult.
The new powers are intended to remove that anonymity in situations where officers believe it is being used to facilitate wrongdoing.
Not a Blanket Ban
Despite the dramatic headlines surrounding the policy, Nottingham has repeatedly stressed that it is not introducing a blanket prohibition on face coverings.
During the consultation process, the council said the proposed restriction would not apply to face coverings worn for legitimate reasons.
These included religious, cultural, health, work, weather and personal-safety purposes.
The final rules that came into force similarly provide exemptions for religious, health, medical and work-related reasons.
This is why a person wearing a religious face covering is treated differently from someone wearing a balaclava to conceal their identity while committing antisocial behaviour.
The legal distinction is based on the purpose and circumstances surrounding the covering.
Why Burqas Are Exempt
The exemption for religious clothing has become one of the most controversial aspects of the debate.
A burqa is a religious garment that covers the body and face, leaving a mesh panel through which the wearer can see.
Under Nottingham’s rules, a person wearing a face covering for religious purposes is not targeted by the new restrictions.
This reflects the government’s wider approach to face coverings in protest legislation.
The 2026 Crime and Policing Act provides new powers concerning concealed identities during designated protests, but specifically excludes people covering their faces for religious, health or work-related purposes.
The principle behind the exemption is that the law should distinguish between deliberately concealing one’s identity to avoid accountability for criminal conduct and covering one’s face for an unrelated legitimate reason.
That distinction has not ended the political debate.
Instead, it has become one of its central issues.
The Argument Over Consistency
Critics argue that if the ability to identify someone is considered important for public safety, exemptions based on religion should also be questioned.
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage recently called for a nationwide ban on full-face coverings in public, including religious garments such as the burqa.
Farage argued that Britain should not permit people to completely conceal their faces in public spaces.
His intervention followed protests in Dover and Portsmouth in which some anti-immigration demonstrators wore face coverings.
The political debate has therefore brought two very different issues together.
One concerns the use of masks by people who may be involved in crime or disorder.
The other concerns religious freedom and the right to wear religious clothing.
Supporters of the exemption argue that these situations should not be treated as equivalent.
Critics argue that the distinction creates an inconsistency.
What the Government Says
The government’s own legislation provides some context.
The Crime and Policing Act 2026 introduced a new offence concerning concealed identities during certain protests.
Police can designate an area when they reasonably believe a protest is taking place or may take place and that criminal offences are likely to occur.
Within such an area, concealing one’s identity can become an offence.
However, the law explicitly excludes face coverings worn for religious, health or work purposes.
The government says the objective is to prevent protesters from using masks to avoid identification and potential prosecution for criminal offences.
It is not intended to criminalise face coverings generally.
That means the law is based on context.
The same type of physical covering could potentially be treated differently depending on why it is being worn and what is happening around the wearer.
Support for the Nottingham Measures
The Nottingham restrictions received significant public support during the consultation process.
The council said more than 2,200 responses were received during its consultation, with more than 90 per cent supporting police action on face coverings.
Authorities argue that residents should be able to visit the city centre without feeling intimidated.
Council leader Neghat Khan said residents had raised concerns about people wearing balaclavas, skeleton masks and other coverings without what they regarded as a legitimate reason.
The policy is therefore being presented primarily as a public-safety measure rather than an attack on particular groups.
Police have also said officers will use body-worn cameras to provide oversight of their interactions with members of the public.
This is intended to help ensure that the powers are applied fairly and do not disproportionately affect particular communities.
Concerns About Police Discretion
The new powers nevertheless raise questions about police discretion.
An officer may have to decide whether a face covering is being used for a legitimate reason or to conceal identity in connection with antisocial behaviour.
That judgment could sometimes be straightforward.
In other cases, it may be more complicated.
For example, someone could wear a mask because of cold weather, personal safety or another reason that is not immediately obvious to an officer.
The authorities therefore need to ensure that the new powers are applied consistently.
The use of body-worn cameras and formal guidance may provide important safeguards.
The Wider British Debate
Nottingham is not the first British city to introduce restrictions relating to face coverings.
Wolverhampton previously introduced powers through a Public Spaces Protection Order allowing police to require people to remove face coverings when they have no reasonable grounds for wearing them or are deliberately disguising their identity.
Nottingham’s move therefore forms part of a broader local trend.
The issue has also reached national politics.
Farage’s call for a much broader prohibition demonstrates how the question has moved beyond individual city-centre policing.
His proposed approach would go further than Nottingham’s current system because it would also cover religious full-face coverings.
That proposal has generated debate within British politics over how far public-safety concerns should extend into questions of religious dress.
Glasgow Watching Nottingham
The issue may not remain confined to England.
Glasgow City Council leader Ricky Bell has said he is considering similar measures after raising concerns about people wearing balaclavas in the Scottish city’s centre.
Bell said he was discussing public-safety measures with Police Scotland and indicated support for an approach similar to Nottingham’s.
He has linked the proposal to wider concerns about antisocial behaviour, disorder and people’s perceptions of safety in Glasgow.
If Glasgow ultimately introduces comparable restrictions, the debate could expand across the UK.
However, Scotland has its own legal and policing framework, meaning any Scottish measures would need to be considered within that separate context.
The Religious Freedom Question
The exemption for religious coverings raises a fundamental question.
Should public-safety rules treat all face coverings in the same way, regardless of why they are worn?
Or should the law recognise that religious clothing has a different purpose from a mask worn to conceal identity during criminal activity?
British law already contains protections for religious freedom.
At the same time, those protections do not mean every religious practice is automatically exempt from regulation.
The challenge is finding a proportionate balance.
The current Nottingham approach attempts to do this by focusing on behaviour and purpose rather than banning a particular type of clothing.
Whether that approach is sufficiently clear will depend partly on how officers apply it in practice.
A Question of Public Trust
There is also a broader social dimension.
Supporters of restrictions argue that people feel more secure when they can see the faces of those around them.
They say anonymity can contribute to intimidation, particularly when groups of young people gather in city centres.
Opponents may argue that clothing alone should not be treated as evidence of criminality.
This distinction matters because many people who wear face coverings are not involved in crime.
A policy designed to tackle antisocial behaviour therefore needs to avoid creating an assumption that every person wearing a mask is dangerous.
That is one reason Nottingham has emphasised that the powers are targeted rather than universal.
The Politics of Face Coverings
The timing of the Nottingham policy is significant.
Britain has recently experienced heated demonstrations over immigration, with some protesters wearing masks.
At the same time, the government has introduced new legislation addressing concealed identities at protests.
This has made face coverings part of a much broader political conversation about public order.
The debate now encompasses crime, protest rights, religious freedom and questions of national identity.
Different political groups are approaching the issue from different starting points.
Some focus primarily on public safety.
Others emphasise civil liberties and religious freedom.
The Nottingham policy sits somewhere between those positions by restricting face coverings in specified circumstances while preserving exemptions for legitimate purposes.
What Happens Next?
The immediate test will be how the new powers operate on the streets of Nottingham.
Police will need to determine when intervention is justified.
Council officers will need to apply the rules consistently.
Courts may eventually be asked to consider disputes about how the powers are used.
The results could influence other cities considering similar measures.
Glasgow is already watching developments in Nottingham, while national politicians are debating whether Britain should go further.
If the policy is seen as effective in reducing antisocial behaviour, other councils may consider adopting comparable restrictions.
If concerns emerge about disproportionate enforcement or confusion over exemptions, authorities could face pressure to revise the rules.
A Debate Far Bigger Than Balaclavas
The controversy over Nottingham’s new restrictions is ultimately not simply about balaclavas.
It is about how a modern society balances visibility, safety, privacy, protest and religious freedom.
The city has chosen not to impose a universal ban.
Instead, police and authorised officers have been given additional powers to intervene when a face covering is being used in circumstances linked to crime, antisocial behaviour or intimidation.
Religious, medical and work-related coverings remain protected by exemptions.
That means the claim that “masks are banned but burqas are allowed” captures only part of the story.
The more precise description is that Nottingham has introduced targeted restrictions on identity-concealing face coverings in specified circumstances, while recognising legitimate reasons for covering the face.
Whether that balance proves workable will become clearer as the rules are enforced.
For now, Nottingham’s decision has opened a much wider national conversation — one that is likely to continue as other British cities consider whether similar powers are needed and politicians debate how far public-safety laws should reach into questions of personal and religious expression.