@DC_Police
Bringing this to your attention as a matter of urgency, as ought to have been done by the news outlet.

Some facts for public:
= Shopkeepers do NOT have a choice and MUST obey the law on face coverings
= Surgical (paper) masks protect the wearer https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/spanish-shop-exeter-masks-coronavirus-4577813

= Fabric masks protect others from the wearer
** NB "mask" whether paper surgical or fabric non surgical means in all cases a 3 layer mask, clean at time of proper use.

= Contrary to the business owner's opinion, masks DO provide protection to individuals and the wider public

= It IS the responsibility & duty of business operators and their appointed deputies (store manager etc) to comply with and ensure visitors comply with the rules re:

-Face coverings
-Covid19
-Health & Safety of staff AND visitors

just as it is e.g. with Hygiene & Food Hygiene

= The business owner clearly understand precious little law, including his legal obligations & responsibilities; he makes several incorrect statements in the article, capable of endangering public health. This suggests a dangerous, total ignorance of his duty of care to others.

I'll come back to that but first on the matter of rights and freedoms which he clearly does not understand either.

= There is no such thing as a "freedom of choice". We are free to choose generally, though this is subject to limitations & restrictions.
= Rights vary in strength

This subject is too vast to cover here but I'll do my best to clarify relevant points.

=The most relevant Right for our purpose here is the absolute Right to Life, enshrined in various Conventions, Charters and upheld fiercely. Perhaps understandably it outranks all other Rights

The Right to Life and guidance on it can be found here:
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights-act/article-2-right-life

= Absolute Rights, also known as inalienable Rights, cannot be interfered with in all but the rarest of predetermined situations. Such "derogation" is beyond and irrelevant to the matter at hand.

= Other rights, such as the Freedom of Expression are known as qualified rights

=This means that while your own thoughts cannot be controlled and you are free to make choices accordingly, the ability to impart them on others is subject to certain duties and can be restricted by a government acting reasonably and proportionately in pursuit of certain aims.

= The aim relevant to this thread is that of the protection of public health.
An explanation of the Freedom of Expression (FoE) can be found here:
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights-act/article-10-freedom-expression

The use of the words "rights" and "freedoms" interchangeably to describe one another can be confusing.

I find it helpful to think of Rights being that from which Freedoms are derived but it works the other way round too. The perceived Right to privacy for example, is in fact the expectation of continued respect for a thing's confidential nature.
It locks horns frequently with FoE

= Absolute Rights trump other rights

= So in the scenario we have, a perceived & non existent "freedom of choice" will lose out spectacularly to the right to life of all other people.

I'm deliberately avoiding going to deep on any of this while trying to provide enough clarity

So, rights & freedoms briefly dealt with its perhaps a good time to point out that almost all of our rights & freedoms come from outside of UK. Practically none are given by the State. Perhaps just as well but don't get me started on that one!
Let's look at the common law next.

Quick disclaimer: I am NOT a practising lawyer. I studied BA Hons English Law, now known as LLB. Being the required degree to open up a pupillage to Barrister-dom I have an awful lot of law in my head which I try to keep current. But total mental collapse cut that path short.

So it's important for me to point out that my opinion while being of a professional tone is only a personal opinion and must not be relied upon no matter how accurate. I defer to & welcome correction by legal professionals where appropriate - their minds being even more full!

Anyone in need of legal advice should always contact a registered, accredited, practising solicitor in the first instance.
I'm confident my ramblings would accurately match their professional opinion but as a non practising legal geek I'm duty bound to inform you.
On that note...

Duty of care. In brief: one day a snail was found in ginger beer, purchased and drank by a customer in Scotland.

The case: Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100

Here is where the tort (wrong) of negligence, duty of care, and the neighbour principle have their roots.

It's an interesting read if you fancy it.
The neighbour principle establishes as a "neighbour" anyone who : might reasonably be foreseen as being so (negatively) affected by my actions or inactions as to make me owe them appropriate consideration.

In a nutshell. A clear one.

It's more important that people understand than for me to quote verbatim.
The significance in our context is that a duty of care is owed to anyone who may suffer harm or detriment as a result of your (in)actions, within reason.

Which brings us to shopkeepers.
And pandemics.

And face coverings. And an apparent disregard for the well being of the elderly, vulnerable and essentially everyone by an amateur epidemiologist who is as dangerously ignorant of the facts surrounding #Covid19 as he is of the law and his duty of care to visitors and wider public

The funny thing about ignorance though - it's no defence to law.
Being ill informed, dumb, selfish, uncaring or just plain ignorant won't cut it.

Nor is it any more excusable to be knowledgeable and informed but choose to abandon a duty of care, break laws, or spread falsehoods.

So my aim here is threefold: to make the business owner aware of all that he doesn't know, inform the public & other businesses of facts & applicable law, inform the police of the wrongdoing.
Why? To protect public health - namely the thousands of people liable be harmed by this.

Those in the shop. Those they meet. The relatives of those people who will become infected by the virus being brought into their home.

It's that unreasonable or unforeseeable? No. A mere child would understand that.

Moreover, this shop owner may care more for profit than lives-

but I don't. Some of those lives are dear to me. All are dear to someone.

To quote a bs percentage to justify endangering a group of people you care nothing for isn't just irresponsible or stupid. It's mercenary and ignorant

I hope to fix this so I ask @DC_police to investigate

Thanks for reading. It would serve the public also if @DevonLiveNews could address the matter & promptly take huge positive steps to undo its unwitting complicity in endangering the public by irresponsibly publishing the story without at least laying down the facts with clarity.