Infringing who,s rights?

[paranha]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7240180.stm

Edited by paranha on Tuesday 12th February 08:59

[Jasandjules]

My first thought was if kids gather in groups of 5 or more in a public place aren't they infringing terrorism legislation anyways?!?! (I've got something in the back of my head from training which was along those lines... a breach of freedom of association..)

Bottom line, if they are standing outside of shops drinking and hassling shoppers and preventing people wanting to go into the shop, then what is the problem with moving them on? I bet a penny to a pound that IF kids were standing outside Council offices and hassling the workers, one of these units would be put up.

[Davi]

it's infringing on their rights to be a scab on society, lets face it that's the most important right of the lot for those in power today.

[JustinP1]

I have actually seen the results of experiments where what is even more effective in dispersing youths is playing unfashionable music!

I can see a run on people buying up the rights to Max Bygraves now...!

[telecat]

The problem with these units is that they don't just target the Teenagers. Kids and Babies with parents and adults under 30 are affected as well. Imagine HMV or Burtons playing a Sound that pushes over 50's away because they don't buy much and cause problems by hanging around in the aisleways.

Edited by telecat on Tuesday 12th February 11:38

[DJFish]

So instead of visibly hanging around in a public place where they can at least be monitored, these yoof are first made to feel victimised and excluded and then moved on to hang around in dark alleys and people's gardens instead.

It's not like they're going to hear the noise and immediately run off to join the Boy's Brigade.

It's like the whole anti-car movement, provide a viable alternative BEFORE you ban whatever it is you're banning this week.

[Jasandjules]

DJFish said:

So instead of visibly hanging around in a public place where they can at least be monitored, these yoof are first made to feel victimised and excluded and then moved on to hang around in dark alleys and people's gardens instead.

.

Monitored by whom?

The ONLY reason shops will do this is BECAUSE their customers approve, and as such the customers don't want to be intimidated by a large gang of brats who are smoking and drinking booze in public.

Oh dear, are the poor little scum victimised.. I feel more for the old people who fear going to their local shops.

And people's gardens are fine, if it's the parents of one of said scrote.

[Davi]

DJFish said:

provide a viable alternative BEFORE you ban whatever it is you're banning this week.

But there is a viable alternative - bring your kids up to not hang around on street corners!

[DJFish]

Jasandjules said:

DJFish said:

So instead of visibly hanging around in a public place where they can at least be monitored, these yoof are first made to feel victimised and excluded and then moved on to hang around in dark alleys and people's gardens instead.

.

Monitored by whom?

The ONLY reason shops will do this is BECAUSE their customers approve, and as such the customers don't want to be intimidated by a large gang of brats who are smoking and drinking booze in public.

Oh dear, are the poor little scum victimised.. I feel more for the old people who fear going to their local shops.

And people's gardens are fine, if it's the parents of one of said scrote.

Generally CCTV coverage includes precincts and shopping centres, and it's invariably the bloody shops that sold them the booze and fags in the first place.

Yes, they probably do feel victimised, just like we do by speed cameras but in the same way that people speed up once past a camera, these things will just move them on and give them an excuse to go and cause more trouble somewhere else.

Personally I think the little sh1ts shoule be gassed at birth, but since people are allowed to pro-create at will and we have to put up with their spawn, I'd rather have them in plain sight then lurking wherever we haven't put up these devices.

Plus there is the intimation that every teenager is a scroat, a tad harsh don't you think?
A bit like these idiots who think every driver is a potential child killer.

Edited by DJFish on Tuesday 12th February 12:29

[telecat]

DJFish said:

Jasandjules said:

DJFish said:

So instead of visibly hanging around in a public place where they can at least be monitored, these yoof are first made to feel victimised and excluded and then moved on to hang around in dark alleys and people's gardens instead.

.

Monitored by whom?

The ONLY reason shops will do this is BECAUSE their customers approve, and as such the customers don't want to be intimidated by a large gang of brats who are smoking and drinking booze in public.

Oh dear, are the poor little scum victimised.. I feel more for the old people who fear going to their local shops.

And people's gardens are fine, if it's the parents of one of said scrote.

Generally CCTV coverage includes precincts and shopping centres, and it's invariably the bloody shops that sold them the booze and fags in the first place.

Yes, they probably do feel victimised, just like we do by speed cameras but in the same way that people speed up once past a camera, these things will just move them on and give them an excuse to go and cause more trouble somewhere else.

Personally I think the little sh1ts shoule be gassed at birth, but since people are allowed to pro-create at will and we have to put up with their spawn, I'd rather have them in plain sight then lurking wherever we haven't put up these devices.

Plus there is the intimation that every teenager is a scroat, a tad harsh don't you think?
A bit like these idiots who think every driver is a potential child killer.

Edited by DJFish on Tuesday 12th February 12:29

And how many parents with pre-teen's will go to shops when their children do not want to go near them because of the noise?? What about the mid-20's, a demographic that the shops want that will not go in. And of course they'll switch them off when school's in because they want the kids about then to sell them food adn drink's at lunch break and home times. It's a broad response to a narrow problem.

[FishFace]

It's an interesting thing, a 'sonic weapon' as Chewbacca says. The assumption that over 20s can't hear over 17.5kHz is total and utter shit. Many people retain good hearing.

The nice accurate scientific graph helps... What amplitude is this at? 35 or 75dB? No one will care about the former but it concerns me if near the latter if babies are near the device. It's hardly going to be good for a baby's very delicate, sensitive hearing.

Oh, as far as the rights argument, how about the right of shop owners in a private capacity to employ one? However, if someone were able to get this pitched against the Human Rights Act I could see it getting smashed as its indiscriminate nature towards a certain group will not be proportionate IMO.