Using Mould Killller Spray On Car
Motoring8 mins ago
Should this shopping arcade have apologised?
29 Answers
They implemented their own rules (no hoodies) and she was carrying a potentially dangerous weapon.
What ever happened to equal rghts?
:-)
http://news.bbc.co.uk...idgeshire/8407201.stm
What ever happened to equal rghts?
:-)
http://news.bbc.co.uk...idgeshire/8407201.stm
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Oneeyedvic. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I’ve no particular views on the shopping centre’s ban or their subsequent apology. It is yet another example of life in Britain where, in order to counter a threat by a particular group of people, others who in no way fit their description or exhibit their behaviour are penalised.
I’m rather more concerned with the part of Vic’s question and some of the responses:
“...she was carrying a potentially dangerous weapon” (by which I assume you mean her walking stick). Virtually everything, including a box of tissues (the contents of which can be stuffed into a person’s nose and mouth to asphyxiate them) is potentially dangerous.
“...why was she wearing a hood in doors”
Why shouldn’t she? Why do Muslim women wear veils indoors? Why do Sikh men wear turbans indoors? Answer – because they choose to, just as Mrs Harden chose to wear her hood.
The trick is to recognise what people and what situations are potentially dangerous, and not to cover everybody with the same blanket of suspicion just because they exhibit one or two of the traits that some criminals or anti-social misfits do and just because you are unable to do anything a little more imaginative or intelligent.
This sort of suspicion and presumption of guilt leads not only to situations such as that described but also to situations where a school in Cambridgeshire this week announced that parents of pupils would not be allowed to cross the threshold of the school property for any reason (such as to speak to the Head Teacher or their child’s class teacher) unless they had received CRB clearance. Wonderfully sensible - and action which I am sure will save countless children from being slain, tortured or abused.
I’m rather more concerned with the part of Vic’s question and some of the responses:
“...she was carrying a potentially dangerous weapon” (by which I assume you mean her walking stick). Virtually everything, including a box of tissues (the contents of which can be stuffed into a person’s nose and mouth to asphyxiate them) is potentially dangerous.
“...why was she wearing a hood in doors”
Why shouldn’t she? Why do Muslim women wear veils indoors? Why do Sikh men wear turbans indoors? Answer – because they choose to, just as Mrs Harden chose to wear her hood.
The trick is to recognise what people and what situations are potentially dangerous, and not to cover everybody with the same blanket of suspicion just because they exhibit one or two of the traits that some criminals or anti-social misfits do and just because you are unable to do anything a little more imaginative or intelligent.
This sort of suspicion and presumption of guilt leads not only to situations such as that described but also to situations where a school in Cambridgeshire this week announced that parents of pupils would not be allowed to cross the threshold of the school property for any reason (such as to speak to the Head Teacher or their child’s class teacher) unless they had received CRB clearance. Wonderfully sensible - and action which I am sure will save countless children from being slain, tortured or abused.
Sorry you feel that way, Ankou.
I was not seeking to compare the garments or the purposes for which they are worn. I was trying to suggest that people do perfectly innocent things simply because they choose to and should not have to justify their practices in the circumstances under debate here.
What about if I say “Why do people wear overcoats indoors” (as many do in enclosed shopping centres) or “Why do people wear Ugg boots in the summer?”
Wearing a hood does not make one a thug any more than wearing a veil makes anyone a terrorist. Just consider these two scenarios:
1. As explained in the link provided by Vic, a shopping centre experiences trouble from some people, many of whom wear hoods. The centre promptly bans all people who wear hoods.
2. A large city experiences a major terrorist attack on its transport system where all the perpetrators are shown to be dark-skinned men carrying rucksacks. The city promptly bans all dark skinned men carrying rucksacks from using its public transport.
Action taken to supposedly combat scenario two would not be tolerated (despite the consequences of a repeat performance being far more serious). Whereas some respondents here seem to think that the action taken by the shopping centre under scenario one (regardless of whether Mrs Harden’s aim was to seek self-publicity) to be perfectly OK.
If dark-skinned men were prevented from travelling on public transport just because they have a beard and carry a rucksack there would (quite rightly) be outrage. Such indiscriminate action is not permitted. So why does this shopping centre believe it is OK to ban all people wearing hoods because some people who do so cannot behave themselves?
More intelligent screening is needed to avoid situations such as that described.
I was not seeking to compare the garments or the purposes for which they are worn. I was trying to suggest that people do perfectly innocent things simply because they choose to and should not have to justify their practices in the circumstances under debate here.
What about if I say “Why do people wear overcoats indoors” (as many do in enclosed shopping centres) or “Why do people wear Ugg boots in the summer?”
Wearing a hood does not make one a thug any more than wearing a veil makes anyone a terrorist. Just consider these two scenarios:
1. As explained in the link provided by Vic, a shopping centre experiences trouble from some people, many of whom wear hoods. The centre promptly bans all people who wear hoods.
2. A large city experiences a major terrorist attack on its transport system where all the perpetrators are shown to be dark-skinned men carrying rucksacks. The city promptly bans all dark skinned men carrying rucksacks from using its public transport.
Action taken to supposedly combat scenario two would not be tolerated (despite the consequences of a repeat performance being far more serious). Whereas some respondents here seem to think that the action taken by the shopping centre under scenario one (regardless of whether Mrs Harden’s aim was to seek self-publicity) to be perfectly OK.
If dark-skinned men were prevented from travelling on public transport just because they have a beard and carry a rucksack there would (quite rightly) be outrage. Such indiscriminate action is not permitted. So why does this shopping centre believe it is OK to ban all people wearing hoods because some people who do so cannot behave themselves?
More intelligent screening is needed to avoid situations such as that described.
-- answer removed --
i'm not really disagreeing with you new judge. these are the rules of the arcade and they are just exercising that rule withour being selective. an old bird got narked, so what, the question was about an apology being required, i don't think it was.
the rights and wrongs of the overriding rule are neither here nor there to me, but presume there are plenbty of notices and they apply to everyone.
quite why this merited any news coverage at all is the real crime.
the rights and wrongs of the overriding rule are neither here nor there to me, but presume there are plenbty of notices and they apply to everyone.
quite why this merited any news coverage at all is the real crime.
Well at least they're not imposing one rule for some and another for the rest.
@ New Judge - There is a world of difference between a hood or a burkha and a sikh turban. The former cover the head and a good deal of the face. The turban is little more than a hat, worn with the sole purpose of keeping hair tidy and thus the appearance smart. Extend the rule to hats and you'd be ruling out just about every flat-cap wearer and newborn baby in town, not to mention police and CSOs. That would even prohibit the Queen.
@ New Judge - There is a world of difference between a hood or a burkha and a sikh turban. The former cover the head and a good deal of the face. The turban is little more than a hat, worn with the sole purpose of keeping hair tidy and thus the appearance smart. Extend the rule to hats and you'd be ruling out just about every flat-cap wearer and newborn baby in town, not to mention police and CSOs. That would even prohibit the Queen.
The reason it merited coverage, Ankou (and remember, Vic’s link was to the BBC, not the Daily Mail) was precisely the one I have mentioned.
Authorities in the UK seem unable to prevent crime by conventional means (that is, having a decent police presence in public places so that miscreants stand a reasonable chance of being apprehended, and deterrent sentences handed down to those convicted). As a result places like this shopping centre are increasingly taken to implementing measures which discriminate against law-abiding people simply because of what they wear or what they do or how they appear.
Another example that readily springs to mind is the proposal to control anti-social behaviour among people who drink more alcohol than they can handle by raising the already punitive level of taxation on booze, thereby penalising the vast majority of people who manage to behave themselves after having had a drink. Furthermore, it will not have the desired effect anyway.
It is not a crime to wear a hood, nor is it a crime to drink alcohol. The fact that a number of people who wear hoods or drink alcohol cannot behave is no reason to stigmatise or penalise those who can.
The particular issue in question is no big deal when taken alone, but people seem to have been brainwashed over the past few years into accepting all these measures “because it must be good for us”.
Well it’s not, and it is about time we all woke up and smelt the coffee.
Authorities in the UK seem unable to prevent crime by conventional means (that is, having a decent police presence in public places so that miscreants stand a reasonable chance of being apprehended, and deterrent sentences handed down to those convicted). As a result places like this shopping centre are increasingly taken to implementing measures which discriminate against law-abiding people simply because of what they wear or what they do or how they appear.
Another example that readily springs to mind is the proposal to control anti-social behaviour among people who drink more alcohol than they can handle by raising the already punitive level of taxation on booze, thereby penalising the vast majority of people who manage to behave themselves after having had a drink. Furthermore, it will not have the desired effect anyway.
It is not a crime to wear a hood, nor is it a crime to drink alcohol. The fact that a number of people who wear hoods or drink alcohol cannot behave is no reason to stigmatise or penalise those who can.
The particular issue in question is no big deal when taken alone, but people seem to have been brainwashed over the past few years into accepting all these measures “because it must be good for us”.
Well it’s not, and it is about time we all woke up and smelt the coffee.
Quite so, saxy_jag.
Some establishments ban the wearing of hats for the same reason that some ban hoods. And in many of them them there is no differentiation between baseball caps (which I think is the main target of the rule) or any other headgear.
A few months ago a branch of Wetherspoons appeared in the press for having turned away a person wearing a hat (contrary to the rules in that branch) because she had lost all her hair as a result of chemotherapy. She presented no threat to the order of the pub, but, like Mrs Harden and her hood, had unfortunately become tarred with the same sticky brush.
Just another example to demonstrate my point.
Some establishments ban the wearing of hats for the same reason that some ban hoods. And in many of them them there is no differentiation between baseball caps (which I think is the main target of the rule) or any other headgear.
A few months ago a branch of Wetherspoons appeared in the press for having turned away a person wearing a hat (contrary to the rules in that branch) because she had lost all her hair as a result of chemotherapy. She presented no threat to the order of the pub, but, like Mrs Harden and her hood, had unfortunately become tarred with the same sticky brush.
Just another example to demonstrate my point.
Whilst the rule is clear, it is unnecessary.
It could not be imposed if it was based gender, race or religion. No matter how much the shopping centre could prove that all of its troubles were perpetrated by white boys, all white boys could not be excluded. The authorities would have to find some other way to deal with the problem.
So why should it be possible to impose rules based on apparel when there is as much logic to banning hoodies as there is to banning white boys?
Selectivity would work if the target was people misbehaving instead of people wearing hoods. It just needs a bit more thought and effort.
It could not be imposed if it was based gender, race or religion. No matter how much the shopping centre could prove that all of its troubles were perpetrated by white boys, all white boys could not be excluded. The authorities would have to find some other way to deal with the problem.
So why should it be possible to impose rules based on apparel when there is as much logic to banning hoodies as there is to banning white boys?
Selectivity would work if the target was people misbehaving instead of people wearing hoods. It just needs a bit more thought and effort.
Exactly - I think you've got it Ankou.
Not all people who wear replica football shirts misbehave. Not all black boys misbehave. Not all people who wear hoods misbehave. There is no justification for imposing a blanket ban on any of these groups.
That's all from me - I've get to get my hoodie on and go down to Wetherspoons for fifteen pints of lager and a curry!
Not all people who wear replica football shirts misbehave. Not all black boys misbehave. Not all people who wear hoods misbehave. There is no justification for imposing a blanket ban on any of these groups.
That's all from me - I've get to get my hoodie on and go down to Wetherspoons for fifteen pints of lager and a curry!
Latest Posts
News10 mins ago
Crosswords27 mins ago
ChatterBank31 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles41 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.