Quizzes & Puzzles0 min 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 generally agree with the judge, but in this instance I believe a rule is a rule.
If the rules say no hoods then that should stand, if it doesn't then one has to define what type of hood, who is wearing it, do they offer a threat, "is it ok, I only have mine half on and half off".
No stick to the general rule, much easier and everyone knows where they stand.
If the rules say no hoods then that should stand, if it doesn't then one has to define what type of hood, who is wearing it, do they offer a threat, "is it ok, I only have mine half on and half off".
No stick to the general rule, much easier and everyone knows where they stand.
Thing is, judge, if a place said 'no hats', then yes, they'd have to include turbans and bobbies' helmets in that (and sad old men in baseball caps), naturally. And I couldn't agree with that because many, many people who wear hats do so because they want to look smart.
And of course, what we get in such reports is almost always one sided. We only know the 84 year old's story and we only have her word that she never did or said anything to wind up the security guard. Most security guards I know are perfectly reasonable people until someone tries to get clever with them.
And of course, what we get in such reports is almost always one sided. We only know the 84 year old's story and we only have her word that she never did or said anything to wind up the security guard. Most security guards I know are perfectly reasonable people until someone tries to get clever with them.
-- answer removed --
I’m back from the pub (I didn’t get thrown out despite wearing my hoodie).
It’s plain from what theoldgit says that I did not make myself clear. If a ban on people wearing hoods is in place then I agree, it must include all people wearing hoods. My argument is that there is no justification for banning people wearing hoods any more than it is justified to ban black people or those with only one leg.
And this is amply demonstrated by the example in the question and others I have quoted because not all people wearing hoods or hats misbehave and so the ruling is prejudicial.
It’s plain from what theoldgit says that I did not make myself clear. If a ban on people wearing hoods is in place then I agree, it must include all people wearing hoods. My argument is that there is no justification for banning people wearing hoods any more than it is justified to ban black people or those with only one leg.
And this is amply demonstrated by the example in the question and others I have quoted because not all people wearing hoods or hats misbehave and so the ruling is prejudicial.
Judge you are not displaying logic:
1) A shopping center is a private place and as such you are (or should be) aware of any rules. As such shopping centers banned the wearing of hoods because "ordinary" people felt threatened by "hoodies" also when people wearing hoods did perpetuate crimes they couldn't be identified, So you have a choice enter the center and comply or don't enter it's your choice.
2) By asking this lady to remove her hood it is clear that its a rule for all and no discrimination is involved.
1) A shopping center is a private place and as such you are (or should be) aware of any rules. As such shopping centers banned the wearing of hoods because "ordinary" people felt threatened by "hoodies" also when people wearing hoods did perpetuate crimes they couldn't be identified, So you have a choice enter the center and comply or don't enter it's your choice.
2) By asking this lady to remove her hood it is clear that its a rule for all and no discrimination is involved.
Quite right, Dave, there is no discrimination involved (and I don’t think I said there was). But neither is any discretion nor common sense displayed. And that’s my (hopefully logical) argument.
Because the authorities are singularly unable to control crime by traditional methods (which would have involved discretion and common sense) they resort to a “sheep dip” approach which results in the sort of occurrences we see here. Nobody in their right mind would consider banning an 84 year old woman from a shopping centre because she “posed a threat to ordinary people”. But she is banned because, apparently, some people wearing hoods do pose such a threat. So her choice of clothing leads to her being judged in the same light as the miscreants.
Although not central to this argument but since you raised it, your consideration that a shopping centre is a “private place” is incorrect. As far as the various public order legislation is concerned (and I think that is what the genuine “hoodies” are most likely to fall foul of) a shopping centre is a public place (as are the individual shops). Similarly so are pubs, bars, restaurants and anywhere to which the public has general unfettered access. (The question of ownership of the land or property is not relevant). Whilst the owners’ rulings in matters such as this are permissible they are nonetheless without doubt prejudicial. Furthermore they lead to results that those framing the rules almost certainly did not wish and probably, in their haste, never considered would arise.
It’s rather like treating tourists who take photographs of public landmarks as potential terrorists. (Oh, I forgot, we do that as well, so treating people wearing hoods as potential thugs must be all right then).
And all because we cannot deal with crime in an orderly, considered and proportionate manner.
Because the authorities are singularly unable to control crime by traditional methods (which would have involved discretion and common sense) they resort to a “sheep dip” approach which results in the sort of occurrences we see here. Nobody in their right mind would consider banning an 84 year old woman from a shopping centre because she “posed a threat to ordinary people”. But she is banned because, apparently, some people wearing hoods do pose such a threat. So her choice of clothing leads to her being judged in the same light as the miscreants.
Although not central to this argument but since you raised it, your consideration that a shopping centre is a “private place” is incorrect. As far as the various public order legislation is concerned (and I think that is what the genuine “hoodies” are most likely to fall foul of) a shopping centre is a public place (as are the individual shops). Similarly so are pubs, bars, restaurants and anywhere to which the public has general unfettered access. (The question of ownership of the land or property is not relevant). Whilst the owners’ rulings in matters such as this are permissible they are nonetheless without doubt prejudicial. Furthermore they lead to results that those framing the rules almost certainly did not wish and probably, in their haste, never considered would arise.
It’s rather like treating tourists who take photographs of public landmarks as potential terrorists. (Oh, I forgot, we do that as well, so treating people wearing hoods as potential thugs must be all right then).
And all because we cannot deal with crime in an orderly, considered and proportionate manner.
Latest Posts
Computers2 mins ago
My Dearest Friend Ducksie - R I P
ChatterBank6 mins ago
News8 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.