PDA

View Full Version : Caps & Hoodies banned in Bluewater



Odin
11-05-2005, 14:24
Does exactly what it says on the tin - Bluewater have banned caps, hoodies and swearing to crack down on gangs of chavs intimidating shoppers.

BBC - Bluewater bans Baseball Caps & Hoodies (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/4534903.stm)

An interesting move. Still, I'd like to see it apply to the whole country.

Sojourner
11-05-2005, 14:27
Unfortunately, alt kids also frequently wear hoodies.

Still, I imagine the security people can tell the difference. Good move.

Riddy
11-05-2005, 14:36
Hehe, alot like burrberry being banned in glasgow clubs and buckfast no longer being sold in the city center.

arxhon
11-05-2005, 14:42
Because, you know, not wearing caps and hoodies will suddenly make you a responsible citizen. :rolleyes:

A semi-literate braindead hooligan is still a semi-literate braindead hooligan, no matter what he's wearing. At least when they dressed a certain way you could identify them. Now it's just harder to spot them coming.


They claim to have 400 cameras onsite, which is just fantastic; obviously the cameras aren't working. Why not get a bunch of security guards around? :confused:

Bubble Ghost
11-05-2005, 15:22
You do look twice and start scanning for escape routes when you see a huge group of chavs, regardless of whether they're actually going to do anything. That's what's being adressed here, not the actual violence itself.

And really, is seeing someone in a shell suit or baseball cap coming really going to be any defence if he decides that he and 27 of his mates want to share the contents of your wallet? Having been mugged by a gang of eight of the bastards while I was on my own one evening, I can safely say that it's not much help at all.

Banning baseball caps and hoodies doesn't go far enough. I say issue a bounty on them.

Odin
11-05-2005, 15:30
BubbleGhost - that is a great Avatar!

Have to agree, the main point is that you can take away the intimidation factor, and also make it much easier for the security cameras to identify the little sh*ts. I'm not surprised the security cameras haven't been much use - they tend to be mounted above eye-level (and hence above cap level). Some security guards might be a good idea though.


Having been mugged by a gang of eight of the bastards while I was on my own one evening, I can safely say that it's not much help at all.

That wasn't in the Bluewater area was it?


Banning baseball caps and hoodies doesn't go far enough. I say issue a bounty on them.

Bubble Ghost for P.M. !

Jedi152
11-05-2005, 16:42
Have to agree, the main point is that you can take away the intimidation factor, and also make it much easier for the security cameras to identify the little sh*ts. I'm not surprised the security cameras haven't been much use - they tend to be mounted above eye-level
I always understood that they wear caps and hoodies so that they can't be seen by security cameras.

They all like to think they are 'gangsta' too, and thats what 50 cent and his cronies wear. I blame it on the rise of 'gangsta' culture.

Good for Bluewater! Here's hoping that they enforce the ban, and that other shopping centres try it too!

Bubble Ghost
11-05-2005, 16:54
That wasn't in the Bluewater area was it?

No, that was in Bath, the town of No Middle Ground, where everyone under 18 is either a black-enshrouded goth wannabe or a jewellery covered chav with an armour-piercing Bristol accent.

They didn't even do it for the money. I shoved them a fiver and they danced around celebrating - I suppose because it'd probably buy them a new chain each from Burton's - but they only started on me because they felt like punching someone in the head for a laugh. The sickening thing was they were all smaller than me and at least 8 or 9 years younger, and individually I could have wiped the floor with any of them - or even any two or three of them - if they'd tried anything. But with eight of them I had no choice, and you never know if they're going to be carrying knives. Really makes you feel powerless.

salty
11-05-2005, 16:54
As has been mentioned, it will just make them harder to spot coming. It would be more productive to have anyone in a cap or hoody searched on entry with those metal detector thingies so that they could have their Stanley Knives confiscated.

Salty :)

Ethereal Alpaca
11-05-2005, 17:08
A large group of rowdy chavs is a large group of rowdy chavs, baseball caps or no baseball caps.

Wez
11-05-2005, 17:40
The ban is not meant to stop chavs entering the centre.


Guidelines say intimidating behaviour by groups or individuals, anti-social behaviour including swearing, and wearing clothing which deliberately obscures the face such as hooded tops and baseball caps, will not be allowed.

Seems a pretty simple idea to grasp.

I'm not sure how well it's going to be upheld though. When you have 100+ people wearing hoodies/caps, it's not going to be easy to get them all out.

-Wez

tzeentchgiant
11-05-2005, 17:48
While I'm sure it will reduce the anxiety of certain shoppers, it will probably have little effect on how many crimes are commited, in the short term, it just means that more will be caught and delt with.

In the long term the more people punished the less likely they are to do it again, and the numbers of crimes should go down, or at least that's how I see it.

TG

Bubble Ghost
11-05-2005, 17:51
While I'm sure it will reduce the anxiety of certain shoppers, it will probably have little effect on how many crimes are commited

That's all it's supposed to do though.

tzeentchgiant
11-05-2005, 18:19
Have you read my entire post, I stated that it would have an effect in the long term, so no that is not all it's supposed to do,

I hope...

TG

Beefstick
16-05-2005, 19:23
This "chav" thing really perplexes me. I just don't see where the intimidation really is. I guess a mob can be scary, but a couple of dumb white kids trying really hard to look like west coast gangsta's with a british accent just doesn't scare me. I guess I'm missing something, but making a dress code for the mall won't stop a person from being dangerous. I suspect that most of these chavs are just in it for the fashion and aren't really dangerous in any situation. So that particular element will probably be kept out, but the real psychos will just be provoked. I know that there isn't the same violence problems there as we have in the US, perhaps it's just a point of perspective thing. Are all these chavs known to carry big-ass guns? Are there chav gang wars? How often are they actually a danger vs. just being annoyingly stupid.

Scabby
16-05-2005, 19:51
Ditto. Looking at the chavscum website most look like really young and skinny british kids. I guess they can can run around like that as they know most citizenry aren't armed. Much like the recent latino immigration to Kentucky.. they quickly found out they were bringing knives to a gunfight.

i just don't get it

tzeentchgiant
16-05-2005, 19:52
This "chav" thing really perplexes me. I just don't see where the intimidation really is. I guess a mob can be scary,

The intimidation is in the fact that they are brainless, out to impress each other, and their mentality is that doing outrageous things is impressive, and the things they do are detremental to society and particularly vulnerable people in society.


a couple of dumb white kids trying really hard to look like west coast gangsta's with a british accent just doesn't scare me.

Whilst they may share the "we're all west cost ganstas" (note no apostrophe :p ) attitude they don't try to look like them.


I guess I'm missing something, but making a dress code for the mall won't stop a person from being dangerous.

Fair point, but it makes them more identifiable.


I suspect that most of these chavs are just in it for the fashion and aren't really dangerous in any situation. So that particular element will probably be kept out,

If forced into a corner they are all stupid and share the same, aforementioned mentality, so I think that it is fair to generalise about the dimwitted vandals, but in saying that, wearing plastic doesn't make you a ned/chav.


I know that there isn't the same violence problems there as we have in the US,

Well just because they don't carry guns, that doesn't make them friendly happy people, they are still scum, some of them dangerous carrying knives for status and some to harm others.


perhaps it's just a point of perspective thing. Are all these chavs known to carry big-ass guns? Are there chav gang wars? How often are they actually a danger vs. just being annoyingly stupid.

Don't carry guns, more personnal related than gang violence although there are group conflicts.

You nailed it on the head with your last thought, you don't know if something bad will happen until it's happening, the majority of the time they aren't doing something dangerous, but that doesn't mean that they won't be different if you were to approache them.

Have you ever encountered a group of chavs, or are all your statements more obsevatory than actual experience speaking?

Also I feel that this has wandered into something much more paranoid than the simple banning of hoodies and caps, maybe I have also become entirelypatronising, if so I apologise beefstick.

Sorry for being preachy

TG

Odin
16-05-2005, 23:11
This "chav" thing really perplexes me. I just don't see where the intimidation really is. I guess a mob can be scary, but a couple of dumb white kids trying really hard to look like west coast gangsta's with a british accent just doesn't scare me.

Well, I live near Bluewater, and I know of at least 10 - 15 people who have been attacked by gangs of chavs with knives, bottles of acid, rocks and bottles. That includes girls as young as 14 who have been beaten up by as many as 30 chavs and hospitalised - for no reason at all. That's where the intimidation comes in.

Wraith
17-05-2005, 09:46
While I have a distatse of Chavs I think banning certain clothes is the wrong way to go -- I think it's pretty obvious that while 'we can't see their faces' is a reason proposed it isn't in fact the real reason.

If chavs were 'big spenders' it wouldn't matter to the shopping centres what they chose to wear...

I read a newspaper article which highlighted this point --


Guidelines say intimidating behaviour by groups or individuals, anti-social behaviour including swearing, and wearing clothing which deliberately obscures the face such as hooded tops and baseball caps, will not be allowed.

But the article also pointed out the amount of old people still walking about with various caps and other hats on who were not challenged.

Our entire country is intent on scape goating everything on young people and IMHO it's pretty sickening.

I dislike Chavs, and have been attacked by them before but I'll be damned if I support actions which target them specifically because the pathetic, consumerist, pampered section of society can't buy their designer jeans, or slurp their 'latte' without being reminded that there exists people who don't give a ******* about such things.

Beefstick
17-05-2005, 10:23
well, first let me apologize for future typos and such, I'm kinda drunk right now. Secondly, tzeench, don't worry about offending me, I've got pretty thick skin I appreciate candor. Thirdly, I have not ever met a "chav". All of my opoinions are based on what i've heard from you folks. I'ts just rather obvious to me though, tyhat banning clothing won't keep dangerous people away, just the scary ones. I've never been one to be particularly impressed with poeple who try to look scary. Now, certainly some of that is a benefit of my size (6 foot 3' @ 250 lbs), but posers are just that. some loser in a visor, hoody, adn baggy pants isn't gonnna scare me into doing anything I don't want to do without a gun. Here in the states, that is a possibility, but I also own my own guns. Now Odin, I don't want to belittle your position, if you have experience with this gang type activity, I understand it can be rough, and i understand. It's just that the impression i get, is there are groups of little teenagers trying realy hard to look tough, and those types tend to fold under any real pressure. Destroy one of them with one punch and the rest will back off. Onc ethey realize that they moght be the next one to hit the ground with a busted eardrum, they aren't nearly as brave. One thing that surprises me, is the botttles of acid. WTF? Who has a bottle of acid around?

DaViEsW
17-05-2005, 10:47
And thus concludes the Government's plans to tackle crime in today's youth.

Odin
17-05-2005, 12:06
Now Odin, I don't want to belittle your position, if you have experience with this gang type activity, I understand it can be rough, and i understand. It's just that the impression i get, is there are groups of little teenagers trying realy hard to look tough, and those types tend to fold under any real pressure. Destroy one of them with one punch and the rest will back off. Onc ethey realize that they moght be the next one to hit the ground with a busted eardrum, they aren't nearly as brave. One thing that surprises me, is the botttles of acid. WTF? Who has a bottle of acid around?

Good question - you can't exactly pop into your local supermarket and buy acid! I guess they probably get it from the school lab. (probably the only time they ever bother going into school)

It's true that a lot of them will back of once they realise that you're not putting up with any crap, especially in smaller groups. But a lot of them are off their heads on alcopops and various drugs, and don't want to lose face by backing down. It's like a mob mentality - the same reason football matches and protests can get violent. Also, if you're a 14 year old girl (which I'm not!), one punch is definitely not going to make them go away. The only way to deal with is is for society as a whole to say enough is enough, rather than leaving it to the individual to fend for themselves.

Banning the clothes won't reduce the number of tossers out there, but it will mean that they can be identified on any of Bluewater's 400+ security cameras - which will both deter crime, and help ensure anyone commiting crime is caught.

tzeentchgiant
17-05-2005, 12:22
the pathetic, consumerist, pampered section of society can't buy their designer jeans, or slurp their 'latte' without being reminded that there exists people who don't give a ******* about such things.

If you think that then I'm afraid you're a bit ignorant of the situation. The purpose of this scheme is not to benefit the unfortunate wooses from drinking their moca coffees and having a life of luxury in society, it is to help protect the vulnerable.

The reason people do these things is to make others feel safe, not just the coffee drinkers and designer clothes wearers, but those who are truely frighened an concerned by these gangs of youths, the elderly, socially insecure and younger still find people like these intimidating and are scared by them. This is a positive step towards getting rid of them from at least one area of the town.

Also if you think that chavs are people who don't care about labels you are wrong, they steal most of the expensive brands you would see them wearing, well most of the £100+ items they wear. Burbury, berghouse and many others suffer from their plastic fashion that encompasses the entire group.

TG

P.S you got some good points in in your drunken rant beefstick, keep it up.

Minister
17-05-2005, 12:28
I will point out that the purchase of reduce price replicas of the more familiar brand is far more a component of the stereotype than actual theft from the more upscale institutions. By definition, such a person cannot take part in theft of items of any great value from guarded premises, as that would elevate them from the ranks of petty crime into the ranks of more important criminals.

tzeentchgiant
17-05-2005, 12:34
Well if you don't beleive me that's fine, it may not be true in England but up here in Glasgow they all wear genuine berghouse jackets, it's funny because if they get arrested they are sometimes confiscated.

I would say that they are criminals anyway, whether petty or more hardcore arrestible types, also they only steal it once so it is still probably only petty crime.

Here they do steal jackets, it's as simple as going in putting thrm on then doing a runner, nothing to it, even a chav could manage grand theft jacket.

TG

Odin
17-05-2005, 14:42
The reason people do these things is to make others feel safe, not just the coffee drinkers and designer clothes wearers, but those who are truely frighened an concerned by these gangs of youths, the elderly, socially insecure and younger still find people like these intimidating and are scared by them.

Hell, I'm in my 20s and pretty solidly build, and I'm scared sometimes. It's like being threatened by a mob of Burberry-clad Umpa Lumpas with stanley knives.

Minister
17-05-2005, 14:53
Well if you don't beleive me that's fine, it may not be true in England but up here in Glasgow they all wear genuine berghouse jackets, it's funny because if they get arrested they are sometimes confiscated.

I would say that they are criminals anyway, whether petty or more hardcore arrestible types, also they only steal it once so it is still probably only petty crime.

Here they do steal jackets, it's as simple as going in putting thrm on then doing a runner, nothing to it, even a chav could manage grand theft jacket.

TG
True, but this lifts them from the inefective wee gadgie to a true member of the criminal class. Argos jewlery is also a prime component of the standard atire, as I doubt that the majority of these young fellows are posessed of the capacity for jewlery theft.

Delicious Soy
17-05-2005, 15:03
I dislike Chavs, and have been attacked by them before but I'll be damned if I support actions which target them specifically because the pathetic, consumerist, pampered section of society can't buy their designer jeans, or slurp their 'latte' without being reminded that there exists people who don't give a ******* about such things.

Quite frankly I'd rather deal with the docile consumerist horde than the barbaric filth that give many hard working people a bad name. It's odd that you seem to be putting the chavs ability to dress in such a way above peoples personal safety. Then again, if their poor, unemployed and prone to criminal lifestyles its never their fault is it? ;)

Consumerism, while a pretty low philosphy if embraced fully, is far superior to the culture of groups of people who think victimising people when heavily outnumbering them somehow proves their superiority and masculinity. At least materialists are so preoccupied with their attainment of the latest waffle iron they couldn't be bothered fighting anyone.

tzeentchgiant
17-05-2005, 15:10
Quite frankly I'd rather deal with the docile consumerist horde than the barbaric filth that give many hard working people a bad name.

Here Here

Delicous Soy that is what I wanted to say but I couldn't put into words in my previous post.

TG

Beefstick
17-05-2005, 18:59
Now see, I can certainly appreciate not wanting to be in danger, little blue haired old ladies can't do s+++ if a wee thug tries to take her purse, and they do need a place to go as well. But, what kind of REAL criminal hangs out at malls wearing designer clothing? All the ones I know rarely leave their house full of drugs/guns/contraband. When they leave, it certainly isn't to go malling. Aren't these little pukes just like the same rats we have here who grow up in perfectly normal happy suburban homes, and decide they need to find a clique in which to be cool. If that requires some petty shoplifting to fit in, of course they should be prosecuted, but not persecuted. I would guess these jerks are worthy of much disdain, deserve my scorn, and a savage beating if they violate my rights, but to categorically discriminate against them is fear and hate in action. Hell, you know that in 10 years, there will be a new subculture thing, punks, goths, metalheads, grungers have all had their go. Will they ban whatever characterizes the new trend then? "You can't enter my mall because you have spikey hair and flip-flops on." NO. Just make sure there are cops available to stop these weenies from vandalizing the pretty new mall and until then, they are citizens just like everybody else.

Wraith
17-05-2005, 19:04
it is to help protect the vulnerable.

No, I don't believe so -- I doubt there are very many instances where the 'vulnerable' are attacked by Chavs in said 'shopping paradise'.

In fact I think you'll find there are more instances of violence between individuals (women ;) ) during a sale, or verbal abuse due to line cutting, road rage, or any other form of modern day stress.


The reason people do these things is to make others feel safe...

So they'll spend more...


but those who are truely frighened an concerned by these gangs of youths, the elderly, socially insecure and younger still find people like these intimidating and are scared by them.

I don't believe it's a young person's fault that other people are intimidated by them or their clothing nor do I think they should be penalised because of it.


Also if you think that chavs are people who don't care about labels you are wrong, they steal most of the expensive brands you would see them wearing, well most of the £100+ items they wear. Burbury, berghouse and many others suffer from their plastic fashion that encompasses the entire group.

Yeah the rich Chavs...


Quite frankly I'd rather deal with the docile consumerist horde than the barbaric filth that give many hard working people a bad name.

I think your all focussing on stereotypes way to much -- their are quite, good natured harmless people who dress as per a Chav.

Just because I've been attacked by a Chav doesn't mean every time I see a hoody I think to myself this person is going to be the same sort of drunken, violent idiot.


It's odd that you seem to be putting the chavs ability to dress in such a way above peoples personal safety.

I see banning clothes as draconian, I'm against it for the same reason I'm against ID cards, and the anti terror laws -- I'm not prepared to sacrifice civil liberties and pander to stereotyping.


Then again, if their poor, unemployed and prone to criminal lifestyles its never their fault is it?

Not sure I understand what you're getting at here...


Consumerism, while a pretty low philosphy if embraced fully, is far superior to the culture of groups of people who think victimising people when heavily outnumbering them somehow proves their superiority and masculinity. At least materialists are so preoccupied with their attainment of the latest waffle iron they couldn't be bothered fighting anyone.

Putting aside how many lives have been lost in the pursuit of money beyond one's needs I wonder how many people will die when theres little or nothing left to 'consume' in the world...

I wonder how 'cosumerism and materialism' ranks up when you really examine what destruction, pain, and death its caused.

Kohhna
17-05-2005, 20:16
Y'kno maybe if youngsters had something better to do than hanging around the shopping centre doing stupid stuff there wouldn't be a problem. Hm, wonder what costs more, banning hoodies or funding a youth centre / events etc.

Cheesejoff
17-05-2005, 20:29
The reason for banning hoodies is not to stop the chavs, since they can steal some other clothes and come in wearing them. It's to make people feel safe. Even if they don't actually attack anyone, people can still be intimidated by them.

Wraith
17-05-2005, 20:43
Lets ban everything and everyone that 'intimidates' the most vocal -- why stop at the Chavs?

We should ban the homeless wearing rags, we should ban men from shaving their heads, having tattoos, and piercings. If someone is wearing dark sun glasses we should ban them too as it's hiding their face and it intimidates the old people. Let's ban goth's wearing black makeup, and people listening to techno music in their cars...

Pathetic.

You know what? Everyone is intimidated by anything 'different' and they'll come up with any justification to ban and censor everyone until everyone looks, acts, talks the same.

Wez
17-05-2005, 21:10
Y'kno maybe if youngsters had something better to do than hanging around the shopping centre doing stupid stuff there wouldn't be a problem. Hm, wonder what costs more, banning hoodies or funding a youth centre / events etc.

School would be a start...

Certainly ‘lack of other things to do’ is a very poor excuse for ‘bad behaviour’

The ban is to let the chavs be identified by the cameras. Banning their jewellery for example would be pathetic as it doesn't really help anyone. However the hoodies and caps I can understand. Personally I see nothing wrong with that.

-Wez

Cheesejoff
17-05-2005, 21:13
We should ban the homeless wearing rags

If you'd like to see a bunch of hobos naked... :P

I wasn't saying that I supported the ban, I was pointing out that it was mainly to make people feel safe. Although the chavs can just come in with different clothes and continue to intimidate people.

tzeentchgiant
17-05-2005, 22:42
@ Wraith,

I'm sorry you took my post to be a sarcy sly jab at your ideals but what your saying is ignoring my main points. In fact I think that you are wrong in most of the things that you say, but I accept that you feel that there are different things happening, maybe thats just because chavs are different from neds.

It doesn't stop me thinking you are wrong though.

@ Beefstick

I think that you misunderstand about chavs, they are working class, many from broken homes, who in all honesty, not out of nastiness, should never have been born or allowed to keep living with their families.

Many are bastards, as in the sort that are born before marriage, and come from unloving homes, where mum and dad are violent alcoholics, and are therefore unfortunately due to turn out as sad (as in drain on society low life) people.

Do not think that I am talking worst case scenario here. Glasgow is full of poor deprived people, these ones just enjoy inflicting misery on others too. It is a shame that these people exist but they do, and they do generally fit well into the stereotypical view that they put across.

I honestly feel that I may start flaming if I continue writing the way I am, I probably won't reply to this thread again, unless I am specificaly insulted or asked for.

Please also accept that whilst what I am saying is almost always true, there are always exceptions to the rule.

TG

neXus6
17-05-2005, 22:54
I've know people from VERY VERY bad family situations that have been really nice friendly people. Comming from a bad background is no excuse to act like violent scum. Also I've had many altercations with every aspect, from the proper chav (the ones you are focusing on) to the trendie NED kids who all wear shirts and jeans.

On topic. Good, nothing wrong with banning hoods and caps as it allows easier identification, it is as bad as "no motorcycle helmets" I don't see anyone having a problem with that one. And it isn't just youths that wear hoodies and peaked caps.

Delicious Soy
17-05-2005, 23:43
I think your all focussing on stereotypes way to much -- their are quite, good natured harmless people who dress as per a Chav.

Just because I've been attacked by a Chav doesn't mean every time I see a hoody I think to myself this person is going to be the same sort of drunken, violent idiot. Thats pretty much what I said, there is a group of people who are ruining the reputations of other people who bear a superficial similarity to them. Its unfortunate but if this is what it takes to prevent these ****** harassing the general public then so be it.


I see banning clothes as draconian, I'm against it for the same reason I'm against ID cards, and the anti terror laws -- I'm not prepared to sacrifice civil liberties and pander to stereotyping.Yet when the stereotype proves accurate in the case cited here what do you do then? Stereotypes are born because there is an element of truth to them. If there is a sub culture of violence, like there is in this case, shouldn't the authorities take action to combat it? Besides, there banning items that prevent the obfusication of a person's identity, not tapping their phones. I could say that civil libertarians like to exaggerrate threats to personal freedoms because they're paid to do it. Or they have heightened sense of self-importance and think the government would profit from having their personal everything.


Not sure I understand what you're getting at here...People seem to take the side of the so-called 'underprivlidged' because apparently a lack of money precludes them from learning how to be civil towards other people.




Putting aside how many lives have been lost in the pursuit of money beyond one's needs I wonder how many people will die when theres little or nothing left to 'consume' in the world...

I wonder how 'cosumerism and materialism' ranks up when you really examine what destruction, pain, and death its caused. What in the Global South? Thats a very distant connection and your first statement is so broad in its application that it encompasses for more than the consumerism that most people practice. It also in the interest of those providing capital to maintain overproduction without expending supply. If we use everything here, companies will already have plans to exploit somewhere else.

Lord Lucifer
18-05-2005, 04:48
Wraith, look at it this way, say I'm a shop owner

Now, I don't like it when people steal things from my shop, it's an understandable point (yeah yeah, consumerist slave, whatever, ignore that for the purposes of this exchange)
So, disliking sholifting, I install security cameras so I can have a record of who has shoplifted before, and prevent them from doing so again by banning them from my store.
But if they wear clothing that obscures the face, that security camera is worthless.

So what should I do?
Require that people not obscure their faces in my store.
Don't like it? Too bad, my store, my rules, go sip your latte at a McCafe for all I care.

It's a dress code. People have them. Stores have a No Shirt, No Shoes, No Sale policy which I'm yet to see ranted about.
Some people would have you take your shoes off before you enter their house, to keep the carpet clean or whatever. It's a dress code, you comply with the hosts wishes


They're not banning Chavs. They're banning items of clothing that obscure the face. You can still be a Chav without a cap or your hood pulled up, just as you can be a non-Chav and still wear a hat or a hoodie


Ultimately, it's their store, their rules.
If they want to see peoples faces in their security cameras they have every right to do so.
Oh no, I have to spend a minute taking my cap off or tying my hoodie around my waste... the inhumanity! :p

Slazton
18-05-2005, 07:33
Repression!

That is what this is! Its repression of today's youth culture. This is the Government's plan to prevent shoplifting, mugging and other such crimes, but it wont work. It will become more or less a challenge. Heck, I live in Cambridge and quite frequently venture down to Bluewater on occasion, now I got a better reason to go, just to wear a dam hoodie and p them off.

Chavs are not a huge problem over here. Believe it or not, youth crime is comparitively low with USA and other such countries. I study Criminology, and believe me, the Chavs are just a minority.

What is happening is that the Chavs don't have as many opportunities as us upper lower class--->upper class youth does and thus they begin to vent their frustration of being strained from having nice things like other kids and thus form gangs, become violent to vent this pressure that rests upon them. Now this is where the problem is, the UK Government, the one that after the First World War declared it would look after the British people from 'cradle to grave' needs to look into. The Statistics are there all pointing at this, even Chavs with bad parenting vent this strain this way, it all comes down to opportunity and frankly, these kids are not getting any.

By banning Caps and Hoodies, you are creating a bigger problem than its worth and the next thing you know, I'll have to strip down to my boxers just because they want to cavity search all suspucious looking people :o.


Chavs are just lower class kids who dress like ******, where cheap stuff (because in reality its all they can afford), and mob up like Orks :D.

I've dealt with a pack of them before. If anyone has been to Cambridge, (yes they are here too) they congregate around the skate board area and it gets annoying seeing them there. I was drunk one night and a few decided I was easy prey.

I just ignored them and kept walking. They hurled abuse, threw a few rocks at me (missing completely) and then one threw a dam chain at me. It connected, I turned round and merely placed a cig in my mouth and asked: 'Got a light?' Oddly enough one of them lit the ciggerrette and I chilled with them for a tad. (Also scored some green for free, all I had to do was roll). They are not completely bad people, maybe that was just the ones in Cambridge, i dunno.

Anyhow, I degress into something stupid that more than likely will get flamed, I just hope the more sensiable part of this post will be read.

Wez
18-05-2005, 10:13
They hurled abuse, threw a few rocks at me (missing completely) and then one threw a dam chain at me.

They are not completely bad people,
Uh-huh...


By banning Caps and Hoodies, you are creating a bigger problem than its worth and the next thing you know, I'll have to strip down to my boxers just because they want to cavity search all suspucious looking people .

Has that happened? No. Is it going to happen? No.

By the same logic, banning drinking alcohol in public parks could be seen to leading to a ban on drinking alcohol at all, followed by a ban on consuming any liquid. Just because the first step in a chain has been taken, doesn't mean that hypothetical other steps will be taken.

The comparison to the US seems null to me. Maybe the situation's not as bad as in the US, however that doesn't make it ok. The situation here isn't as bad as in North Korea either, but that doesn't mean that it's ok.

I just won't comment on the irony of saying they don't have money/chances and then them giving you free weed...

-Wez

Wraith
18-05-2005, 10:33
It doesn't stop me thinking you are wrong though.

Ditto.


Its unfortunate but if this is what it takes to prevent these ****** harassing the general public then so be it.

You're prepared to make that sacrifice I am not.


Yet when the stereotype proves accurate in the case cited here what do you do then?

Why is it accurate here? Every person who enters this shopping centre with a hoody on is a drunken, hooligan, criminal?


Besides, there banning items that prevent the obfusication of a person's identity, not tapping their phones.

Please... go into the shopping centre and witness the amount of old people wearing caps and other hats unchallenged it's so obvious the policy is biased it's been reported in the newspapers (Daily Express sat 14th).

Indeed I once was having a conversation with a head of town security where I live and he informed me how most shop lifting is mainly undertaken by poor elderly and the most popular items which are stolen are razor blades.


I could say that civil libertarians like to exaggerrate threats to personal freedoms because they're paid to do it. Or they have heightened sense of self-importance and think the government would profit from having their personal everything.

Ha! You remind me of some American conservative from 4Forums complaining about thos 'damned liberals'.


People seem to take the side of the so-called 'underprivlidged' because apparently a lack of money precludes them from learning how to be civil towards other people.

Being civilisaed is not the nautral state of humanity, nor indeed is modern western society. I'm not suprised groups like 'Chavs' arise as they are a direct result of 'civilisation'.

By the way I'm sure within the 'Chav in-group' they are quite 'civil' to each other in their own chav-ish way.


What in the Global South? Thats a very distant connection and your first statement is so broad in its application that it encompasses for more than the consumerism that most people practice.

Yeah, it's all very well to try to focus on the little picture -- "how on earth could I buy buying this simply [brand name] garment be contributing to pain and suffering and death?" This of course is the warcry of most consumers, never mind the sweat shops, the destruction of the environment to harvest said raw materials, the degrading treatment of near-slaves in the third world.

Oh I'm sure indeed looking at the small picture you'd much rather deal with average-joe-shopper than drunken-dave-towny et al...


It also in the interest of those providing capital to maintain overproduction without expending supply. If we use everything here, companies will already have plans to exploit somewhere else.

Like a virus but with proposed foresight...


So what should I do?
Require that people not obscure their faces in my store.
Don't like it? Too bad, my store, my rules, go sip your latte at a McCafe for all I care.

Fine, just make sure you ban old people who enter for wearing hats, caps, or head scalves (old women) as well as the Chavs.

You see I recognise that your shop = your rules but if you want a general ban on chavs put a sign out saying 'no chavs' rather than attempt to justify your generalisations by saying no hoodies or baseball caps.

Odin
18-05-2005, 11:33
Chavs are not a huge problem over here. Believe it or not, youth crime is comparitively low with USA and other such countries. I study Criminology, and believe me, the Chavs are just a minority.

Er, well they are a huge problem where I live (a few miles from Bluewater). In the last year they have stabbed a policeman, attacked my brother three times, put a bloke in a coma 100m from my house, put several teenage girls in hospital cos they were goths... these are just the incidents which either me or someone I know was involved in. They are a problem.

Of course not everyone wearing burberry is going to attack you in the street, but you could use the same reasoning to say that people should all be able to carry guns because not all of them will attack somebody with them. Hoodies and caps are commonly used to obscure the face so that the tennage girl you just beat up can't identify you. Sorry, but civil liberties have to be balanced with other considerations.


Fine, just make sure you ban old people who enter for wearing hats, caps, or head scalves (old women) as well as the Chavs.

I believe they have done.

Wraith
18-05-2005, 11:45
Of course not everyone wearing burberry is going to attack you in the street, but you could use the same reasoning to say that people should all be able to carry guns because not all of them will attack somebody with them. Hoodies and caps are commonly used to obscure the face so that the tennage girl you just beat up can't identify you. Sorry, but civil liberties have to be balanced with other considerations.

Lets ban all types of masks, hats, makeup, glasses, hoods, umbrellas, long hair styles because they all conceal and obscure the face because lets be honest civili liberties have to be balanced with other considerations...


I believe they have done.

The newspaper article I read states otherwise which while isn't 100% perfectly reliable I'm much more inclined to believe it than you (if you'll forgive me for admiting so).

Cheesejoff
18-05-2005, 12:27
While most chavs are peaceful and just dress they way they do because they are mindless and copy everyone else, there are some that are not. Most of the time the parents simply don't care.

It's a combination of the lack of discipline in schools, lack of parental care which means they look up to their peers, ie, chavs, also the fact they know they are not as smart or as wealthy as other people so feel kind of jealous, and they take it out through vandalism, violence, and general crime. Also the fact young people have a tendancy to be hot-headed.

Slazton
18-05-2005, 12:31
I just won't comment on the irony of saying they don't have money/chances and then them giving you free weed...

-Wez

Hmm, well the fact they were trying to cause abuse was because they are bored. Its true around here in Cambridge its easy to get bored if you no money etc. As to the weed comment, heck even if you no money a lightbulb running on the Government's tab will still cause heat for a certain plant.

Its how some of the Chavs make money is through drug dealing as they don't have the parent backing, moral stature or whatever you want to call it to strive further in life, or simply have the case of anomie.

As to them throwing crap at me, etc. Hey it happens. I knew they were trying to provoke me to get a fight as by having a fight they then can in turn do something active. Granted not pro-active, but still it would have killed a few minutes and then given them one or two hours of bragging rights.

As to the comment made by Odin:

I was comparing the Chav issue to Asian assualts (both against them and against other sub-cultures), poverty and everything else along those lines. Its actually quiet small. Granted where you live they mgiht be a problem, but I was looking at the country as a whole. (And the only reason I have some knowledge of this stuff is due to my Uni making me write an essay on the Strain theory and gang deliquency within the UK)

Chavs, Goths, Skin-Heads, Rockers, Hip-Hoppers, Whiggers, etc are all sub-cultures within a society and if anyone is interested, I recomend researching the Strain Theory. A few key names to help you: Robert Merton and Cohen are the top people. Its really shocking how this theory kind of narrows it down. (NOte: Its not perfect, but it does have good points).

Lord Lucifer
18-05-2005, 12:50
Fine, just make sure you ban old people who enter for wearing hats, caps, or head scalves (old women) as well as the Chavs.

No, I wouldn't ban old people. I ban the hats, not the people wearing them.
Depends on what sort of hat or head scarf etc. they wear.
If it obscures the face, off it goes. If it doesn't, it can stay

hairyman
18-05-2005, 13:12
Slazton talks a lot of sense.

Most of the people who initiate "chav" or "ned" bans are probably the same people who have never had to live (or even vists) where "chav's" live, would never entertain the idea that they're as real and valid people as they are ("hunt them down", "take away their breeding license" etc), and generally just want the poor underclass of this country to either disappear or to stay in their own increasingly ghetto-ised (a word?) zones mugging each other for loose change; popping up only in the comfortable world of docu-soaps and reality tv where they can be a source of amusement.

If you've got a problem with bored kids chucking rocks at random strangers then I'd suggest finding something for the bored kids to do, rather than demonising them. If poeple are going out committing muggings and stabbings then they need to be held accountable and punished, but you're not going to stop the attacks by taking even more steps to exclude an already marginalised strand of society.

Banning people based on what clothes they wear is utterly ridiculous and smacks of nimbyism, prissiness and conservatism; unless you're talking about people walking into banks wearing motorcycle helmets or something (football kits in partisan pubs would be another one). As I said above, if there's large numbers of bored teenagers lurking round the shopping centre, then just maybe they're looking for something entertaining or constructive to do....

neXus6
18-05-2005, 13:37
The Secondary Topic: If a group started throwing stuff at me I would ignore it and walk away, and accept that "they just have problems".
The fact that all the time's I've been attacked they have walked up to me and punched me in the head (usually from behind) kinda puts me in a different state of mind. As things stand I've never been able to fight back against them as I've had to protect my girlfriend and wading into a group of isn't the best way to do that.
Bottom line, the next time I'm on my own and a couple of neds start something they better be ready for the long haul.

I hate any group of people that go out starting fights, the fact that most of the people who fall into this group are neds is just a side point.
And NEDs can be any age...I had friends who were hit by neds in their late 20s, don't tell me that a grown adult should be "allowed to get away with it" like you seem the "kids" should.

The Main Topic: Asking people to remove clothing that obscures the face is not a bad thing. Yes it would be "fair" if they forced old people to do it to, but as things stand it's unlikly that an old person and his group of 5 mates are going to grab stuff and sprint off out of the shop and away down the road.

Odin
18-05-2005, 15:55
Lets ban all types of masks, hats, makeup, glasses, hoods, umbrellas, long hair styles because they all conceal and obscure the face because lets be honest civil liberties have to be balanced with other considerations...

Er, no. I said civil liberties have to be balanced, not ignored. Let's make this clear - I'm not some right wing neo-fascist or anything. I'm against ID cards, appaled at the government's moves to remove trial by jury and imprison people without evidence or recourse to law. But what about the right not to be assaulted by a group of thugs you cannot identify because their faces are deliberately obscured?

Yes, we need to tackle the source of the problem rather than the symptoms - maybe when Blair stops following Bush into unnecessary and unjustified wars he might find the time to try and sort something out. But are you seriously suggesting that the right of someone to wear a cap should override the right of other people not to be intimidated, robbed and beaten up?

hairyman
18-05-2005, 16:17
But are you seriously suggesting that the right of someone to wear a cap should override the right of other people not to be intimidated, robbed and beaten up?

Different things, though.

People are intimitated by caps, hoodys etc. But then people are also intimdated by long hair, skinheads, leather jackets, tattoos, piercings etc etc. No reason to ban them.

Being robbed and beaten up has nothing to do with what clothes (potential) muggers wear. That's a seperate issue altogether... one of adequate policing and not abandoning communities and large chunks of society to poverty, poor education, deperate boredom and a lack of respect for other people.

I'm pretty sure that a ban on certain fashions in public places would have zero impact on random acts of violence. All it's doing is stigmatising people and sweeping the deeper issues under the carpet... and appeasing people who don't like the way others dress or talk. It's like banning beggars from main streets... cleans up the town's image but does nothing about the fact there's people homeless and begging. Just shunts them off out of sight.

Wraith
18-05-2005, 16:52
No, I wouldn't ban old people. I ban the hats, not the people wearing them.
Depends on what sort of hat or head scarf etc. they wear.
If it obscures the face, off it goes. If it doesn't, it can stay

Come on now, you'd ban the person if they refused to remove the offending hat/cap etc.

Still my point stands -- in your case if you wish to make sure all people are readily identified go ahead and ban head ware just make sure it's enforced with all customers rather than just those classed as chavs.

In the case of this shopping centre however it's reported they don't universally enforce the ban rather they simply focus on young people leaving old people blatantly flaunting the ban. Secondly (and this relates to the previous point) it is quite obvious to me that the shoping centre does not really wish to ban headwear -- it's a valid idea however it's a cover for their real desire which is to ban chavs. The managers/owners of said shopping centre would never get away with putting up signs saying 'no chavs allowed' hence the only partially enforced 'hoody and cap' ban which serves the same prupose with far less controversy.


Most of the people who initiate "chav" or "ned" bans are probably the same people who have never had to live (or even vists) where "chav's" live, would never entertain the idea that they're as real and valid people as they are ("hunt them down", "take away their breeding license" etc), and generally just want the poor underclass of this country to either disappear or to stay in their own increasingly ghetto-ised (a word?) zones mugging each other for loose change; popping up only in the comfortable world of docu-soaps and reality tv where they can be a source of amusement.

...

Nice post Hairyman.


Er, no. I said civil liberties have to be balanced, not ignored.

It seems to me that people talk about this 'balance' but choose to place the fulcrum of said 'balance' in a completely arbitrary manner.

Indeed, it seems it's often the case in my experience that people are far more disposed to sacrifice certain civil liberties that they themselves don't take advantage off or would not miss that much. Still... I shouldn't be suprised as this behaviour is 'human nature' is it not?


But what about the right not to be assaulted by a group of thugs you cannot identify because their faces are deliberately obscured?

I've been attacked by someone who I class as part of the 'Chav brotherhood' and I can tell you know I doubt he would have been prevented attacking me or caught simply because he wasn't wearing a cap or hoody.

Indeed, I think that the way Chavs choose to dress makes them much easier to track and be seen in a crowd.

Anyway, your comment panders to the stereotype that chavs, and indeed anyone who wears a hoody is a violent thug which is not the case.


But are you seriously suggesting that the right of someone to wear a cap should override the right of other people not to be intimidated, robbed and beaten up?

I could ask you the same question but replace 'cap' with any or all of the following masks, hats, make up, glasses, hoods, umbrellas, long hair styles, shaved heads, leather clothing, tattoos, and piercing.

The erosion of civil liberties start of with these 'small steps' but they just mount up -- I've already had to watch in dismay as our freedom of speech has been removed in this country I certainly do not wish to see further ammendments to our freedoms.

Cheesejoff
18-05-2005, 17:32
What has the fact that you can't see chav's faces under their hoods got to do with banning it in a shoping centre? How many chavs mug people in broad daylight in a public place?

The reason old people are allowed to wear burberry is because, firstly it's a golfing make that was popular among old people until the chavs turned it into a fashion trend. Secondly people are not worried about old people giving them abuse, are they?

Wraith
18-05-2005, 18:19
What has the fact that you can't see chav's faces under their hoods got to do with banning it in a shoping centre? How many chavs mug people in broad daylight in a public place?

The reason old people are allowed to wear burberry is because, firstly it's a golfing make that was popular among old people until the chavs turned it into a fashion trend. Secondly people are not worried about old people giving them abuse, are they?

Basically then going by your post you advocate discrimation based on stereotypes and over generalisations much like rascists.

I'll just remind you of how low income elderly are the most common shop lifters in the town I live in never mind nationally the growing number of old age pensioners being issued with anti-social behaviour orders as amusingly foucussed on in a recent sky one program.

tzeentchgiant
18-05-2005, 18:54
Wraith maybe you should take the high road and stop posting in this thread, it's a post away from just turning into a flame war.

TG

Wraith
18-05-2005, 19:10
I don't see why I should stop posting nor do I see how I am responsible for what others choose to post in the future.

Odin
18-05-2005, 19:11
Being robbed and beaten up has nothing to do with what clothes (potential) muggers wear.

No, but whether they get caught and dealt with has a lot to do with it. If they know security cameras can identify them it will at least make them think twice. And if they think twice when they're just starting down that path there might just be some hope for them. You need to deal with the problem - well, part of the problem is that these kids do something to impress their mates - something small(ish). They do it with their faces covered, and realise that means they can get away with it. So there is nothing much to deter them from doing it again. And again. That's how they go from doing a bit of graffiti to attacking people in the street.


Anyway, your comment panders to the stereotype that chavs, and indeed anyone who wears a hoody is a violent thug which is not the case.

No. Cobblers.


I could ask you the same question but replace 'cap' with any or all of the following masks, hats, make up, glasses, hoods, umbrellas, long hair styles, shaved heads, leather clothing, tattoos, and piercing.

Lets take one of those examples then. If there was a spate of people being assaulted by gangs wearing masks, you'd say it's fine to have groups of people walking around with masks, and do nothing about it until they actually attack someone. Oh bugger, can't identify them, so can't do anything about it now anyway. We'll just wait until the next time they do it when yet again we'd be able to do bugger all about it.

Another one on the news today - bunch of kids attacked a funeral cortege. Break their ********** fingers one by one and you'd be letting them off lightly.

tzeentchgiant
18-05-2005, 19:16
I know you're not responsible for what others post, but taking the higher route would avoid unnecessarty confrontation. i just think little head way is being made as you will clearly not change your opinion.

I will not post again, I never even intended to post these last two.

TG

Wraith
18-05-2005, 19:46
Lets take one of those examples then. If there was a spate of people being assaulted by gangs wearing masks, you'd say it's fine to have groups of people walking around with masks, and do nothing about it until they actually attack someone. Oh bugger, can't identify them, so can't do anything about it now anyway. We'll just wait until the next time they do it when yet again we'd be able to do bugger all about it.

That's right I would.

Why on earth should everyone who use masks responsibly be penalised because there aren't enough visible police on the street to deter and catch 'hooligans' rather than CCTVs?

Kids at halloween, parades, face painting (could be construed as a mask), people who wear prosthetic faces etc all get penalised because of said draconian bannings.

And again if said hooligans had umbrellas to hide their identity would we also ban them? Should we ban those who have long hair styles or wear wigs or both? Sould we ban any type of hat or coat with a hood?

If CCTV as an effective detterent is failing then perhaps the government should give up on them, stop cutting corners and bring in more police.

If crime is a major problem they should act on why people become hooligans in the first place rather than trying to put a bandaid on the situation and hope it'll go away.

Rykion
18-05-2005, 19:50
Unless Bluewater is public property, I do not see how this is an issue of Civil Liberties. Store and mall owners can create and enforce whatever rules they want as long as it doesn't violate a specific law. Many stores in the US check your purchase against your receipt as you exit. The government would not be allowed to do this, but it is allowed as a store policy. You choose to shop at such places or to not do so. Malls and stores are generally not on public property and do not have to allow people that are dissruptive or who are not there to shop.

We used to have 3 large shopping malls in my area. One of them became infested by youth gangs very similar to these chavs and did nothing. That mall went out of business. The other two malls created policies that require all minors to be accompanied by an adult and only 2 minors are allowed per adult if the adult is not their parent. The malls are not having much problem.

Lord Lucifer
19-05-2005, 01:21
Come on now, you'd ban the person if they refused to remove the offending hat/cap etc.
Using that logic, smokers are never allowed to purchase petrol for their cars, as smoking is not permitted at gas stations.

It's not a ban on the person, it's a ban on an item of clothing, and the person is free to exercise their own free will in choosing whether they want to go there without their face obscured, or whether they wish to keep their hat or hood on and go elsewhere. The person is not banned, they get to choose which is more important to them.


Were I the hypothetical store-owner of my previous posts, hats and head scarfs are all good if they don't obscure the face. I specified it is only items that obscure the face.

Most of the old folk I see wear hats that don't in any way obscure the face. Maybe Bluewater is frequented by a horde of Over 60 Baseball teams, in which case yes it's a double standard, but then the argument shouldn't be against the face obscuring ban but rather against the lax enforcement of it


Seriously, people can live with the half-minute inconvenience of removing their cap or hoodie, it's not too much to ask

Jedi152
19-05-2005, 09:05
In the news today:


Bluewater shopping centre enjoyed a sharp rise in visitor numbers on the first weekend since it banned youths wearing hooded tops and baseball caps.

Some 23% more people visited the Kent mall last weekend than during the same weekend in 2004.
So it seems to be working...

Full story here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/4561399.stm)

Cheesejoff
19-05-2005, 09:35
"The Children's Society charity has branded Bluewater's move "blatant discrimination based on stereotypes and prejudices", and said it infringes young people's rights.""

The right to swear? The right to intimidate? What nonsense. it only infringes their right to wear whatever clothes they choose to wear, however, they are not wearing whatever clothes they want to wear, they are wearing the same cheap ***** as all the other chavs. If they want to come into the shopping centre surely they can just take off their caps?

Odin
19-05-2005, 10:14
Why on earth should everyone who use masks responsibly be penalised because there aren't enough visible police on the street to deter and catch 'hooligans' rather than CCTVs?

If CCTV as an effective detterent is failing then perhaps the government should give up on them, stop cutting corners and bring in more police.


I see - you're under the mistaken apprehension that we can prevent crime by having more police on the beat? Police on the beat are there to make people feel better and pick up the pieces - the chances of them being near enough to a crime to do anything are miniscule. It's estimated that beat coppers are only ever close enough to do anything about once or twice in their whole careers. Sure, get more police, but CCTV is generally a hell of a lot more effective - except when people deliberately obscure their faces.

In an ideal world we wouldn't have to make general decisions like this one. Newsflash! We don't live in an ideal world.



If crime is a major problem they should act on why people become hooligans in the first place rather than trying to put a bandaid on the situation and hope it'll go away.

Absolutely we need to tackle the cause of the problem. But we need to takle the symptoms as well. And as I explained in my last post, the ability to get away with it because your face is obscured IS one of the resons why they become hooligans in the first place. Take that away and the vast majority will soon realise that it's not worth it.

grizzly ruin
19-05-2005, 10:20
I'm jumping into this thread a bit late in the game.

I've read most of it, and I'd just like to respond to Wraith a bit.

I also want to mention that I am not from the UK, so I don't have any experience with Chavs, I am however from Brooklyn N.Y. which gives me a fair perspective on this particular type of youth culture and gangs in general.



I don't believe it's a young person's fault that other people are intimidated by them or their clothing nor do I think they should be penalised because of it.

It is their fault if they are acting and dressing with the express intent to intimidate.



I see banning clothes as draconian, I'm against it for the same reason I'm against ID cards, and the anti terror laws -- I'm not prepared to sacrifice civil liberties and pander to stereotyping.

I think putting the banning of certain types of clothing in a privately owned shopping mall in the "Draconian Removal of Civil Liberties" as stretching things a bit much. If you'd like to see real "draconian" take a trip to Singapore where they will cane you for a variety of offenses.

I've been there, and to be honest, it's a wonderfully sorted out place.



We should ban the homeless wearing rags, we should ban men from shaving their heads, having tattoos, and piercings. If someone is wearing dark sun glasses we should ban them too as it's hiding their face and it intimidates the old people. Let's ban goth's wearing black makeup, and people listening to techno music in their cars...

Do keep in mind that the discussion is about a privately owned shopping mall.



You know what? Everyone is intimidated by anything 'different' and they'll come up with any justification to ban and censor everyone until everyone looks, acts, talks the same.

I think the point is people don't want. and don't need to feel afraid when they want to go to the mall to shop.

You can give all the anti-consumer society speeches you like, but unless you are posting wearing hand sewn garments made from hemp and growing your own beans for dinner, you may want to tone down the self-rightous diatribe just a touch.


Indeed, I think that the way Chavs choose to dress makes them much easier to track and be seen in a crowd.

Unless of course, they are in a big crowd of Chavs.


Why on earth should everyone who use masks responsibly be penalised because there aren't enough visible police on the street to deter and catch 'hooligans' rather than CCTVs?

In New York city, if you are ever walking down the street and see people coming towards you wearing masks (even on halloween), even if they seem to be perfectly "responsible mask users", I advise you to run in the opposite direction as fast as is humanly possible according to your own personal physical capacity.



If crime is a major problem they should act on why people become hooligans in the first place rather than trying to put a bandaid on the situation and hope it'll go away.

This is the only thing you've said that I feel has a whole lot of merit.

Wraith
19-05-2005, 10:22
Using that logic, smokers are never allowed to purchase petrol for their cars, as smoking is not permitted at gas stations.

No, no that's not what I meant -- I specifically said if they refused to remove the offending item hence for all intense and purposes the person is banned. You would say "you're banned until you remove the cap" or something siilar to the same effect.



So it seems to be working...

Well of course it'll increase non chav shoppers -- the 'bogey men' of which are blamed for every ill in the country have been expunged from the store.


If they want to come into the shopping centre surely they can just take off their caps?

The issue with the store is this -- private property hence it's the owners choice, however when they make a rule then choose to selectively apply it then they are indeed blatantly discriminating. What's worse is the sheer deception that the ban is simply to allow ID by the CCTV cameras when really at the heart of it is they simply wish to ban chavs but making such a ban would be far more contraversial than simply partially enforcing a 'hoody and hat' ban which serves the same purpose.

Wraith
19-05-2005, 10:36
grizzly ruin -


It is their fault if they are acting and dressing with the express intent to intimidate.

Some might dress with the intent to intimidate others may not it would be a massive generalisation to make such a comment. Also I don't see why it's person 'A's fault person 'B' finds them intimidating simply because of the clothing he's wearing.



I think putting the banning of certain types of clothing in a privately owned shopping mall in the "Draconian Removal of Civil Liberties" as stretching things a bit much.

Like other people in this discussion you've failed to see how two arguments arose -- the ban in the context of the shopping centre which I appose due to only partial discriminating enforcement of said ban and the other argument of the same ban enforced by the government nationally.


Do keep in mind that the discussion is about a privately owned shopping mall.

See above.


I think the point is people don't want. and don't need to feel afraid when they want to go to the mall to shop.

People's fears are their own business and should not be blamed on others.


You can give all the anti-consumer society speeches you like, but unless you are posting wearing hand sewn garments made from hemp and growing your own beans for dinner, you may want to tone down the self-rightous diatribe just a touch.

Ah the typical retort...

I wear what I can afford and effect what I have power to do so.

If for example trade subsudies of 1st world produce weren't in place which keep many 'organically grown' 3rd world traders unableto compete then perhaps things would be different.


Unless of course, they are in a big crowd of Chavs.

Chances are they all know each other then hence if enough (legal) pressure is applied they can ID the perpretrator.


In New York city, if you are ever walking down the street and see people coming towards you wearing masks (even on halloween), even if they seem to be perfectly "responsible mask users", I advise you to run in the opposite direction as fast as is humanly possible according to your own personal physical capacity.

I've been to New York city (Manhattan) and walked the length of it, walked through the 'bad areas' on the way to china town etc. There was some sort of 'latin american perade' going on and large groups of young men were running about with large flags, faces painted with country colours (very mask like), large powerful cars with loud music. I felt quite intimidated at times but I wasn't touched nor would I wish to ban such activity due to my own fears and stereotyping of 'large nationlistic groups of 'excited' young men of a different ethnicity and country than me'..

hairyman
19-05-2005, 10:51
You can give all the anti-consumer society speeches you like, but unless you are posting wearing hand sewn garments made from hemp and growing your own beans for dinner, you may want to tone down the self-rightous diatribe just a touch.


wtf? He was in no way having a rant against consumerism, he was talking about people being uneasy when confronted with things that are outside of their little familiar bubble... in fact, you seem to have misrepresented him (albeit in a dryly humorous way) in several of the quotes you have taken.

There seem to two discussions going on here...

1. Can a privately owned shopping centre chose to ban whoever they want for whatever reason they want?

Well, obviously they can.. I personally don't think they are correct to, but they're well within their rights to decide who comes in and out of their nice pretty little Kentish shops.

2. Does banning caps and hoodies lead to a decrease in violent attacks?

This is obviously the stated reason for banning the aforementioned articles of clothing, and I'd have to say the answer is no. It's what's been described as a "band aid".... no real attempt to get to the heart of the problem, just a knee jerk banning of something.

Underlying this whole thread, though, is the inherent prejudice that goes with an initially fun term like "chav". Ok, I'm not going to get overly serious here - I've had as much of a laugh as anyone else over pictures of burberry clad muppets - but there is an issue of class, segregation and empathy (or lack thereof) that goes with the whole "chav" thing. One thing we all seem to agree on is that proper policing and more of an effort towards social inclusivness is needed if the random muggings are ever going to be stopped, and I hope most people can see that banning a certain seciton of society form public places does absolutely nothing to help. Nice, decent people who regularly visit nice, decent Kent shopping centres do not want to see or hear about the real state of the lives of people poorer than them; and they certainly don't want to try to understand or help. They just want to push "chavs" out of sight and out of mind (see my previous posts). Admittedly, empathising would be eaier if the police did their job properly, but still.....

As for hoodies and caps being intimidating, this is ridiculous. You cannot ban whole genres of fashion because some people are intimidated by them. (Personally, I'd be a lot more intimidated and be a lot more worried about random acts of violence if I met someone in a military uniform that if I met someone in a burberry cap). My parents and a lot of their generation are freaked out by tattoos... they assume violent criminals or dodgy low lives have tattooes because they have base prejusices fuelled from ignorance, a lack of experience of tattoed people, and dodgy media representation. Ergo, ban all tattoos? What a load of twaddle.

If the obscuring of peoples faces is stopiing the proper identification of people comitting criminal acts, then they'd do a lot better to make sure the area was under proper police protection rather than start a headwear pogrom. Someone pointed out earlier, though, that the clothes ban is probably just a way to get round putting a sign up saying "No Chavs". This is probably closer to the mark......

grizzly ruin
19-05-2005, 11:05
Some might dress with the intent to intimidate others may not it would be a massive generalisation to make such a comment. Also I don't see why it's person 'A's fault person 'B' finds them intimidating simply because of the clothing he's wearing.

Perhaps you don't see why because you aren't old enough, and I mean old.
Honestly, put yourselves in the position of a person who is simply too old to defend themself.

And it's not anyones fault really, and people do have a right to dress how they want. However, one could do themselves a lot of good avoiding a particular style that is associated with violence and crime. If you decide that you are going to dress like this, you need to be prepared to accept the sterotypes and problems that may be associated with it.



Like other people in this discussion you've failed to see how two arguments arose -- the ban in the context of the shopping centre which I appose due to only partial discriminating enforcement of said ban and the other argument of the same ban enforced by the government nationally.

Regardless of how the two arguments arose, you did make the connection between the banning of a certain type of clothing in a privatelyt owned shopping mall and something like the loss of prvacy with mandatory ID cards.

While aspects of the two issues may be related, a lot is also quite different I feel.



People's fears are there own business and should not be blamed on others.

Unfortunately we don't live in a happy utopia. So this is the reality of how things work.

When I was in my teenage years, I do remember always being eyed when I went into shops, sometimes middle aged people would cross the street, I even remember a woman closing the windows to her car at the sight of me.

It had mostly to do with how I was dressed. Which wouldn't be too far from how Chavs dress I imagine.




Ah the typical retort...

No need to attempt to be condesending really, this is a discussion.

Quite the contrary I find your bombastic "The Greedy evil consumer society of the world out to ban all the rights of the good honest mask and hoody wearing youth of today" to be "typical" and slightly myopic.


I wear what I can afford and effect what I have power to do so.

So why all of the rage at the owners of a mall wanting to protect their business interests?



I've been to New York city (Manhattan) and walked the length of it, walked through the 'bad areas' on the way to china town etc. There was some sort of 'latin american perade' going on and large groups of young men were running about with large flags, faces painted with country colours (very mask like), large powerful cars with loud music. I felt quite intimidated at times but I wasn't touched nor would I wish to ban such activity due to my own fears and stereotyping of 'large nationlistic groups of 'excited' young men of a different ethnicity and country than me'..


The thing is, what if every year at an event like that there were rapes and muggings that went along with it? Do you think that at that point the authorities would have no right to stop the event from occuring?

Wraith
19-05-2005, 11:33
Perhaps you don't see why because you aren't old enough, and I mean old.
Honestly, put yourselves in the position of a person who is simply too old to defend themself.

I know what you're saying but that is the fault of society and the quick fixes; it is not the fault of the individual and what he chooses to wear.


And it's not anyones fault really, and people do have a right to dress how they want. However, one could do themselves a lot of good avoiding a particular style that is associated with violence and crime. If you decide that you are going to dress like this, you need to be prepared to accept the sterotypes and problems that may be associated with it.

No I disagree, theres not excuse to act on prejudices -- I don't look down on people who have prejudices (I have them after all) how ever to actively discriminate based on stereotypes is another issue.

You have to ask yourself what came first? The style of dress or the prjudice for it? It doesn't matter about changing styles as old people (for example) will always fear young people.


Regardless of how the two arguments arose, you did make the connection between the banning of a certain type of clothing in a privatelyt owned shopping mall and something like the loss of prvacy with mandatory ID cards.

No, I was reffering to the discussion of banning of certain types of clothes nationally.



Unfortunately we don't live in a happy utopia. So this is the reality of how things work.

When I was in my teenage years, I do remember always being eyed when I went into shops, sometimes middle aged people would cross the street, I even remember a woman closing the windows to her car at the sight of me.

It had mostly to do with how I was dressed. Which wouldn't be too far from how Chavs dress I imagine.

I don't get your point -- despite 'joe public's reactions' it is not the fault of an individuals how others choose to percieve him.


Quite the contrary I find your bombastic "The Greedy evil consumer society of the world out to ban all the rights of the good honest mask and hoody wearing youth of today" to be "typical" and slightly myopic.

Your obvious desire to label me a 'leftist' or 'liberal' (in the American context) characterised by many things including fighting for the cause of the 'oppressed' is not suprising given what is being revealed about your character from your continued posts.

I am not a left wing person my point is many problem arise in history when people make sweeping generalisations about particular groups of people and act upon them. You many consider this a 'leftist' 'liberal trait' but I don not consider it to be so as I know a fair few right of middle people who would agree with me. I am against things like 'affirmative action' for example which is a typical 'liberal' policy championed to help 'the oppressed' because it is equally discriminating as (for example) rascism.


So why all of the rage at the owners of a mall wanting to protect their business interests?

There are other ways to make a living -- clothes are a necessity, working in such shops and owning such shops are not.

Again however I'd like to point out how I'm against the shops partial enforcement of the ban of hoodies and caps rather than the shop's right to set the ban in the first place. Although I would point out that I think such bans will cause more damage to society as hairyman describes in his posts.

I am against the ban entirely if implemented nation wide by the government.


The thing is, what if every year at an event like that there were rapes and muggings that went along with it? Do you think that at that point the authorities would have no right to stop the event from occuring?

I think the 'band aid' of banning things rather than recruiting more obviously needed police is deplorable.

Cheesejoff
19-05-2005, 11:40
I'm a leftie and I am all for the ban. You could say I fight for the oppressed. But in this case the oppressed are the old people living in fear of being mugged. it's not like the chavs aren't allowed to wear burberry in public places, it's just in a shopping centre. If they actually want to buy something they can wear some other clothes. If they want to cause chaos they can go somewhere else.

Before you label me a stereotyper let me remind you that at my school our 12-year old chav friends started 4 fights on the first day of school. I think I know what I'm talking about.

hairyman
19-05-2005, 11:53
. If they want to cause chaos they can go somewhere else.



It's that sort of attitude that will lead to exactly zero progress in sorting out anti social behaviour and random violent attacks.

At the risk of repeating myself, banning people from wearing baseball caps is not going to stop them mugging grannies. All it will achieve is the segregation of society, so the "riff-raff" can be kept out of nice shopping centres. Which is the real reason behind the ban in the first place.

Also, the automatic assumption that someone wearing a baseball cap or hooded top is going to commit a crime is prejudiced and wonky. I'm sat at my desk at work and I'm actually wearing a hoody at the moment. I'm not more or less likely to go mugging in my lunch hour because of what I'm wearing... that'll depend on a lot more than my choice of wardrobe.

Wraith
19-05-2005, 12:00
Before you label me a stereotyper let me remind you that at my school our 12-year old chav friends started 4 fights on the first day of school. I think I know what I'm talking about.

Well I'm convinced I mean after all if your chav friend did that I feel it's completely reasonable to punish everyone who dresses similar to him... *cough*...

I'd like to state again that I myself have been attacked by a person I would refer to as a Chav however I will not seek to punish all those people who simply choose to dress similar to him because of his actions.

Cheesejoff
19-05-2005, 14:06
Well I'm convinced I mean after all if your chav friend did that I feel it's completely reasonable to punish everyone who dresses similar to him... *cough*...

The chavs are not being punished for how they dress. If they wore pink tights then pink tights would be banned.


I'd like to state again that I myself have been attacked by a person I would refer to as a Chav however I will not seek to punish all those people who simply choose to dress similar to him because of his actions.

I agree that banning might be unfair to those chavs that are "harmless", but it's like banning guns, although not everyone who has one might not use it illegally, there are a percentage who do.

Wraith
19-05-2005, 14:59
I agree that banning might be unfair to those chavs that are "harmless", but it's like banning guns, although not everyone who has one might not use it illegally, there are a percentage who do.

We seem to be going around in circles here...

Should we band the following then -- masks, hats, make up, glasses, hoods, umbrellas, long hair styles, shaved heads, leather clothing, tattoos, and piercing?

Some of the these are intimdidating, some allow you to hide your face, some both.

I mean to say some people who have tattoos aren't violent but then many violent criminals also have them so should we ban them too?

The boyz
19-05-2005, 15:20
I thought the reason behind the banning of wearing caps and hoddies, was only so there faces can been seen clearly on cctv.

Rykion
19-05-2005, 15:39
In terms of some national British law, I agree that banning baseball caps and hoods is ludicrous. That still has nothing to do with the actions taken in the story. No individual was banned from the mall. The mall established a code of conduct and a dress code. It seems they may be selectively enforcing the dress code, but anyone can choose not to wear banned clothing to avoid any problems. As I mentioned before, a mall in my area went out of business because of not acting in a similar situation.

Odin
19-05-2005, 15:54
Should we band the following then -- masks, hats, make up, glasses, hoods, umbrellas, long hair styles, shaved heads, leather clothing, tattoos, and piercing?

No, because there is not currently a major problem with any of those items.

Wraith
19-05-2005, 16:30
No, because there is not currently a major problem with any of those items.

Oh how subjective... please... criminals use all those things and going by your logic if criminals use them to their benefit then they should be banned.

Umbrellas hide your face hence its stops you being ID by town CCTVs should they be banned? Same with with any type of hood on a coat never mind hoodies...

This 'chav' witch hunt is pathetic IMHO -- the 'real major criminals' (fraudsters, corrupt officials, organised crime, child abusers etc) are not being focussed on or dealt with rather the government would have you focus on this 'demographic' which is easily recognisable.

It's so obvious -- things aren't going to well so the government create an 'enemy' for the media to demonise, the underclass which can be easily legislated against to earn some 'political points'.

While chavs seem for the most part to be a bunch of criminals there are those that aren't -- lets not penalise them.

grizzly ruin
19-05-2005, 19:59
Oh how subjective... please... criminals use all those things and going by your logic if criminals use them to their benefit then they should be banned.

I have a hard time believing that criminals are going to attempt to walk through the shopping mall wearing makeup with an umbrella at any point.

Stanger things have happened though.


This 'chav' witch hunt is pathetic IMHO -- the 'real major criminals' (fraudsters, corrupt officials, organised crime, child abusers etc) are not being focussed on or dealt with rather the government would have you focus on this 'demographic' which is easily recognisable.

It's so obvious -- things aren't going to well so the government create an 'enemy' for the media to demonise, the underclass which can be easily legislated against to earn some 'political points'.

While chavs seem for the most part to be a bunch of criminals there are those that aren't -- lets not penalise them.

I think it might help me a bit if you explained exactly what a Chav is, because from what you are saying here they seem to be a social group that has no choice but to be Chavs. (which is not what I thought they were)

Are they born and raised as Chavs and refer to themselves such?

Wraith
19-05-2005, 21:39
I have a hard time believing that criminals are going to attempt to walk through the shopping mall wearing makeup with an umbrella at any point.

Stanger things have happened though.

That's because when you think of a 'criminal' I would expect you to think of a Chav rather than say a huy in a suit who is using stolen credit cards, embezzling money, or running some sort of postal fraud scheme, or indeed is the owner/manager of a private elderly care home and is conning the residents out of money or abusing them or both.


I think it might help me a bit if you explained exactly what a Chav is, because from what you are saying here they seem to be a social group that has no choice but to be Chavs. (which is not what I thought they were)

Are they born and raised as Chavs and refer to themselves such?

How could I possibly answer those questions without generalising in an effort give you definitive answers?

Indeed what I consider a Chav, what you consider a Chav, and what the people we consider as Chavs think are Chavs maybe quite different.

It's quite obvious to me though that the shopping centre considers 'a Chav' to be a person who wears either a hoody a BB cap or both.

Some say Chav stands for ‘council house and violent’… Cynically I would suggest a proportion of people who aren’t Chavs think Chavs are poor people who don’t know their ‘place’.

Rykion
19-05-2005, 23:57
That's because when you think of a 'criminal' I would expect you to think of a Chav rather than say a huy in a suit who is using stolen credit cards, embezzling money, or running some sort of postal fraud scheme, or indeed is the owner/manager of a private elderly care home and is conning the residents out of money or abusing them or both.

You have brought up white collar crime (embezzling, fraud, etc.) before in this thread. Most people spend more time worrying about violent crime (murder, rape, assault, etc.) than white collar crime. You never know when someone robbing you with a weapon might decide to kill you too. People's physical safety should always trump non-violent crime in the eyes of Law Enforcement.

White collar crime is also much harder for Law Enforcement to prevent. More police on the street and more cameras do not prevent embezzlement or fraud. The most effective way to prevent these crimes is for people to be vigilant in monetary transactions both personal and business. The government can remind seniors to watch out for fraud and warn people of certain schemes going around. Most white collar crimes require that the victim place the criminal in a position to take their money.


It's quite obvious to me though that the shopping centre considers 'a Chav' to be a person who wears either a hoody a BB cap or both.

The centre has created a dress code. This does not effect anyone's Civil Liberties as it is not the government making a law. If someone chooses to break the dress code, they may have to face the consequence of being asked to leave. If the centre tries to force someone not breaking any rules to leave, they open themselves up for a lawsuit.

I avoid malls and inside shopping centres as much as possible myself. I can't stand the crowds or the prices.

Grimtuff
20-05-2005, 00:59
While chavs seem for the most part to be a bunch of criminals there are those that aren't -- lets not penalise them.


I will demonise Chavs all I want thankyou, or are you trying to take away our civil liberties on that as well

Have you ever lived near or been hassled by a bunch of Chavs? I have, and its not nice, to have this underclass bunch of ****wits dominating places due to the intimidation factor is just proposterous. Are you seriously suggesting we give these people a break?

Most of them are ill educated knob jockeys who couldnt care less about what they do, as by wearing the hoodies THEY CANNOT BE IDENTFIED, by removing them it will make them think twice, or think full stop.

I mean, because we should all try to "connect" with the ********s that wake you up a 3am by skateboarding down your hill multiple times whilst hurling abuse at the people they have woken. Open your eyes hippie, Chavs have maliscious intent and should be reprimanded in any way the better normal citizens see fit

The pestilent 1
20-05-2005, 01:33
i like my hoodies, im a paranoid nutter, and it makes me feel better to not have my neck exposed (dont ask me why?!)
but; if they asked me to take my hood down, i would oblige.
if they told me, id be complaining about equal rights til the sun goes down.
or i got bored and wandered somwhere that wasnt inhabited by a bunch of... people.

glimli
20-05-2005, 01:58
another good way of getting rid of thugs from public places trialled in austrlia is to have raqther loud classical music blaring oin the background. it seems to be that tese "rebellious", "independant" "individualist " types are so image conscious that they cant bear to be associated with any culture. although they shouldnt palky opera music otherwsie noone will come!

Beefstick
20-05-2005, 09:40
I'd be carefull with that one, someone might play good ole Ludwig Van and the chavs will go all Clockwork Orangey! :eek: Then they'll have to ban bowler hats and excessive eye makeup. :rolleyes:

Wraith
20-05-2005, 10:02
The centre has created a dress code. This does not effect anyone's Civil Liberties as it is not the government making a law. If someone chooses to break the dress code, they may have to face the consequence of being asked to leave. If the centre tries to force someone not breaking any rules to leave, they open themselves up for a lawsuit.

Yes, a dress code they only partially enforce so it might as well be 'no chavs' rather than 'no hoodies and BB caps'.


I will demonise Chavs all I want thankyou, or are you trying to take away our civil liberties on that as well

:rolleyes: How is saying 'lets not penalise them' as in lets not legislate on the basis of stereotypes restricting your liberty to think bad of all chavs?


Have you ever lived near or been hassled by a bunch of Chavs?

Yes, I've said twice already in this thread that I have actually been physically attacked by a Chav.


Are you seriously suggesting we give these people a break?

Only the chavs that aren't criminals.


Most of them are ill educated knob jockeys who couldnt care less about what they do, as by wearing the hoodies THEY CANNOT BE IDENTFIED, by removing them it will make them think twice, or think full stop.

Not every chav is a criminal, not everyone in a hoody is a criminal, if CCTV cameras are flawed bring in more police.


I mean, because we should all try to "connect" with the ********s that wake you up a 3am by skateboarding down your hill multiple times whilst hurling abuse at the people they have woken. Open your eyes hippie, Chavs have maliscious intent and should be reprimanded in any way the better normal citizens see fit

Oh another person trying to make me out as a 'liberal' or a 'lefty' or indeed a 'hippy'!

I think you have to realise that not everyone you are afraid of is a criminal, and you being afraid of people doesn't make them criminals. Your desire to penalise people who are innocent of any crime because you're afraid of the way they dress is disgusting.

On an individuals basis if a chav has comited a crime arrest them and throw the book at them as you wish but don't tar every person who wears a hoody and or a base ball cap with the same brush as criminal chavs.

hairyman
20-05-2005, 10:28
I will demonise Chavs all I want thankyou...... this underclass bunch of **********s.... ill educated knob jockeys... Chavs have maliscious intent and should be reprimanded in any way the better normal citizens see fit
(edited for dramatic effect)

Grim, that's one nasty tirade. Sweeping generalisations, naughty swearing, snobbery, bad spelling, and the advocacy of arbitrary punishment meted out by "better normal" people.

People are innocent until proven guilty. You cannot assume people are criminals just because of they way they look... that sort of thinking belongs back in the dark ages; along with capital punishment, mandatory short back and sides, and segregated buses.

And how and when did the terms "liberal" or "hippy" become an insult? "Lefty"?? :wtf: Are we living in 1950's USA under Senator Mcarthy, or are we actually living in the multi-cultural freedom loving twenty first century?

Minister
20-05-2005, 10:53
I will happily be described as a leftie, or even a commie although that would be lacking for accuracy, but I doubt very much that I could be classes as a hippie.

Rich
20-05-2005, 10:54
I think the americans on the board probably find it hard to understand certain aspects of English culture, because I know that things are quite different over here in some ways. Specifically, I am refering to the British attitude to alcohol. I don't think that in America, you tend to get gangs of youths just out drinking at the age of 15, walking around with cans of lager and swearing at people - just because alcohol is a lot harder to get hold of, and there are specific bans on drinking in public. The problem here is that drinking is endemic (pubs on every street corner almost!) and that reflects in these kids being able to get hold of alcohol. Once they start drinking, they get even more rude and intolerant and violence, intimidation and abuse seem to (regretibly) follow.

In America I also think that the principle of self defence is enshrined (as it should be) wheras in England it is much more open to interpretation. Specifically, you have to prove that the level of violence you use to defend yourself is in proportion to the threat - makes sence, but it does mean that when attacked by a gang of 15yr olds (technically minors) it is almost impossible to justify any level of violence in self defence, so any ideas of discouraging the gang with a punch is unfeasable, as you will probably be arrested (sadly a reality over here) - this even applies when people break into an individuals home, and we quite often have homeowners bwing prosecuted for defending thmselves and their property where the violence was thought to be excessive.

As for banning hoodies, the issue is being able to see faces on a CCTV camera, although it also has a bonus in that these individuals tend to identify themselves with such clothing anyway. It seems a bit drastic but there you go. It's not really much different to wearing shoes when you go to a night club, although I think the problem is that it tends to grate on teenagers when they become subject to such measures over the actions of a small minority.

The truth of the matter is though, the 'chav' culture won't be stopping until these kids are given decent role models, prospects for employment and a role in society and have their alcohol and drugs taken away. What they really need is education!

hairyman
20-05-2005, 11:10
The truth of the matter is though, the 'chav' culture won't be stopping until these kids are given decent role models, prospects for employment and a role in society and have their alcohol and drugs taken away. What they really need is education!

Very well said, and straight to the heart of the problem.



we quite often have homeowners bwing prosecuted for defending thmselves and their property where the violence was thought to be excessive.

I assume you're referring to Tony Martin here. He shot a child in the back while they were running away from him, and was then cannonised for it by the right wing press.

Totally different topic, but the right to self defence does not mean everybody should own a gun. We do not live in 1850's frontier land. If owning guns was illegal a lot less people would get shot. Equally, people should not be encouraged to react to intimidation and threats by swinging their fists.

Wraith
20-05-2005, 11:23
I make no attempt to hide my loathing for public CCTV cameras -- if they don't work then scrap them and put (real) police back on the streets, don't curtail people's civil liberties in an attempt to extend the life span of the governments favourite 'band aid'.

Yorkiebar
20-05-2005, 12:25
Good ban. Trouble-making chavs don't deserve to hang around in public places. And if they do happen to be cool people and not abusive and nasty, then they won't mind dressing differently. Plus, security people can tell the difference between troube-makers and people who are just wearing their normal clothes.

Totally different topic, but the right to self defence does not mean everybody should own a gun. We do not live in 1850's frontier land. If owning guns was illegal a lot less people would get shot. Equally, people should not be encouraged to react to intimidation and threats by swinging their fists.
I agree that guns should be banned to the general public, but the problem there is that if guns were banned, who would NOT get rid of theirs? The criminals and gun-nuts who are actually likely to shoot people, of course...

Minister
20-05-2005, 15:17
Problem solved by not having a gun culture in the first place. The vast majority of guns in this country are held by those who need them for work, and most of these are shotguns or rifles. The main problem, unlike the U.S. is not the use of stolen legal handguns or semi-legaly purchaced handguns (by which I mean purchaced illegaly, but available to those who have a lisence) being used for ilegal activities but the use of flat-out ilegal handguns smugled into the country and sold on to other criminals.

Lost Primarch
20-05-2005, 16:50
I was going to post something about being half glad / half sad that P&R has gone, but now I see it's alive in spirit in Random Musings.

Personally, I believe...

That Prescott is actually right - hoodies ARE part of an intimidating uniform, but only if worn by certain people. For example, the typical scum we have in England walk around in large groups, with a demented walk (trying to bulk out their shoulders), an unquenchable thirst for street cred, a vacant expression and of course their hoodies (and/or baseball cap).

For those Americans that don't understand how these guys are intimidating, I quite understand. If I was a newcomer to this country, I would laugh at them on sight. However, I have grown up with these shitebags and know their philosophy - in which reason is totally absent.

The mere fact that any kids could group together and pick fights with totally unsuspecting passers by is intimidating to me. Not because I am scared, but because it is totally outside our normal social values, and so different to how me and my own friends have grown up. It's almost like they are aggressive social aliens, intent on converting everyone to their way of life. Even if you want nothing to do with them, they'll still root you out. They're a bit like Jehovah's Witnesses in that respect :p

Of course, I am making sweeping generalisations about the chav, the type I refer to is usually the very worst. Many are perfectly OK, some are very good friends of mine - one even plays 40k!! However the ones that take 'chavness' to a new level from being a simple fashion statement, and forming their own aggressive, primitive subculture simply do not deserve to be treated in a respectful way by the people who they are so rude to.

By banning hoodies and baseball caps, we are destroying their symbol. It's like burning a national flag - without it they are nothing. Rather than wearing ridiculous headgear, they can express their chavness in other ways, such as trainers (Reebok classics anyone!?), white socks and blue tracksuit bottoms. These are far less intimidating!

I am not completely dismissing the fight for hoodies, I quite like them myself, and if people other than those who wish to look intimidating want to wear them, go ahead! I believe the actual idea at Bluewater is that hoods should not be worn 'up', which seems perfectly reasonable to me.

For those of you who still cannot grasp the fact it can be an intimidating uniform, imagine how you would feel if a group of 10 adolescents walked towards you in motorcycle helmets with tinted visors, generally looking aggressive. Don't try and prove your steel by meerly claiming you would laugh, for that situation would put the ***** up most people, simply because it's so unreal, and you wonder why on earth they are doing it.

Incidentally, the amount of shoppers at Bluewater has increased by 23%, so I think that a lot of Southerners would agree with me.

Also, the fact that Berghaus is chav uniform in Scotland alarms me. I myself and some of my mates wear Berghaus clothing because we actually go out on the hills and appreciate the design and quality. I've got 2 shirts, a jacket, a rucksack and gloves made by Berghaus - and I'm a Southern Fairy!

Wraith
20-05-2005, 17:09
I expect to see more and more both of violent gangs and of legislation brought in to attempt to deal with them but in fact equally penalises the law abiding citizen.

What with the governments 'anti-terror' laws removing our freedom of speech, removing people's right to a trial (in such circumstances) etc and now their new 'mental health' bill which will allow legal forced medication and operations (among other things) and is opposed by most of the mental health proffesion all we need is a government slightly more corrupt than the current one and... well... you get the idea...

I'm sure eventually (say 50+ years) they'll use their powers to revoke civil liberties to announce that anyone undertaking 'criminal behaviour' (defined by the state, remember critiscism of religion could be construed as crime now) is in fact 'mentally ill' (defined by the state) and 'in the interests of the state' said people will be forced without right to a trial to undergo gene therapy/brain operations to prevent any further 'disobediance'.

Oh yes... the road to hell is paved with good intentions...

Rich
20-05-2005, 17:16
Very well said, and straight to the heart of the problem.

Thanks! In my opinion half of the reason for the chav culture is the role models that young people have. i watch TV and I see people having affairs on soaps and fist fights, footballers spitting and shouting abuse and lots of lewd programs about sex and alcohol - while I'm not of the daily mail mentality (omg, blame the video games!) I do think that if TV showed happy families who had respect for each other and spoke nicely then people would be much less likely to act so foul.


I assume you're referring to Tony Martin here. He shot a child in the back while they were running away from him, and was then cannonised for it by the right wing press.


Not so much Martin (as you say, the man shot somebody in the back) but a string of other cases (not often involving firearms) where people have confronted an intruder while holding a bread knife and ended up either stabbing them or else the two have taken a tumble down the stairs - the issue is simply one of redressing the balance somewhat so that you dont have an automatic right to kill people who enter your home but you aren't likely to get prosecuted if you get into a scuffle with them. i completely agree that martin is a very bad example of somebody who was wrongfully imprisoned - i feel bad for him, but his response was not justified in my view.

Sojourner
20-05-2005, 17:20
The thing about chavs is that they're intimidating and they know it. Intimidating people is an offence. As is their frequent defamation - "Fag" etc. So any chav who leers at you in a threatening fashion or shouts something offensive is in fact a criminal - and that's most of them.

To all those confused about chavdom itself - it in fact isn't a social class like "Mexican" or "Trailer Trash". Their manner, dress and posture is all deliberate and thus one is perfectly entitled to label them all as scum. If an individual isn't deserving of these accusations, they're not a chav, just an ugly person of substandard intelligence who tends to wear knocked-off sports clothing.

worldshatterer
20-05-2005, 17:41
If the mall is private property, and has its own security force then surely it has the right to eject undesirables . So i'm bemused by the need for a dress code, especially in such places that surely make most of their money from 'chavish' youth spending on the latest brands . If they don't like the gangs of youth's they should remove them, thats how security does it where in my bit of the country .

The whole hats and hoodies thing is just lazyness on their part plain and simple, and racks every punkish bone in my body, as long as you're not indecently exposed nobody should be able to tell you how to dress .

We've already made the concession of letting the corporate civil rights violating types constantly observing with cctv our actions in public places, .this all sounds like a slippery road to trying to make it an offence to wear clothing which maintains your anonymity from the fascist's surveilance .

Wraith
20-05-2005, 17:50
When people refer to 'chavs' they could be refering to anything from or between poor white people (who wear gawdy clothes) to a specific type of young male hooligan, characterised by moving in packs, wearing labeled sports wear, base ball caps, hoodies, with interest in smoking (illegal drugs and tobacco), alcohol, and drum 'n base music. The latter stereotype has a thirst for confrontation and as such acts and behaves as provocative as possible.

Interestingly 'Kevs' are a sub group of the latter 'chav' group with a specific interest in cars, 'doing cars up', playing loud music in their 'Kev cars', and reving the engine of their 'kev cars' to highlight the deliberatley loud exhaust they've had fitted.

Being a slang word there is no specific deffinition.

Rykion
20-05-2005, 17:50
Does Bluewater sell baseball caps and hoodies in its stores? I can imagine security having to escort out an improperly dressed mannequin. It would also be ironic to get kicked out for having something you just bought. Better not try them on in a fitting room either. :p

Wraith
20-05-2005, 17:53
As reported in last Saturdays daily express (yes, I know :p) Bluewater does indeed sell hoodies and baseball hats.

Cheesejoff
20-05-2005, 20:29
So i'm bemused by the need for a dress code, especially in such places that surely make most of their money from 'chavish' youth spending on the latest brands

Chavish youths...what? Spending? Oh, you mean "spending", ie, stealing. Because the kind of chavs they are trying to get rid of are the small criminal minority, not the larger majority. The ban may not solve the problems entirely but at least someone is doing something.

Wraith
20-05-2005, 20:49
You'll never get rid of chavs (and their ilk) short of killing them -- these people arise because of the way our society/civilisation works -- they're a 'byproduct' if you like.

Oh and they reproduce more... ;)

Adlan
20-05-2005, 22:52
Norwich (biggist city near to my home village of edingthorpe) and several villages all have chav problems (thank god northwalsham escapes).
I firt encounterd Chavs at the Hewett (where i still attend) and being steeped in village fighting (common practise to settle arguments by fists, with lots of rules) i tried to fight chavs that pissed me off, i got my **** handed to me on a platter, again and again. And eventually in some wyrd way i was accepted into chav society, no local chav botherd me, chavs in different years (lots of inter year fights in hewett) were beaten up by other chavs in my year if i moand about them annoying me. i was accepted. And the odd thing is that chavs are like the rest of us, they care about grades ("i need two D's Adlan help us revise") they care about scoical standing ("and then aron beat up nelson") and they want stuff to do ("i'm so bored Adlan, we never get anything intresting in school")
And if they can't get good grades ("I hate mrs dennis, she's always picking on me") they can't get good jobs, (i need to get on the welding course) and so they turn to bost there scocial standing. But how can they do this? the same way boys everywhere do, bydoing stupid things infront of there mates.

And this dosn't touch on substance abuse.

We can't blame chavs for what they are, we can hold them acountable for their actions. But they only improvements will be if we can get at the route cause of chavs (bad parenting and inequality) I personally am waiting for virtual reality and cheap power and robotic farmng for that to happen.

worldshatterer
21-05-2005, 10:36
Speaking as another Norwich boy, chav avoidance tip number 1, don't go to Hewett! I gave up on that hellhole after half a year there, and the people i knew who kept going had a lot of their education wrecked .

I've fought them and won its the simplest way to respect . Chavs are the byproducts of our foul post thatcherite society, unacademic types doing their best to find some value in their lives in a society obsessed with childrens exams results . If we just found the space in our society for children to be children rather than forcing them into a world of stress and oversexualisation at too early age, the problem wouldn't exist .

Sojourner
21-05-2005, 10:54
It's true, tackling chavism at the root would be best policy. if you can turn an idiot with a bad attitude into a skilled worker with some pride in his life, nine times out of ten he isn't going to want to act like a scumbag because there really is something better.

Adlan
21-05-2005, 11:13
I think that everyone agrees we want not to be botherd by chavs, how ever there are lots of disagreements over how to do it.
hence this .
Chavs are like Rhodedendrums.
No matter how you get rid of them they will kepp coming back till you get rid of the very roots.

So how do we stop chav culture forming? anyone?

Frodo34x
21-05-2005, 11:42
If they actually want to buy something they can wear some other clothes.
Is this necessarily true? I, for example, am far from a Ned. However, I wear hoodies all the time. Even to school. I have no other forms of jumpers/ jackets. So I should only be allowed to wear t-shirts?


As for hoodies and caps being intimidating, this is ridiculous. You cannot ban whole genres of fashion because some people are intimidated by them. (Personally, I'd be a lot more intimidated and be a lot more worried about random acts of violence if I met someone in a military uniform that if I met someone in a burberry cap).
Exactly.


Lets ban everything and everyone that 'intimidates' the most vocal -- why stop at the Chavs?

We should ban the homeless wearing rags, we should ban men from shaving their heads, having tattoos, and piercings. If someone is wearing dark sun glasses we should ban them too as it's hiding their face and it intimidates the old people. Let's ban goth's wearing black makeup, and people listening to techno music in their cars...

Pathetic.

You know what? Everyone is intimidated by anything 'different' and they'll come up with any justification to ban and censor everyone until everyone looks, acts, talks the same.
Again, I agree.

Personally, if the ban is againsy wearing your hood up in the centre, then I support the ban. But if it is just a ban on hoodies, all together, then I oppose it. I don't know about your area, but round here, hoodies are more popular with the "moshers" than the "chavs".

Sojourner
21-05-2005, 12:30
So how do we stop chav culture forming? anyone?

Beat up anyone who glorifies ignorance, stupidity and lack of respect for person and property.

Wraith
21-05-2005, 12:34
Indeed, the Chavs around my way (known as ‘Townies’) are more likely to be wearing tracksuit tops (high collars, synthetic material).

Hoodies seem where I live to be most popular with 'skaters' and their ilk. Although there does seem to be some cross over between the two groups i.e. they both like baseball caps.

And then you have the 'fun boys' which are generally well off who dress in designer jeans (Levi, Diesel etc), tight fitting colourful T shirts (often two with a larger one underneath of a different colour), gelled hair, fashion trainers, and these now quite popular items which are basically cardigans but with zips and high collars (usually cotton). The other groups are most likely to apply stereotypical 'camp' traits to 'fun boys' as they are viewed as the least masculine -- the group most likely to buy moisturiser and FCUK deodorant etc.

A few Goths - we all know what they look like.

But yeah, interesting mix of groups...


Beat up anyone who glorifies ignorance, stupidity and lack of respect for person and property.

Hypocrite.

Lost Primarch
21-05-2005, 13:12
And then you have the 'fun boys' which are generally well off who dress in designer jeans (Levi, Diesel etc), tight fitting colourful T shirts (often two with a larger one underneath of a different colour), gelled hair, fashion trainers, and these now quite popular items which are basically cardigans but with zips and high collars (usually cotton). The other groups are most likely to apply stereotypical 'camp' traits to 'fun boys' as they are viewed as the least masculine -- the group most likely to buy moisturiser and FCUK deodorant etc.

We call them 'hairdressers' at my college. On the whole they are a good bunch of lads.

Wraith
21-05-2005, 13:17
Sure, a lot of my friends are said 'fun boys' -- I didn't mean for the description to sound derogatory.

Sojourner
21-05-2005, 13:22
Hypocrite.

Ah but you see, it's actually doing them good. If it discourages them from doing things that causes society to shun them, how is that bad?

Seriously though, I don't care. I'm right and they're wrong.

Wraith
21-05-2005, 13:47
Hmm... human suffering Vs society (civilisation)... human sacrifice to contine society (civilisation)... My opinion is society (civilisation) can go rot to be honest basically because it's been around for 6,000 years and modern humans have been round for what 75,000? I'm not sure on that figure but suffice to say you wouldn't have chavs if there wasn't civilisation; civilisation isn't worth individuals sacrificing their lives (their happiness) for IMO. We aren't all little cogs put here to keep the economy going.

I'm some what reminded of the odd human desire to classify any animal which isn't of 'any use' (to human 'civilisation') as a 'pest' and should be delt with as such.

Anyway... you on the basis of "do as I say not as I do" (much like the government and the law), and to highlight once again you're doing to them what you critisicse them doing to you.



Beat up anyone who glorifies ignorance, stupidity and lack of respect for person and property.

I'm right and they're wrong.

Well these two quotes some up your position quite well...

redemptionist15
21-05-2005, 14:18
To be honest this is a bit of a silly argument. Restaurants often have a dress code, the intention being that customers look smart but also to ward away those who they don't want in the restaurant. Bluewater is doing the same thing.

If you think its discrimination sure go fight the chavs and ruffians corner for them, but you go down onto the streets of Britain these days and you will discover 90% of them are pure scum who contribute nothing to society other than increased crime figures and more dole bills.

Frodo34x
21-05-2005, 17:44
But as has been said, hoodies are more popular with "groups" other than Neds.

PSD
22-05-2005, 18:38
I practically live in hoodies, yet im as far from a Chav as its possible to be.

While i may not like it, if im going into their shopping centre, i respect their rules if i want to stay there. Thus i take my hoodie off (i might add at this point, the only time the hood goes up is -heaven forbid- it rains), or put the hood down, or whatever.

Yes, true, Chavs are scum, and are of no more use than as crash test dummies, or as test subjects for new and dangerous chemicals. And i personally think collecting them all up on an island and letting them fight to the death al la Battle Royale, is a good idea. We can even give a cynide tainted cake to the winner. Isnt that nice?

No less than they deserve at any rate. Theyre social undesirables, and id be much happier if they were indeed swept under the carpet, or better still, swept into the sea with concrete boots on.

But i guess that makes me a bad person doesnt it? Pfft, like i care. Burn them.

Wraith
22-05-2005, 19:21
Bad? Personally I think it's more about being 'internally consistent' or not... Also it may depend on how you define 'a Chav'.

Interesting though that you are saying you're willing to murder Chavs -- I wonder whether you really would, and whether you'd have anything to say if someone murdered you because in their opinion you're undersirable.

PSD
22-05-2005, 19:48
I dont view them as people. They prey on society, so why should society protect them, or make allowances for them? Indeed, in that vein, why afford them the same rights as those who dont prey on society? If they seem to think theyre above the law, then they shouldnt be afforded the protection of it.

And without any form of legal recrimination, i wouldnt bat an eyelid at killing one of the little grebs if they threatened me or someone i care about. Simple as that.

And as for your other question, id have nothing to say; id be dead... :rolleyes:

Wraith
22-05-2005, 20:18
Well don't tax 'them' (you haven't said what you consider a 'chav' as yet) or expect them to contribute to society or abide by societies rules (called 'laws'). Easy really -- let everyone decide whether the 'benefits of civilisation' are worth submitting to the negatives.

Remeber though your concept of 'land ownership' and indeed ownership in general would be your laws not theirs and hence they would not be subject to it.

Basically civilisation expects everyone to be fine with living as part of it so when people don't it stuffs everything up.

Of course some people have more to loose than others...


And as for your other question, id have nothing to say; id be dead... :rolleyes:

Please... you'd speak before the act took place.

Sojourner
22-05-2005, 21:38
Chavs generally don't pay tax as the kind of scumbag breed we're talking about don't normally have (legitimate) jobs.

Wraith
22-05-2005, 21:55
Well because we all have different deffinitions of what constitutes a chav... besides chav pay VAT.

neXus6
22-05-2005, 22:00
Wraith that's implying that they actually pay for things and don't just steal them.

I don't think we're talking about this new creation of "fasionable rich chav culture" we're focusing distinctly on the bottom of the barrel who think it's okay social behaviour to go about in a group, damage property and attack people (usually with no provocation of any kind).
The NEDS and Chavs (NEDs generally being better off kids who roam about looking for fights and Chavs just being Chavs whatever age) are both a blight, unfortunatly they are a blight which only one thing can really stop. Proper self defence laws. If I know I'm not goint to be charged for fighting back then that makes a big change. At least IMO.

Wraith
22-05-2005, 22:04
I doubt even the most hardened chav gets by stealing everything he needs.

I think sometimes you guys are living in a fantasy world... or at least place near super natural powers of mischief in the hands of your 'ultimate stereotype chav'.


unfortunatly they are a blight which only one thing can really stop. Proper self defence laws. If I know I'm not goint to be charged for fighting back then that makes a big change. At least IMO.

Well, having been attacked by them in the past I doubt such measures will 'stop Chavs' but I can empathise with your position.

neXus6
22-05-2005, 22:06
I think your missing the bigger picture though, they are not a group to be protected.

Also I've added to my post if you'd care to comment.

Wraith
22-05-2005, 22:50
I have commented... and I've missed no point.

In regards to the Chav hooligans who are criminals and enjoy violence (who I have been attacked by) I personally consider them an inevitable by-product of our civilisation and I'm amused constantly by people who don't see them as such. I'm even more amused when I hear (or read about) hypocritical people who advocate killing or attacking Chavs.

I dislike modern technological 'civilisation' you see as I think it causes more pain than good so when I see people whining about Chavs I say to myself "Ha! Serves you right!” Not to say I think anyone deserves to be attacked by Chavs (I've been there and I didn't deserve it) rather those people who think modern 'civilisation' is ‘so great’ and will hear no criticism of it I think it's ironic that they refuse to accept the existence of 'Chavs' as a necessary evil -- the price they have to pay for 'running the world' the way they advocate.

Moving on… I completely disagree with any reduction of civil liberties so when I see a potential new trend in ‘society’ (as part of ‘the system’) moving all be it subtly towards ‘banning certain clothing’ becoming ‘acceptable’ (which is an excuse to ban a particular non-conformist group IMO) I choose to take a stand against it.

neXus6
22-05-2005, 23:09
Dude, you have managed to string something so simple out into some huge rights abuse... But it isn't, it is a shopping centers right to impose such a rule, just like shops are allowed to have signs saying "Please remove your Motorcycle Helmet." Only a real ***** would have a problem with simply putting their cap in their pocket or tieing their hoodie around their waist. That is it, no huge rights abuse.

On the other edge of this threads now very broad topic, yes there will always be Neds and Chavs, all I really want is the right to defend myself when the little ****s pick a fight.

Wraith
22-05-2005, 23:29
I stand by my comments -- it's all to easy to say "it's just a little thing" and then 30 years down the line a lot of little 'reasonable' things become precedents for one big unreasonable thing and thusly 'civilisation' is changed for the worse.

neXus6
22-05-2005, 23:36
Oh no, the second they change the little thing into something that is actually an abuse and overly restricting I will be up in arms, but I don't think it is some inevitable downward slide.

"Today it's asked to leave a shopping center, in 60 years it'll be the gas chamber."
...Yeah, okay...

athamas
23-05-2005, 00:21
I dont think they are banning certian social types, as to stop ppl who are in the most likley age range to shop lift from wearing face abscureing items...


yes it infringes allitle on their liberties, but it is justified to this degree...


plus i dont like chavs, so i am not bothered, [though being 6"4' i tend not to have problems with them!]

Delicious Soy
23-05-2005, 01:05
I stand by my comments -- it's all to easy to say "it's just a little thing" and then 30 years down the line a lot of little 'reasonable' things become precedents for one big unreasonable thing and thusly 'civilisation' is changed for the worse.Changed for the worse? They're aiming to cut down on shoplifiting and the harassment of customers by targetting those most likely to do it. Fanticism starts off fanatical and continues, it doesn't need a thirty year wind up. If they were saying they're rounding them up and putting them in 're-education' camps then I might be concerned. I think a healthy dose of apathy is required here.

Wraith
23-05-2005, 10:17
I can't blame you all for 'not seeing the big picture' (in my opinion) and to be honest there are people who never will.

It's easy to trivialise my comments by making out I'm suggesting 'shopping centre bans hoodies - 30 years - government puts chavs in concentration camps' but the reality is/will be a lot more subtle and insidious.

As one person who's not about to start killing people there's not much I can do about the degradation of civil liberties or trends which provide precedents but I am going to highlight them when I can.

Sojourner
23-05-2005, 10:33
I do think more self-defence laws should be in place and I do think it would help curb the abuse that decent people receive. I'd extend this to the right to physically assault someone for theft from your person and suchlike - I emphasise assault, not GBH i.e. no lasting physical damage.

Delicious Soy
23-05-2005, 12:56
I can't blame you all for 'not seeing the big picture' (in my opinion) and to be honest there are people who never will.Actually I think the problem is that there is no historical basis for your claims. Civil rights have waxed and waned over the past century (at least in Australia they have), in WWI near dictatorial powers were granted to law enforcement and intelligence agencies. These were handed back. The same thing happened during WWII. They were handed back. Now we have the 'War on Terror'. Call it hyperbole if you will (I'll probably agree) but it has lead to a spread in such laws and rules. Yet how many times have you been held for 48 hours without charge (ASIO has the power to do this, I'm sure MI5 has similar powers now)?

If you want a different spin, what's the difference between this corporation banning hoodies and a club only allowing collared shirts?

hairyman
23-05-2005, 13:17
If you want a different spin, what's the difference between this corporation banning hoodies and a club only allowing collared shirts?

It's not the same thing.

There was a very good point that seems to have got lost a few pages back in this thread; namely that Bluewater were using caps and hoodies as an excuse to keep a particular part of society segregated from and out of sight of their better off "normal" customers.

If they were actually introducing a dress code to make their shopping centre a nattier place then I'd be laughing my head off at them, and their shops would be empty. What they're actually trying to do is to ban young, poor working class kids from hanging out in their shopping centre.. by demonising them, jumping on and magnifying any incident they find, and by playing on the fears of their respectable "normal" customers who feel intimidated by people who look or act differently to them, or who come from a different world to them.

If they were really arsed about random acts of violence and grannies being mugged then they would take better steps to police the precinct. They're not.

They just want to ban the chavs cos they don't like the look of lazy, lay-about do-nothing idlers who are bored and 95% of the time just causing they're own flavour of harmless fun or mischief the same as any other teenagers (the other 5% - or whatever other random statistic I could've inserted there - being the random chav attacks that so dominate our news at the moment; along with the war on terror, the war on crime, the war on drugs, the war on mrsa, and the war on whatever else will keep you terrified enough to stay in your home, not talk to anyone and devolve all your autonomy and civil liberties to the state which is there to protect you......./rant).

I agree it's not too much bother to remove a cap or hood when entering the shopping centre, but I really don't think it's gonna stop crime. It's just nimbyism designed to placate "normal" people and get more bodies with money to spend through the door.

Frodo34x
23-05-2005, 13:49
So this is how liberty dies - To thunderous shopping.
:p

Delicious Soy
23-05-2005, 14:08
There was a very good point that seems to have got lost a few pages back in this thread; namely that Bluewater were using caps and hoodies as an excuse to keep a particular part of society segregated from and out of sight of their better off "normal" customers.
You mean the ones that are making the purchases?

Its private property, they have a right to do it. Which was the point I was trying to make. This isn't a law, its a rule in a privately owned shopping centre, or is private property now to be revoked instead? Perhaps chavs need to be educated that rights also go hand in hand with 'responsibility'.

Will there be innoncent 'victims' of this? Undoubtedly. The point is, if there wasn't an element of truth to this stereotype, the descison wouldn't fly. But of course in addition to banning hoodies the shopping centre is also putting up posters showing the 'danger of the chav'.

Cheesejoff
23-05-2005, 14:13
Personally I am not wholly against the ban. It may help slightly. However, the time and money the shopping centre spends enforcing the ban could go to, say, a more permanent cure for chavness. Banning burberry may keep the chavs out of the shopping centre but they'll end up on the streets. There are better solutions which should be done instead.

hairyman
23-05-2005, 14:40
@ Soy: the ban has been picked up on and copied by shopping centres up and down the country. Shopping centres only open for the rich, the well dressed and the "normal"? They're the holy consumers.... not the kids who hang out and drink McEvil cokes and meet up with their mates... they're not spending £££££.

If people are breaking the law then arrest them and police the area properly. Don't make scapegoats out of what you've said yourself is a stereotype of a part of society.

Last year in the UK asylum seekers mugged our grannies and spoilt our daily mail utopia... then the gypsies were at it.. now it's the chavs.

Odin
23-05-2005, 15:01
Shopping centres only open for the rich, the well dressed and the "normal"?

Er, you don't need to be rich to take off your baseball cap.

Personally, I'm very happy to see it happening across the country. If things had carried on the way they were going, we would have started to see vigilante gangs cropping up to try and deal with the Chavs - and they would not make any distinction between a criminal chav and a non-criminal one. Better that the conflict be a peaceful one.

Yes, this has become a bit of a "Daily Mail" issue - but that's fine by me if it means the government might start sorting itself out - more effort to reduce poverty, less free money for people who just can't be bothered to work, more investment in schools and teachers, more of the useful vocational qualifications and less mickey mouse degrees.

Delicious Soy
23-05-2005, 15:07
@ Soy: the ban has been picked up on and copied by shopping centres up and down the country. Shopping centres only open for the rich, the well dressed and the "normal"? They're the holy consumers.... not the kids who hang out and drink McEvil cokes and meet up with their mates... they're not spending £££££.It's a shopping centre. It's sole purpose is to push goods out the door by providing a central place for all shopping needs. It's like turning up at a church and saying "You expect me to pray!?". Capitalism. People need to learn to live with it. Or move to Cuba.


If people are breaking the law then arrest them and police the area properly. Don't make scapegoats out of what you've said yourself is a stereotype of a part of society.A stereotype that has a basis. This isn't something like accussing Jews of 'blood libel', there is a significant portion of 'chavs' that carry out this behaviour. Maybe because I'm being more specific than others in classifying people into this pigeonhole, but basically I'm drawing the line at "group of young kids hanging malls verbally and physically assaulting people, or intentionally acting in an intimidating manner". The idea here is crime prevention, not after the fact actions, you know proactivism?


Last year in the UK asylum seekers mugged our grannies and spoilt our daily mail utopia... then the gypsies were at it.. now it's the chavs.There's adifference between the government passing laws and private companies making their own rules.

hairyman
23-05-2005, 15:19
Move to Cuba? Now you're talking! :p

One group of kids acts up in a shopping centre so you blanket ban all the kids?

As I've already stated, the idea isn't so much crime prevention as clearing out the undesireables. If they were serious about crime prevention someone would take much more drastic steps than bringing in the fashion police.

People have to learn to live with capitalism? Ok, that's a whole other argument ( :evilgrin: ), but all I'm talking about is kids hanging out and maybe spending £5 between them in a public shopping centre over the course of the afternoon. You'd ban them because they don't spend enough money? Are you not allowed into Bluewater's shopping centre if you don't open your wallet?

Proactivism? What, you mean punishing people for crimes they haven't committed? (cue the A-Team music....)

I'm not talking about goverment passing laws, I'm talking about public opinion as it is shaped by the media. At the moment "chavs" are the daemons of society (next year it'll be something else.. wargamers and satanic role players leading our kids astray ? :eek: ); as such they cop all the flack and get plastered all over Murdoch's media getting drunk and starting fights and having six babies by the time they're twenty. This does not necessarily paint a fair picture, it does make it easier for nimbys to get the "rabble" out of their pretty southern shopping centres, and it does nothing to help alieviate poverty & poor education that is rife in the UK's vast council sink estates.

redemptionist15
23-05-2005, 19:01
Its private property, they have a right to do it. Which was the point I was trying to make. This isn't a law, its a rule in a privately owned shopping centre, or is private property now to be revoked instead? Perhaps chavs need to be educated that rights also go hand in hand with 'responsibility'. Which is exactly what i posted earlier in the thread.

Just because a privately owned shopping center is enforcing its own rights on whom it chooses to let into its property some people are up in arms?



I'm not talking about goverment passing laws, I'm talking about public opinion as it is shaped by the media. At the moment "chavs" are the daemons of society (next year it'll be something else.. wargamers and satanic role players leading our kids astray ? ); as such they cop all the flack and get plastered all over Murdoch's media getting drunk and starting fights and having six babies by the time they're twenty. This does not necessarily paint a fair picture, it does make it easier for nimbys to get the "rabble" out of their pretty southern shopping centres, and it does nothing to help alieviate poverty & poor education that is rife in the UK's vast council sink estates. From my experience those kids choose to live the way they do, they skip school and are generally not interested in improving their living conditions. Ive never came from a particularly rich family, this i will admit. However i still went to school ( and did reasonably well) have a job and qualifications now, and contribute my part to society. Just because a group of people are demonised and/or spoke ill of by society does not give them a right to terrorise our streets. They get protection from the laws they so happily break, if they want to be above the law then let them be punished in a similar manner, im sure it would soon teach a majority of them to respect society.

I don't buy into the governments war of terror/flashword/ rubbish. However the Chav Menace i do buy into because i have seen and experienced it with my own eyes and its very real. Me and my mate got jumped by 20 of the little bastards, i know of a least 6 or 7 different incidents in the past year involving people in my social group. There is a stretch of road in my town which pretty much has a violent assault reported every week done by "teenagers wearing hooded sports clothing", Sound familiar?

Im not saying that the media is not blowing it up to epic proportions, they are (they want to sell papers), but as far as i can see from my experience in my town the situation is not improving, a lot of kids have no respect for society these days and what started as a minority will grow to become a majority unless action is taken.

Im not suggesting concentration camps as they have no place in a working civilisation, however if those youths feared the wrath of the law they sure as hell would think twice before breaking it.

hairyman
23-05-2005, 19:20
Just because a privately owned shopping center is enforcing its own rights on whom it chooses to let into its property some people are up in arms?



I'm not disputing that they can do whatever they want in their shopping centre - they can insist people must turn up in full power armour if they want - I'm arguing the motives behind the ban, if these motives are defendable, and if banning clothing will have any impact on crime.


Im not suggesting concentration camps as they have no place in a working civilisation, however if those youths feared the wrath of the law they sure as hell would think twice before breaking it

I agree. I've said the whole way through this thread that proper policing is the answer, rather than gimmicky bans on caps and hoods to appease daily mail readers.

Crazy Harborc
24-05-2005, 03:52
We have had the same problems with gangs from time to time in most of the malls in the USA.

When the people spending the money, the real money, stop going to a mall because of gangs of trouble makers or just wanna'be look-a-likes, the malls loose money the merchants leave. THAT is why the malls try to stop problems before they kill off the business in a mall.

Is it fair to innocent but dangerous looking groups of youths to ban certain hats, colours, hairstyles etc., etc........No it's not, it's NOT about fair it's about fear. Fear felt by men and women, teenagers and younger children who are at the mall to shop, eat, attend a movie etc.

If and when the groups/gangs spend real money in the malls and not just wander around for hours. Bothering the shoppers, bothering other groups and in many cases at leasty shoplifting and muggings are NOT rights.

Malls are large groups of merchants, malls are not public meeting/civic locations. Shoppers and merchants have a legal right to buy and sell in safety without fear of gangs or individuals even if all they do is hassle their potential victims.

Wraith
24-05-2005, 09:58
As I've always said the 'mall'/shopping centre can do whatever it likes however much I disagree but it has to choose between these three options --

(a) Enforce the no cap/hat, no hoody ban universally as implied in thier 'code of conduct'. It is not good enough to have such rules and then only challenge young people to remove said items leaving old people free to flaunt the ban.
(b) End the ban and instead put up signs saying -- 'no Chavs' (chavs must be defined in code of conduct).
(c) End all related bans.


They of course wont do this because they would rather dishonestly benefit from partialy enforcing their current hat 'hoody' ban than suffer the controversy of banning chavs.

Sojourner
24-05-2005, 11:52
They just want to ban the chavs cos they don't like the look of lazy, lay-about do-nothing idlers who are bored and 95% of the time just causing they're own flavour of harmless fun or mischief the same as any other teenagers

When you look at it like that, there are worse things to worry about, aren't there?

Then again, I don't like the look of them either and I don't see why I should have to put up with their leering "I'm thick" looks, rubbish, vandalism and generally making a nuisance of themselves, particularly not while I'm trying to do whatever shopping I'm there for. I'm not saying that all youths who hang around are criminal delinquents, just that they have no right to be bumming around on private property annoying people.

Delicious Soy
24-05-2005, 14:18
As I've always said the 'mall'/shopping centre can do whatever it likes however much I disagree but it has to choose between these three options --

(a) Enforce the no cap/hat, no hoody ban universally as implied in thier 'code of conduct'. It is not good enough to have such rules and then only challenge young people to remove said items leaving old people free to flaunt the ban.
(b) End the ban and instead put up signs saying -- 'no Chavs' (chavs must be defined in code of conduct).
(c) End all related bans.


They of course wont do this because they would rather dishonestly benefit from partialy enforcing their current hat 'hoody' ban than suffer the controversy of banning chavs.
They don't actually have to do any of that. It's their property, they can enforce it how they see fit, I believe we call that self determination. They have a right to allow and refuse entry to whoever they want, if they don't then neither do you.

People and corporations are free to be hypocritical, its called free expression. Its no use claiming that everyone is free, so long as they comply with your idolised behaviour. If they don't comply, you have a right to ignore them, or disallow them entry to your property. Like it or not that society's rules, we live by them because otherwise we'd still be living to age 27 in caves.

Wraith
24-05-2005, 14:53
Obviously I meant 'in my opinion' -- I wasn't trying to imply it is law that they have to enforce bans universally.

Do I need to put a dislacmer on everything I type?

Each of my posts are in the context of what I previously typed -- my opinion of the ban is it's pathetic because they don't enforce it universally, they might as well put up 'no chav' signs.

Same as every other heated thread -- it gets to a point where everyone forgets or doesn't bother to read previouse statements so we go around in circles and 'new' or 'forgetful' people get the wrong 'end of the stick'.



Like it or not that society's rules, we live by them because otherwise we'd still be living to age 27 in caves.

Errr... obviously you haven't read my previous posts because if you had you'd know I'm no fan of civilisation/society -- the living in caves and the 27 year life span isn't putting me off...

Rykion
24-05-2005, 15:55
Many of the problems of individuals' perception of their personal rights in stores and malls are the businesses' own fault. Many companies run commercials and hold special events that try to make themselves seem altruistic and part of the community. In the US, McDonalds runs commercials that make it seem that Ronald McDonald gives out free Happy Meals to any hungry child that shows up at McDonalds. WalMart runs commercials implying they are the new community center where people are free to lounge around all they want. Malls have added food courts, theaters, and entertainment in an attempt to keep people in the shopping environment as long as possible.

Obviously, stores and restaurants aren't altruistic. They are there to make money. The people they want to linger are those that have money in their pockets. They definitely don't want people without money scaring away their paying customers. They do have the right to turn people away, but must realize they are attracting people with the false pretense of their business practices.

Delicious Soy
25-05-2005, 07:21
Wraith: Like I said, they have a right to enforce their rules in a hypocritical method. They won't be struck down from on high if they don't. Your post made it sound like this was some sort of imperative. If they intended to act in what you define as a moral way, then yes they would. But they aren't, they've made it clear who they're targetting and have found a way that doesn't trample on the rights of this section of society, hence the lack of no chav signs. They're just being diplomatic about it.


Errr... obviously you haven't read my previous posts because if you had you'd know I'm no fan of civilisation/society -- the living in caves and the 27 year life span isn't putting me off...Yet here you are on a computer, a product of civilisation if there ever was one. Yes, I got the impression you were some sort of idealist. Although its easy to say you'd love to live a cave on the brink of malnutrition when sitting in front of a computer in a nice warm enclosed structure.

therisnosaurus
25-05-2005, 07:58
banning clothing is rather pointless, as somone in casuals can look a whole lot more intimidating than a manky goth (I'm assuming chavs are a subsect of that sort of culture- leather coats, piercings, jewlery, butterfly knives, the usual patheticness) simply due to body language. and people who wander around in casuals are generaly more dangerous too, I mean look at me. I look like a slightly unfashionable 16 year old, I don't wear any odd or rebellious clothes, in fact I look remarkably conservative, probably what kids in the early 1900's would have looked like if they had a choice of current wardrobe- trackpants, cargoes, tshirt and a polarfleece if it gets cold. Currently, if confronted by your average gang of 'chavs' I can guarantee that a couple of them would be unconcious, a few more on their tails and maybe one with some serious testicular bruising before they realised they'd picked the wrong innocent civilian. the same applies if they pick on someone else near me. the only regret I have is I can't counter intimidate extraordinarily effectively without a convienient weapon. while I will kick **** in a fight, I can't really prevent them. give me a sword, preferably katana style that fits snug with my back for a nice quickdraw and I'll ensure that most gangs leave anyone near me alone.

"yarr, we haf knifes. giv us money."

"no"

"then we rip yar guts out and spit upon you"

"actually, I rather think not. see, you call that a knife right?"

"garrr"

"THIS. is a knife" :evilgrin:

without weapons the general tactics is a brief movement of the hand to distract the closest followed by a mindbogglingly sharp and fast movement of the leg to contact effectively with the testicles. while they look down briefly at the foetalised companion, I have already put about fifty metres between me and them ;).

the only times I think I'd have problems is handguns or surrounded by a group that has more than 2 ranks (surrounded is easy- pick a weak point, flying sidekick, run.)

now, if I was to wander around in pyjamas (slang for ghi/dobok- martial arts uniform) and a black belt, I don't think many people would mess with me. therein lies the problem. my grandma could buy a set and belt and wander around and no one would give her a bunch of flowers with her. appearances can be decieving.

edit by Brimstone - no swearing unless you want a strike

Wraith
25-05-2005, 10:06
They're just being diplomatic about it.

Aye, diplomatic to benefit themselves not both parties.


Yet here you are on a computer, a product of civilisation if there ever was one. Yes, I got the impression you were some sort of idealist. Although its easy to say you'd love to live a cave on the brink of malnutrition when sitting in front of a computer in a nice warm enclosed structure.

Please... you think I haven't heard this rebuttle before?

First with today's technology and the way it's integrated into our world it is quite necessary to 'fight fire with fire'.

Secondly I don't wish simply for myself to live a life without our advanced technology I feel (as in 'in my opinion') it is of benefit to almost everybody alive today and those yet to be born.

Thirdly living in a cave is not Eutopia but dirty, hard, and cold -- it's a matter of life and death every day -- the harsdhip is part of the point.


Currently, if confronted by your average gang of 'chavs' I can guarantee that a couple of them would be unconcious, a few more on their tails and maybe one with some serious testicular bruising before they realised they'd picked the wrong innocent civilian...

***COUGH***Internet-badarses :rolleyes: ***COUGH***

therisnosaurus
25-05-2005, 12:09
I'm not just saying that to be tough, I'm saying that coz it's what I can do. As in from past experience. I shouldn't really boast, it's against my school's ethos, but we are as good as it gets in self defence terms- maybe not so arty as the shaolin or aikido bastards, but in a tussle, there's nothing better than an NTKD blackbelt (preferably with a shotgun, but that's optional :P) at your back.

Cheesejoff
25-05-2005, 12:34
Actually chavs are not a profuct of society but an un-product, they're what you'd get if society collapsed. They revert to their basic instincts since their parents don't care about them. They form tribes (or "Gangs", as they call them) then proceed to do whatever amuses them and make sure their tribe is superior to other tribes. The argument that they are a product of society is about as solid as a dissolved jelly baby.

Flame Boy
26-05-2005, 01:04
I don't think that's entirely true. I would say that they are part of society, as there are bound to be people that cant or will not fit in, however they are still part of that society, for better or worse. Saying they are not part of society is just excluding them Jelly babies or not.

I'm no fan of the chav in any of the definitions given, but as long as the malls pick and choose what they allow and on what people I will object to the sprit of their rules. I'll not wear my hoodie up unless I'm either on a bus (because I hate the feeling that people's eyes are drilling into the back of my neck), or if i'm outside and it's raining. If They object to wearing a hooded top when the hood is down (which I am not sure whether they do or not), then I would comply but object, as wearing the hood down is a sign that I have no intention to intimidate.

Besides, I don't need clothing to intimidate, my frown is enough to scare small children, I don't want or need clothing to obscure my identity. Those that do surely have something to hide.

In the end I think the rules are short-sighted and discriminatory, and thoughtthey might force some potential troublemakers to reveal their identities, it is probably less of a deterrent than intended, and does seem to be pandering to those that jump at shadows and condemn youth culture in it's many forms. I guess if you crammed me into a "sub-culture" I'd be a borderline alternative/goth type, and I do have a few items of clothing that would be affected by the ruling, so it will affect people other than chavs, but it only really widens it to your culture bearing the brunt in the end. Apart from the guy up leisure world who was barrel for refusing to take his cap off. He wasn't a young bloke, so in that case they weren't just discriminating against youngsters.

My post appears either confused, changing opinions constantly or fairly objective, but I can't tell which...

Crazy Harborc
26-05-2005, 03:10
Take off ball caps............Well, that is a difference between cultures. Here ball caps are worn by full grown, family man with money to spend, men. Haven't seen too many chav types (punks, trouble makers???)

As already mentioned malls are private, not owned by the public (governments). Unless malls are enforcing rules based on race etc., they aren't breaking any laws. In fact it's the malls legal responsibilty to protect the paying customers from the trouble makers.

Odin
26-05-2005, 13:49
Take off ball caps............Well, that is a difference between cultures. Here ball caps are worn by full grown, family man with money to spend, men.

... with no sartorial taste.

Cloudscape_online
27-05-2005, 02:34
Population overload. We need another bloody good war. Chavs and chavettes should be rounded up (You can tell because they don't have more than 2 C grade or above GCSEs'(or equivalent) and think they are the 5hit) and sent into battle. Equal rights allows us to cover both genders. :cool:

In anycase, people keep harping on about the fact they have 'Rights' and then completely disregard the fact they have Responsibilities, too. :mad: Like the responsibility to raise children properly, or not attack people in the street or just not be a smacktard in general. Burn the Chavs, and then the rest of the population will think twice about being dead weights to society. :evilgrin:

dark_wulf
27-05-2005, 14:31
Of all the palces to hang out, they pick BlueWater. Ther eisnt even any houses nearby is there? Just Industrial Estates and the M25.

Crazy Harborc
28-05-2005, 02:19
... with no sartorial taste.

I do agree that most of the chavs (to my generation) punks with pants about to drop to their ankles, tees as long as dresses (to keep their butts warm??)very baggy clothing too..........Anyway instead of just being "different" they are different to the point of us old farts getting a little laugh after they are gone. Well, I agree they do not have any tastes in what they wear and or how well they wear them.

The fun will begin in another 10 to 20 years when their children find those old fashioned photos of how dad and (sometimes) mom looked when they were wanna be and or teens. Even if the only photos like that are over at the grandparent's home....."Hey grandson come here and see what you dad/mom wore when he/she was your age :D

Oh, grandparents have been doing just THAT for a long, long time. It's part of payback ;)

EDIT TIME...........To those of you who have (at least once) thought mom/dad is dumb, he/she doesn't know what it's like now, they/he/she is sooooo out of it!!

Guess what.........YOU will become YOUR parent(s), You will be them to YOUR children :eek:

The pestilent 1
28-05-2005, 21:24
me?
children?
good one :D

but you make a good point, im jaded in my adulthood (albeit all couple months of it :p ) and the youth of today is moving on as it must to survive.

doesnt mean i cant complain though.
"in my day..."