Doff your cap

[Theodoric]

Totally irrelevant of course, but the title brought to mind the phrase dating from the time of the Battle of the Marne, "Our hats we doff to General Joffre."

Originally Posted by Salu

How would *you* help prevent crime in shopping centres done by youths using hoods and caps as facial disguises?

It's all very well defending their rights. What about the rights of the shop keepers who have their goods stolen?

The assumption here seems to be that someone who is wearing a hoodie/ baseball cap is automatically considered to be a criminal. I don't deny that shopkeepers have the right to protect their stock, but they also have the right to deny entry to their shop to anyone they want, just as Banks etc can put up signs saying "no crash helmets".

However to demand that anyone who even so much as *walks in* to the centre can't wear a baseball cap etc is just ridiculous and strikes me more as laziness than sensible.

What about the public's rights who get mugged by theses thugs who find it hard to describe their attacker?

Sorry, how many people get mugged in the Bluewater centre?

Would you advocate a thugs rights bill?

Whoops, there goes another Straw Man...!!

[Chris W]

could be something to do with the facial recognition cameras that are being installed in bluewater......

and anyway, bluewater is private property so the management can ban anyone they like (indeed they banned someone who tried to beat me up after i fired him when i worked there).

Plenty of pubs insist that baseball caps, hoods and badged shirts are not allowed, so why shouldn't a shopping centre be able to do the same

Originally Posted by scastle

No one tells these kids they *have* to wear hoodies and caps.

So no one tells them they have to wear them, but you want to be able to tell them to *not* wear them...???

All they have to do is take them off and not threaten or menace anyone. That's not too much to ask for in the name of people's safety is it?

Interesting phrasing there, "take them off *AND* not threaten..." surely it would be sufficient to say "not threaten or menace someone"? What they're wearing isn't relevant to that, is it?

Surely that's not too much to ask for in the name of people's safety, is it??
__________________

Originally Posted by Scarlett

Well as far as Im concerned if you walk around wearing the modern equivilent of a strippy top and a swag bag then you bound to have an eye kept on you. I'm not saying that chav=criminal but since a significant number of young criminals dress like chavs then go figure.

Yeah, just like the Police who think that if you're young and black you're either a mugger or a druggie, unless you look well off, in which case you're either a pimp or a drug pusher...

Go figure.
__________________

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

I presume that means that wearing the baseball cap back-to-front is OK as it doesn't hide the face?

Ah, now *that* should be a criminal offence all on its own...!
__________________

Originally Posted by AndrewJames

I agree with it the general majority of us and I am sure you Graham wear a cap normally you do not wear a Schott top with a hood over your head looking at ground while walking with a swagger and looking dodgy with a burberry desire for badly modified Nova's?

Its a good idea to permit a place where yobs aint permitted.

Interesting expression that.

I wear a black leather jacket. There are certainly times in the past when I could have been excluded from various places (eg pubs) which had "no leather jackets" policies simply because "black leather jacket = biker = trouble".

Now it seems it's "hoodie/ baseball cap = chav = trouble".

Plus ca change, plus la meme chose...

[paulyoung666]

is this devils advocate or argument for arguments sake

No argument, you know some people are always right.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Graham

Interesting phrasing there, "take them off *AND* not threaten..." surely it would be sufficient to say "not threaten or menace someone"? What they're wearing isn't relevant to that, is it?

Surely that's not too much to ask for in the name of people's safety, is it??

No, logically, what somebody is wearing is not relevant to their behaviour. However, it is a sad fact that a lot of people do use first impressions to form an opinion of someone, and they will make assumptions about a person based on clothing and appearances.

For instance, if you wear a suit, then people will assume you are gentleman or lady and not at all likely to mug them. If you are wearing a pair of tracksuit bottoms and a hoodie, they may assume you are going to mug them. In reality, you may be wearing them for comfort, and the person is then mugged by someone else wearing a suit.

But, the problem is people will often base their views on what people appear to be (ie, the man in the suit is a Gentleman, and the man in the hoodie a mugger). One example. A few weeks back, I was on a bus. An old lady was having trouble getting off the bus. A teenage black (wouldn't normally mention her colour, but it's important to the example) girl tried to help. The old woman screamed out that she'd been attacked, based purely on her assumption that a black person would mug her.

Unfortunately, it's the same sort of thing with hoodies and baseball caps. Because they have been used by criminals, people link them with criminals.

So, people see hoodies and baseball caps, they feel unsafe. Surely people have a right to feel safe while shopping (or at work)? I am not saying everyone feels unsafe, but obviously enough have expressed concern that the management at Bluewater think there is a problem.

I suspect another motivation is that people wearing any kind of hat can easily obscure their face from overhead CCTV cameras.

One final word. Bluewater is a privately run centre. They set the rules as to what people can or can't wear in their centre. They could suddenly ban people who wear (for a silly example) pink shirts, and we would have no real right to question it.

As I often say about NTL, if you don't like the way they operate, there are competitors (Lakeside for one).

Did you complain like this a few years ago when Harrods banned ripped jeans from the store?

[Salu]

Originally Posted by Graham

The assumption here seems to be that someone who is wearing a hoodie/ baseball cap is automatically considered to be a criminal. I don't deny that shopkeepers have the right to protect their stock, but they also have the right to deny entry to their shop to anyone they want, just as Banks etc can put up signs saying "no crash helmets".

It doesn't take a genius to work out that they are wearing these hoods to disguise/hide their facial features so that they cannot be detected by the cameras as I am sure you will agree. The Bluewater security will have noticed by incredible coincidence that the crime is being comitted by people they find hard to see their faces. Maybe they are being hoodist but the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few sometimes....the many being the general public and the shopkeepers. The few being those who refuse to put their hood down as opposed to those who happen to be wearing a hooded jacket.

Of course not everyone who wears a hood will be a criminal but surely it is not too harsh to ask everyone to put their hood down whilst in the centre? It's hardly artic conditions in there....

You didnt answer my question.....

Originally Posted by Salu

How would *you* help prevent crime in shopping centres done by youths using hoods and caps as facial disguises?

...if you are so protective of their *rights*

Originally Posted by paulyoung666

is this devils advocate or argument for arguments sake

Is this another example of the False Dilemma logical fallacy? Looks like it to me...
__________________

Originally Posted by scastle

what somebody is wearing is not relevant to their behaviour. However, it is a sad fact that a lot of people do use first impressions to form an opinion of someone, and they will make assumptions about a person based on clothing and appearances.

Exactly

One final word. Bluewater is a privately run centre. They set the rules as to what people can or can't wear in their centre. They could suddenly ban people who wear (for a silly example) pink shirts, and we would have no real right to question it.

Yes, I don't deny or dispute that. What I object to, as I said in my first post, is tarring everyone with the same brush.

Did you complain like this a few years ago when Harrods banned ripped jeans from the store?

I didn't know they had done this. But is what Bluewater have done any less prejudicial than banning young black people because they're probably muggers?
__________________

Originally Posted by Salu

It doesn't take a genius to work out that they are wearing these hoods to disguise/hide their facial features so that they cannot be detected by the cameras as I am sure you will agree.

I cannot help what you are "sure" of, but please don't make assumptions about what I will or will not agree with. Also please don't use insulting phrases like "it doesn't take a genius" implying that anyone who disagrees is an idiot.

Yes, I am sure that *SOME* people who wear hoodies or caps do so to hide their faces from cameras. This does *NOT*, however, mean that *all* people who wear hoodies or caps are doing it for that reason and I most certainly would not agree with someone who claimed that.

The Bluewater security will have noticed by incredible coincidence that the crime is being comitted by people they find hard to see their faces.

But not *ALL* those whose faces they can't see are criminals.

the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few sometimes.... the many being the general public and the shopkeepers. The few being those who refuse to put their hood down as opposed to those who happen to be wearing a hooded jacket.

Ah, good old Vulcan logic, but once again something like that is used to justify what is, when it comes down to it, simple prejudice.

Of course not everyone who wears a hood will be a criminal but surely it is not too harsh to ask everyone to put their hood down whilst in the centre? It's hardly artic conditions in there....

And whilst they're at it, if shoplifters have been noted to hide stuff under coats, why not get them to take their coats off too? Or make them leave bags at the entrance to the centre instead of taking them with them? And why not fingerprint and photograph everyone who goes into the centre? Surely it's not too much to ask...???

You didnt answer my question.....

...if you are so protective of their *rights*

And once again people demand that because I support someone's rights and dislike prejudice, I have to solve the problems of the world...

[orangebird]

Great move if you ask me.... Baseball caps are a heinous crime of fashion, and should all be burned at the stake.

[bmxbandit]

Originally Posted by orangebird

Great move if you ask me.... Baseball caps are a heinous crime of fashion, and should all be burned at the stake.

...though they are quite good at keeping the sun out of eyes/stopping back of neck burning

bit pointless indoors though

[Salu]

Originally Posted by Graham

Also please don't use insulting phrases like "it doesn't take a genius" implying that anyone who disagrees is an idiot.

I'm sorry if you found this insulting. It was not meant to illustrate that you are dumb or indeed was it aimed at you. It was meant to show that unless one was particulalry naiive, one would realise that in a shopping centre known for it's problem with youths in hoodies, the majorative reason for wearing a hood was not to keep the ears warm but to conceal one's identity....

Originally Posted by Graham

Yes, I am sure that *SOME* people who wear hoodies or caps do so to hide their faces from cameras. This does *NOT*, however, mean that *all* people who wear hoodies or caps are doing it for that reason and I most certainly would not agree with someone who claimed that.

I agreed with that in my previous post. However I would argue that it is not *some* but more than that. To clarify I mean that they have the hood UP as opposed to wearing it. It is a nationally known practice amongst criminals from a police perspective.

Originally Posted by Graham

Ah, good old Vulcan logic, but once again something like that is used to justify what is, when it comes down to it, simple prejudice.

Vulcan logic indeed but for security to be effective there has to be an element of predjudice? Random police stops based on suspicion for example. Suspicion itself involves a logical comparison against a list of probabilities based recognised patterns. The smell of alchol on a drivers breath warrants a breath test. Is that being predjudiced to all cough medicine takers (contains alcohol to those who do not know) or just reasonable suspicion? The plantpot who carries a replica weapon should not have grounds of complaint when the police "predjudously" assume that it is real....etc

Originally Posted by Graham

But not *ALL* those whose faces they can't see are criminals.

You must have missed me agree with this.....

Originally Posted by Graham

And whilst they're at it, if shoplifters have been noted to hide stuff under coats, why not get them to take their coats off too? Or make them leave bags at the entrance to the centre instead of taking them with them? And why not fingerprint and photograph everyone who goes into the centre? Surely it's not too much to ask...???

Study proposal. "Does shopping naked lead to a decrease in shop lifting?"

Seriously though it's about weighing up the pros and cons of security intervention and coming to a reasonable balance. Bluewater is known for it's problem with Hoodies and crime so they have taken a reasonable step and asked people to put their hoods down. Wearing a coat is not threatening or attempting to conceal an identity. It's not practical to ask everyone to leave their bags at the entrance but it is reasonable to ask people to uncover their faces.

Originally Posted by Graham

And once again people demand that because I support someone's rights and dislike prejudice, I have to solve the problems of the world...

Only because you are particularly vociferous and a come across as a little sanctimonious sometimes. You are bound to attract that sort of question. There are too many arm chair debaters and not enough problem solvers in this world. And I place myself in that last catagory too..

Originally Posted by Salu

I'm sorry if you found this insulting. It was not meant to illustrate that you are dumb or indeed was it aimed at you. It was meant to show that unless one was particulalry naiive,

Ah, not dumb, just naiive...

one would realise that in a shopping centre known for it's problem with youths in hoodies, the majorative reason for wearing a hood was not to keep the ears warm but to conceal one's identity....

Can you prove this? Or is it just an assumption? You've already agreed that not everyone who wears a hoodie or a baseball cap is not necessarily a criminal.

I agreed with that in my previous post. However I would argue that it is not *some* but more than that. To clarify I mean that they have the hood UP as opposed to wearing it. It is a nationally known practice amongst criminals from a police perspective.

But it *still* doesn't mean that someone who wears the hood up is a criminal. Many (many!) years ago, there was a fashion (if I can call it that!) for Parka Jackets and it was "cool" to wear them with the hoods up. Surprisingly enough, it wasn't done to hide the identity.

Vulcan logic indeed but for security to be effective there has to be an element of predjudice? Random police stops based on suspicion for example.

We have done this one already regarding people being stopped for nothing more than being suspicously Muslim/ Black/ scruffy in a well-off area. Shall we now add "Wearing a hoodie or a baseball cap" to the list?

You must have missed me agree with this.....

See above.

Study proposal. "Does shopping naked lead to a decrease in shop lifting?"

Well it would stop people going into the changing rooms and putting on several items under their regular clothes...!!!

Seriously though it's about weighing up the pros and cons of security intervention and coming to a reasonable balance.

I agree, however I don't consider their actions "reasonable", I consider them to be biased and prejudiced.

Only because you are particularly vociferous and a come across as a little sanctimonious sometimes.

Vociferous? Yes, I don't doubt, I have a strong belief in basic rights and will speak out in support of them.

But as for "sanctimonious"?? As in "holier than thou"? As in "I'm perfect, you're not"? No. I deny that completely and I think you have misunderstood the word.

There are too many arm chair debaters and not enough problem solvers in this world. And I place myself in that last catagory too..

That still doesn't prevent you, I or anyone else from stating that in their opinion something is wrong, prejudiced or biased.

Originally Posted by Mal

Bluewater has banned people from wearing baseball caps or hooded tops where they hide their face.

What I find puzzling sometimes is that on occasions when the heat really builds up, as it does at this time of year, you see these guys with hoods up baseball cap showing, as if it was freezing, it is to be concluded that either something is seriously wrong with the wearer's brain or they are up to mischief. What else can a decent citizen assume?

[paulyoung666]

Originally Posted by Gogogo

What I find puzzling sometimes is that on occasions when the heat really builds up, as it does at this time of year, you see these guys with hoods up baseball cap showing, as if it was freezing, it is to be concluded that either something is seriously wrong with the wearer's brain or they are up to mischief. What else can a decent citizen assume?

as a decent citizen i would assume either A - they are trying to conceal their identity , B - pretending to be pseudo brothers of the coloured variety ( i aint going to fall into the trap of calling them niggers ) , or C - suffering from a very bad cold and need to wrap up warm , personally i would go with A followed by B then maybe C , come on then , someone beat me up over this one