BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


In The Hood

 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
 
sleazenation
14:57 / 19.05.05
I think most of the increase is people going down specifically to wear hoodies in Bluwater (doesn't it sound like a tiolet disinfectant...?)
 
 
Jack Vincennes
15:34 / 19.05.05
If this is – as they seem to believe – a result of the ban, does this help to justify it?

I thought that was probably the advertising result of their (Bluewater's) being in the news -people would realise that they'd not been there in ages and so decided to go that weekend, not really caring either way about the hoodies issue.
 
 
Smoothly
17:22 / 19.05.05
But if?
If it was demonstrated that a section of society was sufficiently intimidated by the (albeit legal) behaviour of another, so that they did not feel comfortable or safe in a particular environment, how do we weigh this against the freedom of first section to behave in that way?

It's not that people who own hoodies are an 'undesirable element' banned from Bluewater, it's that they're asked not to wear their hoodies. In fact, they are allowed to wear their hoodies, just not with the hood up. If anyone's access has ever been limited in Bluewater, it's the people who are scared of youngsters in hoods. No?
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
17:38 / 19.05.05
I wear a hooded top and I'm not scary. No one could claim I was scary. I'm a big blond teddy bear. (Or that's what my physics teacher used to say.) Granted, my top is an FBI Unabomber Bust top, but that hardly makes a big difference. Maybe it's because I'm (you know) over thirty...

I think this is ass.

I also think it's in line with banning fox hunting.

Don't like a behaviour? Ban something associated with it.

I never used the term 'nanny state' with any seriousness until the last year or so. Unbelievable.
 
 
Withiel: DALI'S ROTTWEILER
18:42 / 19.05.05

If it was demonstrated that a section of society was sufficiently intimidated by the (albeit legal) behaviour of another, so that they did not feel comfortable or safe in a particular environment, how do we weigh this against the freedom of first section to behave in that way?


The may I see the situation is something like this.

There is a perceived culture of youthful "anti-social behaviour", which I will charitably interpret as meaning actual criminal, threatening behaviour.
The youths perpetrating this behaviour generally adopt certain modes of dress, specifically a hooded top with the hood up.
Therefore, a concerned shopping centre has banned wearing the tops in this manner within its confines, because this will make its law-abiding customers less intimidated.

It might just be me, but it doesn't seem to follow that banning hoodies is going to help - the gangs of menacing youth will still be around, they'll just be less identifiable. Surely people will eventally work out that there's no causal link between hoodie-wearing and menacingness and Bluewater will have to start banning being young, or something. Unless of course they're intimidated by the hoods themselves, in which case it's their problem rather than that of the youths.
 
 
Char Aina
19:20 / 19.05.05
I also think it's in line with banning fox hunting.

i'd quite enjoy watching you unpack that, if you dont mind.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
20:02 / 19.05.05
Toksik: yeah, sure. Fox hunting has been banned not because the fox gets snuffed - there's no suggestion of a ban on culls of wild animals by other means - but because we dissapprove of the culture of which it is a part (and which demands the bloody spectacle of the hounds and the pageantry of the hunt.) My delight at the ban was tempered by an uncertainty that banning things - even obnoxiosu things - is good practice.

Even conceding that there is a paramount argument about animal rights here, there are civil liberties implications inherent in banning a practice because we do not approve of it. The same arguments about morality are deployed in favour of the laws against various sexual permutations, soft and hard drugs, and so on. The arguments against a ban, of course, were deployed in favour of child and slave labour, so please God let's not rehash the fox hunting debate here.

That lot aside, the point I was making is this: Labour demonstrably has a culture in favour of legislating against civil liberties at the moment. The new anti-terror laws, I-D cards and so on. That being the case, their obvious delight at this piece of deranged nonsense is unsurprising. This could be seen as the first fruits of Labour's decision to ban hunting, and certainly as part and parcel of the tendency towards micromanagement of the individual by the abstract systems of corporation and government.

As I said, I've never been fond of the term nanny state until recently.
 
 
lord henry strikes back
20:09 / 19.05.05
toksik, I don't claim to know what Nick meant, but here is my interpretation:
At a time of (I don't mean to go all Morpheus abut this, but) illegal war, torture by western soldiers, sweatshop labour, intensive farming et al, hoodies and fox hunting are simply headline grabbers with all of the genuine importance of the colour of my underwear.

This whole hoodie thing is just plain silly. Of course the increase in sales is due to the massive publicity that this story generated. To be honest, two weeks ago I had never heard of Bluewater, you just can't buy that kind of advertising.
 
 
lord henry strikes back
20:10 / 19.05.05
NB - When I wrote the above post I had not read Nick's reply.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
21:16 / 19.05.05
No, but you make excellent - and perhaps more intelligent - points on my behalf.
 
 
fuckbaked
22:41 / 19.05.05
Nina said:"I say we all buy hoodies and go to Bluewater and conduct a survey. Let's see how many of us they stop. I bet I'd be allowed in, which would clearly be wrong. It has to be one rule for everyone."

and Phyrephox said: "businesses or private organisations can ban types of clothing on their properties if they so wish, but it is not something government should get invloved in."

Where I live the government is already involved in banning what young people are allowed to wear. What I'm talking about is school dress codes. Kids are required to attend and generally don't have any choice in where they go to school, and they're being told they can't wear baggy pants or dye their hair purple. I find dress codes that ban things like purple hair and facial piercings to be particulary troublesome, as they're not something one can change into upon leaving school and change out of when returning to school, like baggy pants. I attended a high school with a dress code, and one without, and I can't recall a time when, at the school without the dress code, anyone's style of dress was ever actually disruptive to the learning environment.

At the school I went to that had a dress code, students were prohibited from wearing the colors red and blue because they're supposedly associated with gangs. I wore blue clothing frequently, and I was never once told by the school that I should cease to do this. I suspect that I was allowed to wear blue clothing because I was a little white girl, and therefor it was assumed that I was not in a gang. If I'd been a big black guy, I imagine they'd have enforced the dress code.

I found something here which says: "according to Lipman (1998), when a high-achieving African-American inner city student attending a white middle-class suburban school wore overalls with one strap undone, he was suspended for 10 days because the teacher believed the unbuckled strap denoted gang membership. Nothing in the student dress code forbade unbuckled overall straps, and students in other middle-class schools wore their overalls that way without consequence. This teacher simply acted on an assumption based on the combination of her preconceived beliefs."

Ok, I'm not even sure how this ties into what I'm arguing...nor am I really sure what I'm even arguing... I feel like the part of my brain that could have made this post make actual sense is on holiday right now.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
23:00 / 19.05.05
I don't mind school dress codes because I think they're instituted for good reason, they also mean that one boy can't be discriminated against for his race- all children have to follow the same rules regardless of ethnicity or gender. I don't believe that skirts should be acceptable as uniform, all children should be made to wear precisely the same set of clothes.

If I'd been a big black guy, I imagine they'd have enforced the dress code.

How is the fact that they chose not to discriminate against you because of your sex and race not disruptive to the learning environment? All that time you were taking advantage of the system in a way that someone else couldn't. How do you know the blatant evidence of that wasn't disruptive to some poor boy who was different to you through some accident of birth? Better to have had a uniform so that all of you would have had the same thing to rebel against.
 
 
fuckbaked
00:41 / 20.05.05
Nina said: "I don't mind school dress codes because I think they're instituted for good reason, they also mean that one boy can't be discriminated against for his race- all children have to follow the same rules regardless of ethnicity or gender."

I can see how school uniforms would have this effect, but I don't think this is the case with mere dress codes. 2 examples from my post, both the one from my own life (where I was allowed to wear blue clothes) and the one I found on the web, show examples of school dress codes applying to some kids and not others, presumably on the basis of race.

Nina said: "How is the fact that they chose not to discriminate against you because of your sex and race not disruptive to the learning environment?"

Umm....that wasn't what I was trying to say at all. I think it was disruptive to the learning environment that they applied different rules for different kids, seemingly on the basis of race and sex. What I said was, "I can't recall a time when, at the school without the dress code, anyone's style of dress was ever actually disruptive to the learning environment." I guess the point I was trying to make is that I think the actual disruption to learning that would supposedly ensue if kids were allowed to wear whatever they want is quite overstated. The preferentially enforced dress code policy at the 1st high school I attended was disruptive, whereas the lack of a dress code altogether at the second high school I attended wasn't, as far as I could tell.

Nina said: "All that time you were taking advantage of the system in a way that someone else couldn't. How do you know the blatant evidence of that wasn't disruptive to some poor boy who was different to you through some accident of birth?"

I think it was, and I do feel bad now about having taken advantage of the system in a way that someone else couldn't. I wasn't thinking about my actions (wearing blue) very critically at the time.

On the subject of uniforms... While I think that uniforms have some positive aspects, I think that we as adults would be more than a little miffed if the government were to tell us that we have to wear a uniform between the hours of 8am and 3pm (approximately), 5 days a week. While a lot of jobs have uniforms and dress codes, adults actually have some choice in where they work.

Do you agree with Phyrephox's statement, "businesses or private organisations can ban types of clothing on their properties if they so wish, but it is not something government should get invloved in."? Aren't school dress codes consitered government involvement?
 
 
Scrubb is on a downward spiral
01:38 / 20.05.05
In line with the above on uniform and behaviour - Devon leads the way by reclaiming the hoodie as an object of uncool.
 
 
Unencumbered
09:15 / 20.05.05
I remember a while back reading an interview with a school headmaster who said that the most important reason for having a school uniform was to give the kids something unimportant to use all their time and energy rebelling against, thus ensuring their compliance in other areas.

School uniform as distraction. Cunning.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
11:19 / 20.05.05
The other thing which occurs to me is that this is clearly a plot by milliners. The hatmaking industry is taking a stand. Ban hoodies, and obviously, the youth will wear hats to cast shadows on their faces and make them cool and scary and mysterious.

I'm against this kind of manipulation in principle, but it occurs to me that this will foster a whole film noir feel which I entirely endorse.

Alternatively, of course, people banned from hoodies will wear intifada scarves. I'd be fascinated to see the consequences of banning those.
 
 
Bruno
14:10 / 20.05.05
I just came home from a walk in the centre of london, and a group of around 15 young men walked down the street, one of them with his fist high in the air, he would chant something in what i assume was arabic, and the rest of them would repeat it, very loudly and aggresively. Maybe half of them had their faces completely covered with intifada scarves and ski masks, and the rest had hoods and beards. Some of them were wearing camouflage from head to toe. I followed them around and obvserved peoples reactions, most people got very confused and some got quite scared. The group eventually got onto the tube in Bond st, via a shopping centre. I was amazed that there was no police interference.
 
 
Scrubb is on a downward spiral
14:47 / 20.05.05
The other thing which occurs to me is that this is clearly a plot by milliners. The hatmaking industry is taking a stand
I've said it elsewhere but I do think the next logical step is for groups of dissaffected youth to start wearing gigantic sequinned sombreros (sequins to reflect light into the eyes of the victim, temporarily disabling them) as they go about their way.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
18:29 / 20.05.05
(sequins to reflect light into the eyes of the victim, temporarily disabling them)

It worked for the Coster Mongers and the Pearly Kings and Queens.

I feel a story coming on...
 
 
lord henry strikes back
18:50 / 20.05.05
While Nick's post about hats might be a little spurious, the point that fashions will move on is a valid one. The hoodie is the new zoot suit, the new doc martins, and others will follow. This is just another attack on youth culture hiding behind supposed security issue.

Actually, I've seen a few rappers wearing bowlers lately, maybe Nick is spot on.
 
 
Bruno
18:59 / 20.05.05
The guys I saw must have been part of this this protest. Also here.

This is in london.

PS the scarf is called a kefiyeh.
-bruno
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
22:03 / 20.05.05
Well, it was half spurious. At the same time, however, there are headgears which are vastly more problematic to ban, because while the hoodie is just a symbol of dissaffected yoof - and since when does anyone care about those guys? - other titfers and head heaters have religious and cultural significance which makes them far more dangerous to assail.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
22:17 / 20.05.05
(Bruno - I wanted to differentiate between any old keffiyeh and the black and white one which Arafat made his trademark, and which is associated with the Intifada - although it's obscure to me exactly why it should be, since historically it has symbolised the martyrdom of Hazrat Hussain Ibn Ali, which is a little bit before the time of the British Mandate.)
 
 
Bruno
22:52 / 20.05.05
Nick: I just learnt the word from the news articles today. What you wrote is interesting. From what I remember from Palestine by Joe Sacco the different colours represent different factions of the PLO, I think. Some of the guys I saw today had red and white. I am still amazed at how hardcore those guys were. The only thing missing was the RPGs and Kalashnekov rifles strapped on their backs.

other titfers and head heaters have religious and cultural significance which makes them far more dangerous to assail.

But since there is a significant percentage of British people claiming Jedi as their religion, and orthodox Jedis rock mad hoods, I think a good case could be made with a good lawyer.

I've often thought that graffiti writers could get past the CCTV thing by wearing the headscarf that covers the whole face and all you can see is the eyes, that and baggy robes. I swear that is how Osama is hiding, he lives off Edgeware Road and dresses in drag.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
08:33 / 21.05.05
I think the Jedi approach is wishful, to be honest. It's something of an urban myth that the 'religion' was or had to be recognised after the census. The courts could take the line that the litigation was frivolous, which would have painful consequences.

(Regarding the keffiyeh; I thought the colours refered to different stages of the intifada and the struggle, but I can't find any evidence for that. I also would have sworn that Arafat wore a red & white one from time to time. So, you know. Maybe it means different things to different people.)
 
 
lord henry strikes back
13:00 / 26.05.05
Well it looks like the hoodie issue has officially gone political. I think this is the first time that this has happened: A teenager in Mancherster has been handed an ASBO that bans him from wearing a hoodie in public.

Given what this kid was charged with, which includes threatening someone with an axe, I'm not saying that he shouldn't be punished, but a) is an ASBO really the right course of action, and b) should restrictions on what an individual can wear every be used as a legal punishment?

It looks like this one is going to run and run...
 
 
rizla mission
15:06 / 26.05.05
The hoodie is the new zoot suit,

..it WISHES!

Now a Zoot Suit revival - that would be worth talking about.
 
 
Scrubb is on a downward spiral
15:55 / 26.05.05
Christ - the hoodie ban for that kid seems almost superfluous in the light of this:

The court heard he had attacked locals and once attempted to cut down a CCTV lamppost with a chainsaw...He was also prevented from congregating with more than two people, except family members, and banned from possessing fireworks, axes or chainsaws

Slightly off-topic - what 16-year old is allowed to own a chainsaw?
 
 
lord henry strikes back
17:32 / 26.05.05
He's a lumberjack, he's OK...

Sorry, back to the topic.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
18:09 / 26.05.05
"... and once attempted to cut down a CCTV lamppost with a chainsaw..."

What an excellent idea. They are currently installing CCTV lampposts in my area, and (to put it mildly) it gives me the creeps. CCTV, DNA databases, The Criminal Justice Bill, Identity Cards (erm, excuse me, did you say "retina scans"?), Anti-Terror legislation..... They're "locking down" people, you mark my words. It's only a matter of time before some company or other is contracted to build the people-pens.

Now where can I get hold of a chain-saw?
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
22:34 / 26.05.05
Erm...I've done it again, haven't I? If you haven't already, please ignore this and my previous post. Sorry for the threadrot Barbeith: I know it's no excuse, but I couldn't help myself.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
23:10 / 26.05.05
Like a lot of new bans/legislation, it seems like it's actually hamfistedly attempting to cover ground that's already been covered in the law... remember that thing a couple of years back about introducing harsh sentences whenever there's a mobile phone involved? I mean, far be it from them to crack down on muggings in general, or, y'know, just do their job (sorry for the bitterness- once when I was mugged the cops were less than useless, the other time they were actually offensive)- apart from which, and I know this is somewhat off-topic, but I always felt sorry for people who suffered crimes of violence who didn't own mobiles. Cos not only had they been fucked over by the criminal, they were also being pushed down the priority list because they hadn't suffered a "fashionable" robbery.

It's like the thing about making it an offence to incite violence for religious, or racial, or whatver reasons. Surely incitement to violence is ALREADY against the law? Why not just enforce the laws we've already got properly, see if you manage to cover some of the same ground?

There are pubs round here that haven't let in people in hoodies for a looong time (I wear one and I'm 33 and fairly unscary)- on all three occasions when I've been attacked, none of the fuckers were wearing one.

Actually, there are pubs round here that haven't let ME in for a looong time... but I think they may have different reasons.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
16:37 / 05.06.05
From today's news, regarding a proposed new road-tax system in the UK:

"... It will work with a satellite tracking system monitoring black boxes in all cars, she said. [note:] She declined to be identified in accordance with U.K. government policy..."

I couldn't care less about cars and car users, but as I said, "They are locking down." All of this (hoodies, CCTV, ID cards,etc) is about Civil Liberties. It's like any tool: "In the wrong hands." Or maybe I'm just being paranoid?
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
11:25 / 06.06.05
Alternatively: It a useful first step to encourage motorists to do what they can to cut down on unnecessary car use by making it more expensive for them to drive their SUVs and off-road land-rovers down the motorways of this country. But this is the stuff of a new topic...
 
 
Spaniel
11:41 / 07.06.05
It certainly is, but, Writer, fer fuck's sake.
 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
  
Add Your Reply