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: 12(3)

 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
12:20 / 07.06.05
Yeah, sorry... Off to dark place...
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
18:02 / 07.06.05
I feel a bit different about Bluewater since I discovered they screen a bunch of one minute anti-violence movies made by Amnesty in February. One or the other would locate them fairly clearly in the liberal/illiberal spectrum. Both seems... more interesting.
 
 
Kirk Ultra
22:32 / 07.06.05
Why do people keep getting mad at paranoidwriter? People's civil liberties are being taken away at an alarming rate, and people are being locked down more and more. His opinions are perfectly valid, why is what he writes considered threadrot?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
08:50 / 08.06.05
Ah, well, Kirk, what you've done there is to confuse "people's civil liberties are being threatened" with "the best way to talk about all of these potential attacks on civil liberties on Barbelith is in a single thread, that thread being on the banning of hoodies in Bluewater". Maybe another thread on a general trend would be a good idea. Maybe another thread on tags - computer tags on workers, cars and so on - would also be a good idea. However, just because an opinion is valid doesn't mean it is relevant to a particular discussion. I have a perfectly valid opinion about the Ark of the Covenant, but unless it is that it is hidden in a hoodie in Bluewater, it's not going in here. There's more on what is and isn't threadrot in the Wiki, and discussions about what is and isn't threadrot usually take place in the Policy, in order to avoid... um.. threadrot.
 
 
w1rebaby
11:07 / 08.06.05
I feel a bit different about Bluewater since I discovered they screen a bunch of one minute anti-violence movies made by Amnesty in February. One or the other would locate them fairly clearly in the liberal/illiberal spectrum. Both seems... more interesting.

Well, Amnesty film shorts fit nicely into a middle-class Guardian-reading socially-concerned demographic/stereotype that one would assume Bluewater wants to encourage. Besides, I'm supposing it wasn't actually Bluewater that screened them, but rather a sublettee cinema....
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
01:10 / 11.06.05
Yes, because SOOOOO many Guardian-reading middle-class liberals will now feel free to shop at Bluewater because they may have heard that they screen a certain kind of short film. Oy.

What about the perfectly rational viewpoint that says that the CCTV in this privately-owned shopping facility is to protect the shoppers and the leaseholders, and that people deliberately using face-obscuring headgear to continue intimidating or violent behaviour without threat of consequence from identification from said footage should have steps taken to prevent them from doing so? I mean really, people - are we saying that the same 'classes' that purchase vast quantities of clothing from said leaseholders are being prevented from doing so because of some kind of sub rosa class war?

Stupidity. And, practically speaking, utterly unenforceable and counter-productive, therefore counter-intuitive for a consumer-based outfit. Strikes me that certain people have bought into the media presentation of this 'ban' in the same way that they decry the 'Mail-reading classes' (love these reverse received generalisations in the name of liberalism) for buying into received media presentations of an allegedly 'class-based' practical decision by a group of businessmen who owe their livings to that same consumer class.

In other words - this 'ban' allows security to expel groups of idiots without having to catch them in an illegal act, or sue them, or call the police. And store security tends to have a slightly better idea of what constitutes trouble-makers in a given specific situation better than anyone reading about generalised situations in a newspaper.
 
 
The resistable rise of Reidcourchie
10:29 / 13.06.05
Johnny come lately to this, hope I'm not just going over well tread ground.

From the Gurdian article:

"The point of origin is obviously black American hip-hop culture, now thoroughly mainstream and a key part of the global economy of music through Eminem and others. Leisure- and sportswear adopted for everyday wear suggests a distance from the world of office [suit] or school [uniform]."

Or, you know, jogging.

Posted by Haus

"Banning people with their hoods up"

I thought it was the banning of all hoodies? Not just wearing them up.

Also post by Haus

"class profiling"

I was under the impression that the Hoodie was pretty much a universal cross class garment and this was more a generational issue.

In terms of a commercial operation banning an item of clothing, from a consumer perspective I resent having to make an effort with my dress (regardless of how small), effectively to jump through hoops to give someone my money.

Posted by Phyrephox

"Bluewater banning hooded tops would seem to be an example of the fairly common practice of companies banning certain clothes that have become associated with "yob culture" (TM Daily Mail)."

This doesn't make a great deal of sense, I don't know much about Bluewater and how difficult it is to police but certainly in the case of pubs would it not make more sense and be easier to police if the banned the troublemakers themselves, you know, so they don't go home and change.

Posted by Bucky

"moreso than previous generations of British youth"

Society is a lot less violent now than it was during Victorian time in Britain. I'm not sure how obvious that statement is, just that their seems to be some often posited halcyon days of yester year in some sections of the press that don't quite seem to hold up.

Actually the media have a lot to answer for in this. My particular favorite is the binge drinking scare tactics, it's not that city centres have become more dangerous it's just that there are more cameras to capture the incidents that do happen. My Dad once described to mee kicking out times at the pubs in Dundee during the fifties, if he is to be believed half the drinkers of the day ended up getting a kicking in the back of Black Marias, of course that may have just been Dundee.

Posted by Smoothly

"Do the rights of people to dress how they want outweigh the rights of people not to feel that intimidated by a particular kind of behaviour?"

Surely there's room for both if they actively policed the problem rather than waht I am not even sure is a symptom of the problem.

Besides I used to manage to shoplift very well without the benfit of a hoody or baseball cap. Mind you I did eventually get caught so maybe I should of worn said apparrel.

Posted by Smoothly

"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?"

But that's just it, if it's a case of perception and the be-hooded types are just that and not doing things thay could get arrested/thrown out for like shop lifting, threatening behaviour etc. then surely educating people not to be afraid of them (after all they're still going to encounter them in other places) and generally attacking this CCTV culture of fear would be a better idea?

Posted by Nick

"(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.)"

Really? I thought it was to do with rank within a familial or clan structure?

Origianlly posted by Stoatie

"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?"

Bingo

Also posted by Stoatie

"on all three occasions when I've been attacked, none of the fuckers were wearing one."

This should be a letter to the Daily Mail and your MP, you should rail bitterly about your attackers not being properly attired in a way that you had been lead to believe, which at least would've allowed you some warning.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:33 / 13.06.05
What about the perfectly rational viewpoint that says that the CCTV in this privately-owned shopping facility is to protect the shoppers and the leaseholders, and that people deliberately using face-obscuring headgear to continue intimidating or violent behaviour without threat of consequence from identification from said footage should have steps taken to prevent them from doing so?

I think this was mentioned earlier, in particular with reference to the distinction between a privately-owned and a public space.
 
  

Page: 12(3)

 
  
Add Your Reply