The creators of a pioneering device that uses high-frequency sound to stop teenagers congregating outside shops, schools and railway stations reacted angrily today to news that the government-appointed Children's Commissioner wants to see it banned. The £500 Mosquito device has been installed at some 3,500 locations across the country since it first went on sale in January 2006. It emits an irritating, high-pitched sound that can only be heard by children and young people up into their early twenties, forcing them to move on. But Sir Albert Aynsley-Green, the Children's Commissioner for England appointed to represent the views of the country’s 11 million children, has set up a campaign – called Buzz Off – that is calling for the Mosquito to be banned on grounds that it infringes the rights of young people. Related Links Why gangs of youths are buzzing off Multimedia Can you hear the noise? “These devices are indiscriminate and target all children and young people, including babies, regardless of whether they are behaving or misbehaving,” Sir Al told the BBC. “The use of measures such as these are simply demonising children and young people, creating a dangerous and widening divide between the young and the old.” He added: "This device is a quick fix. It's not tackling the root of the problem and it's indiscriminate." The campaign has won the support of human rights groups including Liberty, whose director, Shami Chakrabarti, described it as a "sonic weapon directed against children and young people". "What type of society uses a low-level sonic weapon on its children? Imagine the outcry if a device was introduced that caused blanket discomfort to people of one race or gender, rather than to our kids," she said. But Simon Morris, commercial director of Compound Security Systems, which created and markets the Mosquito, today defended it and questioned the motivation of the campaign to ban it. "Our opinion – and unless Ms Chakrabarti has managed to change the legislation we still have free speech – is that Liberty is being more discriminatory in this campaign than anyone using the Mosquito," he said. "They are not willing to consider the victims of anti-social behaviour." The device works by emitting a pulse at 17-18 kilohertz that switches on and off four times a second for up to 20 minutes. Teenagers can pick it up through minute hairs in their inner ears – but those hairs tend to die off by the time they reach 25. Compound Security insists that the device is both safe and legal. Mr Morris said that it operates at 85 decibels, making it lower in volume than the traffic on most high streets, and most teenagers would take quite a while to even notice that an emitter had been switched on. He compares the level of irritation with going downstairs without turning off your alarm clock - "you can ignore it for a couple of minutes but after five minutes it starts to get annoying". The company says that 75 per cent of its sales have been to police forces and local authorities, who install it in spots where they are keen to prevent gangs of teenagers assembling. Mr Morris agrees with Sir Al that the device is not a long-term solution to the problem of anti-social behaviour but denies that the device simply moves the problem on. "Police forces will support me with this. Kids will come from various parts of a neighbourhood and congregate in that one spot, like the centre of a wheel," he said. "What police find is that rather than one group of 20 or 20 kids in one location they will split into smaller groups and the smaller groups cause less problems. Of course it doesn't solve the long-term problem, but it does what it says on the box. It disperses the large groups." A teacher-proof ringtone based on the Mosquito sound was said to be the most widely downloaded in the country when it came out in 2006, although Mr Morris said that the most of the sales occurred through unlicensed sites. It remains popular, although Sir Al expressed his concern today that it was being used to disrupt classes. Mr Morris said that he and his partner, Howard Stapleton, who invented the device after his 15-year-old daughter was taunted by a gang of youths outside a shop, had been trying to organise an official code of practice to ensure that the device was not abused. They had spoken to various bodies including the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers but had been told by Liberty that it did not want to get involved. "I really don’t understand where this Aynsley-Green is coming from or what he hopes to achieve. If nobody, including Liberty, will sit down and hammer out a fair usage policy, a code of practice, then I don't understand what they hope to achieve," he said. ----------------------------------- i came accross this, and i think its a good idea, it wills top kids hanging around outside shops, and driving people away, and basically being a nusiance, yeah yeah i know it says its infringes the rights of young people. but what about the people who want to go shopping and go aout they're daily business without any hassle from hooded creatures, who lurk in shop door ways? ---------------------------------
It would be better and more advantageous if those shop owners would use classical music instead. That way they drive away the youth but attract the ones who want to enjoy shopping in peace and quiet. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Not all youths are bad. Although it is placed at sensitive spots, It's not actively going after gangs but affecting everyone under 25.
A lot of teens get in trouble simply because of the fact that they're bored. The parents, sometime between their own teen years and their old age seem to forget that teens have virtually no attention span and like to be challenged. When they aren't challenged, much like dogs left home unattended, they find stuff to do. That's what can lead to bad stuff. While I wasn't a heathen when I was a teen, I did do my share of less than legal stuff. A lot of that was because we were bored and had nothing else to do. If towns and communities would recognize this and put forth more of an effort in to activities as such, shit like that wouldn't happen as much. For example, say you have a group of teens who like to skateboard/rollerblade/bike. Let's say that building a skatepark for them would keep them off the streets. Then what happens is you have Old Man Anal as head of the town council who gripes that the skatepark would be too dangerous for the youths and denies it's approval. Where do the kids go then? They go to public facilities, etc. and skate down handrails, and other skateboard friendly obstacles...only to have some uptight security guard come and kick them off the property due to liability issues...just because some town council member wanted to be an asshole. That's just one situation/example.
when they say they're bored it meens that they dont have money in they're pockets to do things with, i have a 16yr old son and he is the same, "mum i am bored" or actually what he means is "mum i havent got any money" i know the years have changed everyone but, when i wa a teenager i sure has hell didnt have nay money to spend, but i found things to do and places to go, and i sure has hell did not harrass people outside the shop, if a policeman saw me he would slap my head and drag me home and i would then get a slap from my step dad or my mum
I appreciate the need to protect oneself against gangs of thugs but I'm uncomfortable with the concept of sending the kids "somewhere else." That just makes them someone else's problem. I really don't like the idea that kids who are walking somewhere legitimately and happen to pass one of these things are going to be made to suffer. They should find a way to make it as difficult to have children naturally as it is to adopt them. There wouldn't be any brats.
It doesn’t just work on “young” people; I am 27 and can still here 18 kHz tones quite clearly. Not everyone’s eardrums die at the same rate.
What the hell makes it ok to treat all young people as criminals because of the actions of a few? Just standing around talking to friends doesn't make you a thug.
I won't disagree but if I was ever broke and needed/wanted some money, I would just ask my mom for it. I wouldn't beat around the bush. Oh, my friends and I found things to do. Some of the things we did because we were bored, was: -stealing lumber and plywood from housing developments to build skateboard and rollerblade ramps -breaking into one of our HS buildings during the summer and loafing around in the classrooms, just because we could -one time we rolled over a Ford Fiesta in the wee hours of the morning because we were drunk As for cops, we tended to stay in areas that allowed for easy elusion/escape from cops.
I don't see how this helps. Kids aren't stupid won't they just congregate in large groups somewhere else. And your also hurting children who are out with their parents. they can hear it. The teens who aren't doing anything. Most teens don't cause harm to anyone besides maybe talking too loud. When I was a senior in high school the city banned teenagers from a popular center in town because older people seem to forget that they were teens once too. So now when I see a group of high school or jr high school kids just hanging around being noisy or whatever, I just ignore them. Why is that so hard to do.
FINALLY someone with some sence. Congratulations visceral_instinct Im 25 so i can "do what ever i want" i tend to spend 90% of my free time at the fish store because i love marine fish. Now i do buy stuff when i have the money, other times i just look. What gives ME the right to do that but if you happen to be under 20 you dont have that right? This atitude sickens me, maybe if goverments put some more thought into providing SERVICES for the youth and safe places to hang out and enjoy themselves you wouldnt HAVE the gang related problems. Of course some people still subscribe to the ideal that children should be seen and not herd and adolecents should be NITHER seen NOR herd
we did have places like that, example: just last year they built a new houseing estate, (exclusivly for single mothers, but that is anouther thread) and they built a youth club for all the kids there, but it was open for just 6 months because the assholes wrecked it. The estate has gone from being a really nice place, to being a place that you won't walk through at night. Why should the people of britain build places for kids just to wreck like they do? another example, they are spending a lot of money on doing up the sae front, and they put computer type information systems along the front, and the kids wrecked those after just 4 months, why should the tax payers have to pay for what the kids wreck?
