Device emits a tone between 17.5KHz and 18.5KHz inaudible to people over about 25 years
Tone can be heard from a distance of 15-20m
Exposure to sound becomes annoying after 5-10 minutes
Sound automatically shuts off after 20 minutes

"These devices are indiscriminate and target all children and young people, including babies, regardless of whether they are behaving or misbehaving.

"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 also argued that such an approach was "not addressing the root cause" of anti-social behaviour.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7240180.stm

People who are against this idea have obviously never been harrased or intimidated by gangs of youths displaying aggressive behaviour and running out of control.

I would not use this device indiscriminately, but it sure is easier and safer than using water cannon or rubber bullets in serious riot conditions.

Aren't these the things we use to annoy teachers ? The really high pitched tone?

No, these things are inaudible to people under 25. When I was at school over 40 years ago, I used to annoy the teachers by smoking joints and distributing pornography in class:D

No, these things are inaudible to people under 25. When I was at school over 40 years ago, I used to annoy the teachers by smoking joints and distributing pornography in class:D

Sounds fine and non lethal to me, much better than using tear gas. Of course, constant use could produce trauma.

Device emits a tone between 17.5KHz and 18.5KHz inaudible to people over about 25 years
Tone can be heard from a distance of 15-20m
Exposure to sound becomes annoying after 5-10 minutes
Sound automatically shuts off after 20 minutes

"These devices are indiscriminate and target all children and young people, including babies, regardless of whether they are behaving or misbehaving.

"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 also argued that such an approach was "not addressing the root cause" of anti-social behaviour.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7240180.stm

People who are against this idea have obviously never been harrased or intimidated by gangs of youths displaying aggressive behaviour and running out of control.

I would not use this device indiscriminately, but it sure is easier and safer than using water cannon or rubber bullets in serious riot conditions.

sorry tab, i made a thread about this. before reading yours.

and yes for what its worth i think its a brillaint idea, and also they should ban wearing hoodies! (but that is anouther thread)

Use classical music instead, that way you attract the good shoppers but drive the youth away! ;)

That device is contrary to human rights, and UK law, but as it is deployed on private property, like shopping malls, has managed to evade opposition, until now.

Personally, I think the device should be scrapped, as it is assuming all teenagers (well, the under 25's) are guilty by association. The right to congregate extends to youngsters, as well as old farts.

People who are against this idea have obviously never been harrased or intimidated by gangs of youths displaying aggressive behaviour and running out of control.

And those for are unfairly judging all youths by the actions of a few. We need Police on the streets, to target individual trouble makers, not stupid machinery to provide a blanket exclusion.

That device is contrary to human rights, and UK law, but as it is deployed on private property, like shopping malls, has managed to evade opposition, until now.

Personally, I think the device should be scrapped, as it is assuming all teenagers (well, the under 25's) are guilty by association. The right to congregate extends to youngsters, as well as old farts.



And those for are unfairly judging all youths by the actions of a few. We need Police on the streets, to target individual trouble makers, not stupid machinery to provide a blanket exclusion.


if they didnt want to be judged then perhaps those same kids shoulnt hane around in shop doorways


and how many times ahve you been harrassed by "old farts" has you would put it?

if they didnt want to be judged then perhaps those same kids shoulnt hane around in shop doorways

Since when was the right to associate freely made into a crime? Oh, that's right, NEVER.

and how many times ahve you been harrassed by "old farts" has you would put it?

Old people are just as rude an obnoxious as any other age group.

Since when was the right to associate freely made into a crime? Oh, that's right, NEVER.



Old people are just as rude an obnoxious as any other age group.

no ok, but LOITERING is a crime.

and i know old people can be nasty, but how often do you see a older person throw glass bottles at a young teen?

__________________

i knowold people are awful at times, but they are not the ones to blame this gang hanging in dorrways is to blame.

no ok, but LOITERING is a crime.

Afraid not. 'Loitering with intent' is an offense, and the Police may 'move on' people that they consider have intent to commit a crime, but this is often seen as an excuse to be discriminatory. In a private place such as a shopping mall, agents of the owner, such as security guards, may eject whoever they please from the premises without relying on this law, but that does not mean that using electronic equipment to exlude whole groups is within the law either. It certainly isn't in public places, and curfews on the young have been successfully challenged under European Human Rights legislation.

and i know old people can be nasty, but how often do you see a older person throw glass bottles at a young teen?

You know, I see very little of young folks throwing bottles in shopping malls, but if it does happen, the Police and security guards can take the appropriate action. Excluding people because they are part of some group deemed antisocial is just wrong. How would you feel if shopping malls excluded people with tattoos and piercings, just 'cos? Would you accept that?

i knowold people are awful at times, but they are not the ones to blame this gang hanging in dorrways is to blame.

To blame for what? Old people's paranoia? Old people that grew up in the 50's and 60's, with Teddy Boys and straight razors, Mods vs Rockers, and biker gangs? When hasn't the youth got blamed for antisocial behaviour that the current generation were equally to blame for? I'm from a post punk, NWOBHM background, and got attacked both verbally and physically for the way I dressed, and I don't see that it's any worse or better now than then.

The answer is to have Police on the streets, real Police, not those fake PCSOs, and not those paramilitary Police. Let's get some proper beat bobbies getting to know the populace, rather than just emerging onto the streets to do overtime when there is a football match on. We don't need gadgets, we just need to regain trust with the Police.

Afraid not. 'Loitering with intent' is an offense, and the Police may 'move on' people that they consider have intent to commit a crime, but this is often seen as an excuse to be discriminatory. In a private place such as a shopping mall, agents of the owner, such as security guards, may eject whoever they please from the premises without relying on this law, but that does not mean that using electronic equipment to exlude whole groups is within the law either. It certainly isn't in public places, and curfews on the young have been successfully challenged under European Human Rights legislation.



You know, I see very little of young folks throwing bottles in shopping malls, but if it does happen, the Police and security guards can take the appropriate action. Excluding people because they are part of some group deemed antisocial is just wrong. How would you feel if shopping malls excluded people with tattoos and piercings, just 'cos? Would you accept that?



To blame for what? Old people's paranoia? Old people that grew up in the 50's and 60's, with Teddy Boys and straight razors, Mods vs Rockers, and biker gangs? When hasn't the youth got blamed for antisocial behaviour that the current generation were equally to blame for? I'm from a post punk, NWOBHM background, and got attacked both verbally and physically for the way I dressed, and I don't see that it's any worse or better now than then.

The answer is to have Police on the streets, real Police, not those fake PCSOs, and not those paramilitary Police. Let's get some proper beat bobbies getting to know the populace, rather than just emerging onto the streets to do overtime when there is a football match on. We don't need gadgets, we just need to regain trust with the Police.


loitering is a crime!

the police move you along

Moderator: This thread is running in two different forums. Should be combined. (EM&J)

I know those things, they use them outside what used to be my favourite mall. It makes me sick. If you invented a sound that could be heard only by black people, say, to drive them away, there would be an outcry, but it's perfectly okay to treat ALL young people as criminals. Oh wait, we're under 25, so we're automatically criminals regardless of wether we've actually committed a crime. It makes me sick.

and how many times ahve you been harrassed by "old farts" has you would put it?

I have indeed been harassed by older people.

loitering is a crime!

the police move you along

I refer you to my previous answer. The previous 'sus law' was abolished in 1981, and has since been replaced by PACE in 1984, and revised by the CJA an Prevention of Terrorism Act amongst others.

The 'sus law' you are referring to is part of an 19th century anti-vagrancy act btw, a lot has changed since.

Anyway, back on topic, how would you feel if you were denied access to a shopping mall based on your appearance?