"A four-year-old girl was asked to take down the hood of her cardigan while visiting a seaside amusement arcade."
http//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6983288.stm
well, my first reaction was if you have a policy it should apply to all. But then there was a mention of people being allowed to wear baseball caps and other head coverings. And the reason for the no hoodies is for security and being able to see who each person is. Surely a baseball cap and some other head coverings are just as obscure as a hoodie. so if they are allowed then a 4 year old in a hooded cardigan shouldn't be a problem?
What a jobsworth!
Me, I'd insist on the retraining of the person involved. They really hate that on phone lines to banks and such.
No, it's not taking a zero-tolerance policy too far. zero tiolerance has to mean exactly that.
The step too far came when they imposed the zero-tolerance policy. They should have a height or age limit under which it does not apply. Same as going into the opposite-sex toilet. (Jeez, I was typing bathroom there and couldn't remember what I used to call them.... didn't used to say Jeez either)
That said, what harm is it doing the child to remove the hood? Perhaps if they get used to life without it, they may feel secure enough as a teenager to take it off occasionally ;)
if you read the articule is says she would be able to put the hood back on again
same thing proberly did apply to baseball hats ,they took them of for inspection and then put them back on . that happens at football matches all the time . at the airport to i see them removed and put back on ..
if you dont like the rules stay at home ...
there is no evidence in the articule that the rule was not applied fairly ,the mother didnt see weather folks with baseball hats where asked to remove them or not .
As i say the amusment park is a private company same as any other private entity they should be allowed to apply what rules they choice .
if you dont like the rules go elsewhere
Zero tolerence is a simplistic blunt instrument polict that is often abused.
In this case the presumed underlying reason for the policy was security - the worry that people would wear hoodies to avoid identification by the security cameras.
Someone should have figured that the 4 yr old was a marginal risk at best, and easily identified through her grandparents who were with her (and I suspect, not wearing hoodies).
John, yes the arcade does have rights as a private entity - but you know that just because you can do something does not mean you should. Traumatising the four year old children of your customers is hardly good business.
Personally, I find whole moral panic over 'hoodies' in the UK to be hysterical, and David Cameron's 'hug a hoodie' response even funnier. I think people there need to get a grip. I had my mother complaining about 'hoodies' hanging out in a car park near them and the worries it caused.
I had to point out that 20 years ago her own offspring - sans hoodies - hung out in much the same spot and she wasn't so worried then.
I think one of the problems I had with this particular piece was the fact that they approached the 4 year old and told them to take the hoodie off. Surely they should have approached the guardians of the child and explained the issue (even though I still think it was taking things too far).
Rob, I agree with your point. My eldest had some friends over and a couple of the guys turned up in coats with fury hoods up and another was wearing a 'do rag' (I think that is what they are called). My mother decided to take an instant disliking to these men and wouldn't stop watching their every move. I really couldn't understand what her problem was - it became obvious from what she was saying that it was coming from the issues in the UK that are in the news all the time. It ended up with my kids explaining to her that it is just fashion and because it keeps their hair tidy. She didn't settle until these guys left.
Zero tolerence is a simplistic blunt instrument polict that is often abused.
In this case the presumed underlying reason for the policy was security - the worry that people would wear hoodies to avoid identification by the security cameras.
Someone should have figured that the 4 yr old was a marginal risk at best, and easily identified through her grandparents who were with her (and I suspect, not wearing hoodies).
John, yes the arcade does have rights as a private entity - but you know that just because you can do something does not mean you should. Traumatising the four year old children of your customers is hardly good business.
Personally, I find whole moral panic over 'hoodies' in the UK to be hysterical, and David Cameron's 'hug a hoodie' response even funnier. I think people there need to get a grip. I had my mother complaining about 'hoodies' hanging out in a car park near them and the worries it caused.
I had to point out that 20 years ago her own offspring - sans hoodies - hung out in much the same spot and she wasn't so worried then.
yeah true ROB they dont have to have such a strict policy.
but in the minds of whomever runs the company it was decided that they would enforce that particular policy . public opinion and support will decide if they are unreasonable just like any other company thats puts down rules that some of us dont agree with .
not knowing the history of the company and why they enforce such rules i cant like you give an opinion as to wether its to restictive or not .
as with other entities we have from time to time have purchase /trade / or deal with, my personal opinion at the time decides wether of not I will in fact use there facilities of buy from there store .
I am pro zero-tolerance policies in the current climate. They should not have "grey" areas. There are good reasons for allowing no discretion on the part of the policy enforcers.
Why? (I hear you ask)
Because the public is unwilling to pay for "experts" to enforce general, vaguely-worded policies sensibly. If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. Monkeys tend to need cut-and-dried guidelines. Not only to follow, but to be able to quote at people who argue the toss -e,g, "how come that 8yo didn't have to remove their hood when my 10yo who is smaller/much nicer/mine-and-therefore-above-suspicion did? (Answer because our policy is that all patrons 9 and over must....)
Do I like it? No. Do I think it's right? No. But until the public is willing to accept the cost of employing people who are able to deal with grey areas and until the public comes out of this "customer is ALWAYS right phase, it's probably a necessary evil.
Jeremy PAxman in a recent speech in August made the very point that the government (and from his perspective, the BBC) need to get the balls to tell the general public that they are not (and mostly not) right about much at all. I'm with him.
As for zero-G, in this case it seems silly. There is a huge problem it seems these days with unruly gangs of kids. And no I don't think it comparable to when I was a young teenager - there seems to be something more deliberately aggressive and confrontational about alot of kids these days. It's quite something to watch a queue of elderly people cower in fear at a post office whilst spotty little oiks terrorise them seemingly for fun - and no-one dare do anything about it.
As for this particular case, zero-G means everyone and no exceptions so I'd have to agree.
Intimidation is a two way street Gavin.
To some extent the victim allows themselves to be intimidated, usually for wholly irrational reasons. The oik in the hoodie is unlikely to pose any real threat to them, but almost certainly gets gratification from knowing that merely wearing a sweatshirt with a hood can be so empowering.
The right wing press in Britain is largely responsible for this nonsense; exagerating the rate and severity of crimes amongst young people (something that even the Police have complained about) and speading an irrational fear that has developed into a self-fulfilling prophesy.
I know I am not there, and you are, so I defer to your experience to some extent.
However, being detached from events can give a perspective. What I hear and read sound pretty mucht he same as what I heard when I was a teen and what I heard again and again as an adult in London.
The only difference is the article of clothing.
Teddy boys, rockers,Elvis, Punks, Ska, Skinheads, leather jackets, low riding jeans with exposed underwear (for males and females)... any of this sounding familar.
Last week John McCain visited a High School in Concord NH. One of the kids asked him to justify his support of 'don't ask don't tell" and to explain how he can claim to belive in equality and oppose same sex marriage.
His answer was predictably weak and designed not to offend the religious right.
The kid responded "I came here expecting to see a leader. I didn't. I'm dispointed".
The school apologized for the kid's insolence and assured everyone he would be appropriately punished.
The First Ammendment be damned.
I said elsewhere on this board recently, and say again. I much rather have a few insolent hoodies winding up the right wing media than the stepford wives that the US seems determined to create.
Next time you see a bunch of hoodies, don't hug them (that would be invading there personal space) but do say hello. Years of negotiating my way through bunches of hostile teenagers in Brixton and Hackney taught me that a smile, a 'good morning' and a confident stride went a long way.
The right wing press aren't shouting at people at the post office. And yes today's media in Britain does gleefully stoke things up, but it isn't right wing. It's generally the Guardian and the hysterically silly Daily Mail (right wing or just plain mental?) but the main culprit is the BBC. The modern morning news is a ridiculous collection of "HOLY SHIT EVERYONE YOU'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!" stories surrounded by promotional advertisements for BBC shows and global warming initiatives. It's become very much like CNN. Thank God for Newsnight.
And the kids aren't wearing hoodies - why anyone focuses on them is beyond me because barely anyone wears them. That's as dumb as banning Burberry to stop bad behaviour. And if someone could tell me when it became so socially acceptable for men to walk around topless in the city centre I'd love to know. Kids are like kids of yesteryear I'm sure. But something distinctly different is occurring.
I totally agree with you Rob - respect goes both ways as well as understanding and remembering what it is like being a teenager/young adult.
However, I also agree with Gavin in that it is different today in the UK compared to when we were kids. I'm in my 40s and as a teenager there were still playgrounds with 'big kids' things to play on (giant slides, large swings, football fields), and youth clubs. It wasn't long after my teenage years were over that these things began to disappear. when my own children were little and we lived in the UK I would take them to a wonderful park in the local town and there were fences and notices everywhere saying no kids over 11 allowed. the small fields that were there had large notices stating 'no ball games allowed'. the paths didn't allow for skating or skateboarding.
Youth clubs closed, churches locked their doors, county councils placing signs everywhere that makes it very clear teenagers are not allowed.
When we were kids we were allowed on school grounds to play on the playground and playing field. We would hang out at the tennis courts at the comp. However, as an older teenager that began to stop and schools had high fences put up with locking gates that as soon as school was closed the gates would be locked and no one was allowed in. When that didn't work, some schools began putting barbed wire along the top of the fences. And that was for the schools that still had their playgrounds - many had to sell their land off to help pay for mounting bills.
Teenagers used to have places to hang out. Now they are bored and find their own entertainment. Add to that a society that doesn't encourage family values or make it easy for families to be together, things are bound to be different to past generations. And it is also a recipe for disaster especially if you have two parents working full-time and no one to keep an eye on these teenagers and pre-teens after school.
But I do agree - it isn't all teenagers by any means. It is just the few. But these few spoil it for the rest and prevent the small bit of help that is needed to give teenagers something to do.
Considering a four year old girl even as a marginal risk is (to me) just daft. It seems these days zero tolerance and other such rigid policies are just a substitute for common sense and good judgement, and this is a sad state of affairs indeed.
As for zero-G, in this case it seems silly. There is a huge problem it seems these days with unruly gangs of kids. And no I don't think it comparable to when I was a young teenager - there seems to be something more deliberately aggressive and confrontational about alot of kids these days. It's quite something to watch a queue of elderly people cower in fear at a post office whilst spotty little oiks terrorise them seemingly for fun - and no-one dare do anything about it.
Children need boundaries, and push until they find them. Despite this, successive policy changes at schools and in the law over the last 25 years or so have gone far beyond just 'protecting the child'. This fang removal makes it impossible to convey through discipline or otherwise the consequence for inappropriate behaviour in terms the child will care about.
As such, this leads to a sense of invulnerability for the child and we see the abhorrent behaviour reported frequently in the news. Of course, it's not the only reason for their behaviour. Family breakdown, the welfare dependency and other factors contribute, but at the top of the tree it's the government pulling the strings.
I ran afoul of the "no baseball caps" rule when I visited England in 2001 - some doorman in a bar in Reading had a right go at me but it was the first I'd ever heard of it - I'd only been away from Britain for about three years.
I wear hoodies all the time here although admittedly, I rarely actually put the hood up - wonder if old folk would cower from me if I wore one over there? Probably look too old to be that intimidating any more.
Unscientifically, I guess I was more fearful walking around a city in UK than I am here - a group of kids once made a rather half-hearted attempt to assault me in Plymouth when I was about 19, one of whom just randomly threw a punch (which I somehow dodged) as he walked by me.
If that were to happen here, there is always the risk that the guy you go to assault is packing a concealed weapon and can legitimately shoot you for such stupidity.