Thread: Banned the wearing of hoodies

Originally Posted by RangieBit

Actually access is suitably fettered. There is usually a large doorway. Typically with glass sliding doors controlled by proximity sensors. These doors are usually tightly closed during the period outside "business" hours. there is always a sign indicating what those hours of operation are. Right there by the door.

So, should you (public person) be wandering these premises at, let's say for example, 3am, I am sure the responsible security folk would see that as a breach of the rules and apprehend and/or remove you with as much enthusiasm as was necessary. They might also consider further legal prosecution as there are things known as laws which even the general public are subject to in public areas. It wouldn't even matter if the door was open. You shouldn't be there. Certainly some very pointed questions may be asked as to your intentions whilst on the premises. Shopping perhaps? Perhaps not, since all of the shops would be closed.

I suspect you might likewise take a dim view of someone accessing your home, even if they were known to you, during the night since this is considered outside of the social norm.

As for my home, I am only bound to allow access to the property for legally conducted business. I can stop anyone not deemed to be doing so at the boundary I don't have to let them get to the front door. Should they be there on legitimate business I can not prevent them access to the entrance of my house.

Regrettably most things in life are neither black nor white, just various shades of gray. It is the legal system which attempts to turn them into one or the other.

Them's the rules.

Cheers,
Iain

Agreed it must be legitimate business, but that could be anything and a bit hard to determine, but by law you must provide safe and adequate access. I for one are not even remotely talking about being on premises out of trading hours, that is a clear cut offence, wearing a hoodie is not.
Bit of a shame these shops banning hoodies are probablly the same ones selling them.
As you have said we live with a lot of grey areas, but as a shop owner you can not just make up your own rules either.

Craig in nsw a shop owner can without any given reason stop a person from entering their shop. We dont have tresspass laws here we have the Inclosed lands act and trespass is not entioned as you state only police and "duly licensed" it is an offence under the security industry act to work as a security guard without a lic

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/vi...%22inclosed%22)))


http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/vi...%22security%22)))

Under these acts a security guard or the person incharge of premises may use nessesary force to remove a person from their premises this includes licensed premises. Many shops and bussineses have dress codes and if you dont want to comply your invitation to enter those premises can be withdrawn at any time thats here anyway maybe its different in WA

Originally Posted by Hymie

Ridiculous!!!!
I get Hoodies as promotional items for work and I buggered if I'm going to take mine off or be restricted as to where I can go.
If they ban the sale and manufacture of Hoodies and have a hoodie amnesty and buyback fair enough.
I spent 16 years in Australia's Army defending our freedoms and I'll be ****ed if any tinpot bureaucratic security guard frustrated cop wannabe is going to tell me where I can and can't go in a FREE COUNTRY!

then you should know when a cover is acceptable or not

Originally Posted by rovercare

Pfft, its just a hat, I remember when I used to do electrical maintenance in the local RSL's, "sir please remove your hat"...."why"......"sign of respect of wartime veterans"......"nah, I'm merely here to fix your lights, not show my respest by playing the pokies"

...and that's the point. You were a guest in a place, for whatever reason, and the bloke inviting you in asked you to do something, and you refused. It wasn't an unreasonable request, just a custom of that place.

The bloke was probably a Gentleman.....because if had been me, you would have out the door and your company called and their services no longer required.

To quote Richie - 'Well that's the way it is my friend, and if you don't like, you can pack your bags and .... off home'.

Matt.

Originally Posted by THE BOOGER

Craig in nsw a shop owner can without any given reason stop a person from entering their shop. We dont have tresspass laws here we have the Inclosed lands act and trespass is not entioned as you state only police and "duly licensed" it is an offence under the security industry act to work as a security guard without a lic

NSW Legislation)))


NSW Legislation)))

Under these acts a security guard or the person incharge of premises may use nessesary force to remove a person from their premises this includes licensed premises. Many shops and bussineses have dress codes and if you dont want to comply your invitation to enter those premises can be withdrawn at any time thats here anyway maybe its different in WA

Yep and that is half the problem, laws vary state to state and trespass is usually miss quoted , should be the same Australia wide. The passage quoted do not say much about shops, more about pastoral land and security licensing. In WA there are levels of a security license depending on what you do. For large companies such as BHP if you work directly for BHP on their premises you do not even actually require a security license (obscure law), but as soon as you start doing town or satellite patrols you do or if you are employed by a contractor.
The very grey areas are necessary force and in most cases that does not exist. Most security that have been involved in legal proceedings will tell you it is not clear cut and you must have very clear reasons for touching someone. Have been down that path both on the receiving end and on site security end professionally. Have always instructed security they are not to touch site personnel unless they are assaulted and then it is only to restrain.
I think if it ever results in a court case "A he was wearing a hoodie" will not stand up as a defense especially if you physically detain them and under the anti discrimination act you will have to have a decent reason why you would not serve someone or allow them into your shop and there are allowances for this in law. The anti discrimination act is the contrary law that will overide all others if proven in court and the owner will have to supply a valid reason for refusal of service or entry.
The reality is most security guards are not very sharp and very few know much of the laws they are supposed to be upholding. A basic security license WA is not exactly hard to get. Not degrading guards as I have a lot of friends that do this as a living, but question them about particular circumstance and they dont have a clue. If they do they usually become supervisors pretty quick.
I know individual shop owners can refuse service, but I think the Geraldton case was into the shopping centre, not individual stores. As the parent of the 4 yo I would now be demanding an apology, seeking legal advice and demanding store in the centre stop selling hoodies or any other item of clothing that can conceal an identity otherwise it is hypocritical.
To be honest I think it is all getting blown way out of proportion, especially in the cases being reported. If they are associating in groups and concealing identity there are laws to cover this and move on orders can be issued (at least in WA).
I think there are a lot of people being very petty and showing their age a bit by being anti hoodie. A lot can probablly of such horrendous atrocities the generation before found offensive, such as beatle hair, kiss make up, balaclavas, beanies.
I have to say a hoodie would be my last option to hide my identity.
I think rather than banning or refusing service it should be as simple as if requested your identity must be visible, this includes all forms of dress including the bur-qua and at present NSW are the only state to instigate this for police only. I bet the same guard would not even question this.

Hi Craig,

+1 for Geoffs comments earlier
+1 for Diana's also.

As you can see there are always restrictions. As Diana points out there are rules that must be obeyed by everyone when it comes to certain designated areas of public land. The schools thing being the most obvious and for the most obvious actual public good.

As to shop owners/operators. They are legally entitled to put whatever caveats upon entry to the premises that they feel appropriate as long as they do not breach some state or federal act. For example, conditions of entry that are a clear breach of anti-discrimination legislation are not allowed.

Now let us look at a few more examples. Premises operating in the capacity of a restaurant can place conditions upon entry which prevent them, the owner/operator, from breaching laws by proxy. Such a case is the prevention of persons bringing their own alcoholic drink to the premises if it has been granted a full liquor license but not a bring-your-own. You want to bring your own bottle of wine, please eat somewhere else.
Likewise the same restaurant is legally entitled to enforce a dress code. If you wish to wear work shorts, a singlet and a pair of the previous mentioned thongs/flip-flops/similar then please select another eating establishment.

Some time back there was a much publicised case of a restaurant here in Melbourne banning very small children and babies. It was a very up-market fully liquor-licenced restaurant and apart from the obvious nuances with liquor laws, this was seen by some as a breach of the anti-discrimination legislation. The case was upheld in favour of the restauranteur as it was their business (and by implication their rules). They had a legal right to provide an atmosphere conducive to the comfort of their predominant clientele. This did not, as evidenced by statements from that clientele, include the tantrums of small children out and about in the establishment at what would be well past their regular bedtimes. It comes down to the greater good. The restaurant successfully showed that it would be detrimental to their primary business to allow parents with small children to dine there. A subtle but upheld twist on restriction of trade.

You're not allowed to smoke indoors anywhere anymore. Smoking is a personal and quite legal pastime that has been prevented from occurring in these areas for the greater public good. It started as simply a group of establishments banning it on their premises and then the government took up the ground swell and acted to enforce it across the wider community.

If you look closely at most of the restrictions placed on entry to various establishments you will find that while they may on the face of it appear to be downright Draconian they are most often there to ensure a greater good. Sometimes that is for health and safety reasons. Other times that is for public order and security. It is for those latter reasons that licensed security personnel are allowed to be employed to enforce the rules.

Now. Back to the shopping centre. If you are upset by being forced to take off the hood of your hoody in order to shop there, shop somewhere else. If enough of you do it maybe the downturn in trade will cause them to reconsider the rule. I tend to think not though.

If you don't want to remove your motorcycle helmet to enter a bank, use the ATM. I suspect the banks business will not suffer greatly.

If you want to go into a pub in bare feet, find another place to drink.

All bags subject to search. I have lost count now of the number of affronted individuals that I've seen asked by security or checkout personnel to display the contents of their bags. It was boldly displayed at the entry to the store that search of bags was a condition of entry. Yet amazingly people become upset that they are being searched. In the words of Shakespeare's Hamlet, "Methinks she doth protest too much". Ignorance of the condition is indefensible.

This brings me right back to an earlier point. Most of the time this condition of entry is not enforced because security folk are usually savvy enough to know when it is appropriate to enforce the rule and when not to. Yes, it is a clear rule. Says it right there, "All bags....".

As before, them's the rules.

Cheers,
Iain

i feel the security people at shops ( big w kmart etc ) and factories, the term security is just a job title so what can they legally do ?? why i am saying this when i worked at australia post i had to go inside big w to deliver the mail when leavin the security ask to see in my mail bag this i refused , nothing happen latter i was delivering mail to westrail at kewdale again the security guy ask to see in the mail bag again i refused and again nothing happen

Originally Posted by 85 county

then you should know when a cover is acceptable or not

I wear a hoodie, I don't wear the hood up. If somebody wants to restrict my access for wearing an article of clothing, it's on for young and old.
Nowhere in the original post does it say anything about the hood being over the head, just banning the wearing of hoodies.