These items must be removed from the shelves
![]()
Ron B.
VK2OTC
2003 L322 Range Rover Vogue 4.4 V8 Auto
2007 Yamaha XJR1300
Previous: 1983, 1986 RRC; 1995, 1996 P38A; 1995 Disco1; 1984 V8 County 110; Series IIA
RIP Bucko - Riding on Forever
Actually a number of retail banks do actually have signs to just this effect outside their branches. No headwear, in essence.
7/11 is another one that has signs saying no covering headgear to be worn in the store. May not be every store/branch/establishment but a lot I've been through the doors of.
A bank can and does enforce this. However the security folk they employ seem to have the good sense to know when it is politically savvy to just let it ride. A hoody wearing child (accompanied by an adult, presumably parent) would be a good example of leaving well enough alone. A leather clad individual still wearing their helmet would be promptly and forcibly stopped within a metre of the entrance.
Again, which is the greater threat?
I'm not suggesting any of this is a bad thing. I am suggesting that we collectively get off our mental backsides and THINK!!
Examples of what happens when we abdicate our responsibilities (whether by omission or commission matters not) can be clearly seen in recent times in those wonderous pieces of legislation that were proposed on the adjustment of vehicle suspension heights or the fitment of bull bars. How marvellously thought out they were. (I couldn't even type that with a straight face)
The centre management need a good swift kick up the tail for issuing blind orders without consideration of the consequences. This is not something done in the heat and confusion of battle. They have time to think about the consequences of their actions. Sure, the shopping centre is private property and they can issue edicts on what is acceptable for entrance to their property. Do you (or they) think that the outcome of this little episode has provided positive or negative publicity, and awareness, of their centre?
Please don't let me set up my soapbox on the foibles of our supposed public protectors. I have some very supportable theories on why a proportion of the great unwashed and general public have such a low regard for them. This little hoody incident could be one of them.
I have a profound respect for our police forces. It is a largely thankless and dangerous job that they do. Likewise for the many security personnel who support them by fulfilling roles that ease the burden on our gazetted officers of the law. The rank and file do a great job. Some of the senior management that are supposed to provide considered and appropriate direction do need to be placed in a bag and taken out into the middle of nowhere for their sins and ineptitude though.
One person can be intelligent and urbane, a group of people is about as stupid as it gets. The more people you put together the lower the average IQ.
Like I said before, when are we going to draw the line in the erosion of our freedoms before we end up extinct?
As a man in a movie said "The government should be afraid of the people. People should never be afraid of the government"
The only person in modern history who seriously tried to raise the level of government was Guy Fawkes.
Cheers All,
Iain
Hmm, did I suggest that we were talking about the streets of Kabul here? I was talking about a suburban shopping centre, or more broadly, here in Australia where, thankfully, the Taliban are very much thinner on the ground.
Again, you didn't read my original post properly. I regret the stereotype though I did say security was NOT about coffee and doughnuts. Yes, I do have some idea of what security entails, having worked on a number of occasions with our state and federal police forces. I so seldom see it done properly. Hence my comment about the requirement to actually THINK! If you can't use that gelatinous substance between your ears for it's intended purpose then you DO NOT belong in a security job.
Cheers,
Iain
If you wish to enter private property, then you do as the owner requests or go elsewhere. Hoodies, caps and veils do hide your face - and as stated - that's why shopping centres don't want them. I agree it seems a bit weird to prevent a small child from wearing them, but if the requirement were to be enforced at say, 16 years, then imagine the outrage of attempting to demand someones age to then enforce the rule....
The laws in regard to 'in public' are already in place. In order for Police to complete an enquiry - RBT, arrest, charge, being booked, they must be satisfied of your identity - otherwise there may be doubt as to the correct person being prosecuted. If someone doesn't satisfy the question of identity for any reason, then it's back to the station until their identity is confirmed. Easy. Don't need new rules, just proper operation of the existing ones.
Matt.
Last edited by mudmouse; 4th July 2011 at 08:21 PM. Reason: Added an extra 2 cents
Actually I think the ban is on having the hood up, not the wearing of the garment. So from a security point of view it's the same as removing your bike helemt.
Not normally, but I have had it my hood up on night shift at work (airconditioned) at about 4 in the morning when I am feeling a bit blerrrrrrrr!
Its kind of cosy.
It's just a fad, it will pass. Like bum crack pants, backwards caps, mohawks, puffy jackets, ug boots, flares.....I think this society is gone screwy with our nannyhoodness..The more we (us oldies) hate it, the more they (them youngin's) rebel. Weren't you lot ever teenagers?? I know I was told to cut my hair when I was 15 .....I think I did ....about 6 years later
Couldnt see much under that scraggly mop either.!(ahh the 70's)
| Search AULRO.com ONLY! |
Search All the Web! |
|---|
|
|
|
Bookmarks