Metropol

although this isn't really newsworthy, it alarms me that people are now being asked to remove their hats so cctv can capture their faces.

our civil liberties are being eaten away and nobody seems to be doing anything about it.

i heard on radio 4 yesterday that cameras are being developed to automatically detect people using mobile phones and not wearing a seatbelt whilst driving.

i have nothing against this in principle but it seems soon enough there is going to be massive collections of data about me, where i go, what i do, and it really does worry me.


this is not about old ladies taking their hats off in pubs, it's a much a bigger problem and i have no idea where it's going.

Why does Blair's Big Brother need to spy on us?

I doubt any of our lives are THAT interesting, are they? I don't think me popping down to the supermarket and then visiting my mates house is going to be terribly interesting for anyone else, surely?

Out of 60 million people, there are say around 100 hardcore would-be terrorists. Why not just spy on them, and not everyone else?

nodnirG kraM wrote:

Jamez wrote:Out of 60 million people, there are say around 100 hardcore would-be terrorists. Why not just spy on them, and not everyone else?

Any hints on where they are?

North London.

BBC News wrote:Pub licensee Tony Love said it was pub policy to always ask people to remove their hats.

"It's all to do with the CCTV. We have 13 cameras inside the people and we cannot be seen to be discriminating between the youths and the elderly people.

"We always approach people politely and most of the elderly take their hats off anyway when they sit down. Mrs Wilbraham does not understand that the world is changing."

And if Tony Love has any say in the matter, it is changing into a world where every innocent person is treated as a criminal suspect all the time.

Don't like it, bugger off elsewhere you moaning old bat!

Well, vote with your feet. Take your custom somewhere else. Who the hell would willingly walk into a pub with 13 CCTV cameras anyway? Only an absolute cretin.

But on the other hand, if this was a 13 year old chav, it'd be fine?

In the cinema where I work part time, we have recently introduced a "greeting point" in the foyer, beyond which you can't go without a ticket. The real reason for this is to stop junkies using our toilets to inject themselves after many problems in the past. Now whenever anyone else works on that, they usually allow the odd few people through without a ticket, if they look genuine... I on the other hand allow noone through whatsoever without one. The only reason for this is that if I let some through and not others, I am discriminating against those I reject purely on the basis of what they look like.

So to cut a long story short, I think it is entirely fair to ask the gentleman to remove his hat if the same would be asked of someone else. Rules should apply to everyone.

all new Phil wrote:But on the other hand, if this was a 13 year old chav, it'd be fine?

In the cinema where I work part time, we have recently introduced a "greeting point" in the foyer, beyond which you can't go without a ticket. The real reason for this is to stop junkies using our toilets to inject themselves after many problems in the past. Now whenever anyone else works on that, they usually allow the odd few people through without a ticket, if they look genuine... I on the other hand allow noone through whatsoever without one. The only reason for this is that if I let some through and not others, I am discriminating against those I reject purely on the basis of what they look like.

So to cut a long story short, I think it is entirely fair to ask the gentleman to remove his hat if the same would be asked of someone else. Rules should apply to everyone.

I would agree with that up til the point where some handsome chap asks nicely, and will take it as a personal favour if I allow him to do something I won't allow others to do.

I'm a sucker for a pretty face.

Actually that's a good point. Never had that happen to me though, we don't seem to get any pretty faces whatsoever

There was a report on Anglia News last night involving an interview with the lady and she came over quite nice even saying she doesn't mind removing her hat to show off her wig!

So to cut a long story short, I think it is entirely fair to ask the gentleman to remove his hat if the same would be asked of someone else. Rules should apply to everyone.

Indeed, nothing makes my blood boil more than tinpot private newsagents displaying a sign proclaiming ''No more than 3 children allowed in this shop at the same time" (usually handwritten in marker pen and displayed alongside a myriad of similar signage with many misplaced apostrphes), and during the after-school rush standing guard at the doorway of their shop, running a one-in-one-out system as if they were marshalling prisoners.

It did surprise me in 2000 though when Tesco did the same thing. When I was at 6th form Tescos built a new store next to my school. As often happens, the petrol station opened first. Taking advantage of our new shopping facility, we were met with the same thing you'd get a Premier Newsagent; a sign in the window (admittedly they had run to the expense of typing it) imposing a limit on the number of unaccompanied children permitted in the shop, and even went one better, with a manager-type person searching through every item in your bag and checking it against the receipt before allowing you to leave - as if it were possible to steal something and put in in your bag as you walked 12 feet in a straight, unobstructed path from the counter to the door whilst being watched like a hawk - and all of this was happening to me when I was 18 years old, but because I was still from the school and wasn't buying petrol, I was considered a child under their policy.

A few weeks later, the staffing in this tiny petrol forecourt was supplemented by a bouncer-like security guard to deal with any arguments and who spoke to WHAT ARE CUSTOMERS OF A HUGE NATIONAL COMPANY with contempt because they happened to fit into Tesco's discrimination.

Things only continued when the main store opened. It didn't affect me because I had no uniform and they couldn't see me coming from the school as they could at the garage, but they have actively banned children from visiting the store on the way to/from school - anyone from the school was not permitted to enter the store after 8:30AM or before 4PM (as far as I'm aware this policy still exists).

And this is TESCOS! This type of discrimination should be illegal. These policies are branding a person a thief because they belong to a demographic group which the management do not trust. The management are then discriminating against this group by restricting their access. Yet many people feel this OK - so does that mean I can open a shop and put up a sign saying 'No more than 3 blacks in this shop at one time'? No? Why not? It's the same thing, just a different demographic group.

Age discrimination against children is no different to age discrimination against the elderly, racial discrimination, gender discrimination, or any other sort of discrimination. It's still unfair discrimination, and is wrong.

cwathen wrote:

So to cut a long story short, I think it is entirely fair to ask the gentleman to remove his hat if the same would be asked of someone else. Rules should apply to everyone.

Indeed, nothing makes my blood boil more than tinpot private newsagents displaying a sign proclaiming ''No more than 3 children allowed in this shop at the same time" (usually handwritten in marker pen and displayed alongside a myriad of similar signage with many misplaced apostrphes), and during the after-school rush standing guard at the doorway of their shop, running a one-in-one-out system as if they were marshalling prisoners.

It did surprise me in 2000 though when Tesco did the same thing. When I was at 6th form Tescos built a new store next to my school. As often happens, the petrol station opened first. Taking advantage of our new shopping facility, we were met with the same thing you'd get a Premier Newsagent; a sign in the window (admittedly they had run to the expense of typing it) imposing a limit on the number of unaccompanied children permitted in the shop, and even went one better, with a manager-type person searching through every item in your bag and checking it against the receipt before allowing you to leave - as if it were possible to steal something and put in in your bag as you walked 12 feet in a straight, unobstructed path from the counter to the door whilst being watched like a hawk - and all of this was happening to me when I was 18 years old, but because I was still from the school and wasn't buying petrol, I was considered a child under their policy.

A few weeks later, the staffing in this tiny petrol forecourt was supplemented by a bouncer-like security guard to deal with any arguments and who spoke to WHAT ARE CUSTOMERS OF A HUGE NATIONAL COMPANY with contempt because they happened to fit into Tesco's discrimination.

Things only continued when the main store opened. It didn't affect me because I had no uniform and they couldn't see me coming from the school as they could at the garage, but they have actively banned children from visiting the store on the way to/from school - anyone from the school was not permitted to enter the store after 8:30AM or before 4PM (as far as I'm aware this policy still exists).

And this is TESCOS! This type of discrimination should be illegal. These policies are branding a person a thief because they belong to a demographic group which the management do not trust. The management are then discriminating against this group by restricting their access. Yet many people feel this OK - so does that mean I can open a shop and put up a sign saying 'No more than 3 blacks in this shop at one time'? No? Why not? It's the same thing, just a different demographic group.

Age discrimination against children is no different to age discrimination against the elderly, racial discrimination, gender discrimination, or any other sort of discrimination. It's still unfair discrimination, and is wrong.

agreed - a bit like car insurance. i've always thought it was highly unfair to judge a person's likelihood to have a crash based upon their age and gender. fair enough you can base the likelihood of the car being stolen from their postcode, but whilst i'm sure statistically there must be some parallels between chances of crashing and your sex/age, no doubt the statistics also point to trends amongst ethnicity/sexuality/disability etc. however age discrimination (against youngsters) and sex discrimination (against men) isn't taboo, and therefore permissible.

surely it would make sense for insurance companies to undertake an individual assessment of your driving in order that those who pose the most risk pay the higher premiums and those who do not pose such a risk do not, regardless of age sex ethnicity or anything else.

nodnirG kraM wrote:

Dr Lobster* wrote:this is not about old ladies taking their hats off in pubs

I thought it was rude to wear a hat inside anyway!

Not if you're a laaaaaadyyyyyyyy, Mark.

That's why ladies wear hats in church...