please empty your brain below
|
|
So if I want to rob the joint I just have to wear a Covid mask. Got it.
D9000 | 05.03.23 - 9:25 a.m. | #
|
|
How unwelcoming - especially if you're only passing through on a cold/wet day, for example, en route to the Olympic Park.
Cornish Cockney | 05.03.23 - 9:31 a.m. | #
|
|
A balanced article could possibly have explored the reasons why management had imposed this policy, and maybe discredited the possibility that this was the least bad option.
Messiah | 05.03.23 - 9:52 a.m. | #
|
|
Interesting and rather fraught. Hooded lads could be entering the shopping centre to buy a £200 pair of trainer shoes. A male terrorist wearing a hijab could blow the shopping centre to smithereens.
Andrew | Homepage | 05.03.23 - 10:35 a.m. | #
|
|
I wonder if the powers-that-be include Balaclava helmets under the "helmet" category?
cau1khead | 05.03.23 - 10:35 a.m. | #
|
|
The UK's CCTV boom around the start of the century arguably had little effect on crime because of weaknesses in technology. Now we have high definition cameras, face recognition, and AI to trawl the data, it's possible that CCTV could make a real difference. I think many people would be willing to accept the implications on privacy if the technology significantly reduces the risk of robbery etc.
Alan | 05.03.23 - 10:38 a.m. | #
|
Saw some kids being evicted from a supermarket the other day having tried a grab and dash raid on the vaping products -- ludicrously just displayed on an aisle, not at the fag counter.
They were all wearing these balaclava things. You can see why shops are concerned.
Chris | 05.03.23 - 10:48 a.m. | #
|
|
I actually emailed them about the ‘are not’ error. They said they’d pass it on, but looks like no change was made.
Stephen | 05.03.23 - 10:51 a.m. | #
|
What’s to bet that if II, a middle aged white man, go into Westfield with a hood up nobody says anything but a black teenager will be turfed out.
It’s sinister and frankly as openly racist as you can be without be explicitly illegal in a sign.
Daniel | 05.03.23 - 10:57 a.m. | #
|
|
Unfortunately I’m sure security will act different whether you have the hood up on a jumper if you are a middle aged white man vs black teenager
David | 05.03.23 - 11:48 a.m. | #
|
How about the hood on my anorak? Is that OK?
I assume the thinking is that a chance-taking, thrill-seeking teenager isn’t going to wear a hijab. Or a face mask. But where the line is drawn could fill many PhD’s in itself.
Kirk | 05.03.23 - 11:49 a.m. | #
|
|
I'm sure a white "yoof" wearing a hood up would also be treated differently from the white middle aged man.
Mikey C | 05.03.23 - 11:55 a.m. | #
|
|
These signs have been up since at least 26 January (that’s the date stamp on my phot one!), yet seem to have slipped under the radar… until now.
Marc | 05.03.23 - 12:18 p.m. | #
|
Well said regarding the grammar used in the sign. Recently I saw the following sign at our local tube station saying:
"If you see a suspicious package please repport it to a member of staff."
I notified a member of staff about the spelling mistake and the notice has now been removed. At least now customers will be spared from having their eyes offended by atrocious spelling on their morning commute.
Tony | 05.03.23 - 1:41 p.m. | #
|
It would be more effective to wear a set of religious shape covering robes and full religious face covering if you are up to no good.
And as any basic book on spycraft will tell you, dodging into the toilets to quickly whip off robes and face covering will throw any tracking (including hidef CCTV) seriously off the scent unless the tracker can actually follow you into the toilets.
MilesT | 05.03.23 - 1:43 p.m. | #
|
|
It was pretty obvious what they meant and why they want it. And the (silent) majority will support it. Yes, they should have said ‘no hoods to be worn’ rather than ‘no hoodies’. Sloppy drafting, for sure. Otherwise, this is a confected piece of outrage on the part of the predictable dying-to-be-offended brigade.
David B | 05.03.23 - 2:38 p.m. | #
|
Sybil Fawlty :
I should never have let you write that advert.
Fancy putting "no riff-raff."
Gourmet Night, 1975.
Gordon | 05.03.23 - 2:57 p.m. | #
|
|
Kids can be a pain, but the tech will go after white lawyers just as easily as teen roadman wannabees. Anyone of the 'if you've nothing to hide' persuasion might want to consider the example of Madison Square Garden - which has apparently been using facial recognition to eject or refuse entry to people associated with law firms involved in litigation against the venue's owner. Such motivations, combined with the tech's poor accuracy, plus the legendary fallibility of associated databases, compounded by the absence of meaningful regulatory oversight, combines to offer a near friction-free slippery slope.
jpmac | 05.03.23 - 3:58 p.m. | #
|
|
The "grammatical error" is an example of attraction, or (perhaps) notional concord (like "the committee were keen on ..."). The Queens English Society are against it, which automatically makes me support it.
Malcolm of Kent | 05.03.23 - 4:20 p.m. | #
|
One thing I really hate on signs is when "you're" is used by mistake instead of "your". My local independent hardware store had problems with youth violence outside, and put up a sign saying "please leave you're knives at home guys".
I complained to the owner, and pointed out the hypocrisy demonstrated here, given the fact that the store SOLD knives. I also pointed out how the lack of a comma between the words "home" and "guys" rendered the sentence incomprehensible. Finally I took the time to educate him on the use of the word "guys", and the fact that many consider it to be offensive and a dog-whistle to misogynists. The owner tried to stammer out an explanation but clearly he hadn't thought this through, and he took the sign down.
The shop closed the following week following an incident - it's been converted into residential flats now. Luckily the "For Sale" signs are better written, and thankfully less offensive.
Tony | 05.03.23 - 5:00 p.m. | #
|
|
During WW2 there were warnings that spies and invaders were likely to be disguised as nuns, which is apparently acceptable, so I expect an influx of these in shopping arcades.
Kev | 05.03.23 - 5:56 p.m. | #
|
|
I would like to see someone wearing more than one helmet... But one could wear a balaclava and hoodie at the same time, so "are" is acceptable there. Perhaps: "The wearing of a ski mask, hood or helmet is not permitted" is the least worst phrasing.
Nick K | 05.03.23 - 6:17 p.m. | #
|
I'm a middle aged white male and I wear a hoodie for the simple reason that I no longer have hair so I feel the cold on top. A hoodie is a convenient way to have a head covering without the bother of having to carry a hat when not wearing it.
The sign shouldn't say "Don't wear a hoodie". All it needs to say is: Please ensure your face is visible to our big brother CCTV.
Alan: Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but AI has frequently been shown to discriminate against minorities because the AI has been trained by biased (concious or otherwise) humans.
Jon Jones | 05.03.23 - 6:17 p.m. | #
|
|
Perhaps I should invest in a high collared coat that hides my entire head below any hat I might be wearing? Parts of the Westfield complex are public rights of way so they cannot restrict you on those areas especially if you are going to the tube or Stratford International.
Andrew Jarman | 05.03.23 - 6:25 p.m. | #
|
I still struggle with why things that would otherwise be unacceptable are OK if done in the name of religion.
But clearly a place to avoid. Which is a shame as I used to cut through the old shopping centre back when I occasionally worked in Stratford, which frequently entailed a Percy Ingle steak slice. I don't think I'd like it much there now.
Sarah | 05.03.23 - 6:50 p.m. | #
|
I never comment but I feel it's really important to add some perspective. Firstly - I'm not defending this policy; the hoodies ban is quite blatant racism, intentional or not.
Also, a lot have you have mentioned the "hijab". The hijab only really covers the ears and hair - not essential to identification. Unless of course you are mentioning items such as the niqab or burqa, then yes, that is a valid point; these can make identification harder.
Andrew - you comment is simple fear mongering. I don't like to throw this term around for fear of overuse, but this is considered Islamophobic. First of all, men in Islam do not wear hijabs, and one wearing a hijab could easily be identified as I stated earlier. Plus, "scary muslim terrorist" is a dangerous stereotype that is true of less than 200 of the nearly 4 million Muslims in the UK.
Sarah - Yes, terrorism, war, and discrimination are unacceptable when religion is used as an excuse, but this does not apply to headscarves. It does not hurt. No one considers the church bells on Sundays (and the fact many shops are closed on Sundays) as unacceptable. Just because something is uncommon in your culture does not mean it is the same elsewhere. Things considered staples of British culture (pork and alcohol) are considered wrong in others, and that's ok. What's not ok is not allowing people to continue their culture (as long as that culture does not harm others) and forcing them to assimilate into what one considers "acceptable".
Lastly - Islam is not the only religion that has religious items of clothing; Sikh turbans, for example. Also, women should be able to exercise their religious rights in public places - facial recognition is evolving and overtime can adapt. Just last year we had major improvements in AI writing; perhaps the next thing will be object recognition (rendering those captcha tests obsolete).
I apologise for the lengthy comment, but I feel it is important to voice the other side of the debate. I am writing this with respect to everyone, and apologise if anyone takes personal offence at this. I have tried to explain my reasoning so others can better understand the issue. Many people live in a society surrounded by people similar to them, and I hope I have given some of you some valuable information.
A Concerned Anon | 05.03.23 - 8:26 p.m. | #
|
|
Very very well put Concerned Anon!
BP | 05.03.23 - 9:14 p.m. | #
|
|
What BP said.
Wendy | 06.03.23 - 10:14 a.m. | #
|
|
I find it very strange how so many apparently fit young men, usually on illegal e-scooters, seem to need to wear ‘medical’ paper masks. What are they trying to hide?
Kim | 06.03.23 - 10:31 a.m. | #
|
Westfield have a problem with young thugs shoplifting, and maybe carrying out other anti-social behaviour, while evading detection by wearing hoods and balaclava-style masks etc. I’ve seen countless other instances of this practice. They want to deter such behaviour so they forbid the use of means used to evade detection. (Nuns and other religious groups don't tend to raid shops. It's very improbable gangs of lads will dress as nuns to do so). There is no need to wear any of the proscribed items while on a shopping trip. Simples.
Unfortunately they then employ a clown to write their material.
David B | 06.03.23 - 11:42 a.m. | #
|
I don’t know loads about this, but a friend told me that the mall sits on top of three local gangs’ territory boundaries. Apparently there have been multiple incidents with stabbings/ attacks in the mall as a result of that. Mostly inter-gang fights, but even if they do leave everyone else alone it won’t be making people feel safe.
I therefore wonder if this is the management team’s attempt to prevent some of the behaviour (you’re right - if people feel watched, they’re less likely to do bad things) and/or at least be able to catch them if they do do something bad. Either way, I don’t think this is part of a “greater conspiracy” on Westfield’s behalf, but rather an (ill-informed and clunky) attempt to tackle the above-named issues.
Agre that this is a BS rule, and does nothing to fight the cause below the issues at hand.
KLM | 06.03.23 - 3:31 p.m. | #
|
The signs must be new but I have seen security implementing the “no hoods up” rule a few times. I’ve also seen security running after people inside of the shopping centre on more than one occasion too. And I visit very infrequently.
It’s a private space so they have the right to set a dress code. If this helps reduce crime then then they have all rights to do this and more.
G | 24.03.23 - 7:20 a.m. | #
|
|
|
TridentScan v2.10.0 | Privacy Policy
|