If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Age Discrimination
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Two stories today. The first was on the BBC breakfast report (not on the website yet), suggesting measures to control the number of accidents involving young people. They stated that one of the reasons for the greater number of accidents among young people, is because they tend to carry more passengers in their car, since not all of their friends can drive. (The infamous) they suggested that the solution was to limit the number of drivers a young person can legally carry in their car. I assume that their road tax and insurance, however, won't be reduced to compensate.
The second is from my paper about a town near me. Read
The idea of the device is that it emits an unbearable noise that can only be heard by people in their late teens and early twenties (it wasn't in the April 1st issue, honest). It's supposed to be used to stop 'unruly' youths from congregating in certain areas.
Is it just me or is blatent ageism acceptable as long as it's directed against young people?
The second is from my paper about a town near me. Read
The idea of the device is that it emits an unbearable noise that can only be heard by people in their late teens and early twenties (it wasn't in the April 1st issue, honest). It's supposed to be used to stop 'unruly' youths from congregating in certain areas.
Is it just me or is blatent ageism acceptable as long as it's directed against young people?
0
Comments
Definitely, young people are seen as, and told that they are a problem, nasty, violent and commonly threatening to other people.
We are demonising a whole generation of kids and they will live down to the sterotypes.
the problem is that it does affect all young people,which i agree is unfair,but whats the answer?
something has to be done about it because people need to be able to go about their normal life,without having to put up with that.
Perhaps instead of just pushing them from one location to another with criminal sanctions they could be given things to do?
They are constantly told that they are a problem and that society generally doesnt like them, how would you act if that was the case?
In an age of car pool lanes, it beggars belief really.
Most young people by me hang around shops because they're looking in them. They go into town to socialise because it's the only place they can go that doesn't charge money. I would question the wisdom of anyone who could have their money 'scared out of them' leaving the house. Things pissing you off is not enough of a reason to discriminate against an entire group. Old people walking really slowly in the middle of the pavement on a busy saturday afternoon pisses me off, but I'm not gonna start suggesting we hand out cattle prods.
You don't agree that it's ageism? Is it, or is it not, penalising an entire group of people just based on their age?
I think its considerably more serious than 'ageism' its the demonisation of an entire generation of young people, its made plain that they are unwanted horrid louts something that is bound to come back and bite us sooner or later.
As you age your hearing looses its ability to hear very high pitched noises, so horrid teenagers can hear it but decent law abiding adults cant.
See my clear explanation above your post.
Young drivers tend to have more accidents because they are less expereinced drivers and drive older, more unsafe and less roadworthy cars. None of that is news. We already have restrictions on the number of endorsement points they can have on their licence for the first 2 years after passing the test. This new restriction on the number of passengers is merely an extension of that. Of course it is age discrimination, but the debate is surely whether it is worth taking the civil liberties of a few for the benefit of others.
the "gang "mentality will allways want to do what they are not supposed to do,so if given an option i dont believe they would take it.
you can't tell me that there is absolutely nothing else for them to do.i was a bit of a twat when i were 15,but would never try to rob people.i don't think the message is that society in general does'nt like young people,that seems like a sweeping generalisation of what the message is tbh.
Also, the teenager is probably more likely to roll his car into a ditch whereas the middle aged woman is more likely to ram into the car in front at the lights. Same number of accidents, different death toll. Of course it should be based on evidence.
i
I know, it targets all young people, which is why I think its a nasty thing to do.
And yes, I take your point, some kids are nasty louts, no doubt about that, but there is a continual drip drip of stories about kids being moved on, ASBO's being used on 10 year olds..... we are criminalising children when it is a social not a legal issue.
And of course the nasty kids do need punishment, but these blanket bans and group actions demonise the whole group.
and as for holding your wallet,it does'nt matter how old you are when approaching a shop surrounded by a twatish gang,you could still be a target.
i'm glad to hear you havent been robbed yet,at least you know what situations to avoid ay.
i
There's the problem. By using a sound frequency that can only be heard by one age range to deter hooligans is like saying that the whole age group are hooligans. In this case, it is age discrimination. Do people stop being hooligans when they stop being able to hear the noise?
There is no way to distinguish between the people who cause trouble and the people who don't using this method.
I agree that something needs to be done, but I don't think this is the way. For example:
I would fit into the age group that would hear the noise. If they employed this system around the shop where I work - a place where 'hooligans' loiter around - I wouldn't be able to go to work!