David,

This is a wind-up, right?

Oh, it isn't....

More effective I believe for moving people on would be a looped recording of Jim Allister :0)

More effective I believe for moving people on would be a looped recording of Jim Allister :0)

hmmm.... we might get that very soon, then again we might not...;-)

David -

Predictably, the liberals' kneejerk reaction is to side with the scum of the land. They're whining about 'human rights', whatever that unBritish tosh is all about.

Most of those devices will be sited on private property, and private property rights trump human rights - whatever that unBritish tosh is all about. If the property owner is happy to do it then tough.

And how is it these fools can only reach for human rights - whatever they are. One thousand years of common law development, the greatest of all legal codes, has given us all the tools we need to deal with the feral products of modern, liberal Britain. The way they go on you'd think no laws existed before 1997 - year zero. But then that's the real purpose the Human Rights Act - Blair's self-proclaimed greatest achievement. In one stroke he created a lucrative business for his wife, created the human rights industry and handed the activist judiciary a magic gun to use against the British Constitution, our laws, traditions and customs.

I am not to sure about this. There is a fine line between upholding law and order and police state and political bullying.

I would worry that this device could easily switch from being used to move one trouble makers to being something to used to harass, exclude or control perfectly innocent youngsters that somebody has just taken a personal dislike to.

I suppose there is a case for it being in the polices crowd control armoury, but allowing council staff, with the potential for politically or personally motivated use,it seems wrong.

Your hearing naturally deteriorates with age ... particularly in the very high frequencies. It's not usually noticable, as we don't talk like bats!

So younger folk with good hearing can still hear the "mosquito" buzz. Unfortunately, so can some mid-thirty-somethings ... so I guess it'll put me off hanging around too.

I thought it might be an early April Fool's Day story.

When I first heard that councils were to employ Mosquitoes, my heart leapt at the thought that De Havelland were back in production with their fabulous 1943 multi-role fighter-bomber.

I had visions of 633 squadron making low level strafing runs over hordes of drugged/boozed hoodlums on street corners.

Instead it's just a loudspeaker.

Pathetic.

I had visions of 633 squadron making low level strafing runs over hordes of drugged/boozed hoodlums on street corners.

Playing the famous theme music as well, a bit like The Valkeries scene in Apocalypse Now.

Surreal!

"Predictably, the liberals' kneejerk reaction is to side with the scum of the land. They're whining about 'human rights', whatever that unBritish tosh is all about."

No, Pete. For all your mutterings about freedom, it is you that supports coercive measures by the authorities. It is a ridiculous idea.

"I had visions of 633 squadron making low level strafing runs over hordes of drugged/boozed hoodlums on street corners."

At least that has a bit of balls about it.

It should be a simple property rights issue. If you own the area where it can be heard it should be allowed. But you should not be entitled to used it on public property.

It should be a simple property rights issue. If you own the area where it can be heard it should be allowed. But you should not be entitled to used it on public property.

Its hardly possible that you can confine the signal within the limits of 4 walls. Think of the scenario where someone installs on of these items to keep kids off their front wall. Now any kid, be they troublemaker or not will experience irritation as they pass this residence. I wonder what effect this signal has on toddlers

Kloot

In that case it is the same as playing an annoying noise to keep adults off your wall. You are not entitled to interfere with people on public property no matter what age they are. If people are lawfully entitled to be somewhere then they have a right to complain about noise.

Consider a rented house with a lot of young people living there playing loud rap music all day. They could claim they were trying to keep grown-ups away. How is the principle different.

I would be happy to see anyone use the technology to keep their own property clear but not a public footpath.

You can't have a presumption of guilt against young people any more than against anybody else.

I am with Reg and Henry on this. However it explains why ony the immature like The Darkness.(no David, we don't want a video of them)

Reg -

No, Pete. For all your mutterings about freedom, it is you that supports coercive measures by the authorities.

Try reading what I actually typed. That is: Most of those devices will be sited on private property, and private property rights trump human rights - whatever that unBritish tosh is all about. If the property owner is happy to do it then tough.

Private property rights, defended absolutely by law, are one of the essential elements of a free society, which goes to the heart of why Leftists always transgress those rights.

Pete

I agree with you on property rights but just because somebody owns the house next door to you does not give them the right to play music at any volume just because they own the stereo. Agreed?

Likewise an noise coming from a private property does not enjoy legal protection just because it is aimed at young people.

Henry94 -

We are British and do not need permission from the state to play music. We leave that malarky to Johnny Continental and his dodgy foreign ways.

Now those who support the scum of society have perfectly reasonable routes of redress, British ones at that. They can simply point out that in Britain we are allowed to gather publicly where, when and how we like. We don't need permission of the state and the state is actually not allowed to disrupt that. The common law, being the highest law, trumps all.

They could do this whilst conceding the genuine dangers of, and concerns over, the scum products of liberal Britain. They could then concede that conservatives had been right all along, marriage would be elevated once more to its previously exalted position and the welfare state consigned to history.

This would have been the British way. But no, as always the liberals' reaction is to leap to the defence of the scum, armed with a foreign law, and one designed wholly to be hostile to our customs and liberties at that. It's thoroughly unBritish and typical of the liberal.

"Try reading what I actually typed. That is: Most of those devices will be sited on private property, and private property rights trump human rights"

I read what you wrote.

Firstly, according to the article, 75% of sales of these products have been to police forces or local authorities - hence my reference to "coercive measures by the authorities", which you appear to support.

Secondly, even if these products are situated on private property (by the landowners or in agreement therewith), if the effect of these products is to cause irritation to people in PUBLIC places, the issue goes beyond property rights.

"We leave that malarky to Johnny Continental and his dodgy foreign ways."

LOL! Fantastic!

"The common law, being the highest law, trumps all."

What on earth are you on about? Parliament can introduce statutes to replace previous common law decisions.

If I was to make a case for the devices it would be that the social contract means that a property owner should be able to call on the police to deal with anything that interferes with his right to conduct his business. But as the state has apparently abdicated its responsibilities in this area it is every man for himself until some kind of order is restored.

The opponents of the device claim that the real problem is that kids have nowhere to go but whose fault is that? Not the shopkeeper. Maybe the government which has squandered tax revenues on setting up offices such as the "Children's Commissioner" instead of providing actual facilities.

(it must be a slow day if I'm arguing with myself)

Reg -

No, it cannot. Parliament is merely a creature of law and specifically prohibited from curtailing the liberties of Britons recognised in common law. Yes, Parliament has curtailed our liberties and yes, where they have done so those statutes are illegitimate. The phrase used is 'improved' - i.e. parliament may only add to those liberties.

"Parliament is merely a creature of law and specifically prohibited from curtailing the liberties of Britons recognised in common law."

Pete,

You talk of common law as if it is some form of overriding natural law rather than simply judge-made precedent.

Reg -

The common law is the will and custom of the people, stretching back to even before King Alfred's time. Statute law is the will of Parliament. Parliament is merely a creature of law, inferior to law and constrained by law. As always, the status of Parliament as merely a realm of our law-governed constitutional monarchy is vastly inflated. Parliament is answerable to the people, is elected by the people to protect their interests for a maximum of five years, after which time power is returned to the people who may grant it to another parliament for a further five years - thus is the sovereignty of the people established and demonstrated over Parliament. No Briton, including members of the police and armed forces, is above the law. We are all subjects of the crown first, and the crown is subject to the common law.

Pete,

Common law is a system whereby the ratio decidendi (or points of law at issue) of judicial decisions are legal precedents (the concept of "stare decisis").

As far as I'm aware, it was introduced into England by the Normans.

Judge-made law can be replaced by parliamentary statutes.

"The common law is the will and custom of the people, stretching back to even before King Alfred's time."

What on earth does that mean? Are you saying it is a form of natural law providing rights and freedoms to the British people? You could make an argument for such a concept; but it ain't common law.

Whatever happened to good old-fashioned water cannon?

Worked before, and rather well too.

And whatever happened to the law prohibiting unlawful assembly? Last time I looked it was still on the statute books. Could it be that our newest batch of bobbies aren't aware of it?

Common Law is one of Pete Moore's hobby horses, but it is simply the term given to generally recognised common principles in English legal history. It has no statutory authority. In the UK Parliament under the crown is absolute and it can - providing it recieves Royal assent - pass absolutely any legislation it wishes without limit.

Clearly put, Colm.

Strangly enough, i was in Canada a few years back and in a train station.
They were playing really bad Classical Music at top volume.
I asked one of the Security staff why and was told that it was a very effective measure that they had developed for keeping young people from gathering to 'cause mischief' at the station.
Seems that this fairly common practice in Canada?

JM

You beat me to the punch. I have heard of classical music --or "worse" still, country music-- used as a deterrent by stores to prevent kids from congregating out front. I'd believe that it would work like a charm in most places, at a cost of a lot less than 500 quid.

The Phantom,

Christmas music—or muzak to give it its correct title—will keep me out of any store.

Indeed, anything by Slade has this effect on me.

I love Christmas, but I so loathe most Christmas music which is overplayed for so long.

This year, the Brits took worst prize as I saw a Christmas tree at Gatwick Airport in mid November. Thats the worst thing you did since you started driving on the left and playing that soccer whatchamacallit

I eat lunch at the Plaza (Korean owned ) deli/salad bar most days, over by the South St Seaport. But I had to skip it some days in December, as they just kept playing that "most wonderful time of the year" bilge. I could not deal with it. Better to slink back into the office and nuke a frozen meal from home.

Now, I'm free to eat there until early December at least. But I'm avoiding Gatwick that month, and November too. Hopefully there will be no trees at Heathrow or Stansted. Let me know.

Reg -

By the common law being the will and custom of the people, I mean exactly that - we make the law ourselves by demanding it be made in court. William the Conqueror attempted to codify the common law, but its development pre-dates the Normans by a few hundred years.

Colm is wrong yet again. Parliament cannot pass any legislation it likes. It's commonly believed that Parliament may do this, because constitutional constraint has been overridden so often and so long. But the law still stands and Crown and Parliament may still only operate within the British Constitution.

No Pete, you are wrong - There is not such statutory document as the British Constitution. There is a historic national 'gentlemens agreement' about constitutional constraint but not a formal legal instrument of application like the US constitution.