| User | Post |
|
7:21 pm March 26, 2010
| whiskyman
| | |
| Member
| posts 87 | |
|
|
I Cannot understand Natascha engels remarks in the leader she says she wants them banned because it may hurt the poor darlings hearing. Does she not understand if you get rid of the anti social behaviour, killamarsh would be able to get rid of this deterent, would she rather have the old and infirm targeted with abuse and violence. I would rather have the vandals go deaf than have the innocent residents run the gauntlet every time they go out. She wants to get her priorities right
|
|
|
11:12 am March 29, 2010
| Francis
| | |
| Member
| posts 91 | |
|
|
3 out of the 4 in Derbyshire are in Killamarsh! Does that say something about the problem rather than the solution? It seems to me that these things have got to be better than an exclusion zone or the issuing of ASBOs, which dont work unless they are effectively "policed" and with diminishing funds for such resources or time spent filling in forms a simple digital solution seems admirable.
Is there any evidence to say that they cause damage to hearing – there's plenty of evidence that says ipods and mp3 players do but I dont think there's a plan to ban those. Ok accepted that there is an argument that says why should every one under 25 be affected by them but conversly why should the majority of people (over 25) have to suffer with the fear and consequences of vandallism etc?
|
|
|
11:31 am March 29, 2010
| Manager
| | |
|  Admin | posts 244 | |
|
|
Well done that man, cannot understand Nataschas problem if it deters the idiots in the village and leaves proper residents in peace dont ban them, if you ban them its leaving it open for the numpties to run riot. But dont forget the dogooders say the young have got to be able to express themselves even if it means kicking and punching, causing stress and anxiety to others, remember if they do something wrong we should let them do it again, and again, and again, instead of zero tolerance and stop it before it starts.
|
|