Comments on: Hoodies, Baseball Caps and Ganja, Oh My

Hoodies, Baseball Caps and Ganja, Oh My

meehawl — Mon, 16 May 2005 13:01:47 -0800

Hoodies, Baseball Caps and Ganja, Oh My Fresh from his accountability moment, Tony Blair is tackling some of the thorniest issues facing British society: criminalising "hoodies" and baseball caps while keeping marijuana decriminalised (despite a "get tough" pre-election stance). In the midst of a moral panic, Blair recently came out in support of moves to ban the wearing of hooded leisure tops in public, especially when coupled with the nefariously potent symbol of evil: the baseball cap. Meanwhile, the committe whose recommendation resulted in the Commons reclassification of cannabis in Britain to a Class C drug (a misdemeanour equivalent to possessing a prescription medication without a valid prescription) says it sees no reason to reverse its decision, even as Olympians are tarred and feathered. Meanwhile, sales of verboten hoodies can only increase, while cannabis becomes distinctly less cool.

By: keswick

keswick — Mon, 16 May 2005 13:33:13 -0800

Ha!

By: delmoi

delmoi — Mon, 16 May 2005 13:34:25 -0800

wow.

By: lumpenprole

lumpenprole — Mon, 16 May 2005 13:38:10 -0800

Wow, I almost didn't believe that combination at first. Wait, isn't Britain cold and rainy? Could that be why young poor people flock to cheap ways to keep their head dry?

By: HuronBob

HuronBob — Mon, 16 May 2005 13:39:31 -0800

we have a "hoodies" tag now...that's good, I knew something was missing here at the old meta....

By: jonmc

jonmc — Mon, 16 May 2005 13:40:14 -0800

I am all for banning baseball caps in one circustance: if you're over thirty and wear it "playfully askew" a la Scotty from the Little Rascals. That should be outlawed. First offense: caning. Second offense: Life without.

By: Mayor Curley

Mayor Curley — Mon, 16 May 2005 13:40:53 -0800

Blair basically wants to make it illegal to be a chav, then? Is he going to ban clown pendants and those rings with the coins in them next?

By: grabbingsand

grabbingsand — Mon, 16 May 2005 13:43:15 -0800

Well, damn ... guess I better go prepare for my fall UK trip with a Neighborhoodie that says, "No, I'm not going to slap you."

By: aaronetc

aaronetc — Mon, 16 May 2005 13:43:34 -0800

Just when I'm thinking ol' Blighty is the place to be, they up and try to ban emo kids.

By: jsavimbi

jsavimbi — Mon, 16 May 2005 13:44:16 -0800

I agree with the Scotty rule. However, I'm thirty-five and go to work each day with my Flogging Molly hoodie. And in my bag: green BoSox hat. It's de riguer in Boston.

By: sourbrew

sourbrew — Mon, 16 May 2005 13:49:26 -0800

Meh, seems like similar american desires to latch on to sinking pants as a delivery vector for loose lips and child hood pregnancies. Are you really saying they should back off their marijuana decriminilization or that the inconsistencies between the two are mind boggeling? I really can't tell. If you do have beef with their changes to marijuana legislation i suggest you take a look at some statistics and try to convince me why decriminilzation is a bad thing.

By: ClanvidHorse

ClanvidHorse — Mon, 16 May 2005 13:49:31 -0800

I want to know why now? Wee neds have been running around causing havoc for years. The hooded top has always been the necessary accoutrement for the aspiring car thief, bus stop melterer and allround ipod thiever. We've been here before in the UK of course. What with Back to Basics (a John Major attempt at instilling Victorian values which saw loads of Tories shacking up with birds half their age whilst dishing out the moral porridge) and the campaign in Scotland against Ned Culture. Check out this NSFW site - although its only really not suitable if your boss can understand the patois of Irvine Welsh books http://www.glasgowsurvival.co.uk/ As for it all its a moral froth that will soon be forgotten in a society that really isnt that bothered. A good advert for the Bluewater Shopping Centre though.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Mon, 16 May 2005 13:54:19 -0800

blair == Tory.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Mon, 16 May 2005 14:07:36 -0800

hah! brits are as crazy as uhmurkens!

By: aubin

aubin — Mon, 16 May 2005 14:14:57 -0800

I understand from the links that some criminals wear hooded sweatshirts but banning hoodies to stop crime is like banning umbrellas to stop rain.

By: Specklet

Specklet — Mon, 16 May 2005 14:20:14 -0800

You know, a lot of these unruly youngsters wear "blue jeans" and "sneakers". I wonder if we should do something about that, too...

By: Kellydamnit

Kellydamnit — Mon, 16 May 2005 14:25:04 -0800

I love how, as pot becomes less illegal, it becomes less popular. It really goes against the whole "if we legalize it everyone will become an addict!!!" party line.

By: joe lisboa

joe lisboa — Mon, 16 May 2005 14:25:39 -0800

Compromise: slutty Texas cheerleaders agree to wear hoodies and caps and the young Brits agree to wear haltertops and strike a risque pose to the strains of "Toxic" before toking up.

By: black8

black8 — Mon, 16 May 2005 14:30:19 -0800

You can have my hoodie when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

By: HuronBob

HuronBob — Mon, 16 May 2005 14:46:12 -0800

ya know... if we all just went naked there would be a lot less crime.... I'll start....

By: meehawl

meehawl — Mon, 16 May 2005 14:56:11 -0800

the inconsistencies between the two are mind boggeling? Yes. Some cultures ban hoodies, others ban alcohol, while others consider women in public in anything less than a burkha disgraceful. Yet all of them are convinced that theit "solution" is necessary to make their society better. Yet they all manage to "decriminalise" substances and behaviours that others find criminal or sinful. People are weird. i suggest you take a look at some statistics and try to convince me why decriminilzation is a bad thing. I have no desire to convince you of anything in particular. I do, however, note that prior to the DEA re-scheduling taking effect in 1986 Ecstasy was a minor, low-rent drug, but that its popularity boomed following its prohibition. The ban both remade it as a "cool" drug and reshaped its economic incentives to enable a self-sustaining ecstasy marketplace to emerge. Decriminalising cannabis in Britain has reduced its rate of spread within naive youth cohorts to the lowest growth rate for a decade. So it goes.

By: QuietDesperation

QuietDesperation — Mon, 16 May 2005 15:48:32 -0800

Banning of hoodies and baseball caps could be seen as a part of a beautification program. And jonmc, make that "over twelve," not "over thirty."

By: Decani

Decani — Mon, 16 May 2005 16:32:14 -0800

On Bliar's absurd campaign against hoodies I can only appreciate and applaud the first two letters in yesterday's Guardian. That man is such an insufferable ass, as well as being a war criminal.

By: rulethirty

rulethirty — Mon, 16 May 2005 16:51:51 -0800

.....a war criminal huh?

By: Decani

Decani — Mon, 16 May 2005 17:04:54 -0800

That's right, rulethirty. A war criminal. As in, someone who authorised participation in an illegal invasion and attempted to justify it with lies, distortions and cherry-picked data.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Mon, 16 May 2005 17:06:26 -0800

A politician who lies? and he's opportunistic? and selective about what he tells us? Stop the fucking presses!

By: Bugbread

Bugbread — Mon, 16 May 2005 17:55:02 -0800

Meehawl posted "criminalising 'hoodies'" Mayor Curley writes " Blair basically wants to make it illegal to be a chav, then?" I may be missing something, but which article says anything about criminalizing hoodies? What I can see is that a shopping centre banned them, and Blair said "Good job".

By: jonmc

jonmc — Mon, 16 May 2005 18:00:45 -0800

shhh, bugbread, you'll spoil everyone's persecution/paranoia buzz.

By: BoringPostcards

BoringPostcards — Mon, 16 May 2005 18:26:33 -0800

joe lisboa writes " Compromise: slutty Texas cheerleaders agree to wear hoodies and caps and the young Brits agree to wear haltertops and strike a risque pose to the strains of 'Toxic' before toking up." joe lisboa wins.

By: srboisvert

srboisvert — Mon, 16 May 2005 19:31:22 -0800

Take away hoods and then all you will have left are harmless lums.

By: keswick

keswick — Mon, 16 May 2005 19:45:36 -0800

Careful, those hoodie-wearing yobs might become SCALLIWAGS! I'd hate to be a dusibin in Shaftsbrie tonight!

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Mon, 16 May 2005 21:02:29 -0800

baseball caps? ... hoods? ... aren't we behind the times? doo rags, guys, doo rags

By: Balisong

Balisong — Mon, 16 May 2005 22:50:09 -0800

A politician who lies? and he's opportunistic? and selective about what he tells us? Stop the fucking presses! posted by jonmc at 5:06 PM PST on May 16 [!] If you don't make it undesireable to do, there's no reason to stop it. That said, no legislator/politician will ever pass a law that imposes a death penalty for passing/introdusing bad law/policy due to corruption/lies.

By: Balisong

Balisong — Mon, 16 May 2005 22:53:04 -0800

make that .. Death penalty/$2 fine...

By: sgt.serenity

sgt.serenity — Tue, 17 May 2005 02:10:43 -0800

Never mind me invading iraq ! look at those hooded kids instead !

By: longbaugh

longbaugh — Tue, 17 May 2005 04:26:56 -0800

No one knows what it's like, To be a dustbin, In Shaftesbury, With hooligans... cheers keswick baggins ;)

By: dagnyscott

dagnyscott — Tue, 17 May 2005 08:54:46 -0800

Are you really saying they should back off their marijuana decriminilization or that the inconsistencies between the two are mind boggeling? Well, from my American, libertarian perspective, it shows that a country that seems to be ahead of us in one respect (decriminalization of marijuana) can still be horribly, horribly backwards (criminalization of hooded shirts). Which is overwhelming the feeling I ALWAYS get when I look at Europe: they have so many things we can learn from balanced by so many things that horribly, insanely wrong and backwards.

By: dagnyscott

dagnyscott — Tue, 17 May 2005 08:55:16 -0800

overwhelmingly, that is. I keep messing up my word endings here.

By: Bugbread

Bugbread — Tue, 17 May 2005 13:10:05 -0800

dagnyscott writes "it shows that a country that seems to be ahead of us in one respect (decriminalization of marijuana) can still be horribly, horribly backwards (criminalization of hooded shirts)." Well, yes, I suppose it can be horribly backwards, if it were to criminalize hooded shirts. Which it isn't doing. But if it were doing so, then, yes, it would be horribly backwards in that way. In the same way, it could be horribly backwards by reinstating slavery, or burning people at the stake for saying the world is a sphere. It isn't doing those either, but since we're talking pure hypotheticals, it could be so.

By: meehawl

meehawl — Tue, 17 May 2005 13:36:08 -0800

What I can see is that a shopping centre banned them, and Blair said "Good job" And what do you think is the effect of a nation's leader publicly endorsing profiling? If Bush had stood up after September 11th, 2001, and publicly supported the boneheaded and random beatings and discrimination against people in the US of Arab or Muslim appearance, how sensible would that have been? Where do you draw the line? Blair and Prescott are effectively endorsing a public taboo on specific items of clothing. They are saying that community centres and malls be allowed to discriminate on the basis of appearance. That's a recipe for arbitrary racial profiling, class discrimination, and being detained for "walking while black/chav". What's next, ban any Britons with West Indian features or dress because of the Yardies? Ban anyone Irish because of the IRA? And I think if that means that in situations like the Bluewater centre that they just simply say we are not going to do it, we are not going to have these people, I am afraid that is just the way it is, then I would back that up completely. First they came for the hoodies and I did not speak out because I did not wear a hoodie. Then they came for the baseball caps and I did not speak out because I did not wear baseball caps. Then they came for the Prince Alberts and I did not speak out because I was not pierced. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

By: longbaugh

longbaugh — Tue, 17 May 2005 23:51:28 -0800

To be honest I think you'll find virtually nobody in this country has any love for the little charvas that the ban would affect. It's a class thing. Middle class "mosher" kids in Slipknot hoodies don't commit vandalism - theirs is only a brief rebellion before settling down into their normal place in life. The charvas (a whole underclass unto themselves) will only ever be weevils on the delicious biscuit that is my nation.

By: Bugbread

Bugbread — Wed, 18 May 2005 00:07:54 -0800

Meehawl: Out of curiosity, do store policies denying entrance to people without shoes or shirts annoy you as well?

By: meehawl

meehawl — Wed, 18 May 2005 04:34:27 -0800

Middle class "mosher" kids in Slipknot hoodies don't commit vandalism I see, so now you're setting up a caste system of differentially driscriminated hoodies. It's this kind of broken logic that leads to sumptuary laws.

By: TimothyMason

TimothyMason — Wed, 18 May 2005 05:10:17 -0800

I adore little charvas. I quite like the big ones too.