No, but there are plenty of middle-aged people hanging around pub doors. I'm sure that puts people off too.

The fact is that these devices do not differentiate between people who have malicious intent and those who don't. What about the poor sods who have done nothing wrong, but still have to put up with this [LIFTED]?

I'm also against taking measures against people who haven't been found guilty of anything. Like I said earlier, assembly in a public place is not a crime. However, broadcasting these devices into public spaces (or any place to which the public have access) IMO counts as both a nuisance and noise pollution, both of which can be actioned upon by a local authority.

[url]The fact is that these devices do not differentiate between people who have malicious intent and those who don't. What about the poor sods who have done nothing wrong, but still have to put up with this [LIFTED]?[/url]
Don't speed-bumps go in that category?
And while there is a less clear defined stereotype for classical music lovers, I seriously doubt they would cause as much hassle if they started congregating in large groups in public areas.

Speeding is a crime, public assembly is not.

True. My point was that speed bumps also punish those who are going within the speed limit, which does seem to fall under the 'devices that do not differentiate between people who have malicious intent and those who don't'.

And while yes, the buzzers do not take into account intent; it is noticeable, particularly in Wrexham, that there is a strong link between 'areas that youths tend to congregate' and 'areas that seem to be constantly littered and vandalised'.

Although, I think it would be far better (for the councils) to provide somewhere that they want to go to, rather than to have many people having to try and push them away all the time.

Too sensible not government policy!

Actually, there are many circumstances under UK law where public assembly is a crime.

I think it's good to make them unlawful. Perhaps the content of Radio 1 should also be banned? It's a racket and a nuisance...

I'm all for the classical music route. A pub back home used to use very quiet classical music, or to make large groups of rowdy people move on.
Back home you're just as likely to see a teen being rowdy as you are most other age groups. Using classical music generally works on any age group...

If we're on the topic of discrimination, then there are plenty of examples of active discrimination in society.
Disabled bays, Parent and Child parking bays, Motorcycle parking bays, Saga Insurance, Women only car insurance firms, Women only gyms, speed bumps, the age at which the government pension begins, pubs that won't serve anyone under 21, Club 18-30 holidays, Sandals resorts for couples - all of these things discriminate.
Some are businesses who actively seek to deny service to anyone outside a certain demographic.

But suddenly we're getting upset because a business (or council) doesn't want a gang of youths hanging around on it's property.

And let's not forget, this noise is actually highly directional. In my bowling alley example, I wasn't aware of it until I stood in front of the front doors - walking past on the pavement, I heard nothing. If it going to be considered noise pollution, then it's not a Police matter but one for the Environmental Health to deal with.

Not without malicious intent there isn't*. Rioting, public order etc all require malicious intent of some description.

*With the exception of the exclusion zone around Westminster, which is currently under review.

I think that you need police permission to hold any rally or march in any city.

I would argue that's exactly the intent of most of the youths who make up such gatherings, at least in my experience of having felt intimidated by such a gathering outside my local supermarket.

If you're going to be causing an obstruction then yes. But we're not talking about demonstrations, we're talking about ordinary people hanging out together in a public place.

Why do you feel intimidated? If they're not committing any crimes then I don't see what the problem is*.

*provided that it's public property. In the case of a supermarket it's up to them what occurs on their own property.

Are you seriously suggesting that people should only feel intimidated if a crime is actively being committed? There are plenty of methods of intimidation that are within the law, to a point. OK, you may still argue that the youths have a right to be there; but having a right to do something is not the same as to be right in doing something.

They lurk, they often obscure their faces, they swear and make loud boorish and obscene remarks, spit, throw items, and they try to make themselves generally obnoxious. They know exactly what they're doing, and how far to push it.

If I was a 6ft 15st bloke, I doubt I'd be intimidated by them.

Luckily, the supermarket has had a makeover, and has lost the portico outside the entrance where the gangs used to congregate. It's a much nicer experience all round.