|
People don't buy and use them to attack innocent kids. They buy and use them to get rid of kids who
are loitering in numbers around their businesses. And given the growing problem of vandalism and
petty crime in the UK, it's a cheap and effective solution.
Who cares if kids don't like it? The front of a store is not a meetingplace where they can sit
around for hours. They can go to a park or a library, not stand on the doorstep of someone trying
to run a business and losing money because of the presence of kids. |
| |
 K9  10 Aug 2008 05:39
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sure. They're free to do what they want on their property, and if they don't want teenagers'
business, they are free to do that. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
It's not only teenagers that can hear it, I've had a couple of adult friends, in their late
thirties, who can hear it too. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Once again I'm not sure which column is which. Heading is anti-high pitch, but the pro-column
agreement responses seem to be pro-high pitch. I'm against the high pitch:
I think you are best argument is that it bothers all teenagers regardless of their purpose for being
there. How is that much different from trying to keep a whole gender group or racial group away?
In fact if they had an "old geezer" repellent - something to keep those over 60 away, there'd be an
uproar about it. And what if the teens have legitimate business for being there, either to meet up
with their parents or buy a special gift or sweep the shop? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Well, if I ever saw one I'd destroy it, just for the ironic message it would send.
No, not all of us go around mugging old people, carrying weapons, and damaging property.
But when they treat us like animals, they deserve to have their property damaged. Especially those
stupid effing things. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
