Hey! I can string a bunch of quotes together into a blog post! About two years ago, I noted the invention of the "Mosquito", a boon for old farts everywhere as it – apparently quite effectively – rids the premises of the great scourge of modern times, young people. In fact, so effective is the Mosquito that now the government is considering banning the device.

Sir Albert Aynsley-Green, the Children's Commissioner for England appointed to represent the views of the country’s 11 million children, has set up a campaign – called Buzz Off – that is calling for the Mosquito to be banned on grounds that it infringes the rights of young people.

First off: what is it with the British and their effetely hilarious names? "Aynsley-Green?" OK, it's not quite "Percy Dovetonsils" or "Thoatwobbler-Mangrove" and I guess one cannot be blamed for one's family name, can one, what? But still.

"The use of measures such as these are simply demonising children and young people, creating a dangerous and widening divide between the young and the old.”

He added: "This device is a quick fix. It's not tackling the root of the problem and it's indiscriminate."

Sir Al is not quoted as saying what he thinks the root of the problem is, or indeed what the problem is at all, but later on the Times article notes that

...75 per cent of its sales have been to police forces and local authorities, who install it in spots where they are keen to prevent gangs of teenagers assembling.

So you'd surmise from that bit that "gangs of teenagers" are a big enough problem in Britain to support sales of a device like this.

Looking elsewhere, there are some interesting comments on Slashdot concerning this issue. Of course, these are quasi-anonymous comments floating around on the Internet, and could have been written by somebody's cocker spaniel for all we know, but they seem to provide a bit more background, like this one:

The sad thing is that the swarms of chav/pikey kids that hang around until all hours playing loud music, vandalising, swearing, taking drink/drugs (and these are typically kids between 12 and 16) know they are untouchable. They all know their rights and care not for their responsabilities. When the police do pick some up and take them home, the parents tell the police to f-off for interfering and turf their ferel kids back out on the streets for round 2 to keep them out their hair.
That said, it *is* a minority of kids - there are maybe 10-20 trouble makers out of perhaps 1000 kids but anything that breaks up this troublesome clump gets my vote although they then usually just find somewhere else to cause problems.
In my opinion, the biggest problem here is the (European) Human Rights Act being abused. Kids can do whatever they want with no real danger of any punishment. Even repeat offenders get away with it time after time. I know someone who had their car smashed by the neighbours 15yo kid but they have no hope of financial recompense and the kid has no itention of coughing up and knows he doesn't have to. His parents aren't legally obliged to and don't have the money anyway. They also say he is out of control and have no way to make him do a job to raise the money. Parents aren't allowed to lock them in their rooms or do anything other than give them a talking to and in many cases the parents just don't care.

and this:

i'm 38, and can hear the Mosquito. It's irritating, yes, but not moreso than I find the thumping beats in some shops that I now refuse to shop in.
By being active in the communities in the area I live in, and around, I have noticed a lot more violent behaviour in the younger demographic. Significantly more so.
The real solution to this would be to chuck the area of the 'human rights' laws that say "ooo.. Child. Can't touch.. Naughty.. No!" when they throw abuse at you (and threaten to knife you), and let people give them a solid clip round the ear, as used to happen a few decades back.
That is nicely targetted, thank you very much. It would deal with the indiscriminate nature of the Mosquito.
However, every law we have says that if you target someone who's threatening you, you are extremely likely to be picked on legally (a granny in court of swatting a kid who was vandalising a war memorial; she's on charges of assault. People who hit back to stop assaults/burglaries etc. end up in court for assault charges. A woman was assaulted in broad daylight on a street (not empty), and nobody stopped, as almost everyone is afraid of getting either stabbed, or up on charges in court).
If you think it's only stories, about five years ago, a mate of mine was stabbed and killed for intervening in a group of kids that were trying to steal a mobile from a young gal.
Friends of mine in the police force locally are really beginning to feel the crunch of it. No matter what the statistics say, hearing them talk of how the job's changed over the last few decades is scary.

and this:

Granted, the long term causes of these issues need to be addressed, but the fact remains that these gangs of "young people" are causing criminal damage and are at best a serious concern and in some cases a genuine threat to the safety and liberties of regular members of the public. When people talk about the rights of children, they always think of the relatively innocent ones, the ones who are probably more like we were when we were young (and this is an image that those who are anti-Mosquito are trying to foster) but the truth of the matter is that the kids this device is being used on, have little in common with the British kids of the 80s. They are the sort who have no regard for other people's property or civil rights. They are the sort for whom a night out involves underage binge drinking and for whom violent behaviour is part of the fun, so forget about being idealistic, and taking the moral high ground here. You'll notice that those people who have posted who actually live in the UK are supporting the use of this device. There's a reason for this.

I should also point out that in response to this campaign, the British Government said a couple of days ago that they will not be banning the use of the Mosquito. There is overwhelming public support for the devices, because there is a genuine need for them.

and this:

A typical example is just down the road from my house. There's a small shop, video rental place, takeaway, and a pub in a small patch surrounded by houses. During the day, it's fine. At night, it's a disaster area.
The kids who gather there are an effing nuisance, they insist on playing football right in front of the cars trying to use the car park, they harrass people and treat adults there like crap, they've smashed the windows of the shops dozens of times, they throw rubbish everywhere... The list goes on and on, they're just out of control and their parents are nowhere to be seen. Nobody dares deal with it because if they do, *they* will be the ones who get punished for taking the law into their own hands, or they'll be on the receiving end of reprisals.

The police response is this: Several yellow signs have been put up on the lamp posts that have bizarre txt-speak drivel on them. A typical example is "If ur bad we'll tell ur olds."

And that's it.

You never, ever see the police turn up. They do *nothing*. The parents of the kids do *nothing*. For the reasons listed above, everyone else does *nothing*. The kids, meanwhile, go mental. It's a total failure of control.

Apparently, Sir Aynsley-Green's idea has not exactly been popular, at least not with the older, angry-phone-calling set:

Lyn, the receptionist at the office of the Children's Commissioner, has taken an unprecedented number of calls this week. Mostly from furious shopkeepers who want to tell Al Aynsley-Green, in no uncertain terms, what they think of his campaign to ban the Mosquito ... the "Buzz Off" campaign has suddenly propelled Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green from a minor figure, who has previously issued predictable comments on subjects such as smacking children, to public enemy number one.

"Professor Sir". Now that's a title!

Sir Al would rather not see himself painted as a "bleeding-heart liberalist", but his views seem to undermine that.

First there is his sympathy with the mantra, heard from many a youngster in trouble, that there is "nothing to do round here". This line emerges from a discussion about Gary Newlove, the father of three who was kicked to death by a gang of teenagers.

"Without talking to them, it's hard to know why they did it," says Sir Al. "What I can say is that many young people tell me they have nowhere to go, nothing to do. They say: 'Adults don't like us and won't work with us and we're bored and when we're bored we get drunk.' And the consequences of drink are obvious."

He is not excusing the appalling violence, he says, but follows that with the cliché that "it takes a village" to raise a child. He leaves the impression that all of us, not just the teenagers, have to take responsibility for the death of Mr Newlove.

Or, as someone might say,

Where does Whitehall get them from? Is there perhaps an agency which specialises in picking, as candidates for public service, Sixties throwbacks who are guaranteed to set the public's teeth on edge?

Posted by David Fleck at 17 February 2008 07:38 PM