Hacker News Reader

Comment by itchitawa | Hacker News Reader

How many people are afraid to walk down a dark alley at night? That's a freedom we should have but plenty of people are forced to get a taxi or stay home because of a real fear of being robbed. I live in a city where it is safe, even for young women alone and I'm amazed when I remember what a restricted life it was in more dangerous, yet more "free" cities. If someone demands money from you in a deserted street, do you have the courage to refuse? If not then you need something, perhaps not these poorly defined laws begging to be abused, but something to protect you from those subtle threats that constantly erode your quality of life.

View on HN

How many people are afraid to walk down a dark alley at night? That's a freedom we should have

It is also a freedom that a group of 15-year-olds in fashionable clothes, a homeless person, or someone who just bought a bottle of wine from the shop should have.

If someone demands money from you in a deserted street, do you have the courage to refuse?

If they demand money from you, they are almost certainly committing at least one criminal offence, and you should probably call the police.

If they ask for money from you, and you don't want to give any, just say no.

If not then you need something

A spine, perhaps?

A little recognition that not everyone in the world is as fortunate as probably everyone reading these posts wouldn't go amiss, either.

There are good reasons to create and enforce laws, but I don't think prohibiting otherwise harmless activities because someone in a more powerful social class doesn't like them should be among those reasons.

Very well said. Tackling a problem with a broad brush law that grants liberties to one group while denying those same liberties from another should never be the answer.

When kids were breaking into our power box and shutting off the power, trying to enter the house after I walked in the door (meaning I learned to be very, very quick in locking the door), and finally threw a brick through our window, the cops greeted my complaints with "what did you do to provoke them?"

(truthfully, I think my existing was the provocation. We signed a new lease somewhere else 2 days after the brick)

None of these laws are going to fix the problem which I think lies more with policing and with community than with not having enough laws.

Just so I never move there... what town was this?

The area of Darlington behind the stadium.

(Darlo itself has many perfectly nice neighborhoods, but where we were, in a new estate mind, was really not nice)

All of those are criminal offences in their own right though - while clearly inept in your situation, the police don't require new powers to arrest someone for entering your house without permission, throwing bricks through windows, or vandalising power supplies.

I completely agree.

I know it's easier for the gov to publish new laws than it is to actually figure out what the underlying problem is and tackle that.

I think it's quite rare that the underlying problem is "not enough laws"

There may be people who are afraid to walk about after dusk, but in the vast majority of cases their fears are unfounded. Violent crime has been plummeting in the UK for years. Even at its height, "dark alleys" were pretty safe.

Making ever more draconian laws, curtailing more and more people's freedoms will not help to alleviate these irrational fears.

In response to "Violent crime has been plummeting in the UK for years", we may want to bear in mind the possibility that the PR talents and ability to control the press of UK governments and police forces has been on the rise for years.

The government & police do not influence the British Crime Survey, which is widely considered to be the most trustworthy measure.

Thanks. Links to substantiate trustworthiness and plummeting number claims would be appreciated if you have them.

The answer to that is proper policing force, not custom laws that ban individuals from begging. It's not a beggars fault if a non-harassing "got any change" makes you feel uncomfortable.

At what point am I "allowed" to feel uncomfortable? Is it the first time in a day when I'm asked for change outside the Post Office? Is it the second or third time in a day when I'm asked for change at the bus stop? How about the fourth, fifth, and sixth time when I'm asked for change at the major transfer point for buses and trains where lots of people have to wait? Or the seventh when I'm coming out of an office building?

Why do people get to impose themselves on me, from advertisers to panhandlers to petition gatherers, repeatedly, day in and day out? I'm not talking about ambient noise or other people going about their business, chatting with each other and interacting how they want to interact. Why is it OK for me to be interrupted multiple times a day--especially when I'm in places where I have no other choice than to be--before I get to say I'm "uncomfortable?"

I realize that the law can and probably will be imposed unfairly and I disagree with the overly broad impact that it will have, but I can slightly understand the motivation behind the original idea.

Again, if the advertisers, panhandlers and petitioners are not harassing you (which violates existing laws), what exactly is the problem? Not to mention that some places may have laws banning certain practises outright. If enough people are feeling uncomfortable by non-harassing panhandlers, then a general no panhandling law will be passed. Some places (a city in Brazil) has a no advertising law.

The question isn't about someone's right to feel comfortable, it's laws targeting an individual instead of a class. A place decides no petitioning? Sure, fine (putting aside any civil rights issues). A place decides petitioning is OK, unless they don't like a specific petitioner? How does that make sense? If the petitioner is acting correctly, why should they get a ban? And if they aren't, why isn't their unacceptable behaviour categorically banned?

Each individual is not harassing me but in the aggregate it is annoying and harassing. That's why I retold one (particularly bad) day like I did. One person, fine. Eight people, fuck it I'm staying indoors today. Each person was acting lawfully but the point is that all of them added together were a nuisance, especially since that kind of activity--leafleting, panhandling, and petition gathering in particular--gather around places where people must be. If I need to take route 5B into downtown, I have no choice but to be at a bus stop along route 5B so I can't just remove myself from the situation. At some point, "people have no right to not be annoyed" turns into "people have the right to impose annoyances on others" and I think that preventing this change is a worthwhile goal, even though the law from this article goes too far.

I don't know about the culture where you come from / where you are, But isn't being in public just that? Being in public. When you get out there, you do open yourself for social interaction and conversation / nods / smiles / chit chat and even pan handling.

As long as they are not directly accosting you, how is this their problem? How do you expect an individual person to know that you have been already approached 8 times?

At least where I come from, the logic goes like this: You don't want to deal with the public? Don't be in public. YMMV.

"Your poverty makes my uncomfortable" is not a valid reason for enacting discriminating legislation.

Poverty is not the issue, though it is the cause. Restated, I have no problem with someone begging for change _because they are poor_. The problem comes from being hassled, repeatedly, daily, by anywhere from 1 to 8 (not kidding, kept count) people who are trying to sell me something, trying to get me to give them change, or trying to have me sign a petition of some sort. Where does the line for my choosing not to interact with anyone blur into being forcibly interacted with?

I'm uncomfortable because of your comment, where does the line go for having you forcibly removed?

By intentionally not making eye contact with them ten meters before they bump into you. Done. You don't need new laws for that.

Canned responses work wonders. For me, most of these appeals ended with "Sorry, don't carry cash."

But it's a very valid reason for enacting laws that reduce poverty. But nobody is doing that, for some reason.

> At what point am I "allowed" to feel uncomfortable? Is it the first time in a day when I'm asked for change outside the Post Office? Is it the second or third time in a day when I'm asked for change at the bus stop? How about the fourth, fifth, and sixth time when I'm asked for change at the major transfer point for buses and trains where lots of people have to wait? Or the seventh when I'm coming out of an office building?

The solution to your discomfort is for homelessness to be tackled meaningfully, not to have the police get extra authority to remove those people from your sight.

I spent several years traveling only by public transit and running into beggars at least twice a day. During that same period, I also once had a cop pull up to a bus stop, start harassing me and actually threaten to arrest me for standing there (I was waiting for the last bus of the night). Guess which experience was worse?

> At what point am I "allowed" to feel uncomfortable?

You're allowed to feel uncomfortable whenever you like. But that feeling is no basis to prosecute people.

It's a free country, and you're in a public place. The right to make other people feel uncomfortable is far more important than the right to not feel uncomfortable.

Your question is being asked wrong. Even the police ask it differently now.

instead:

"When was the last time you walked down an alley at night"

"When (and where) was the last time you felt afraid when walking at night"

"How afraid did you feel yesterday"

Asking people for specific occurrences is a much better question than asking people to imagine fears.

The fear of crime is real, and it's more important than the actual risk of crime.

The fear of crime is real,

Yes.

and it's more important than the actual risk of crime.

No.

Reducing fear of crime is valuable in itself, for the simple reason that it generally improves quality of life. Educating the public is useful to that end, and frankly we could do with a lot more of it, starting with putting all the security theatre and scary announcements whenever we travel anywhere these days back in perspective. But assuaging irrational fears is a lousy way to choose what to legislate. Laws should be created based on real needs, not imaginary bogeymen.

> That's a freedom we should have

Says who? Buy the street or live in a secluded community if that's what you want. If you want to enjoy the world of people, it's a double edged sword.

By the way why is everyone in favour of policing and not in reducing inequality which guarantees a much more effective drop in illegal behaviours?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com