England Riots

[marcustullius]

Free speech. Hey, I heard something about a riot, anyone know anything about that? Or am I in the free speech thread?

[Ginger_Warrior]

Free Speech is the ability to say what you want without the threat of being criminalized for it by the government. It doesn't mean what Sarah Palin thinks it means when she complains about people telling her she should maybe watch what she says to right-wing lunatics. It doesn't mean your employer can't fire you after you tell him/her that he/she's a moron to his/her face. It is most certainly not a myth, and it's a right that I cherish.

If they were expressing their anti-government grievances over BBM, I wouldn't have any problem with it. However, they were systematically organising criminal activity which in the end has cost the UK economy millions of pounds in repair and insurance costs, has made many families homeless and destroyed whole livelihoods.

 

This isn't about Twitter and the Arab Spring vs Egypt, because this isn't about what they've said, it's about what they've done, and what they did was use BBM to hijack a peaceful protest about a young man's death, and organise a mass razing of working class homes in Tottenham. They're criminals, they're not political activists, and they don't deserve to have their rights protected because of free speech. When they get out of jail, they're more than welcome to express their grievances in the same way the rest of us do: by voting and by activism, but not criminality.

[Danqazmlp]

It's not as black and white as you make it out to be. You can infringe on the speech rights of criminals and still want to promote speech rights in other areas. If you believe it to be all or nothing then that is your opinion, but many people, including me are able to make the distinction between different situations and different people.

[Ginger_Warrior]

What do you mean 'enemies'? They're not political opponents, they're criminals.

 

Of course I support the principle of free speech in a democratic society, but free speech is not and never was designed to be ubiquitous. It is designed so that in a democracy, the electorate has the opportunity to seek out and express contradictory points of view to the government, in order to prevent the state from becoming a 'dictatorship by election'. It was not designed to facilitate the organising of criminal activity.

 

I'd hazard a guess that the US has shut down communcation between seperate terrorist cells in the interest's of national security to stop them from planning an attack. You're not seriously suggesting that because they infringed upon 'free speech' in order to achieve this, that they were wrong to do so, are you?

 

As said, whatever grievances they have, they can express in the same way the rest of us do. I don't see how that viewpoint is tantamount to opposing free speech.

[sees_all1]

It's not just checking social network profiles. This is the actual quote:

 

"Mr Speaker, everyone watching these horrific actions will be stuck by how they were organised via social media. Free flow of information can be used for good. But it can also be used for ill. [And when people are using social media for violence we need to stop them.]

"So we are working with the Police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality. I have also asked the police if they need any other new powers."

 

Notice where he says services. He's not just talking public-domain social network profiles. He's talking SMS and BBM.

I'm sorry, I read the context of the quote and the word "services" references twitter and facebook.

[Locke_Superbus]

I don't think shutting down particular communication methods to prevent riots would necessarily be a bad thing. It's not all that different from Obama's Internet Kill Switch. It's there for the protection of law abiding citizens, not some 1984-type regime.

 

so was everything in 1984, so good job proving the books point.

[Hamtaro]

I don't think shutting down particular communication methods to prevent riots would necessarily be a bad thing. It's not all that different from Obama's Internet Kill Switch. It's there for the protection of law abiding citizens, not some 1984-type regime.

 

so was everything in 1984, so good job proving the books point.

I'm actually in the process of reading it right now. While my post took a sarcastic tone aimed at a certain continually hypocritical poster (who asked his college professors what he should believe in, in order to be a free thinker :rolleyes: ), I have to disagree on this point. The government in 1984, quite literally, didn't care about any of its people (vaporizing people from existence for being too intelligent, perpetual war, lying about production numbers of boots when half the people go barefoot, etc). It's not like being president or prime minister where you at least pretend to care so you can get votes.

 

Obama's record for internet policies so far have included, but aren't limited to, massive "piracy" crackdowns, internet IDs for Americans, and the internet kill switch (the global internet, not just for Americans). [sarcasm]Even though I'm against all of that, he can't do any wrong because he has a (D) next to his name on the ballot![/HeActuallyBelievesThisThough]

 

If you want a hint as to whom I'm referring to, it's the user that derailed the thread in the first place. I won't drop any names, though.

[Locke_Superbus]

ok, perhaps it would be better to say that measures to protect law abiding citizens was how IngSoc came to and maintained its power. as such we still need to watch out for and resist these ratchets curtailing liberty for the sake of a tiny bit of transient security.

 

considering the love in of the authoritarians in this thread I just took your post at face value and assumed you were with them :-P

[Furah]

The issue of using cctv being Orwellian is an issue about whether or not it should be there; not about using it to convict people as it is there.

We have cctv all over the place under the pretence of catching criminals, so its doing its job.

I hate going into larger towns because I dislike the fact that any given moment there's several security cameras with me in their view like I'm some [bleep]ing criminal who is guilty until proven innocent.

[Danqazmlp]

The issue of using cctv being Orwellian is an issue about whether or not it should be there; not about using it to convict people as it is there.

We have cctv all over the place under the pretence of catching criminals, so its doing its job.

I hate going into larger towns because I dislike the fact that any given moment there's several security cameras with me in their view like I'm some [bleep]ing criminal who is guilty until proven innocent.

 

 

I feel deeply sorry for you with that mentality. Unless you are doing something wrong, a CCTV operator won't take a second look at you. The fact is that CCTV makes areas much safer and personally, I and much in favour of putting CCTV in as many public places as humanly possible. They make me feel much safer when walking anywhere, are a great deterrent to most crimes and if a crime is committed, they can aid greatly in finding the culprit. They are one of the greatest assets to policing in this country.

 

I get constantly amazed at the paranoia of average internet users. The police, government and any other authorities do not care whatsoever about you, deal with it. You are nothing but tiny fish in the ocean. They don't care about your everyday actions, they aren't watching you, reading your emails and plotting to make a dictatorship at ever turn. The police and governments in the UK are humans, everyday people. We even have a police officer on Tip.it staff. He certainly isn't spending every day monitoring the forums just to catch you doing something wrong to have more power over you and throw you in jail.

[Sy_Accursed]

The issue of using cctv being Orwellian is an issue about whether or not it should be there; not about using it to convict people as it is there.

We have cctv all over the place under the pretence of catching criminals, so its doing its job.

I hate going into larger towns because I dislike the fact that any given moment there's several security cameras with me in their view like I'm some [bleep]ing criminal who is guilty until proven innocent.

 

 

I feel deeply sorry for you with that mentality. Unless you are doing something wrong, a CCTV operator won't take a second look at you. The fact is that CCTV makes areas much safer and personally, I and much in favour of putting CCTV in as many public places as humanly possible. They make me feel much safer when walking anywhere, are a great deterrent to most crimes and if a crime is committed, they can aid greatly in finding the culprit. They are one of the greatest assets to policing in this country.

 

I get constantly amazed at the paranoia of average internet users. The police, government and any other authorities do not care whatsoever about you, deal with it. You are nothing but tiny fish in the ocean. They don't care about your everyday actions, they aren't watching you, reading your emails and plotting to make a dictatorship at ever turn. The police and governments in the UK are humans, everyday people. We even have a police officer on Tip.it staff. He certainly isn't spending every day monitoring the forums just to catch you doing something wrong to have more power over you and throw you in jail.

 

This is so true.

I mean all cctv means is say ur in a shopping mall instead of being watched by a security guard when you happen to be in same are as them while some other poor sap gets mugged at the other end. 1 or 2 guards in the cctv office can monitor the whole complex and direct security staff to anywhere an issue arises result in more efficient deterrent and protection.

Heck outside privately own cctv systems the public ones aren't even monitor THAT intently; its barely like you are being watched they have thousands of people on cam at any given time. Unless you are looking suspicious or clearly committing a crime they won't pay you any attention, exactly the same as a police officer on the street wouldn't.

 

I get the whole big brother is watching thing, but that's a fictional story run by an interfering and dictatorial ruler; we don't have that and even if we DID have that the sheer man power needed to actually intensely watch and monitor every person in the way the fiction does is just ludicrous; it can't be done unless 50% of the entire population is working to monitor the cctv feeds each watching 1 specific person. Heck drop even to 30 - 40% region of population and you already got a heap of stuff going unwatched and its still a ludicrously impossible task to monitor it all; its why we put criminals in prison or mental patients in locked psychiatric facilities/wards or even the infirm in care homes they need to be in a confined controlled environment to realistically monitor them 24/7.

 

Abuse of personal data stored by the police etc I can see concern over, but cctv i just paranoia to be so worried about. I mean when you consider a show like Big Brother requires hundreds of staff members a large portion of which are camera operators or monitor watchers (for the in house remote cams) and that's just for a house of like 12 people who can't go anyway it puts the idea of us being under such scrutiny in perspective.

[Hamtaro]

This gave me a good laugh this morning. Thought I'd share it here.

[Locke_Superbus]

The police and governments in the UK are humans, everyday people.

 

just like every other place on earth.

 

 

if you really think facism cant ever occur here in Britain and sit back as you liberty is eroded then you're simply ensuring its appearance.

[BloodAngel]

Got to say this made me laugh when I read it this morning:

 

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/872046-uk-riots-un-told-to-step-in-by-iran

[joke_slayer]

Got to say this made me laugh when I read it this morning:

 

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/872046-uk-riots-un-told-to-step-in-by-iran

 

Ahmadinejad is just a troll tbh

[obfuscator]

I love Ahmadinejad, lol.

 

I realize there's a huge difference but a lot of the hypocrisy he points out about the west is valid.

[Crocefisso]

I love Ahmadinejad, lol.

 

I realize there's a huge difference but a lot of the hypocrisy he points out about the west is valid.

True. But there's a lot more hypocrisy in the Islamic Republic that he presides over. Though I agree with some of his statements, he nullifies them by being exactly what he condemns others for being.

[Ginger_Warrior]

He angers the West because the West know often they're in the wrong, even if he's not necessarily right by contrast.

 

But anyway, I thought this section was interesting from Russell Brand (of all people! Or perhaps not given his history of youth delinquency):

I should here admit that I have been arrested for criminal damage for my part in anti-capitalist protest earlier in this decade. I often attended protests and then, in my early 20s, and on drugs, I enjoyed it when the protests lost direction and became chaotic, hostile even. I was intrigued by the anarchist "Black bloc", hooded and masked, as, in retrospect, was their agenda, but was more viscerally affected by the football "casuals" who'd turn up because the veneer of the protest's idealistic objective gave them the perfect opportunity to wreck stuff and have a row with the Old Bill.

 

That was never my cup of tea though. For one thing, policemen are generally pretty good fighters and second, it registered that the accent they shouted at me with was closer to my own than that of some of those singing about the red flag making the wall of plastic shields between us seem thinner.

 

I found those protests exciting, yes, because I was young and a bit of a twerp but also, I suppose, because there was a void in me. A lack of direction, a sense that I was not invested in the dominant culture, that government existed not to look after the interests of the people it was elected to represent but the big businesses that they were in bed with.

 

I felt that, and I had a mum who loved me, a dad who told me that nothing was beyond my reach, an education, a grant from Essex council (to train as an actor of all things!!!) and several charities that gave me money for maintenance. I shudder to think how disenfranchised I would have felt if I had been deprived of that long list of privileges.

 

That state of deprivation though is, of course, the condition that many of those rioting endure as their unbending reality. No education, a weakened family unit, no money and no way of getting any. JD Sports is probably easier to desecrate if you can't afford what's in there and the few poorly paid jobs there are taken. Amidst the bleakness of this social landscape, squinting all the while in the glare of a culture that radiates ultraviolet consumerism and infrared celebrity. That daily, hourly, incessantly enforces the egregious, deceitful message that you are what you wear, what you drive, what you watch and what you watch it on, in livid, neon pixels. The only light in their lives comes from these luminous corporate messages. No wonder they have their [bleep]ing hoods up.

Coming from a poor working class area myself--though no rioting was reported in Preston--the last paragraph is a picture I find painfully familiar in the people I grew up with and sat alongside at school. Disenfranchisement, and no way to correct it by your own volition.

[Furah]

I feel deeply sorry for you with that mentality. Unless you are doing something wrong, a CCTV operator won't take a second look at you. The fact is that CCTV makes areas much safer and personally, I and much in favour of putting CCTV in as many public places as humanly possible. They make me feel much safer when walking anywhere, are a great deterrent to most crimes and if a crime is committed, they can aid greatly in finding the culprit. They are one of the greatest assets to policing in this country.

There's a thing called privacy, that's something that every individual deserves and their wishes of privacy should be respected (companies and governments, however, need to run with a certain degree of transparency.)

[obfuscator]

I love Ahmadinejad, lol.

 

I realize there's a huge difference but a lot of the hypocrisy he points out about the west is valid.

True. But there's a lot more hypocrisy in the Islamic Republic that he presides over. Though I agree with some of his statements, he nullifies them by being exactly what he condemns others for being.

 

Yeah. Still is interesting though.

I feel deeply sorry for you with that mentality. Unless you are doing something wrong, a CCTV operator won't take a second look at you. The fact is that CCTV makes areas much safer and personally, I and much in favour of putting CCTV in as many public places as humanly possible. They make me feel much safer when walking anywhere, are a great deterrent to most crimes and if a crime is committed, they can aid greatly in finding the culprit. They are one of the greatest assets to policing in this country.

There's a thing called privacy, that's something that every individual deserves and their wishes of privacy should be respected (companies and governments, however, need to run with a certain degree of transparency.)

 

Why should governments and corporations give up their right to privacy but you should be allowed to retain yours?

[Furah]

Why should governments and corporations give up their right to privacy but you should be allowed to retain yours?

Governments and corporations have a responsibility to be accountable for their actions. It helps fight off back-room deals, embezzlement, coercion and a myriad of other illegal activities. It's the responsibility of the government to serve the people, not the people to serve the government.

[obfuscator]

Why should governments and corporations give up their right to privacy but you should be allowed to retain yours?

Governments and corporations have a responsibility to be accountable for their actions. It helps fight off back-room deals, embezzlement, coercion and a myriad of other illegal activities. It's the responsibility of the government to serve the people, not the people to serve the government.

In exactly the same way that people have a responsibility to be accountable for their actions. It helps fight off rape, murder, arson, vandalism, theft and a myriad of other illegal activities.

[Locke_Superbus]

Why should governments and corporations give up their right to privacy but you should be allowed to retain yours?

 

corporations and governments are not people, they have no rights, only privleges and responibilities

[obfuscator]

Why should governments and corporations give up their right to privacy but you should be allowed to retain yours?

 

corporations and governments are not people, they have no rights, only privleges and responibilities

Why is this? Because they're a collective entity of people?

 

If that's the case, your family should have no rights, only you individually; except that's not the case.

[sees_all1]

Why should governments and corporations give up their right to privacy but you should be allowed to retain yours?

 

corporations and governments are not people, they have no rights, only privleges and responibilities

Why is this? Because they're a collective entity of people?

 

If that's the case, your family should have no rights, only you individually; except that's not the case.

I'd argue that government only has the rights that its people give it, but I'm guessing that isn't what you're taking issue with. :P