Police Shame Pranksters On YouTube

Barence writes "British police are shaming hoax 999 callers and time-wasters on YouTube in an effort to cut down on non-emergency calls. Video clips uploaded include a lady phoning police to ask what year the internet started, the dramatic tale of a man whose wife would only provide salmon sandwiches for lunch, and another worried soul who had lost her glasses and could not see properly to peel potatoes. Anyone else think the chance of YouTube fame is more likely to encourage copycats than educate people about the wrongs of hoax calling?"

Comments

Bloody Brilliant Idea

[PakProtector]

Is it just me, or is England already well down the spiral towards "What the Fuck are you Thinking, Nation?"

Re:Bloody Brilliant Idea

[PakProtector]

I'm not talking about the Youth -- that's an entirely separate discussion.

I'm talking about the namby-pamby morons in charge of the nation; people who are worried that the police dogs are going to scare the criminals they're being used against, or say that an adult can't take pictures of vandals because they're minors.

Re:Bloody Brilliant Idea

[icebrain]

Well, to be fair (and assuming I remember the details correctly), the coffee in that cse was a lot hotter than it was supposed to be. So it's not quite as moronic as it sounds at first.

But seriously, the perp suing the homeowner because he hurt himself breaking in? Throwing a homeowner in jail for shooting perps that broke into his house, while said perps with long rap sheets get off? Guy fights back against someone who attacks him with a knife, and goes to jail for it? WTF, England?

This is meant on an entirely serious note... should we bring back public floggings for some offenses? I think that would be a lot more effective than the figurative slap on the wrist that is so often employed.

Re:Bloody Brilliant Idea

[spun]

Wow, McDonalds did a great job at PR in that case! You never hear about the consultant that told them to lower the coffee temperature, or how they had reduced the amount of material in the cups to the point where they would fall apart if you had the lid off and put any pressure on them. Just to save a few hundredths of a penny per cup.

This case has become the example everyone uses to prove the legal system is screwed. McDonalds corporate overlords must be laughing all the way to the bank, they've managed to turn a PR nightmare into a goldmine of free publicity.

Re:Bloody Brilliant Idea

[causality]

But seriously, the perp suing the homeowner because he hurt himself breaking in? Throwing a homeowner in jail for shooting perps that broke into his house, while said perps with long rap sheets get off? Guy fights back against someone who attacks him with a knife, and goes to jail for it? WTF, England?

At least in the USA, what began by being taught in public schools is now becoming further institutionalized as entire generations grow up under absurd standards like these. For example, in the public schools, someone can physically attack you without provocation and if you defend yourself, you are punished and your punishment is equal to theirs for attacking you. This is true no matter how well-established it is that the other person started the fight. The rank-and-file teachers and administrators who go along with this are what you might call "true believers" who think that all use of force is wrong, including those cases where you are attacked and have no choice but to defend yourself. This serves to deny personal responsibility in the case of the attacker (the idea that if you attack someone unprovoked, what happens next is on your head) and fosters that damned victim mentality that is so prevalent these days in the case of the defender. Of course this is insanity, which is why they start such policies at a young age. Not because children don't know injustice when they see it, but because they are less able to resist it and instead they become callous to it.

I can think of two major reasons for this mentality and for why it would spread from government schools to society at large. First of all, the state wants to have a monopoly on the use of force no matter how justified that use of force is. Someone who is armed and willing and legally able to defend his own home and his own family might not feel as dependent on government as a helpless victim who cowers in a corner hoping that the cops show up soon. "Government to the rescue" is big, big business these days and helpless, timid people are so much easier to govern.

The other major reason is that there is a sort of war being waged against the concept of individuality and it's not because we have transcended ego boundaries but because our leaders have a statist, collectivist agenda. That's why the news media loves to bring up race and social status and religion and sexual orientation even when they are otherwise irrelevant to the story, because these are group identities. They are trying to teach you, by constantly reinforced example, to think in terms of groups, not individuals. This is why political candidates worry about "the black vote" and "the hispanic vote" and "the elderly vote" instead of telling us why they believe they have superior ideas that would apply equally to everyone (something you'd rationally expect from government). It's hard to think of something more individualistic than defending yourself, your home, and your family instead of waiting for "the professionals" to come along and do it for you.

Re:Bloody Brilliant Idea

[somersault]

He was not at this point acting in defence of himself or his property

If it was true that he had been burgled several times (the police didn't seem to think so of course), then why should he have to scare them away each time? Better to give them a bit more reason not to come back again, though I don't think they were quite worthy of actual death. Just because you have scared someone away once doesn't mean they won't be back with their mates later.

In America this wouldn't have been given a second look by the press, but over here in the UK it's a massive deal.

Brilliant...

[whisper_jeff]

These 14 year old twits are looking for attention so the cops are giving them international exposure... That couldn't possibly backfire and have the exact opposite outcome... Seriously, if the cops can't understand the very simple and basic motivation of pranksters, what does that say for their ability to understand criminals?...

Hoaxes, or mental illness?

[gravyface]

I haven't RTFM, but having worked with paranoid schizophrenics and Alzheimer's sufferers in the past, I would bet that some of these "pranksters" may actually be mentally ill; I hope our public servants are at least screening these individuals before humiliating them on YouTube.

Re:Privacy?

[Dhalka226]

I for sure know then when I see somebody in an emergency, I will think twice before I call and most likely decide my privacy is more worth then the life of some kid.

You, sir, are an idiot. I know Slashdotters love worthless hyperbole, but if you would seriously even THINK about letting somebody DIE because you--what, don't want people to hear your voice?--then you're simply a worthless human being. Period.

Privacy my ass.

This is a mental health issue

[cenonce]

This is a mental health issue, and a stupid way of dealing with it. I work in a Public Defender's Office, and while I am sure some of these people are jerks, my experience has been that people who call emergency services with these kinds of requests often have mental health issues. That is why a lot of jurisdictions have mental health diversionary programs for people who commit minor offenses. Embarassing the mentally ill on the internet will only embolden them at best, but certainly not help them deal with their issues in any way. In that regard, this solution seems rather callous.

Re:How about a dead mouse on a porch?

[operagost]

I'd humbly suggest that removing the phone from the house of an elderly, helpless, senile person is probably not a complete solution.

Re:No, I do not agree with you!

[janrinok]

The perps had burgled him previously

There is no evidence that I have seen to prove that he was burgled by the SAME individuals. He had been burgled, that is true, but during the trial he was asked what measures he had taken to prevent further break-ins. He had taken none. So living in an isolated place, known to have some money, taking no protective measures around his property. Crime is never justified but it is not surprising in this case that he was burgled more than once.

....and restore your God given rights.

Which God would that be? If it's the Christian God that you are referring to, which of the Ten Commandments mentions that you can shoot people. I do recall 'Thou shalt not kill', but I cannot remember one suggesting that you can shoot burglars. Perhaps I wasn't paying enough attention last time I went to Church.

Your 'rights' regarding firearms are nothing more than a throwback to the Wild West and the events that followed during the formative years of your nation. However, I stopped thinking that I was a cowboy when I grew up. You are entitled, both individually and as a Nation, to continue to carry weapons but please don't think less of others because they choose not to.

Martin did not make a stand for justice. After the event he hid the weapon at his mother's house (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)). He can hardly claim that he did not know that he was committing a crime if he went so far as to try to hide the weapon. His defence successfully used the excuse that 'Martin suffered paranoid personality disorder'. So, nobody was claiming that he was making a stand but simply that he had killed without justification (under our law - not yours) and therefore should be punished accordingly. The defence, as is their job, managed to get the sentence reduced.

From the wiki-link: The jury at the trial were told that they had the option of returning a verdict of manslaughter, rather than murder, if they thought that Martin "did not intend to kill or cause serious bodily harm". However, they found Martin guilty of murder by a 10 to 2 majority. He was sentenced to life in prison, the mandatory sentence for murder under English law.

I do not agree with your point of view. Ten members of the 12 man jury disagree with you also. The other 2 are welcome to emigrate to the USA, if they haven't already done so. :-)