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

[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: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.

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.