Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Angry Villagers Run Google Out of Town

Posted by samzenpus on from the and-stay-out dept.

Barence writes "A Google Street View car has been chased out of a British village by angry residents. The car was taking photographs of Broughton in Buckinghamshire for Google's when it was spotted by a local resident who warned the car not to enter the village then roused his neighbors, who surrounded the vehicle until the driver performed a U-turn and left. 'This is an affluent area,' protester Paul Jacobs said. 'We've already had three burglaries locally in the past six weeks. If our houses are plastered all over Google it's an invitation for more criminals to strike. I was determined to make a stand, so I called the police.'"

10 of 1,188 comments (clear)

  1. Glad to see.. by Phizzle · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    That the novelty of having your private shit paraded on Google is wearing out. About friggin time.

    --
    I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
    1. Re:Glad to see.. by The+2nd+.+Oracle · · Score: -1, Flamebait

      I wouldn't expect you to be this fucking retarded, bitch, but I guess that you really are. luckily I'm drunk out of my mind, and I don't fucking care I'm I'm modded to hell for this.

      ....that said, your arguments fucking suck.

    2. Re:Glad to see.. by LoudMusic · · Score: -1, Flamebait

      Considering the explosion of surveillance in British cities, I'd think they've made it clear they don't expect any privacy in public.

      Privacy in public? Nope. That's why they call it public.

      I fail to see how living in an "affluent area" allows you some extra privacy rights others do not have.

      They don't have more rights. They just just did something about the Google car that other communities can't bond together and do.

      But hey, I guess rich people really feel like they're entitled to special treatment. You'd think having the money would be enough.

      Maybe they expect special treatment from the government because they pay the government more in taxes. Maybe they should get what they pay for. Which is a fucking lot more than you pay for.

      --
      No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
    3. Re:Glad to see.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

      i hear there is proposed legislation that would create a government position to wipe citizens asses

      That disgusting blob of degenerate filth you call a Queen has a Groom of the Stool that wipes her ass for her. I doubt, though, that the average slave would get one though.

    4. Re:Glad to see.. by Trouvist · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Since I'm rich, I won't tell you you are generalizing something you don't understand and aren't/haven't been/won't ever be part of thereby making a fool out of yourself calling us rich folks not nice. It wouldn't be nice for me to call you a totally ignorant prick.

    5. Re:Glad to see.. by bwalling · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It is neither illegal, or IMNSHO socially unacceptable. What have you got to hide?

      The very nature of socially acceptable is that it takes into consideration the thoughts and concerns of others. Your singular opinion cannot determine what is socially acceptable to others.

  2. Re:Airstrip One by Trogre · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    So I guess you're saying they're far left-wing then?

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  3. A return to common sense! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    in this liberal age it's good to see that people take up the cause against those who think that they can do as they wish. i hope they kick obama out next.

  4. Re:You have a simplistic understanding of Britain by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    They only become criminals because the government wants sheeple who are easy picking for the criminals. If the government were to repeal the laws that criminalize people who defend themselves, then when they wouldn't be come criminals when they defend themselves.

    The government's behavior is "Don't hurt the poor, downtrodden criminal, you mean victim." Where is the intelligence, the justice in that?

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  5. Re:You have a simplistic understanding of Britain by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Shooting a fleeing burglar or robber in the back is absolutely proper. Once said dirtbag has a few bullets in him, he will not be burgling or robbing anyone again.

    If you want a true proportional response, once a thief breaks into one's house and steals once property, one should be allowed go into the thief's house and take anything and everything one wants. That is proportional response.

    You are just a bleeding-heart who thinks criminals should be accorded protections while they go about their chosen profession.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.