Slashdot Mirror


Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters

Hugh Pickens writes "The WSJ reports that following three nights of rioting and looting in London, Blackberry's messaging network and social networking sites are being blamed by police, politicians and media organizations for helping rioters in London spread word about the next hot spot . It's an 'encrypted, very secure, safe, fast, cheap, free, easy way for disaffected urban youth to spread messages for the next targets,' says Mike Butcher, editor of TechCrunch Europe and digital advisor to the Mayor of London. But Ian Maude, an analyst at Enders Analysis, said it's unfair to lay the blame on technology. 'Certainly, it's a lot easier for people to communicate with each other in real time via some of these services but that's a fact of life. They're not good or evil in themselves, its the purposes for which people use them.' The Metropolitan Police, known as Scotland Yard, say they are monitoring social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook. Research In Motion Ltd. (RIMM), the maker of Blackberry smartphones, says it has 'engaged with the authorities to assist in any way we can.'" An anonymous reader points out that the rioters aren't the only ones using technology. London police have begun posting pictures on Flikr of people they'd like to interview following the riots over the last few days.

682 comments

  1. Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    And technology was equally blamed for helping UK police.

    Just another example where technology changes nothing. It just enables all the good and bad impulses inherent in humanity.

    1. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by datapharmer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yep, I think the real problem here is that the rioting started as a response to (real or perceived) police violence, and the reaction was "add more police" and the situation got worse. Rinse, repeat. This isn't a problem of technology, this is the equivalent to trying to put out a fire at an oil refinery by adding more gas.

      --
      Get a web developer
    2. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The disturbing part is that the police and more importantly the politicians are focusing on the tactics being used rather than the underlying causes of social unrest. How about figuring out why you have disaffected youth rather than how they are effective at being disruptive.

    3. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly sending the police to handle violence or rioting was a mistake, but the Girl Scouts were already deployed to their cookie selling stations.

    4. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How about figuring out why you have disaffected youth rather than how they are effective at being disruptive.

      The job of the police isn't to determine why, it's to stop it from happening. The police are doing their job. The 'why' is only for politicians to work out and try to address.

    5. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Churnits · · Score: 1

      How about we stop them from burning the whole fucking place down first, THEN think about how to avoid it reoccurring.

    6. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Underlying cause of social unrest and disaffected youth my arse. This is thieving cunts who think they have a right to anything for free.

    7. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by JockTroll · · Score: 1, Troll

      And the job of the politicians is to keep the British Upper Class safe from those 'orrible low-income people. By Jove, torch those filthy street urchins! They're spoling my afternoon tea!

      --
      Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
    8. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by digitig · · Score: 1

      I'm glad that somebody knows what happened, because nobody actually involved seems to . Even the Met admitted that they handled it wrong.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    9. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by alexborges · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Citation needed please: where does it say he was a violent drug dealer?

      Y mean, if Assange is a rapist for fucking a woman that wanted to be fucked then hell, I'm a drug dealer for having a whiff in high school 20 years ago

      --
      NO SIG
    10. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      Judging by your username, you're trolling... however I'm going to feed the troll here. This has more to do with random violence, theft and destruction affecting ALL classes of society. *Exactly* what a government is supposed to control and/or prevent (one of the things, anyway).

    11. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 2

      It started as social unrest, it spread to the 'thieving cunts' afterwards.

    12. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I guess it's just a curious coincidence that David Cameron and Boris Johnson return from their holidays when the violence spread to the outskirts of the richer areas - when it was all contained in the poorest parts of London they were content for the police to (heavy) handle it.

    13. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Antarius · · Score: 1

      Aha! You've admitted it on a social site!

      (Or is slashdot more anti-social?)

      You're going down, buddy! ;)

    14. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      Here's an idea, maybe it was the fact that it WAS spreading, rather than where it was spreading to that inspired the return.

    15. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      The rich are more important then the poor, why is this a surprise to you?

      --
      Good-bye
    16. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by bertoelcon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not to crap on your analogy but sometimes those fires are put out with explosions. That might be analogous to how they end the riots...

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    17. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by digitig · · Score: 1

      It doesn't. But it justifies the peaceful protest that turned into the trigger for the trouble.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    18. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by DrXym · · Score: 2
      A reasonable description of the original shooting was the guy was a known gang member and suspected dealer, was being tailed as part of a police anti-drugs / anti-firearms operation, was stopped, he pulled a gun (a converted replica), and one of the policemen shot him for his troubles. The inquest will likely dissect things further than that but sounds to me that the police will claim self defence.

      His family staged a protest but a number of outsiders used it as an excuse to riot. Probably members of his gang but it it snowballed from there. People should take solace from the fact that the courts will be very busy handing out sentences to many of these morons over the coming weeks.

    19. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by DrXym · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Citation needed please: where does it say he was a violent drug dealer?

      This portrait suggests he was affiliated with a gang suspected of murdering 3 people, was suspected by police of dealing drugs and guns and was a person of sufficient interest that an anti-firearms team decided to stop him. At which point he pulls a gun and gets shot for his troubles. Does that mean he's a violent drug dealer? That strongly suggests he was to me.

    20. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Bongo · · Score: 1

      Many people are trying to figure out why the youth are disaffected, and why they don't seem to know that it is a really bad thing to do to set fire to shops when people live above them and may burn to death. See pics of woman leaping from first floor window into arms of police.

      Everyone is wondering why the journalists can interview these kids the next day and they reply, "oh yeah, we got wine to drink now we looted that shop and we're having a really good time, and we really hope it goes off again tonight!" (said the two young girls, words to that effect).

      Trouble is, nobody really knows why these kids have been raised so badly and why the schools have taught them so badly and why their culture hasn't encouraged them to aspire to working hard and why there aren't enough job opportunities that suit their level of ability. It is tragic for them.

    21. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What? Nobody is asking why this is possible at all? I mean, let's look at what's going down here: Someone got shot. Someone else spreads the (false or true, who cares?) information that he was the victim of police violence. And suddenly all hell breaks loose and people are rioting.

      Could it be, just COULD, that we're sitting on a powder keg with a damn lot of people SO pissed at government and the whole mess governments have put us in that they will accept ANY reason to vent their anger violently?

      That's the only explanation I could see. I mean, think about it, why else should a lot (and we're talking about a LOT) of people go out, become a mob and riot? Because they care for the guy who was shot? At best, it's the spark for the already filled to the brim keg.

      The problem isn't technology, and it isn't that someone was shot. They now want to close the lid on the keg to keep it from exploding, because that's all that's needed, not only in London.

      A spark.

      People are angry. VERY angry. It's like looking at a saturated solution ready to crystalize, and all it needs is a disturbance to set it in motion.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    22. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by andy1307 · · Score: 1

      rather than the underlying causes of social unrest.

      What should they do when your home gets robbed? catch the burglars or get the the underlying cause of what makes people rob other people's home?

    23. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by bemymonkey · · Score: 1

      Live rounds are a bit much, but where are the water cannons? Tasers? Stun batons? What about that taser shotgun that was featured on Gizmodo (I think) a few days ago? Tear gas!

      I don't quite understand why this stuff wasn't brought out during the first night of riots...

    24. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to crap on your analogy but sometimes those fires are put out with explosions. That might be analogous to how they end the riots...

      Syria would beg to differ.

    25. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "That's the only explanation I could see. I mean, think about it, why else should a lot (and we're talking about a LOT) of people go out, become a mob and riot? Because they care for the guy who was shot? At best, it's the spark for the already filled to the brim keg."

      OMFG. BECAUSE THEY ARE OPPORTUNISTIC THIEVES. Is carrying a TV out of a shop a form of protest?

    26. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by causality · · Score: 1

      rather than the underlying causes of social unrest.

      What should they do when your home gets robbed? catch the burglars or get the the underlying cause of what makes people rob other people's home?

      Why wouldn't you attempt both? You have heard of the false dichotomy, correct?

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    27. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      The rioters have killed people with firearms and by burning buildings down, I really think live ammunition is warranted now.

      At least start deploying armored vehicles on the street to contain the mobs and to protect the wounded and fire fighters.

    28. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      And they needed someone to get shot to do that? Why now, why not last week? I mean, the TV was there, they certainly wanted it back then too, why now?

      Why're they doing that at all? Would you? I guess not. Neither would I. So why are there suddenly so many people who very obviously don't give half a shit about the law?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    29. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Daetrin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't think most of the people who are actually rioting are pissed at their government, they've probably paid pretty little attention to what the government has been doing in general. They're pissed at their society, because they're jobless and have no future prospects. That has very little to do with what the government has or hasn't done recently and a lot more to do with persistent problems that technology has brought about but society hasn't been very effective in dealing with.

      At least that's certainly the impression that the writer of this article gives.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    30. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Angry people disliking the government don't go around burning corner shops, flats (apartments) and bystanders' cars. The govt has only just got into power, it's a split party system for the first time in many decades. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the politicians in power or their policies.

      These are black criminals, yes black. Not the best place to do it, either. The BNP (think extreme right nation front stuff) has already gained an extraordinary number of new followers in recent years, and now this will swell their numbers even further.

      There are many interviews with this criminals now. Try reading them and then come back.

    31. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by squizzar · · Score: 1

      Except that the poor appear to be taking on the poor. They're not running into the city and burning porsches, they're burning down small family businesses in their own neighbourhoods. Listen to this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14458424 and tell me that these people are making some kind of thought out protest against their oppressors.

    32. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Either reason is good enough for me to blame not communication technology but failed job politics.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    33. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by 0123456 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Trouble is, nobody really knows why these kids have been raised so badly and why the schools have taught them so badly and why their culture hasn't encouraged them to aspire to working hard and why there aren't enough job opportunities that suit their level of ability. It is tragic for them.

      Um, the left have spent decades pushing policies which created a feral underclass who believe that they can go out and smash stuff up and burn buildings down and won't be punished for it. If 'nobody' is smart enough to figure that out, then Britain really is doomed.

      The real question is what do you do with millions of people who are violent and unemployable who have been told all their lives that they have a right to free stuff paid for by the remainder who are productive and law-abiding? And that's an abyss the politicians don't want to look into because many of them have been instrumental in creating it and there is no good way of dealing with it.

    34. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why are they doing it? That is the question that I'd like to have answered. If it is organized crime, it does not need a focal point like a shooting of someone. Unless you want to tell me that this is the "revenge" of the criminal organization for killing one of their people, but if that was the case, London would have WAY bigger problems to deal with than simple riots. If this was the case, London would be at the mercy of that criminal organization.

      So why are they doing this now? I'm kinda wary of mainstream media reporting about interviews with the rioters, I'm not so sure they'd be correctly represented. After all, the media have an interest in reporting what the public wants to hear, and they certainly prefer to hear "black criminals on the loose" to "black people so fed up with the way they're treated that they go rioting".

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    35. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Speaking of technology, I'm interested in seeing if the UK's extensive CCTV network will be able to catch and prosecute all of these people committing crimes. Sure the UK police is posting screenshots from cameras, but I imagine they're a very small portion of total crimes committed. My own bias aside, I do hope a study is done on whether or not they're actually effective in prosecution.

      I think we can say that they haven't done a whole lot for crime prevention, though. People know they are on camera, and more than a few are using the ultimate enemy of CCTV - a hoodie and mask.

    36. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Cederic · · Score: 1

      See pics of woman leaping from first floor window

      This made me cry, at work.

      "I was told there were fires in the Church Street area, near Surrey Street Market.
      "By the time I drove towards it, I could already see the fires from my windscreen,"
      "There were six or seven people screaming and crying outside, and they looked like they lived at the flats that were burning. The flats were above small independent shops. A man in a white shirt was screaming that a girl was at the window and that she was ready to jump. He ran towards her but riot police had appeared and pulled him back, and they went to her instead.

      "As soon as she dropped, the crowds pushed back and there was no way to see what happened to her."

      http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/08/08/article-2023874-0D5B629200000578-550_964x639.jpg

      I'm about to have to go out into Salford, where trouble's already kicked off tonight, so that I can escort a young lady home. Already had a bloody close call on the drive home. Could get interesting..

    37. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by icebike · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Someone please mod parent up to 11.

      The brits are forever preaching to the US about how this type of mob violence, and how it never happens in Britain (ignoring history) and how British police are for the most part unarmed. All the while their country is slipping into a technological dictatorship where taking a picture of a landmark gets your camera seized.

      Now the authorities raise the SAME alarm as Mubarac in Egypt, Gaddafi in Lybia, and Assad in Syria. We are probably hours away from the British government suspending texting services and perhaps even cell service in the affected areas, just as was attempted in those countries. (Meanwhile, I suspect the Police CCTV system (if still operational) is recording everything in hi-def.)

      That the riots are all in defense of a drug dealer is ridiculous. Its long past that.

      The largely docile british citizen in some of these areas is probably reaching the breaking point, and has had enough of a government more interested in stepping on their necks than helping them prosper. Meanwhile the upper crust in the rest of the country is clucking and tsk tsk-ing and sending in more police. What's next? Importing advisers from Syria? Shooting in the streets?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    38. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by smelch · · Score: 1

      They're not people, they're kids. Come on, stop making the mistake of associating reasoned thought with hormoned up teens.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    39. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      The original rioters were. Yesterday the age average increased considerably.

      But it makes sense. Youths were the ones who got hit the hardest with the recent cuts in social services, and youth unemployment is through the roof.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    40. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Haedrian · · Score: 1

      I blame whoever invented these 'stones' things everyone keeps throwing around.

    41. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      I'm about to have to go out into Salford, where trouble's already kicked off tonight, so that I can escort a young lady home. Already had a bloody close call on the drive home. Could get interesting..

      Good luck, and be safe...

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    42. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "That's the only explanation I could see."
      But you aren't rioting. Never project your thought processes onto other people.

      People enjoy rioting. They riot over sports teams, even when theirs WON. Some classes of people just like to break shit and loot.

      It happens enough that you and no one else should be the least bit surprised.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    43. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by smelch · · Score: 1

      It's a shame, really. The whole thing. I don't even want to get in to the politics or the possible thought behind it, it's just going to split the same way it always does: left vs. right, both claiming not enough in their own direction. The whole thing is growing tiresome, so we should at least agree that violent protesting is a vicious, stupid thing to do. Somebody should teach these people how to effectively air their issues with the government and society in a way that doesn't make hell for people who aren't to blame and make the situation worse.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    44. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There was a (black) Vicar on TV who was from the same area, and he basically said he was scum who had it coming to him.

      Given that the black community are constantly moaning "de babylon am not giddus no respecc nowamean" and clergymen tend to prefer forgiveness and understanding to actual law enforcement, that's a pretty damning indictment.

    45. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they absolutely will not stop -- ever! -- until everyone is DEAD!

      Seriously though, maybe they're angry at evil corporations or that their football team lost or maybe they're just idiots. Either way, there's no excuse for their criminal behaviour and they should be dealt with severely.

    46. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by zebs · · Score: 1

      The disturbing part is that the police and more importantly the politicians are focusing on the tactics being used rather than the underlying causes of social unrest. How about figuring out why you have disaffected youth rather than how they are effective at being disruptive.

      Because it takes effort? Because it raises uneasy questions for a conservative government?

    47. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      Now the authorities raise the SAME alarm as Mubarac in Egypt, Gaddafi in Lybia, and Assad in Syria.

      Are you seriously comparing a bunch of thieving trash to people who are fighting genuine oppression?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    48. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by PoopCat · · Score: 1

      A) If that's the Surrey St Market in Croydon, well, goodbye Croydon, you won't be missed.

      B) Daily Fail? really?

      C) Has anyone else noticed that this whole mess has handily diverted attention away from the whole government-in-bed-with-corrupt-cops-in-bed-with-Murdoch story?

    49. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by spasm · · Score: 1

      The army is doing its job in Syria and Libya too. Having the army in Egypt decide *not* to obey orders to start shooting people in Tahir square a couple of months ago was a good thing, not a bad thing.

    50. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Daily Mail photo was linked from the Guardian blog and is (ironically) better than the cropped version being shown on the wenn.com website (the photographer works for WENN).

      C) Has anyone else noticed

      Yes :)

    51. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      But it makes sense. Youths were the ones who got hit the hardest with the recent cuts in social services, and youth unemployment is through the roof.

      You're right. Because I'm sure all of the baboons putting people's lives and livelihoods in jeopardy would have been playing table tennis and sipping lemonade while telling some boring old hippy their troubles - if the opportunity had been there.

      And I'm sure their actions will do wonders for the local economy, which will in turn enable a huge increase in funding for yoof clubs, leisure centres and the like. /facepalm

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    52. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by icebike · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The riots have gone way past the involvement of a "bunch of thieves". Have you even looks at the photos and the size of the crowds?

      This rioting is something Britain has not seen in recent years. It is a totally new expression of anger from what sociologists would call the "underclass." That said, there are familiar elements in the build-up to last night's anarchy that might help you understand it a little.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    53. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      "Rather than", used by the AC above, implies a choice between one or the other. "I'd rather drink tea than coffee" doesn't imply that I like them mixed together.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    54. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 2

      And sometimes explosions start fires where there were no fires burning before.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    55. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Because it won't do any fucking good, that's why.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    56. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Bootsy+Collins · · Score: 1

      This would make sense if it wasn't for the fact that both arrests, and interviews granted to the media, indicate that the majority of the looters appear to be 13-17 year old boys and girls. That's why a major push towards parents to keep their kids home has been taking place during the last 24 hours -- because it's the kids that have been doing the damage.

    57. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I neither said it's a good thing nor that I support it. I just said that I can understand the underlying reason for it.

      But one thing I'm curious about: How would you say they should air their issues?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    58. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It's not a sensible thing to do, but an understandable one. They're angry at society and lash out. It's not going to improve the situation they're in, but mob action rarely does. It's anger and frustration that gets out in a quite terrible way now.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    59. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Without knowing what led to this? That's dangerous. Sure, you might get order back for now, but if you don't solve the underlying problem, the next unrest will be worse. Way worse.

      It's like throwing antibiotics on an infection without knowing where it came from.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    60. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Hognoxious · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      The riots have gone way past the involvement of a "bunch of thieves". Have you even looks at the photos and the size of the crowds?

      Been watching it on TV most of the day, on and off, and what I saw was mainly people walking out of shops with stuff.

      But that's not thieving is it? You lot probably call it "ad hoc wealth redistribution".

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    61. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, the pictures don't look too different. In both people run around, fight the police and light buildings on fire. In both scenarios people get hurt and looting happens. The main difference seems to be that we agree with one and disagree with the other.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    62. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These gang weren't formed yesterday. They existed a long time ago, but they didn't cause major mayham, and nobody dared to challange them fearing the political backlash from the left.

    63. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by The+Dawn+Of+Time · · Score: 1

      So basically you have nothing relevant to say, but you needed that last word.

    64. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      They could volunteer. There are a thousand and one things people can do to help each other. Positive things. Burning other houses isn't to going to improve social service. Looting shops isn't going to make schools better.

      And in case you missed it, there was a general election last year. Who knows, if they'd got off their lazy arses and voted instead of sitting at home watching satellite TV they might have a government they prefer. Not that a government of any colour could do much about the current economic situation, but the actions of these morons are hardly going to improve it, are they?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    65. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by The+Dawn+Of+Time · · Score: 2

      People are angry, but what they are angry about is that the universe hasn't handed them everything they want without them having to do anything to earn it. They are angry at the perceived injustice of the simple fact that the universe isn't fair. Boo-fucking-hoo, frankly. Get angry. Riot. Destroy everything. It won't get you anything you want, and it won't hurt anybody but the people who would nominally be on your side had you not hurt them.

      It's a foolish response that has never worked, will never work, and frankly, shouldn't work. Justifying it, rationalizing it, and excusing it won't change that simple fact.

    66. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by digitig · · Score: 1

      At least what I say is based on fact. The police account of the killing that sparked it all -- which the original AC took as fact -- was uncertain at the start, and is looking more questionable with every news bulletin.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    67. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Bootsy+Collins · · Score: 2

      By the "underclass," I presume you mean 13-17 year old kids from middle class families, since that's apparently the makeup of most of the looters.

      It's hard to feel much sympathy for the plight of that underclass.

    68. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by BondGamer · · Score: 1

      People riot after their favorite team wins a championship. It is not always touched off by something violent.

      To create a mob you need a lot of people. Social media is definitely making it much easier to do things as a mob. At first it was used for good(?) with those flash mobs of people performing musical numbers. Now it is being used to rob stores. Without Twitter and Facebook, it would be next to impossible to coordinate what is going on currently in Britain. So, unfortunately, technology is to blame.

    69. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by gilesjuk · · Score: 1

      Rubbish. These are criminal gangs being organised by a ring leader using phones to alert each other of Police activity. There's a lot of goods being stolen.

      The Police used to have the upper hand with their radios but now the rioters have the same sort of capability.

      Also, what would you do if you were under attack, give in and hope they go away? of course not, you'd get the biggest gun you could find and fire back.

    70. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by gilesjuk · · Score: 1

      Disaffected? that would explain people going out and smashing things up, but these are people who are well organised:

      See quote from a Facebook group I'm on about it:

      150-200 rioters were involved, armed with crowbars and baseball bats. Smashed windows, about 30 grand worth of stock got nicked from a jewellery shop, £70,000 from an electronics shop.

      Sounds more like criminals to me.

    71. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      I haven't heard the police, nor anyone else for that matter say that he "pulled a gun". Just that there was a non-police gun found at the scene, and that Mark Duggan tended to carry a gun in his sock.

      Further, it's taken 5 days for the police to admit that the bullet lodged in a police radio was not from the victim, but a ricochet from one of their own guns.

      The rumour is that Duggan was executed when police already had him restrained on the ground. A ricochet hitting a police radio is consistent with that. (Close range).

      I'm not necessarily convinced yet. But it sure smells of a cover up. Just like with Ian Tomlinson and Jean Charles De Menezez.

    72. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by smelch · · Score: 1

      Well something like picketing, boycotting, writing letters, organizing a sit-in, non-violent disobedience, or as Hognoxious said they could volunteer to try to help their cause. Youth unemployment is too high? Try to find out why that is, and campaign for the changes they think will help. Clearly they don't know what will help so they've resorted to burning things.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    73. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by causality · · Score: 1

      "Rather than", used by the AC above, implies a choice between one or the other. "I'd rather drink tea than coffee" doesn't imply that I like them mixed together.

      Yes. That means the person to whom I replied had a choice in the matter. He could go along with the AC's false dichotomy, or he could explain that the two options are not mutually exclusive.

      He chose to go along with the false dichotomy. This led to me pointing out that it is, in fact, a false dichotomy, fallacy of the excluded middle, however you like to phrase it.

      I don't share this desire to go along with false reasoning just because some AC thought it would be a good idea to frame the question that way. Thus, I can't understand why you feel a need to restate what the AC said.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    74. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      The rioting started in the borough of Hackney. Hackney closed most of their youth clubs due to central government cuts. Putting lots of kids that used to have things to do out onto the streets. And then you've got the unemployment that the government is responsible for.

      I doubt many of these rioting criminals have any idea of politics. But for sure the governments political mistakes are contributing to their behaviour.

    75. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Yes, you could do that. Or realize that all this is a waste of time anyway and start rioting. Not that this would change anything either, mind you.

      Why youth unemployment is so high? Because there are not enough jobs. Duh. Add now that our education system has been cut to resemble a weak joke and we hence have kids that get out of high school without even knowing how to add two-digit numbers and you might have an idea why.

      When you look around lower class youths you will notice that they get very early and very directly the idea that they're not wanted. Neither by their parents, nor by their teachers, nor by the rest of society. If society rejects you, it's only logical to reject society in return.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    76. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Yeah, right. After learning day after day and year after year that there is no room for them in our society, that we don't want them, that we would much prefer if they just vanished from the planet, they'll turn around and do volunteer work. Do you really think that could possibly in any scenario happen?

      You're dealing with angry, disillusioned and disappointed people here. People who learned that society rejects them and that they have no place in it. The mere idea to suggest they should volunteer show a naivety that I didn't consider possible. Did you ever try to see something from another perspective, to put yourself into the boots of another person?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    77. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by smelch · · Score: 1

      So England is hopeless, then?

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    78. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by alexborges · · Score: 1

      Thanks. Im certainly not defending him (or this shit, I think this shouldn't be called riots: its an apish idiots convention). I honestly wanted some light shed on the origin.

      Now, I'm sure that what we are seeing today has little to nothing to do with the killing of this guy. Maybe it was the spark, but there was all this dead leaves around, ya know what I mean?

      --
      NO SIG
    79. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      No, it most likely won't work. But it is a very understandable reaction.

      It's not that they wanted everything handed to them. But they're left without a perspective. They have very little education, no chance to get any better and are facing a life where the jobs they might possibly get involve hard labour and very little income. If that. I guess that qualifies as "life ain't fair", but on a level that we both probably cannot even fathom. If you feel like you never had a chance to succeed because you never managed to get out of your ghetto, I can well see why people get pissed enough to riot.

      It's simply pent up anger and frustration that finds an outlet now.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    80. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      By the "underclass," I presume you mean 13-17 year old kids from middle class families, since that's apparently the makeup of most of the looters.

      Citation?

      Looking at the footage reveals that most of the looters are black. And the middle class is overwhelmingly white. Furthermore the rioting all started in the poor areas of London - Tottenham, Toxteth, Lewisham etc.

      Ealing got hit last night - but only because the very poor area of Acton is only a short walk away, and doesn't have shops which are as good as Ealing.

    81. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      The whole thing is growing tiresome, so we should at least agree that violent protesting is a vicious, stupid thing to do.

      These people aren't protesting. There's no banners, no chants, no spokesmen telling the media what their problem is.

      These are just looters. The logical conclusion of having a consumer society, preaching greed is good, but discriminating against a group such that they don't see honest work as a way to get the products that are advertised to them.

    82. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Because I'm sure all of the baboons putting people's lives and livelihoods in jeopardy would have been playing table tennis and sipping lemonade while telling some boring old hippy their troubles - if the opportunity had been there.

      But they were. On Sky News they've had former youth leaders saying that they actually recognised some of the youths doing the looting.

      You have to be pretty stupid not to realise the value of youth clubs taking youths off the streets in the evenings. Giving them interesting things to do rather than get bored on street corners drinking cider.

    83. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      People are angry, but what they are angry about is that the universe hasn't handed them everything they want without them having to do anything to earn it.

      Absolutely. But since the 1980s, the system has been teaching them that greed is good, whilst at the same time racial discrimination has meant that they couldn't get the advertised consumer goodies through getting a good job. No wonder when the opportunity to get branded consumer stuff for free they take it. It's quicker and less risky than the other option of being a link in the drug dealing chain.

    84. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Kittenman · · Score: 1

      The brits are forever preaching to the US about how this type of mob violence, and how it never happens in Britain (ignoring history) and how British police are for the most part unarmed.

      Citation needed. The Brits (I'm an ex) will have problems saying it never happens in Britain after Northern Ireland, the riots in the late 70s, etc. I can't believe they can say that those never happened when they can so easily be caught out.

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    85. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Are you black? Maybe you're not subject to the same situation.

    86. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      You're the only one claiming that he pulled a gun. The police aren't. And for sure if he did, they'd be saying it.

    87. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      The job of the police isn't to determine why, it's to stop it from happening.

      It is when one of the many reasons for the riots is police behaviour. Specifically their cover-ups whenever they kill a member of the public.

    88. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by BasilBrush · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Um, the left have spent decades pushing policies which created a feral underclass who believe that they can go out and smash stuff up and burn buildings down and won't be punished for it.

      Well you'd probably believe that if you read the Daily Mail. In the real world however, under Labour the prison population rose to it's highest ever level, a higher level than anywhere else in Europe. This was against a background of crime decreasing ever year under the British Crime survey. Labour were certainly not soft on crime.

      This problem has happened under the Tory coalition. In Tottenham where it started, the Tories have caused more than half the youth clubs to be closed. A week before the riots started, there were predictions that putting these kids onto the streets with nothing to do would lead to riots. Right wingers are so short sighted - they don't see beyond the end of their noses. Penny-wise, pound foolish.

    89. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      What should they do when your home gets robbed? catch the burglars or get the the underlying cause of what makes people rob other people's home?

      Pretty obviously the answer is both.

    90. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      It won't do any good for your political beliefs for sure. Your beliefs rely on being ignorant to the causes of things.

    91. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Sounds more like criminals to me.

      And what creates criminals? Here's a hint: criminality has different levels in different countries.

    92. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by joss · · Score: 1

      Voted ?? Really.. ? are you seriously suggesting that voting is a more effective way of getting the behaviour you want from your government than rioting ?

      Are you out of your mind ?

      The way you get what you want is by making the alternatives worse.

      Don't bail out the banking industry ? Fine, let the entire system fail and see how you like living in the stone age ?
      Don't listen to the tea party ? We'll make the country default and fuck the entire world economy.

      The rioters are saying:
      Don't make my life bearable. Well, fuck you then, I'll make your life unbearable and then maybe you'll care.

      --
      http://rareformnewmedia.com/
    93. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by MechaStreisand · · Score: 1

      ...under Labour the prison population rose to it's highest ever level, a higher level than anywhere else in Europe. This was against a background of crime decreasing ever year under the British Crime survey...

      Hypothetically speaking, what do you think the effect on the crime rate would be if more of the criminally-inclined part of the population were getting locked up?

      --
      Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
    94. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Hence my point that Labour were not soft on crime, contrary to the GPs claim.

      And either that hardness on criminals was successful in lowering the rate of crime, or coincidentally there were other causes that were lowering the crime rate, or both.

    95. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by mattack2 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      How is the government responsible for unemployment? Why is it not one's own duty to find their own job?

    96. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you own a business, you're not "poor".

    97. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if jobs = population then fine. But it dosn't

    98. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by rcbutcher · · Score: 1

      The real question is, what does this say about the impact of online social media in modern society - this is a technology forum, not a social justice opinion shop. Reports say they're using BlackBerries - are they true ? Should social media be regulated ? If the folks running the zoo want to keep running it they always need to be better equipped than, and a step ahead of, the animals, and always used to be. Looks to me like the zookeepers here need to be able to detect, plan, aggregate and deploy before the animals get serious. To do that they need to have a computer system than monitors suspicious communications and predicts trouble before it starts. This may well be an infringement of current liberties and the British find that sort of thing distasteful. You can't very well enact laws that say vendors of communications devices must sell them with a proviso that they can't be used to plan illegal activities, any more than you could ban people using the telephone for illegal activities. But this to me looks similar to the ban on using the internet to host illegal porn - you can only start prceedings once there is evidence that illegal content has been posted online, you can't filter every ftp upload. Likewise Twitter etc... but you can do anonymous statistical analysis of message volume by area, and at a certain point enough would be available to warrant a human to listen in...but it would be open to charges of abuse, and the thresholds levels for human intervention are arbitrary and debateable. My guess is just that police need to be able to aggregate and deploy quicker, using social media themselves, to prevent these angry kids doing things they may well regret next day in court.

    99. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Bootsy+Collins · · Score: 3, Informative

      By the "underclass," I presume you mean 13-17 year old kids from middle class families, since that's apparently the makeup of most of the looters.

      Citation?

      Uh, pretty much every single article in the BBC, the Guardian, or the Times today? That's why Tim Godwin was repeatedly quoted and shown on TV Monday night as saying that the most essential thing to control Tuesday night's rioting was for parents to keep their kids at home.

      Looking at the footage reveals that most of the looters are black.

      Not what I'm seeing on BBC or ITN. Stuff like the two white teenage girls speaking here is a lot more typical.

      Furthermore the rioting all started in the poor areas of London - Tottenham, Toxteth, Lewisham etc.

      It started in Tottenham because the Duggan shooting was in Tottenham. Since then it's happened everywhere. Crouch End and Catford, as just two examples, don't exactly strike me as warrens of council housing.

    100. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah volunteer to clean up the park instead of rioting that will convince the government to change. Also voting for some one hardly gives you a say in what happens in society not only do election promises often get broken and politicians will say whatever the majority public wants to hear but in some countries (Australia) you might not even get to keep the prime minister you voted in.

    101. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Archimboldo · · Score: 1

      There are many more destitute people on the streets of Calcutta than in London and we don't hear of them looting and burning buildings. I have heard various accounts of the rioter's socio-economic makeup and don't know which of them are based on facts, but the way any disadvantaged group has made any real and permanent gains has been to prove their detractors wrong by facing the odds and succeeding, which also serves as an example and incentive to their fellows.

      Why people justify destroying innocent people's property and wrecking their people's lives is beyond me. But to answer your question to the GP, if I could afford a Blackberry, I'm guessing I wouldn't feel justified burning buildings, beating people, and stealing their possessions. If I was starving and without food or shelter, it is conceivable I would descend so low as to steal, but if I did indulge I would probably feel pretty guilty. If my conscience bothered me as I expect, I would even try to make amends.

      I grant you that a certain percentage of that is because I have not been surrounded by lots of peers who think it's OK to beat little old ladies, smash cars, and take things other people have earned. When everyone around you says some bad thing is OK, the element of shame and disapproval from others is eliminated. Conscience should still remain, though. And I hardly think the problem is to eliminate cultural and societal strictures.

    102. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Lexical_Scope · · Score: 2

      Well...

      I'm not rioting...in fact I'm a reasonably comfortable 30-something with a career and a (rented for now) place to live in an okay part of the UK.

      It's easy to forget though that the last generation or two have been able to make money, probably more money than 95% of these kids will ever see in their lifetimes, by the hard toil of *owning a house*. People who are working now and looking forward to retirement have ridden an unsustainable bubble of market-driven growth that has made their lives, to all intents and purposes, a cakewalk.

      Because of the recent financial problems, you now need 15% deposit minimum for pretty much any mortgage and unless things change you'll be lucky to make more than about 1%-2% per annum appreciation on your capital. Same deal with an ISA or anything else. Even if these kids could get jobs (which they can't) the chances of being able to make provisions for old age are pretty much zero.

      Best bet is to stay on benefits, but even those are being cut and the pressure increased on people to find work. At the same time the UK government is trying to force ill/disabled people back to work by taking away Incapacity Benefits from them, leading to even more competition for entry-level jobs.

      The sad fact is that no amount of hard work by this generation of young kids is ever going to put them on an equal footing with earlier generations who coined it in by doing nothing during an unsustainable financial boom which these kids are paying for with their lives and their futures.

      Hell it doesn't excuse looting and arson, but all these "why can't these kids get a job and work hard like I did" people really wind me up. Not saying the parent is like that but if they are 35+ and living in the UK then the Universe pretty much DID "hand them everything they want without having to do anything to earn it", at the expense of the kids who are out burning stuff and stealing trainers.

    103. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Every keg of powder needs a spark to be set off. These people didn't exist in London since Friday, they didn't just come in and start looting right away. But they got an event that set the whole thing in motion. It's to be expected if something similar happened in Calcutta, the outcome would be even worse. And not only in Calcutta, most big towns have their share of young, restless and disillusioned people waiting for a spark to happen. And I'm pretty sure that none of them would do that on their own. Why? Because none of them did 'til now. It needed something to set it in motion, and it needed the group to feel secure.

      Blackberries are not that expensive, actually. Especially if you get them second hand, twice so if the source is ... questionable. I don't know about the UK, but it is trivial around here to get a cellphone for free with a monthly contract. Getting a "good" cellphone is doable for rather few Euros extra. Maybe they're the "rich ones" of the poor, meaning they had a few quid to spend. I wouldn't immediately call someone "not poor" just because he has a blackberry, it smells a bit like the Fox report I heard recently that we should redefine "poor" because almost all "poor" people have a fridge and a microwave.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    104. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I'm not subject to the same situation. Not anymore. But I still know how such situations are.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    105. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by FhnuZoag · · Score: 1

      If you are poor, and the local small businesses get burned down or driven out, where do you think the jobs are coming from? To every single not-poor business owners there's a half dozen or more poor employees, and to each of them there's a half-dozen dependents. And then there's the other businesses that depend on the income from these people spending their wages, and their employees, and so on. These riots are basically ruining the local economy, and while the richer people will be able to leave, the poorer people won't.

    106. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      This isn't a problem of technology, this is the equivalent to trying to put out a fire at an oil refinery by adding more gas.

      What if the Gas is CO2?

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    107. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The vast majority of these little shits would find youth clubs boring and for goody-goodies, innit man.

    108. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by FhnuZoag · · Score: 1
      The trouble as I see it is this. People are focusing on the government response to this, when the deciding factor is the private sector. Even if the most enlightened government in the world takes over (and this will not happen), the private companies and their owners are going to vote with their feet. Some will stay, sure, but I'd imagine most would be very leery of employing and serving people who may have burned down their shops. Let alone go and set up new shops in the area. Oh, grinding poverty for the last two decades may be the root cause of this riot, but I see this riot as being the root cause of the next two decades of grinding poverty. And I don't really think anything the government does at this point is going to change that.

      If I was living in the affected areas, I'd get out while I can.

    109. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I didn't say that rioting was a very smart move, well planned or even anything but short sighted. But what do you expect?

      I wouldn't stay either. But that's exactly what happens if you ghetto away people and hope they don't show their face anywhere. If you stack poor people on the dripping IV of social services onto each other, they will react like the average fissile material: If the critical mass gets assembled, it goes off.

      I know a few other countries that "solved" the problem better (with varying definitions of 'solved', it's no solution but at least a better dealing with it), by spreading the people out across the towns. They're on social services, they live where you put them! Use that fact to your advantage, don't cram them together!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    110. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by FhnuZoag · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I have heard suggestions of rehousing people to spread them out, but I suspect such a policy would be regarded as wildly unethical. Regardless, I think these riots will certain will certainly increase ghettoisation.

    111. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      So let's create a supercritical mass to get an explosion we cannot get under control anymore? Spiffy idea. How am I supposed to imagine that?

      "So, ya know, cooping them up in a ghetto didn't work out so well."
      "Right. Let's put more people in. That sure should take care of it."

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    112. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Uh, pretty much every single article in the BBC, the Guardian, or the Times today?

      That's not a citation.

      That's why Tim Godwin was repeatedly quoted and shown on TV Monday night as saying that the most essential thing to control Tuesday night's rioting was for parents to keep their kids at home.

      The request to keep kids at home doesn't imply that they are middle class.

      Stuff like the two white teenage girls speaking here is a lot more typical.

      You thing the typical rioter is a girl? I presume that's what you mean because there's no indication what race they are.

      It's actually more interesting... Most of the footage from London was of black guys doing the rioting. In Manchester on the other hand it was mostly white guys. The ethnicity depends on location.

      It started in Tottenham because the Duggan shooting was in Tottenham. Since then it's happened everywhere. Crouch End and Catford, as just two examples, don't exactly strike me as warrens of council housing.

      As I said it started in the poor areas. Then it spread to the places where the richest pickings are to be found - the rich areas. Crouch End is only 2 miles from Tottenham. Not far to travel to loot valuable stuff.

    113. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      If there is X in the working age population and Y is the number of jobs, then X - Y will be the number unemployed. That number rises and falls according to the success of the economy and according to how many the government themselves employ. Both responsibilities of the government.

      Of course an individual should try as hard as possible to get a job. But if they are successful, then someone else won't be successful in getting that vacancy. It's a zero sum game.

    114. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Not really. There have been some quite successful youth club programs around here. Of course, you have to make them attractive to the youth, if they feel like "goody-goodies", they won't accept them. But in general, I noticed that youths prefer shooting hoops to shooting each other. At least if you grab them before they're set on a road down the drain. You can't get them all, but at least you can keep the unruly mass below the critical mass level.

      And that's what counts. You have to make sure the troublemakers are not becoming the majority. If they do, it starts to get self perpetuating since everything the mass is doing is instantly cool with youths. Be honest, everyone was young at some point, and cool was what everyone did.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    115. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Nothing is hopeless. Ever. But it will take a LOT of time to undo the damage done. Don't expect to see any results in this decade. What has been mismanaged for decades cannot be undone over night.

      I'd start with the kids. Get some school programs going that gets them out of the slums, that shows them that education can give them more than a life as a drug dealer and a burglar, that honest work can pay better than crime. This cannot work out if you keep them cooped up together with those that are hellbent on causing trouble. Distribute the kids throughout town, hell, distribute the families (again, people on social service are easy to relocate and easy to put where you want them, do just that, distribute them and the critical mass is instantly going away. Ask any nuclear physicist). That way they are facing the choice of finding a way to integrate into society (which, again, should be presented as an attractive alternative, start programs where immigrants and "natives" get to meet and mingle) or drive across town to continue their ghetto mentality.

      I betcha it works. Hell, it worked for us quite well, even though we're far from a "good" distribution of immigrants, but at least we don't push them into a corner of the town and try not to think about them. It won't instantly solve the problem. But it will.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    116. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      It's to be expected if something similar happened in Calcutta, the outcome would be even worse

      Something much worse happened in Calcutta's state (West Bengal). It was followed up by other acts of state terrorism. People of West Bengal reacted by democratically and peacefully ousting a 35 year old monopoly of the left front in West Bengal. Yes, it took 3 years, but at least they didn't react by looting shops.

      I am no fan of people of Calcutta, or even West Bengal, but they deserve much more respect than you are giving them.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    117. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Uh, pretty much every single article in the BBC, the Guardian, or the Times today?

      The BBC mentioned, IIRC, a teacher, a student and an army recruit. Maybe a graphic designer?

      That's your classic "man bites dog".

      So that's roughly three. Out of what - a thousand? Don't know what kind of maths they use use where you come from, but in England that's not even close to most. Mind you, you'd probably still get an A level in maths if you said it was.

      the most essential thing to control Tuesday night's rioting was for parents to keep their kids at home.

      Only middle class people have children?[1] It's news to me. In fact, the way the benefits system in the works, if you're unemployed having a child is profitable; if you work, especially if you make a moderately good income, it's a financial loss.

      I'm going to be charitable and assume you're like this pillock - not from the UK, never been there and couldn't point to it on a map of the British isles. Because otherwise you're just a barefaced liar.

      [1] Or only middle class people have children who live with them? Are you saying all the chavs and bludgers send their brats to boarding school? Seriously, WTF are you trying to say? I bet you don't even know.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    118. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      So then move or learn another trade, or work as a burger flipper, whatever..

    119. Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Which again does nothing to change the amount of unemployment.

  2. I call bullshit by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Blaming technology for the rioting is bullshit. You have to have people willing to riot and loot in the first place, this just helps them group together....

    But more than that, the real bullshit is that in any group that size, there's no way the communication is "secure", in fact it MUST be broadcast (by tweet or whatever) where anyone could see it. Yes that lets rioters group but it also SHOULD give police a heads-up where to be. If technology is to blame for the riots then the police are almost as much to blame for allowed the riots to occur when the targets are handed to them on a digital platter beforehand.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking from the UK, there really hasn't been that much blaming of technology, at least from what I've seen. Actually, everyone seems quite clear on who is to blame: those doing the rioting.

    2. Re:I call bullshit by need4mospd · · Score: 2, Funny

      In other news, spoons blamed for Oprah's most recent weight gain.

    3. Re:I call bullshit by Hatta · · Score: 1

      You have to have people willing to riot and loot in the first place

      That's the real question. Why are these people so willing to riot and loot? They must feel they have nothing to lose.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:I call bullshit by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Actually - when riots occur - shut down the mobile phone networks and allow only emergency calls. That would be limiting the ability for people to communicate, but especially those that are roaming around rioting.

      It's time for a general curfew starting at 6pm and revoked at 6am for two months if the rioters doesn't stop.

      Latest news is that plastic bullets are to be used by the police.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    5. Re:I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone on Slashdot calling bullshit. No say it ain't so ;)

    6. Re:I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Blaming technology for the rioting is bullshit.

      You sound like the gun nuts. Of course technology is to blame, and only a crazy person would be opposed to "reasonable" controls on mobile devices, such as registration. We're not talking about banning mobile devices, just common-sense solutions like police monitoring of messages and maybe some small waiting period on messages to keep this sort of thing from happening.

      At least RIMM seems reasonable, and has "engaged with the authorities to assist in any way we can." Why can't you be like them?

      Mobile computing is a privilege, not a right.

    7. Re:I call bullshit by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      It's time for a general curfew starting at 6pm and revoked at 6am for two months if the rioters doesn't stop.

      Now there is some economic stimulus! Just what the struggling economy needs. Hell the riots at least function as a makes work program.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    8. Re:I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But more than that, the real bullshit is that in any group that size, there's no way the communication is "secure", in fact it MUST be broadcast (by tweet or whatever) where anyone could see it.

      No, you haven't been paying attention. The rioters are organized into gangs, and the message is passed through the gang hierarchies using Blackberry Messenger Service, which is encrypted and has a limited distribution. The messages are passed on only to people known not to cooperate with the authorities, although leaks have happened here and there--just not useful leaks to the police. The following is a real-life example, which a snitch handed over to The Guardian:

      Everyone from all sides of London meet up at the heart of London (central) OXFORD CIRCUS!!, Bare SHOPS are gonna get smashed up so come get some (free stuff!!!) fuck the feds we will send them back with OUR riot! >:O

      Dead the ends and colour war for now so
      if you see a brother... SALUT!
      if you see a fed... SHOOT!

      We need more MAN then feds so Everyone run wild, all of london and others are invited! Pure terror and havoc & Free stuff....just smash shop windows and cart out da stuff u want! Oxford Circus!!!!! 9pm, we don't need pussyhole feds to run the streets and put our brothers in jail so tool up,
      its a free world so have fun running wild shopping;)

      Oxford Circus 9pm if u see a fed stopping a brother JUMP IN!!! EVERYONE JUMP IN niggers will be lurking about, all blacked out we strike at 9:15pm-9:30pm, make sure ur there see you there. REMEMBA DA LOCATION!!! OXFORD CIRCUS!!!

    9. Re:I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hey! Stop that! These rights to privacy aren't going to erode themselves you know.

    10. Re:I call bullshit by tbannist · · Score: 1

      If suddenly they can no longer afford tuition, and their life plans are now derailed, they certainly might think they have little to lose. I expect this merely another consequence of the British austerity package.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    11. Re:I call bullshit by timeOday · · Score: 1

      We didn't have any trouble crediting Twitter for the Green Spring unrest in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Iran, Libya, and Syria. Can't people see the parallels here with what's happening in London? The technology itself doesn't care whether you agree with the protesters. But in any case, civil unrest usually follows a decline in the economic situation (yes, it was caused at least as much by high food prices as "yearning for freedom" in the middle east), and Britain fits that pattern.

    12. Re:I call bullshit by Xest · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well I wouldn't worry, the headline is sensationalist. Whilst many places have said technology was involved most media outlets have been quite measured in talking about it. The BBC ran an article today basically absolving it of blame saying that the likes of The Daily Mail misquoted Twitter users (quite gross misquotes too- blatant, horrendous level of misquoting).

      The point has been made by most measured outlets that technology has actually better facilitated voluntary cleanup operations than the riots themselves. It's only the verging on far right wing fringe - the fringe that inherently must be irrational to have the hypocritical viewpoints it does - that support the "technology is bad" idea like The Daily Mail etc.

      I don't think there's much popular support for blaming technology nowadays- a recent report said over 33% of adults have smart phones now in the UK, which inevitably means some of those are the older generation. I think even the older "get off my lawn" generation are beginning to realise the benefits of new technology to some extent, so the argument isn't even really popular amongst large swathes of even The Daily Mail's ignorant readerbase now

      It's like when music was blamed for violence/drug use, then movies for violence, I think we're finally reaching the point where people are beginning to realise that, well, that ideology is fucking stupid when applied to technology in general too and the only thing to blame for violence, is people.

      I'd argue the technology is to blame for x mentality is a lost battle already. I just wish it'd breathe it's last dying breath that little bit quicker, but it's almost there.

    13. Re:I call bullshit by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Dead on.

      You're looking at people who probably have nothing to do with the person who was shot, who have no interest in whether he was shot "rightly" or not. They are rioting for themselves, for their own reasons, venting their own anger with the politics. The shooting and the coordination is a focal point, nothing else.

      Technology is not the culprit here. The reason why they want to strike it down is that it is the focal point for rioting, and the idea is without technology, they cannot organize. Instead of solving the underlying problem, the "solution" is to keep it from showing. Trying to keep the lid on the barrel when it's about to overflow might not be a good idea, though.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    14. Re:I call bullshit by UnresolvedExternal · · Score: 1

      Plus, these people don't need technology to give them a heads up..... It's just a case of a shout of FIGHT-FIGHT-FIGHT in the playground.

    15. Re:I call bullshit by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      What? Nobody is asking why they're rioting? I thought it would be obvious that they most likely have no connection to the shot person and hence won't go to such extremes just for the perceived wronging of someone they don't give a shit about.

      I mean, would you riot "for" someone you neither knew nor cared about?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    16. Re:I call bullshit by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Police monitoring private messages is common sense?

      So it's true, if it's done long enough it becomes ingrained enough for people to accept it. Who would have thought it works so quickly?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    17. Re:I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come off it. Tuition fees are not an issue here.

      If you want to pin these riots on some evil Tories, then the ones you should look at are the 1979-1990 vintage. They were faced with similar riots, in Brixton and elsewhere, and instead of sending in the police to deal with the troublemakers by any means necessary, they adopted an appeasement policy, just like the one that you will see being advocated today in the left-wing media and on television. This allowed gangs to flourish and made policing impossible.

      What you see on the streets now is merely the manifestation of constant criminality and violence that has plagued these areas for decades, and all because the Thatcherite Tories were too liberal to deal with the problem properly.

      So, if you're going to blame the evil Tories, make sure you blame the right ones, and for the right reason.

    18. Re:I call bullshit by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Blaming technology for the rioting is bullshit. You have to have people willing to riot and loot in the first place, this just helps them group together....

      I agree however I don't really think blame is being placed on social networking. It's just a nice headline to attract clicks. I think they are saying that social networking is playing a role in the riots by enabling rioters to find like minded individuals and inciting them to riot. This is no different than having billboards promoting riots. You don't blame the billboards, you blame the people who advertised on that billboard.

      So if you look at the news in context, you'd see that the police are saying that social networking is enabling the riots to spread not that the riots are actually caused by social networking. A better analogy would be dry underbrush that enables a forest fire to get large quickly by providing readily available fuel. The underbrush didn't cause the forest fire but possibly a carelessly tossed cigarette did.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    19. Re:I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Economic turmoil is a sufficient cause for civil unrest, but it's not a necessary one. There's such a thing as "copycat" crime, and that's what this is. It's the same as the "flash mob" riots in Philadelphia, Chicago, and other US cities, and they're all a reflection of the organizing power that led to the "flash mob" trend and the Arab Spring, with the added condition that this is a flash mob for profit, not just for mindless entertainment or revolution. A small core of gang leaders are cooperating and coordinating assaults on commercial targets for the purpose of looting, because they know they can get away with it. The police can't or won't stop them, either because they can't deploy sufficient manpower quickly enough to do anything about the flash mob before the looters vanish with the goods, or because they fear bad publicity from charges of excessive force more than they do bad publicity from citizens who feel they live in a war zone rather than a first-world nation's capital. Either way, the police are ineffective, so the looters can use the strategies of the flash mob and the Arab Spring for thuggery. This isn't civil unrest, which carries with it a political connotation, so much as it is criminal endeavor.

    20. Re:I call bullshit by phlinn · · Score: 2

      I expect this is consequence of falsely teaching people for years that someone else was responsible for their well-being.

      "The problem with socialism is, eventually you run out of other people's money."

      --
      "Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
    21. Re:I call bullshit by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      But more than that, the real bullshit is that in any group that size, there's no way the communication is "secure", in fact it MUST be broadcast (by tweet or whatever) where anyone could see it. Yes that lets rioters group but it also SHOULD give police a heads-up where to be. If technology is to blame for the riots then the police are almost as much to blame for allowed the riots to occur when the targets are handed to them on a digital platter beforehand.

      According to theregister, the police cannot get live intercepts for legal reason (anti-wiretapping laws). However, any messages that are archived are fair game. And you can assume safely that RIM is now archiving any message sent in the UK, and that this information will be used.

    22. Re:I call bullshit by N1AK · · Score: 1

      I expect this merely another consequence of the British austerity package.

      I doubt a moral person, faced with higher student loans (even trying to pretend it is harder to find money to attend uni now is a joke, justifying taking on the level of debt however...) would decide that stealing new trainers from JD sports was a logical and reasonable response.
      There are underlying issues, there are some genuine grievances and it will be a shame if these are entirely ignored. However, the behaviour over the last few nights has vastly more to do with greed, ignorance and malice than anything else.

    23. Re:I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually blaming technology isn't totally baseless twitter sms and other instant messengers are used to gather flash mobs all the time it's no different here. People are exploiting tech to help organize large groups of thugs and since London cops aren't armed like in the US most of the assclown rioters in the UK have little to nothing to fear outside of being detained and fined. If this keeps up the British will deploy water cannons and plastic bullets and if that fails they can call in the Army. This is no longer about the police shooting someone this is about young asshats having fun trashing and stealing shit for the hell of it.

    24. Re:I call bullshit by Hatta · · Score: 1

      However, the behaviour over the last few nights has vastly more to do with greed, ignorance and malice than anything else.

      The question is, why are there so many ignorant and malicious people?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    25. Re:I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its not surprising that slashdot mods you 5 for insight, but really, your gray matter is a little muddled in one opinion. Try tracking real time and prevent the idiotic torching of tinder boxes, private property and make arrests for those responsible the fire departments scramble overburdoned and police forces are sent hither to and for, while these assholes just drive away. You must be on the side of the perpetrators to not admit that the technology has a great deal to fascilitate this riotous bunch of dickless morons.

    26. Re:I call bullshit by tbannist · · Score: 1

      I, on the other hand, expect it is a consequence of being human and having your hopes dashed.

      And you need to think very carefully about whether you really want what you think you want. It seems to me that the people looting the stores of goods they could never afford are, in fact, taking responsibility for their own well-being. They've learned the lessons of capitalism and capitalists well. There is a long history of capitalists resorting to violence when they're losing.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    27. Re:I call bullshit by tbannist · · Score: 1

      I don't know, but I think it takes a lot of anger to spend your nights smashing and burning.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    28. Re:I call bullshit by treeves · · Score: 1

      Satire detector not working so well today?

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    29. Re:I call bullshit by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      In this time and age, it becomes harder and harder to detect it. Too many people actually mean that.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    30. Re:I call bullshit by xelah · · Score: 1

      Of course people have asked why they're rioting, but there aren't really any clear answers coming from the rioters except 'because its fun'. These rioters are not like those in the Middle East. They aren't chanting slogans, they aren't carrying placards and they aren't giving interviews. They aren't protesting and they aren't making demands. They're mostly targeting businesses, mostly shops, not homes or banks or government buildings. In some cases I've heard of asian businesses being particularly targeted (blacks and asians don't tend to get on in rough parts of London). They aren't rioting 'for' anything, except maybe for free televisions and alcohol.

    31. Re:I call bullshit by smelch · · Score: 1

      They're not angry though. Not a lot of them. A lot of them are having fun. My brother was all hot to trot when the Cincinnati riots happened. He wanted to go steal things. That's the way kids are. Duh.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    32. Re:I call bullshit by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      or if you really want to end things quickly

      1 ring up the NYPD and ask them to send some officers to help (and tell them they can bring friends with them)

      2 do the same with the LAPD

      3 start ringing up Pubs in the area to get "local talent"

      i would think that things would wrap up quickly after that (and the local pubs would be PACKED afterwards)

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    33. Re:I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's only the verging on far right wing fringe[..] like The Daily Mail etc.

      The Daily Mail is pretty bad, but despite being pro-MussoIini and pro-Hitler in the early 1930s, I wouldn't describe the present day Mail as "far right". They're offensively bigoted right-wingers as things stand, but certainly not as extreme as those generally described as "far right" in the UK.

    34. Re:I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A co-worker had a nice plan: take a planeload of squadies back from Afghanistan, tool them up and point them in the general direction. Wait a couple of hours, then send in the fire brigade to hose the blood off the walls. Job done.

    35. Re:I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a terrifying response. Do you really want law enforcement monitoring your personal device and delaying messages being sent? How long until they just decide a message shouldn't be sent and they cut off your communication completely?

    36. Re:I call bullshit by timeOday · · Score: 1

      This isn't civil unrest, which carries with it a political connotation, so much as it is criminal endeavor.

      I think the two may be related. Not because people wake up and think, "I'm disenfranchised, so I'm going to go join the riot and loot as a show of my dissatisfaction." But rather, you get young men who are unemployed and bored, who aren't all that worried about getting picked up on CCTV (because they don't have a good-paying job to be fired from); to whom the idea of a new TV is pretty exciting (because they don't have enough money in the bank to buy one). Here you have a criminal in the making. He may realize he is "disenfranchised" and protest peacefully, or he may simply smash a window and grab a TV. Obviously peaceful protest is preferable, but it is also much less clear how it would have any tangible result. In America, anyways, we have many more movies about anti-heroes who simply take what they want, than peaceful protestors who achieve change through nonviolent protest. If anything we tend to view protesters as whiners who would already have what they want if they just worked harder for it.

    37. Re:I call bullshit by elsurexiste · · Score: 1

      ...the real bullshit is that in any group that size, there's no way the communication is "secure", in fact it MUST be broadcast (by tweet or whatever) where anyone could see it.

      Uh, broadcast encryption exists. In fact, the principle is used for protecting Blu-Ray movies. Have you heard of widespread Blu-Ray piracy?

      --
      I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
    38. Re:I call bullshit by shugah · · Score: 1

      It's human nature and a mob mentality.

      --
      If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
    39. Re:I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoa there! He sounds like a gun nut? What do you sound like suggesting that police should be able to monitor everything you say to your friends via mobile devices? And delaying messages intentionally? What if there is a genuine emergency? Or god forbid, someone is trying to report a riot to the authorities? You can take your nanny state and keep it.

      The technology is fine. Without it, they could have just as easily yelled to each other where to go next. This problem is not solved by taking the phones from these kids. It's solved by determining why these kids are rioting to begin with and applying pressure to the wounds causing this all.

    40. Re:I call bullshit by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Then I guess the question should be why they think it's fun to riot. Somehow, I wouldn't consider it fun.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    41. Re:I call bullshit by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      it takes a lot of anger to spend your nights smashing and burning.

      It might if you had to get up and go to work in the morning or you wouldn't get anything to eat.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    42. Re:I call bullshit by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Hell the riots at least function as a makes work program.

      The broken window fallacy, quite literally.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    43. Re:I call bullshit by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Or just tool up the BNP.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    44. Re:I call bullshit by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Could you post the decrypted version?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    45. Re:I call bullshit by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Also I note that the police is state-funded, and thus obviously anti-capitalistic. Therefore any respectable capitalist should vote for doing away with police. :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    46. Re:I call bullshit by xelah · · Score: 1

      Because some people like smashing things, like the feeling of power and enjoy a sense of ownership and domination of the things around them. The police don't always help themselves by overusing stop-and-search powers on certain sections of the population, but you don't have to spend long in these areas to realize there's a strong dynamic of power relations, petty harassment, intimidation and violence.

      I remember, once in Tottenham, having to go and rescue my grocery delivery driver from the local youths. He retreated to his cab and called the police, leaving me to guard my shopping while about 6 youths, one on a moped, circled me and the van. They plainly weren't interested in serious violence or robbery, they just wanted to intimidate, disrupt and exert power over others for fun. Many people in the area are perfectly normal and sane, but there are enough career single mothers and dysfunctional parents who don't care at all for their children's futures to make it an uncomfortable place to live.

    47. Re:I call bullshit by causality · · Score: 2

      Then I guess the question should be why they think it's fun to riot. Somehow, I wouldn't consider it fun.

      You're asking the right questions, the deeper questions that come closer to a full understanding of how and why these things happen.

      Unfortunately it is common to encounter resistance from people who are either small-minded and don't consider a fuller understanding to be possible, or are so preoccupied with their "shit hitting the fan" mentality that they are annoyed you don't share their sense of urgency. I suppose there's not much difference.

      The real question is, why are so many young people so unhappy with their government and society that the smallest incident, such as the death of someone who apparently wasn't much of a loss, could trigger this kind of violent response.

      It is likely the rioters haven't put much thought into it themselves. They just know that something is very wrong with a corporatocracy run by power-hungry sociopaths who routinely lie to them, that they have very little say in how their government is run, that there are no legitimate "working through the system" ways to effect meaningful social and political change, that those are only for the monied interests who are already running things.

      It takes no insight or understanding to be unhappy and miserable with this, to feel like something is direly wrong someplace, to be tightly wound with anxiety and anger and require little to trigger the release. What takes understanding and insight is to see that none of this happens in a vacuum, that there are in fact reasons for it, that those reasons can be known and, if the people of the UK had the will to do it, could also be changed.

      By contrast, the immature and stupid who are devoid of understanding will start blaming inanimate objects, like they always do, and will demand control and monitoring of technology. This time it's communications technology. Previously it was alcohol, drugs, guns, etc. The mentality is the same and reveals its short-sightedness and unwillingness to look at what is right in front of it with each iteration.

      It reminds me of a wonderful quote from P.J. O'Rourke: "No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the sources of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power."

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    48. Re:I call bullshit by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      This was maybe the best worded and best thought through reply I've gotten in a long, long time.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    49. Re:I call bullshit by Rabidcat · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the use of writing and the ability to read (both could be argued as being classified as technologies) are being misused by these rioters as well. We should limit the ability for individuals to have access to these dangerous technologies so that we may protect the masses. Hmm. Dark ages anyone?

      Thing about the gun nuts is - to an extent they are right in that the technology isn't solely at fault - it takes a person to kill another person. With that said, guns are explicitly made to kill, and so limiting availability of certain types of guns is OK in my book because of this.

      Likewise regarding your statements about a time delay and police monitoring - I ask this - should we allow governments to filter what we see? Yeah sure to a certain extent this happens now in various ways but what happens if an oppressive regime has total control over communication? What then?

      --
      "When I want to do something mindless to relax, I reinstall Windows 95." - JLG
    50. Re:I call bullshit by Xest · · Score: 2

      I know that's the popular view but I'm not convinced it's true.

      They show all the sentiment of the far right- their sentiment and demands aligns directly with the BNP, but they hate homosexuals etc. to boot. The only difference is they pretend to hate the BNP because to support them isn't cool with the zeitgeist, but ultimately their policies align near perfectly.

      The Daily Mail reports that immigrants are to blame for things that they are simply not- Hitler similarly said Jews were to blame for things they were not.

      Really, the only reason The Daily Mail isn't more vividly expressing their far right beliefs is because they know they haven't quite managed to sway public sentiment that far yet. I'd bet money that if the BNP had public support to the level of say 20% - 30%, that The Daily Mail would be right behind them.

      One thing's for sure- they wouldn't rally against them.

      I don't think it's worth keeping up the charade The Daily Mail wants kept up, let's call a spade a spade- let's be realistic about what they really think, and what they'd really publish if they felt they could get away with it.

      A final point is that whilst yes, I realise The Daily Mail doesn't advocate murder of minorities like the Nazis did, let's be clear here- you don't have to go to anything like this extreme to be far right.

      The likes of The Telegraph and The Conservative Party are right wing, advocating things like fairly strict immigration caps, but little more. The Daily Mail, BNP, UKIP with their rampant xenophobia and cries for immigrants to be banned entirely/almost entirely blaming many of societies ills on them and even claiming they should be deported? Talk of racial profiling? That's far right.

    51. Re:I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to theregister, the police cannot get live intercepts for legal reason (anti-wiretapping laws).

      You're a liar. There's no such law in the UK, for the same reason as there's no law against walking on cracks in the sidewalk.

    52. Re:I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, everyone seems quite clear on who is to blame: the politicians who insitituded immigration policy that allowed any Tom, Dick or Hmungobumbu into the country.

      FTFY

    53. Re:I call bullshit by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      I expect this is consequence of falsely teaching people for years that someone else was responsible for their well-being.

      Actually, since the 1980s they've been taught that Greed Is Good.

      Advertising has shown them the things they should aspire to, whilst racial discrimination has denied them the well paying jobs that are needed to afford them.

      Crime happens more in countries where the Gini coefficient is highest. The Gini coefficient being the gap between the richest and the poorest. Thats direct proof that your assertion of socialism being at fault being the very opposite than the truth. That and the fact that your example of Britain is very far from being socialist. The gap between the rich and poor there is bigger than it's ever been.

    54. Re:I call bullshit by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      It's not about student loans. It's about youth clubs and other social services being closed down. This whilst unemployment has been rising for about 4 years. Incredibly stupid politics.

      However, the behaviour over the last few nights has vastly more to do with greed, ignorance and malice than anything else.

      And who taught kids that "Greed is good"? Who taught them that there is no such thing as society? That they should look after themselves and their families first?

    55. Re:I call bullshit by causality · · Score: 1

      This was maybe the best worded and best thought through reply I've gotten in a long, long time.

      Which would not have happened except I see that you are on the right track, looking for the real meaning. I wasn't acting alone.

      I saw also the same old story I see everywhere. It's the idiotic resistance and the failure to appreciate. To small minds, wisdom sounds very much like foolishness because it doesn't fit into anything they know. Since they imagine themselves to have all the answers, naturally anything that doesn't fit into their worldview is unwelcome. It's the difference between rationality and rationalization.

      The small mind is small because it cannot entertain an alien idea long enough to see if it finds a home, nor can it easily shed beliefs that have served their purpose. I get tired of that, the mental and psychic envrionment it fosters, and of the discouragement it can cause.

      In this I am happy to be of service.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    56. Re:I call bullshit by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Naturally, this is all socialism's fault. I know this because I dislike socialism. Anyone who disagrees with me is simply completely incorrect.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    57. Re:I call bullshit by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      I doubt a moral person

      What set of morals are we speaking of here? The average persons' morals? That was quite vague.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    58. Re:I call bullshit by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Precisely. What we need to do is punish everyone for the actions of some people who willingly break the law... by creating more laws! That'll show them.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    59. Re:I call bullshit by MechaStreisand · · Score: 1

      Where are you getting that they're unhappy with their government because they are having fun smashing things and taking things? Have any of them admitted to such feelings, or even to giving a shit about the government at all, or are you simply projecting your own feelings onto them?

      --
      Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
    60. Re:I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blaming technology for the rioting is bullshit.

      You sound like the gun nuts. Of course technology is to blame, and only a crazy person would be opposed to "reasonable" controls on mobile devices, such as registration. We're not talking about banning mobile devices, just common-sense solutions like police monitoring of messages and maybe some small waiting period on messages to keep this sort of thing from happening.

      At least RIMM seems reasonable, and has "engaged with the authorities to assist in any way we can." Why can't you be like them?

      Mobile computing is a privilege, not a right.

      You're trying to be funny..... or your brain is broken.

    61. Re:I call bullshit by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      In this time and age, it becomes harder and harder to detect it. Too many people actually mean that.

      Poe's law should not apply only to religion.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    62. Re:I call bullshit by rcbutcher · · Score: 1

      Indeed - law enforcement needs to be able to monitor digital communications, anonymously, without identifyinjg individuals, to detect probabilities of mass instant social aggregation, and to respond accordingly. I.e. if the stats look like a riot forming, they have grounds for listening in. Police also need to be able to use the same technology themselves to respond quicker. I understand that you need police permission the form a large orderly demonstration - hence if social media traffic predicts a large gathering forming rapidly, then police are within their right to act... Dixon of Dock Green meets cyberwarfare.

    63. Re:I call bullshit by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Technology has resulted in more people joining the riots than otherwise would have. Most of those involved were not just sitting at home watching TV when they decided to go and join in the fun, they were encouraged by others. Previously that would have required people to talk to each other face to face or on the phone, but now anyone can send a note to hundreds of others in a few clicks.

      Even the nature of communication has played a part. Speaking to someone where you can judge their tone and respond to them is quite different to simply getting a tweet or text.

      Technology didn't cause the riots on the first place and those using it are responsible for their actions, but it definitely did amplify the violence.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    64. Re:I call bullshit by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Actually it is the opposite. If you teach people that they have no prospects, no chance of a good life with a reasonable job and living wage, and what is more society hates them and thinks they are benefit cheats and general scum... Well, is it any wonder they start acting that way?

      Socialism isn't about giving one person another person's money, it is about creating a society where everyone has an opportunity to make something of themselves. Not a hand-out, an opportunity that it is up to them to take and make something of themselves with.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    65. Re:I call bullshit by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I learned that from a friend of mine, an MD. Curing the symptom rarely leads to improved health unless you find the underlying disease. Likewise, fixing a bug to make the code compile does not lead to a better program if you don't know why it didn't compile in the first place. Most likely, either only leads to a more complicated situation where finding the real issue becomes harder.

      Cracking down on the riots will certainly cure the symptom. The disease will go on, though. It will fester and get worse.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    66. Re:I call bullshit by coolmadsi · · Score: 1

      Actually - when riots occur - shut down the mobile phone networks and allow only emergency calls. That would be limiting the ability for people to communicate, but especially those that are roaming around rioting.

      It would also limit the ability for people to communicate to their parents/children/significant others that they have not been killed/injured/robbed in the riots. These people would probably just call the police saying "I can't contact [person] and am worried they have been caught up in the riots"

    67. Re:I call bullshit by phlinn · · Score: 1

      I was responding to a post that indicated it was just a reaction to the austerity package. I chose my wording to mirror Tbannist's. If their reaction to a reduction in services that the government honestly can't afford is to go out and riot, then they must believe that they have some sort of intrinsic right to those benefits (ok, some may just believe that violence isn't intrinsically bad but I'm assuming those are in the minority). That belief was instilled in them by the existence of those programs. I'm not sure the riots were a response to the austerity package in the first place, but if they were, those social programs either allowed them to keep a false belief or taught it to them. I probably shouldn't have used the same wording he did merely for the purpose on contrast, because I don't actually know enough about the beliefs of the rioters. I have heard some fairly damning recordings of the statements of a few of them, but given that the sources directing me to those recordings were right wing, it may be a form of selection bias.

      --
      "Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
    68. Re:I call bullshit by phlinn · · Score: 1

      You can claim socialism is about whatever you want. Nonetheless, it requires as an intrinsic component the confiscation of some people's wealth to provide services to other people.

      The reaction of people who benefit from socialist programs is generally either guilt/shame and an effort to work their way off of the service OR to convince themselves that they have a right to those services because they don't want to feel guilty about benefiting at the expense of others. Which response do you think is more common among the rioters?

      --
      "Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
    69. Re:I call bullshit by phlinn · · Score: 1

      No, they are forcefully making someone else responsible for their well being via theft. And there is a long history of robbers resorting to violence when they don't get what they want. Actual capitalists rely on voluntary cooperation for their gains. Once they resort to violence, they've given up on the free market. Unfortunately, because they pretended to be capitalists when it suited them, others thought they remained so even when they engaged in behavior that is incompatible with the original definition of the term. I'll probably have to use the phrase "free market capitalists" to keep it clear, but it's worth remembering that the actual term does not include people who engage in things like regulatory capture.

      --
      "Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
    70. Re:I call bullshit by phlinn · · Score: 1

      Do you actually have a cite for a correlation between Gini Coefficient and crime rates by country? I can find some for within the us, but there are issues with comparing gini coefficients between countries. I found one based on religious crime in particular, but not overall crime rates or violent crime rates.

      The gini coefficient for income does not factor in benefits in some cases. This undercuts your basic argument.

      --
      "Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
    71. Re:I call bullshit by tbannist · · Score: 1

      No, they are forcefully making someone else responsible for their well being via theft.

      I don't see how "theft" makes "someone else responsible for their well being". If taking something isn't being responsible, how can the capitalist who takes the product of his employee's work be responsible? Stealing isn't legal, moral, or ethical, but I can't see how it's not self-interested. I can see how it may end up being self-destructive (for example when a person gets caught and sent to prison) but they are definitely taking actions to improve their own situation. Not smart actions, not moral actions, but actions none-the-less.

      Actual capitalists rely on voluntary cooperation for their gains. Once they resort to violence, they've given up on the free market.

      That's the "No True Scotsman" fallacy right there. Capitalists are human, they resort to violence when stressed. Only Ayn Rand's caricatures of businessmen are free of anger, hate, and violence. The more competitive the businessman the more likely he is to cheat, lie, and steal to win. Hiring goons to injure, kill, or destroy your competitors has fallen out of favor because it's so easy for the police to follow the trail right back to the businessman's door.

      Capitalists rely on a societal agreement concerning the use of violence, and the coercive nature of the scarcity of resources to compel their employees to work. They pay their employee a fraction of the value of the goods and/or services that they produce, use a fraction to pay the business costs and then pocket the rest. Increasingly these capitalists have forgotten about the societal agreement on the use of violence and it's critical importance to the entire machine. They have steadily diminished the fraction that the employees get paid while greatly increasing the fraction they take for themselves. Most do not understand that if the majority does not prosper, the compact against the use of violence (which is what allows capitalism to work in the first place) can and, most likely will, be revoked. Corruption and greed are eroding the foundations of capitalism.

      But that's just my interpretation of recent history.

      There is a real problem with assigning the term "free market capitalists" to be people who do thing you like and then removing anyone from the group who does something you don't like. It can create a fairy tale of the mind where your beliefs are sheltered from disappointment by willful disregard for reality. In my experience, disregarding reality is a surefire recipe for disaster.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    72. Re:I call bullshit by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      You can claim socialism is about whatever you want. Nonetheless, it requires as an intrinsic component the confiscation of some people's wealth to provide services to other people.

      If taxation is theft then your options are a relatively low level of theft in exchange for services or massive theft by a militia in exchange for "protection".

      As to your question you are looking at the effect, not the cause. If you have no chance of ever improving your lot in life and society thinks you are scum anyway that is the cause which leads to the effects you mention.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    73. Re:I call bullshit by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Do you actually have a cite for a correlation between Gini Coefficient and crime rates by country?

      There have been many such studies.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality

      http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=crime+gini+index+correlation&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&redir_esc=&ei=aNpCTrfNL8GGhQfWmpXcCQ

    74. Re:I call bullshit by phlinn · · Score: 1

      It's not quite no true Scotsman. The issue is that Scotsman does not in fact define anything incompatible with any given behavior, so pretending a Scotsman wouldn't do X and then denying evidence is faulty. Capitalist does. If someone rejects the premises of capitalism, they can't legitimately be called capitalists. It's not a "no true Scotsman" fallacy if you point out that someone isn't a Scotsman because they don't have a single ancestor from Scotland and don't live there themselves. It's also not a fallacy to say someone isn't a pacifist if they go around starting fights.

      Capitalists do not compel employees. They persuade them. "If you perform work X for me, I will pay you Y" is persuasion, as there is no threat or use of force. They may be exploiting a situation such that the employee needs the money too badly to say no, but unless they actually caused that situation there is still no coercion, no matter how bad that situation is. Now, I would suggest that in light of a bad situation it is good to help someone out of it (there's a reason I'm not an objectivist) but choosing not to do so is neither good nor bad.

      --
      "Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
    75. Re:I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then where does FOX fit into this? FOX is most definetly BS but they don't transmit in encryted format (we can only wish).

    76. Re:I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mobile computing is a privilege, not a right.

      Not in my country, sir . http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=es&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=es&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.conectarigualdad.gob.ar%2F

    77. Re:I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blaming technology for the rioting is bullshit.

      You sound like the gun nuts. Of course technology is to blame, and only a crazy person would be opposed to "reasonable" controls on mobile devices, such as registration. We're not talking about banning mobile devices, just common-sense solutions like police monitoring of messages and maybe some small waiting period on messages to keep this sort of thing from happening.

      At least RIMM seems reasonable, and has "engaged with the authorities to assist in any way we can." Why can't you be like them?

      Mobile computing is a privilege, not a right.

      TIT!

      Have you even fucking heard of free speech u chop!

      Who says what can and can't be filtered or observed? And who said they could or couldn't. Nope, this is a bad Idea!

      Again, u are a TIT!

  3. round 'em up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Send fake messages about the next location and be there waiting...

    1. Re:round 'em up by rubycodez · · Score: 2

      and pay some inciters to heat things up, a bigger riot will afford more police the opportunity to look like heroes. Maybe even stage another shooting.

    2. Re:round 'em up by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      At this point, regardless of individual beliefs... I'm sure that they would prefer to NOT have rioting than incite more riots.

    3. Re:round 'em up by Grumbleduke · · Score: 1

      And the more riots there are, the more chance for the AP et al. to get nice pictures to license out to the tabloids for tomorrow's front pages. Earlier, apparently, Sky News had a ticker thing listing places that didn't have police protection, until importantish people complained and it got taken down. But then, that's what comes from having mainstream media more interested in selling newspapers than anything else.

    4. Re:round 'em up by rubycodez · · Score: 0

      The UK has been moving to becoming a police state, more riots could speed things along for those in power to move the agenda along. Similar to situation we have here in USA, where FBI and Homeland Security find impressionable punks of low-intelligence, fill their heads with violent talk, provide them with weapons or fake bombs and plans for attempting to use the same, then arrest the lot with fanfare and accolades and mutual back patting all around. Thus providing justification for more funding, more stringent measures, less liberty, etc.

    5. Re:round 'em up by digitig · · Score: 1

      And they wouldn't be able to do anything because of their incitement.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    6. Re:round 'em up by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      Take off your tinfoil hat for a second... do you really think a government can survive ongoing civil unrest?

    7. Re:round 'em up by causality · · Score: 3, Informative

      At this point, regardless of individual beliefs... I'm sure that they would prefer to NOT have rioting than incite more riots.

      They are called agent provocateurs. If you have never heard of them and have never read of instances in which they are known to have been used, and why, then no offense but you are ignorant about this subject and should not be stating your "certainties" lest you become the blind leading the blind...

      Most people are blissfully unaware of just how devious their governments actually are. Also, "expanding government for the sake of power" is not an "individual belief". It is very much a shared ideal.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    8. Re:round 'em up by dave562 · · Score: 1

      I don't think the OP was suggesting ongoing unrest. The message I got from it was that the FBI and DHS could setup people and then catch them before they became violent, then use the arrests to further an agenda of implementing more controls over the population. It is not that far fetched. They already find impressionable Muslims at mosques, offer to provide them with weapons, encourage them to plan an attack, and then arrest them for doing so.

    9. Re:round 'em up by StoneyMahoney · · Score: 1

      There aren't enough police to deal with this. The agitators have figured that out and are taking advantage of it. Police state my arse! Who's rhetoric have you been listening to? *spits*

    10. Re:round 'em up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what I've seen so far, the problem the police face is that they're massively outnumbered. They managed to put 6,000 police on the streets last night, tonight they're hoping for 16,000 and they'll still be outnumbered. Gathering all those people in one place is probably the last thing they want right now - the looting is probably detracting from the fighting, but group them all together and try to arrest them and see how long that lasts. The politicos don't want to break out the heavy response gear just yet, probably partly because it was a police shooting that lit the fuse on all this and partly I'd guess because they don't want to be seen as the violent reactionary government in light of all the other instances of reactionary violent governments we've seen over the last year or so. How long that stance can last as the violence and looting spreads to other areas is the question.

    11. Re:round 'em up by delinear · · Score: 1

      I don't doubt GP is being paranoid, but remember, government != police. At a time when the police are facing huge budget cuts and potential job losses, it's not going to hurt their cause when they can point to massive civil unrest as a reason why they need the extra money. I don't think they'd go so far as to incite riots, but they certainly have more to gain from them than the government.

    12. Re:round 'em up by cavreader · · Score: 2

      Yeah, Police State. Why don't you grab your passport and go visit some real police states in the world at least then you will know what you are talking about. You must just be upset because you are one of those "impressionable punks of low-intelligence" and people are treating you like one. And you don't need the FBI to "fill their heads with violent talk, provide them with weapons or fake bombs and plans for attempting to use the same" when the Internet is doing such a bang up job on a global scale.

    13. Re:round 'em up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do a couple Kent States and hand some life sentences to rioters for "terrorism" acts, and most modern governments (especially the US that has a very small youth population) can withstand any civil unrest. Protestors won't be gathering for much if they start having to dodge mini 14 rounds.

    14. Re:round 'em up by tbannist · · Score: 1

      A government can survive for years with civil unrest, as long as it can maintain the pretense that the unrest is caused by "vile criminals" and not "the good people of this country". Of course, the heavy foot of government always takes it's toll and the government will eventually collapse, but it can linger for a very long time as a quasi-police state.

      You just need to look at the Middle East. The U.S. hadn't invaded Iraq, Saddam might still be dictator there (or maybe he would have been another victim of the "Arab Spring"), Iran has managed to maintain control despite obviously faking election results. Syria is attempting to use the military to stamp out civil unrest. Gaddafi is still holding on in Libya despite losing half the country. Saudi Arabia is run by a repressive monarchy. The list goes on and on. It's not the fact that there's civil unrest, it's the magnitude and duration of the civil unrest that eventually topples a government.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    15. Re:round 'em up by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      don't need enough police to deal with it, this is not mainstream society rioting

      Mainstream news sources of the UK (mainly bbc), actions and policy of their government, are the basis for my declaration they are heading toward a police state.

    16. Re:round 'em up by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      I have traveled to police states. moreover, I say the UK and USA are "heading in that direction", not that they have arrived yet. You are ignorant of your own situation.

    17. Re:round 'em up by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      I'm well aware of agent provocateurs... however widespread civil unrest WITHIN YOUR OWN NATION is not generally the aim of agent provocateurs. Their use is normally to destabilise foreign sovereign nations, not your own.

    18. Re:round 'em up by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Ongoing civil unrest by a tiny portion of its young minority populace? yes, it can survive forever.

    19. Re:round 'em up by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      False, the "agent provocateurs" were employed recently in the "austerity measure" riots recently.

      These UK riots are not by mainstream society, so the government is in no danger. Some civilian police officers might get maimed or killed, but that is another matter.

    20. Re:round 'em up by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      In the US the youth population isn't the one dangerous to the Government.

      In the US the 25-55 year old male population is the one dangerous to the government, that is the population with access to firearms, legal and crafted explosives and who have a perceived grudge against the Government.

      Think OKC bombing, the Milita movement, the Freemen, Branch Dividians, Ruby Ridge, Sovereign Citizens movement.

    21. Re:round 'em up by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Israel has done just fine with a long run of civilian unrest.

    22. Re:round 'em up by causality · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm well aware of agent provocateurs... however widespread civil unrest WITHIN YOUR OWN NATION is not generally the aim of agent provocateurs. Their use is normally to destabilise foreign sovereign nations, not your own.

      The first thing that came up when I Googled this subject was the FBI's COINTELPRO operation. Guess who it targeted? US citizens. A US law enforcement agency using agent provocateurs to target US citizens. That should qualify as "within your own nation" (even without the caps lock). You talk like this is somehow unheard-of. It is not, not by a long shot.

      COINTELPRO was intended to disrupt political groups within the US. These include the Ku Klux Klan, the Black Panthers, and others.

      Oh, and the New York City police were known to use these tactics against the protesters of the 2004 National Republican Convention... in New York City. I'd say both of those are within the USA.

      If you are a government official, your own nation is what you should be most concerned about. Whether you want to work towards martial law or whether you want to get rid of pesky opposition groups, this is logically the case once you have power-hungry people who love power for its own sake, whose only concern is whether something will obtain the results they desire.

      The purpose of an agent provocateur is to cause someone to break the law. It's the kind of thing that would be called "entrapment" if a police officer openly did it. So they act through proxies. What you're thinking of is something similarly devious but with a different goal. What you're thinking of is more like the way the US used its intelligence agencies to destabilize Iran in the 1950s and overthrow its democratically elected government, replacing it with a dictator. Yes, that is one possible use of this kind of technique, but you limit yourself if you really do not see how it could be applied domestically.

      To tell me you are well informed about this subject but had no idea it wasn't limited to only one very specific, narrow use ... well, it sounds like an absurd attempt to save face.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    23. Re:round 'em up by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      So you believe that widespread civil unrest in Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, London is not mainstream... and is equivalent to the unproved allegation of agent provocateurs during the Greek austerity riots in Athens only?

    24. Re:round 'em up by treeves · · Score: 1

      There's "dangerous to the government", but what about dangerous government? At least two of your examples raise that question.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    25. Re:round 'em up by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      You missed the non-caps lock part... widespread civil unrest benefits no-one when it is within your own state.

    26. Re:round 'em up by Cederic · · Score: 1

      They managed to put 6,000 police on the streets last night, tonight they're hoping for 16,000 and they'll still be outnumbered.

      All those police had to come from somewhere. It's not coincidence that other cities in the UK are suffering violence already tonight..

    27. Re:round 'em up by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      I just heard what a crime expert had to say on the situation, while Britain is police-stating it up they're cutting funding for the police as well, they try to maintain a harsh atmosphere but are cutting the size of the police force they'd need to actually maintain it.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    28. Re:round 'em up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missed the non-caps lock part... widespread civil unrest benefits no-one when it is within your own state.

      I think you missed the non-caps lock part... where he cited a bunch of examples and explained the motivation for such actions. You - bald assertions, him - researched response. And then you respond again with a meaningless post of foot-stamping "I said it so it is true!"

    29. Re:round 'em up by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      I just heard what a crime expert had to say on the situation, while Britain is police-stating it up they're cutting funding for the police as well, they try to maintain a harsh atmosphere but are cutting the size of the police force they'd need to actually maintain it.

      There are plenty of police in the UK. But thanks to EU legislation they spend most of their time filling out forms rather than dealing with crimes.

      Which is good if you want to avoid a police state, but not so good when you want someone to catch the thugs who are trying to burn down your store.

    30. Re:round 'em up by xelah · · Score: 1

      The Soviet Union used to use agents provocateurs to catch potential dissidents. Sometimes they lost the paperwork and shot their own agents.

      The UK riots aren't mainstream society, but a lot of local residents and business owners are getting very upset indeed. The government most certainly will be in danger if the riots continue - not from the rioters, but from everyone else.

    31. Re:round 'em up by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      this is not the widespread civil unrest you are looking for, this is by some afro-carribeans and other minorities. every one of them could flop over dead tomorrow and the government would still have its taxpayers, workers, voters. This is not the kind of civil unrest that is a threat to government

    32. Re:round 'em up by cavreader · · Score: 1

      I am fully aware of my situation thank you very much now run along to the "World is Ending" rally where you can talk,text,scream, and tweet with all the other morons about the direction the world is taking according to the holy wisdom spouting from the well of truth and righteousness commonly referred to as the Internet.

    33. Re:round 'em up by causality · · Score: 0

      You missed the non-caps lock part... widespread civil unrest benefits no-one when it is within your own state.

      The AC has already done me the favor of pointing out your second instance of absurdity so I didn't have to.

      Instead I'll take this a different direction.

      The problem with not being enough of an adult to say "hey, that's interesting information I wasn't aware of before and/or didn't fully appreciate the significance of, thank you for pointing this out" is that your effort to save face just makes you look more ridiculous. Let's review.

      Fact: you stated that there is no good reason why the government would want more riots. I advised that provoking the political groups they don't like until they do something they can actually be prosecuted for is a potential motivation. It's dirty and underhanded as hell, but it is a tactic that does happen from time to time. I mentioned that the people who do this are called agent provocateurs.

      Fact: you were unaware of the full scope of how agent provocateurs are used. You had this false idea that they are rarely or never used domestically. I tried to correct you on this and explain that you are likely to mislead others when you speak regarding a subject you really don't know much about. Did you appreciate that, did you see how your actions led up to someone saying this to you? No, you didn't. You continued to insist that they tend to be used only for foreign governments.

      Fact: I gave you some solid, well-documented, easily-researched examples of the domestic use of such agents. This falsifies your original notion. There is no middle ground or shade of grey here. Your initial notion was simply, plainly, demonstrably wrong.

      Fact: you have neither the honesty nor the courage to admit you were wrong. Apparently you think admitting fault is a sign of weakness. No, it isn't, it's a sign of adulthood that you're willing to admit when you are wrong and correct the false notion. So you play the old "stick to your guns" tactic and with this most recent post, to which this is a response, you start repeating yourself as though that nullifies the evidence I have presented to you.

      Do you think you're convincing anyone?

      Anyway that's the problem with trying these lame, transparent stunts in an attempt to save face. The more you try to do this, the more ridiculous you look. Now if you admit fault you're admitting not only that you were wrong but also that you tried twice to hand-wave your way out of it and cover it up. That's worse than if you just admitted you were wrong the first time it was made obvious to everyone.

      You're only embarassing yourself. Keep at it if, for some reason, you have an appetite for humiliation. As for me, I'm moving on. It sure does get tiresome when so many people keep trying to do this. I take no pleasure in it.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    34. Re:round 'em up by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      nope, riots done by a minority of the population that could flop over dead tomorrow without affecting votes, taxes, work or economy. When the pasty white 22 to 45 year olds are burning the place down, wake me up to get the popcorn going, I love a good revolution that doesn't need english subtitles on cnn

      Greece? nope, guess again

    35. Re:round 'em up by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      And you appear to be ignoring the intent of my statement, because of your desperate need to be right. I have not entirely discounted that governments do it, I used the word 'generally' for a reason. I just don't believe that it's the case here. There's a diference between dismantling political groups inside the US and mass rioting in the UK, can you provide me with an example of a riot that has been deliberately incited in the UK by agent provocateurs?

  4. The thin veneer of civilisation by petes_PoV · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A few months ago the western world wailed loudly when some arab countries terminated internet and mobile phone connections because it was thought to be assisting their local rioters. Here we have a supposedly democratic country where, at the first sign of trouble, government officials are suggesting exactly the same thing.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by gibletparade · · Score: 4, Informative

      But these people are not using tech to organise a campaign for democracy. They are living in a democracy, using tech to organise theft and destruction of that democracy.

      It isn't Aung San Suu Kyi we're dealing with here. It's these clueless bitches: http://audioboo.fm/boos/434411-leana-hosea-speaks-to-croydon-looters-on-bbcworldservice

      Who is suggesting terminating connections? I'm happy with tapping.

    2. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely, spot on!

      Use the technology against the little brats.

    3. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      All I know is that it's good when kids use it to fight the power in countries whose governments we don't like. But it's bad when kids use it to fight the power in countries whose governments we do like. And it's downright fucking criminal if any thug punks *dare* to do it in *OUR* country!!!

      Kind of reminds me of the old Reagan days--when labor unions were awful in the U.S., but wonderful in Poland.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    4. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by medv4380 · · Score: 1

      It'll bit them soon enough since some were foolish enough to post their loot on facebook. Really? They have no idea what this tech is capable of and it's just going to be used to root them out once everything is said and done.

    5. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      But you don't understand we as the western world liked those Arab rioters, these ones in London must be mentally disturbed individuals who are bent on bringing down western civilization. If left to their own devices dogs and cats might start getting along. In a free country one should not be able to freely assemble and petition their government.

      Now that I have that out of the way this seems like the perfect reason to crack down and expand police powers. While there is a difference between protesters and rioters it isn't hard to turn the former into the latter if the situation is already charged. As I haven't been following the story very closely I don't know how these riots have been playing. Buy hey government perspective why let a good crisis go to waste.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    6. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by elrous0 · · Score: 0

      You think there wasn't any looting or burning the Egyptian protests?!?!? Ha ha, why don't you ask Zahi Hawass (head of the Egyptian Museum) what he thinks of all those wonderful heroic protesters for democracy?

      Face it, when revolutionaries are protesting against a government you like--you call them criminals/looters/thugs. When they're protesting against a government you don't like--they're freedom fighters/heroes/protesters.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    7. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      From reading the article (which I head to search for through Google because it was subscriber locked), no one is suggesting terminating phone or internet connections. Do you have other sources of information?

      The most likely explanation is that the police can't handle these riots, they don't have a large enough force to stop them from happening. So they are trying to stop people at the source, keep them from getting organized. Which actually they can't do either, but they are hoping that by making a big noise about how they are spying in the Blackberry network, and on Twitter and Facebook, enough people will get scared that they've lost their anonymity that they will stop going online to organize. It might work, if the people don't feel strongly enough about whatever issue is causing them to riot.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by krinderlin · · Score: 1

      It isn't Aung San Suu Kyi we're dealing with here. It's these clueless bitches: http://audioboo.fm/boos/434411-leana-hosea-speaks-to-croydon-looters-on-bbcworldservice

      WOW.

      It's like...all those movies about hoodlum chav's we see in America are true. Way to go UK.

    9. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by jpapon · · Score: 1
      I agree, it's quite hypocritical. The one major difference is that police haven't started to fire live rounds into the crowds.

      Of course, if you look at some of the comments posted on the Guardian's website, you'll find that there are plenty of people screaming that the police should do exactly that. "Just start shooting". Sometimes I really wonder about the human race...

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    10. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by Deviate_X · · Score: 1

      A few months ago the western world wailed loudly when some arab countries terminated internet and mobile phone connections because it was thought to be assisting their local rioters. Here we have a supposedly democratic country where, at the first sign of trouble, government officials are suggesting exactly the same thing.

      I don’t know who was wailing, but privileging and terminating communications is a valid and good and peaceful way to disrupt social unrest. Rather than simply starting to shoot at people.

    11. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Supposedly democratic is probably the best way to describe the UK.

    12. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by gibletparade · · Score: 1
      Protesters are protesters. Looters are looters. Listen to the audio. Which are they?

      They think people with businesses are rich. In their town, charities burned yesterday.

      The last protest was a peaceful one on Saturday night, about the entirely legitimate concern that the police shot a man dead. Bored idiots have been looting since then. The distinction is clear, and the family of the deceased man have spoken out against the looting. The distinction is equally clear in the Egyptian case.

      And I don't like this government a bit, but we had a vote etc.

    13. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      I would say that the truth is that both paradigms are involved... you have some who are truly interested in change, and some that are just after a new TV.

    14. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by MarkvW · · Score: 1

      Control vs. KAOS. Yes, I've seen this all before.

    15. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by inhuman_4 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A few months ago the western world wailed loudly when some arab countries terminated internet and mobile phone connections because it was thought to be assisting their local rioters.

      No the western world wailed because they were shutting down networks to suppress freedom of speech. Much of the Arab spring started out as peaceful protests demanding democratic reform. The governments responded with massive censorship which included shutting down social networks. Most of this censorship was in place well before the violence started.

      What is happening in London has nothing to do with free speech or political/social reform. It's just mass vandalism.

      It's the difference between shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater and suppressing criticism of the government. Both are preventing people from saying things, but only one is a freedom of expression issue.

    16. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by StoneyMahoney · · Score: 1

      Despite everyone calling them protestors, these people aren't even using the pretence of any kind of political message or resistance to anything at all. I have no problem with governments shutting down comms and calling in the army to deal with roaming gangs of criminals and anyone who says they're anything more than that is woefully uninformed. It seems to have developed like this:

      Step 1 - Peaceful protest by family and friends after a guy got shot dead by police and the complaints process meant they couldn't talk to his family
      Step 2 - Bunch of morons spot a flashpoint where they could have a go at the police and violently hijack the protest
      Step 3 - Several groups launch preordained plans to loot specific targets after previously predicting the above opportunity
      Step 4 - News of the looting spreads and a large number of spontaneous groups form to loot other targets spread across London
      Step 5 - Looting breaks down into general vandalism, widespread gratuitous destruction of property results

      Damn right we're a democratic country, no-one is protesting against the government, there is no uprising to crush, it's civil disobedience without political intent and if the army needs to be deployed or some comms systems messed around with to maintain the democratic rights and personal safety and liberty of the majority, they have my complete blessing!

    17. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by Hatta · · Score: 0

      They're living in a supposed democracy, and expressing frustration at their actual disenfranchisement. If these people had opportunities, this would never happen. Social unrest doesn't come out of nowhere. The state is always at fault for creating conditions ripe for social unrest.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    18. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by Deviate_X · · Score: 1

      Looting, burning and general mayhem is the norm of any protest which actually causes a change. Ghandi and Martin Luther King are the rare exceptions.

    19. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by digitig · · Score: 1

      Hasn't the army already said it can't help because they're already overextended in the Middle East? I think your analysis of the steps is about right; not all rioters are doing it for the same reasons.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    20. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the authorities that proposed this are chosen by the majority of the population with democratic elections, not a hand-full of people that gain and keep their power through death and terror.

      So, no, it's NOT the same thing.

    21. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      Missed the point by *that* much.

    22. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Interesting but how is smashing windows and grabbing TV sets, burning down a bank after you fail to get the money out of ATMs, and burning peoples cars fighting the power and not just plain looting?
      Are these kids fighting for the right to vote? I guess the funniest or saddest thing I saw was on the BBC this young woman that was wearing somewhat expensive cloths was standing in while people where looting a store and telling the reporter it was about "respect". She said, "If you want us to respect you than you must respect us first.".
      This is a looting spree. Even the shooting looks like the person shot had a gun. At first they said it was just a replica but if and adult pulls what looks like a gun on an officer and points it at them do you wait to see if a bullet comes out of it? Now the BBC says it was a real gun. I don't know but could this be a case of the Police where right and people are jumping to conclusions and then bands of criminals are exploiting the situation?
      Really you need to get a clue. This is criminal violence going down in a democracy it is not a peaceful protest. Also notice that the police are not shooting people on site and are trying to decrease the violence with a minimum of force. It is a shame that people can not see the difference.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    23. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by StoneyMahoney · · Score: 1

      I don't even know if there's enough reservists left to call up to have any impact, a lot of them have already been tapped for Afghanistan. Even if they're available, don't think they'll be ready for deployment until tomorrow at the earliest.

    24. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by nogginthenog · · Score: 2

      They're not protesting - they're looting (a Londoner here...).

    25. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you die in a fire

      TV educated, demotivated, welfare state bred louts. This is what they want for you and yours. Be sure to vote for more of it at the next opportunity; it has been working so well.

    26. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Rioters in the West are fucking yobs who don't have an agenda other than destruction. They loot for fun. They are public enemies, not victims of the state.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    27. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by StoneyMahoney · · Score: 2

      They aren't fighting the power for any political ends, they're looting and burning for their own personal gain and enjoyment. These are the kind of people governments are supposed to protect us against.

      But here's a hypothetical situation. Imagine some leader all these idiots respect rose up, gathered them together, charged them up with political messages about their deprivation over the decades, gave them politically astute targets to attack, disciplined them to stick to the mission and *then* let them loose, THEN you'd have a point, I'd be out there providing medical assitance for them all not typing this, and a neo-capitalist government might actualy have to make changes to make the lives of the poor better instead of sucking all the wealth up to the top. Oh, if only...

    28. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      And I don't like this government a bit, but we had a vote etc.

      Indeed we did but the combination of a broken system and political backroom deals meant the government we got doesn't really represent the voters. In particular the lib dems buddied up with the tories despite being traditional regarded as closer to labour.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    29. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by delinear · · Score: 1

      Supposedly democratic is probably the best way to describe just about any country that claims to have a democracy. I've never seen a single one that's fully democratic.

    30. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by lgarner · · Score: 1

      I don't know but could this be a case of the Police where right and people are jumping to conclusions and then bands of criminals are exploiting the situation?

      No. Impossible. That could never happen. These aren't criminals breaking into local stores and stealing, they're "disaffected youth" and they're "redistributing wealth." Haven't you been paying attention?

      Seriously, if someone points what appears to be a gun, whether it's a real gun, starter's pistol, or replica, there's no such thing as "excessive force" when responding in my opinion. It takes only an instant for a trigger to be pulled, and if you wait until then to respond it's too late.

    31. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by 0-until-pink · · Score: 3, Informative

      Have you been following the London riots at all? I suggest looking at some of the links marked #londonriots on Twitter. You don't need an account. These kids are not fighting the power. They are smashing up and looting locally owned stores in their community and setting fire to buildings with people asleep upstairs in them and then actively preventing fire fighters from putting out the fires.
      I'm not sure what that has to do with labor union demos?

    32. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by Bongo · · Score: 1

      Er, the Egyptian bloggers have been saying, words to the effect, we protested for democracy, but you people are rioting to loot and burn?

      The Egyptians know how to make this distinction.

    33. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by Bongo · · Score: 2

      The girlfriend of the guy shot by the police said that these riots have nothing to do with the shooting. She said people are just using it as an excuse. She defended her boyfriend, said he'd never have been carrying a gun, but she also said the riots have nothing to do with that shooting. It is just people looting, and she was upset by it.

    34. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 2

      Not all protests are peaceful. The triggering incident in this case was the shooting of an unarmed man, and the beating of a teenage girl by the police. These protestors want the police and the government to respect them, and they are showing that by disrespecting the laws they have been forced to live under.

      From a sociological perspective, any group of people who are disadvantaged enough will eventually revolt. In that light there is no difference between the London riots and the Egyptian revolution. The people in both cases were mistreated, and have grown up in poverty, and it does not matter whether it was democratic programs or dictatorship that did it to them.

      I applaud any technology that helps the disadvantaged send a message to the people in power. Sometimes it's going to be violent. That's not the fault of the technology; it's the fault of the leaders who allowed their country to have such disparity in wealth and civil rights.

      --
      Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
    35. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am sure the rulers of Egypt and Syria are making the exact same arguments - The rioters are using technology to supplant the legitimate authority.

    36. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by oursland · · Score: 2

      "Yes," said the young man. "You wouldn't be talking to me now if we didn't riot, would you?"

      The TV reporter from Britain's ITV had no response. So the young man pressed his advantage. "Two months ago we marched to Scotland Yard, more than 2,000 of us, all blacks, and it was peaceful and calm and you know what? Not a word in the press. Last night a bit of rioting and looting and look around you."

      source

      Your argument is that they're not fighting for democracy, but the reality is that they are. They are given a choice to vote amongst candidates who do not represent them, and ignore them when they make peaceful demands to be heard.

      Traditional wisdom on democracy is "1 vote, 1 voice" but when no one represents you your vote is wasted on a voice for someone else. As we continue to see stratification of the classes, fewer government officials will represent the common citizens and we will have a fake democracy akin to any democratic dictatorship. You can vote, but whom you elected didn't represent you, so are you really participating in a democratic system and will participating peacefully actually get results?

    37. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The point is that you hear only what you're supposed to hear. Like you only heard about protests and the struggle for democracy in Egypt, now you only hear about the looting and arson in London. You think there was only one and not the other in either location?

      Stop trusting the news until you heard both sides.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    38. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      One begets the other. Always. I cannot think of a single violent protest that didn't also include looting. You think the violent protests in Egypt and Libya were only violent against the forces of the regimes? Think again.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    39. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No-one's protesting about anything in London any more.

    40. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, they're living in a democracy where you have the right to be a poor nigga while banksters rake billions of dollars on the stock exchange. Wow an incredibly beautiful world!!

    41. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by N1AK · · Score: 1

      Indeed we did but the combination of a broken system and political backroom deals meant the government we got doesn't really represent the voters.

      More people voted for the conservatives (which are part of a coalition government now) than voted for the majority labour government last time. Funny how, as always, closed minded conservative hating people are so blindly hypocritical.

      Conservatives got 36.1% of the vote in the last election, Labour got ~35% in 2005. Labour used their time to power to ensure that the geographical constituencies were as biased as possible towards them. It was a blatant example of self interest over democracy and you like many others are far too happy to be ignorant of it.

    42. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by N1AK · · Score: 1

      Don't suppose you'd like to share some reputable sources stating he was unarmed, and for police brutality towards a teenage girl? I'm happy to give you the chance to share them, however my initial expectation is that your either trolling or unable to discern fact from noise so I'll leave it at that for now.

    43. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if they aren't true, all that matters is the perception of truth. If the police had a reputation for fair dealing then nowhere near as many people would have been prepared to believe and act on those reports.

    44. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Interesting but how is smashing windows and grabbing TV sets, burning down a bank after you fail to get the money out of ATMs, and burning peoples cars fighting the power and not just plain looting?

      Probably in the same way that looting the Egyptian Museum, burning cars and buildings, and raping reporters is fighting the power in Egypt.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    45. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      The Egyptians know how to make this distinction.

      Yeah, just ask Zahi Hawass and Laura Logan.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    46. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Problem is, terminate internet communications and you'll rile far more people. Not to mention break thousands of businesses, heavily damaging the economy.

      In other news, all I can hear are helicopters and sirens..

    47. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 0

      You're right, there's a lot of question about whether Mike Duggan was armed or not. Police say he had a gun and fired at them, but he didn't hit a thing. (A single bullet found in a police radio turns out to have come from a police weapon.)

      That caused a protest. When a 16 year old girl threw a stone at a line of riot shields and was beaten, that caused the riot.

      The best citations for these is at the Guardian's blog about the riots. Here's a good report of the Mike Duggan incident; here's one about the girl.

      If you treat people with this much disrespect, they're going to lash back violently, especially if the government has been making their lives miserable for generations already.

      --
      Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
    48. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't think mass waves of looting in the UK is people trying to tell someone something, then you must have your 'la la im not listening' ears on. Our country has just been looted to the tune of many billions by bankers, with the backing of the government, and by media barons, with complicity from the police, and noone got jail time for any of it. More damage was done to our society by these thieves and looters than by a few youths nicking TVs and burning cars. We will feel the damage from the banker looters for decades. Until the real criminals face justice the rest will have no faith in the powers that be. We have been shown that stealing in huge quantities and destroying the social fabric in the name of greed is sanctioned by government and police, Why wouldn't people want a bit for themselves?

    49. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by couchslug · · Score: 1

      They aren't "fighting the power", they are just breaking shit. Looting and burning the property of those you know are innocent isn't protest.

      The Polish labor unions didn't torch their neighbors homes and stores! They stood WITH their neighbors at great risk to themselves.

      I know many Slashdotters desperately want to see deep meaning in riots, but this is obviously more like sports hooliganism than protest.
      The rioters know most of them will get away with it, and they are having a grand old time.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    50. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      From reading the article (which I head to search for through Google because it was subscriber locked),

      Block cookies and set your referrer to google.com (use firefox plugin refcontrol) and you won't need to do that. Works for nearly every semi-paywalled newspaper.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    51. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are living in a democracy

      And therein lies the problem. We The People of the USA figured out your bullshit long ago. Democracy is synonymous with tyranny of the majority.

      Tyrants deserve death.

      CAPTCHA: circus

    52. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Here we have a supposedly democratic country where, at the first sign of trouble, government officials are suggesting exactly the same thing.

      Last I checked, "Editor of TechCrunch" is not a government position.

    53. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by PoopCat · · Score: 1

      Not that I (necessarily) disagree with you, but.. what do you think created the "kind of people governments are supposed to protect us against" in such apparently large numbers?

      If your answer is akin to "greed, maliciousness, and evil on the part of the looters", do you not suppose that those exact qualities are what the looters perceive in those in power, and that this rioting could be a way to say "they got theirs, now we're getting ours" ?

    54. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are now wonderful in China and awful in the "new" Europe.. Also, we don't consider the slightest possibility that our government is not liked by a significant portion of our society who thinks our government is fucking criminal terrorist organization and has been at least for 40 years.

    55. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In non-democratic countries people fight to get a vote; here we know better: we have a vote but it doesn't make any difference.

      A copper remarked that it was disgusting that people couldn't restrain their greed; why didn't he make a similar comment about establishment greed ? The damage to the economy caused by these riots pales into comparison with that done by government inflation and by banking schemes.

    56. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      This is from your link
      "The girl who reportedly was involved in causing the violence between police and protesters may have thrown a stone at police.

      One man "holed up in a church 10 metres away from the Tottenham riot". He told the Guardian that he saw the girl "throw some card and something else, maybe a stone, at the original riot police line""
      Who was she? What was her name? What did she throw at the police? Was it just a rock "which is still assault" or was it something more threatening? Was there even a girl at all.
      You are also leaving out a lot of other details.
      Like
      1. Mark Duggan was suspected to be a leader in a drug gang. "I do not know if he was or not."
      2. He was armed when he was shot. "Again that is the report"
      3. That the police where going to arrest him and expected him to be armed.
      This doesn't appear to be your normal good guy shot by the evil cops.
      Oh and the fact he texted his girlfriend well before the shooting that the feds where after him.

      It looks far from clear cut to me even from the sources you gave.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    57. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What "same way"? The way Egypt is equated to fighting the power was not through looting.

      It was through acts of civil disobedience (note the word civil, which looting and the like is not), labor strikes, demonstrations, self immolation even, etc.

      Looting and the like were just less desirable consequences of fighting the power. It's near impossible to avoid, but it's far from impossible to condemn it.

      No, it doesn't mean those who frown upon looters think police/government are all good. It just means some people still hold on to values like "ends don't justify the means" and "two wrongs don't make a right". Maybe, just maybe, there are people who still hope that humanity has evolved away from crap flinging monkeys far enough they don't have to keep resorting to the same old... crap flinging to get things resolved.

    58. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by walshy007 · · Score: 2

      If a group of rioters were to break into my house with the goal of causing physical harm to those that can't effectively fight back, stealing whatever portable things they could find then torching the place, I'd probably want the police to start shooting too. Since you can't really own non-antique firearms in england so you couldn't exactly shoot them yourself.

      One would think that when groups of thugs forcibly enter and try to destroy your home you would be entitled to... take measures

    59. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 1

      I think we're talking at cross purposes, and apparently it's getting me labeled as a troll. (shrug; I have karma to burn.) I'm not trying to cause an argument. I am trying to show that the riots were inevitable given the conditions of the disadvantaged people in the area and the triggering incidents, and they are exactly analogous to the revolutionary movements of the Arab spring.

      Whether Mike Duggan was in a drug gang or not, it appears that he was shot without cause. They found a gun in his car, in a sock, so it's not plausible that he aimed it at the police. That's a triggering incident -- police should not kill people without adequate provocation.

      The girl threw a stone, there's no question about that. She threw it at a line of riot shields, and was severely beaten in response. That's a triggering incident -- police response needs to be proportionate to the threat against them. A little girl with a rock is not a threat to a line of policemen in riot gear.

      Was Mike Duggan a criminal? Probably. Did the girl commit attempted assault? Almost certainly yes. But the overbearing response to their actions sparked this riot. Once sparked, it exploded because the area is so underprivileged and so distrustful of authority.

      I don't care who was in the right and who was in the wrong. I don't even care about these incidents in particular. If they incidents hadn't triggered something, a later incident would have. From a sociological point of view this area was primed to explode, and eventually something would have made it gone up. These particular triggers could have been avoided if the police had more self control, but the real cause is poverty. Democracy wasn't helping them with that, just as the dictatorship in Egypt wasn't helping the people there.

      --
      Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
    60. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by isorox · · Score: 1

      Not all protests are peaceful. The triggering incident in this case was the shooting of an unarmed man

      Citation? Where did the "converted BBM Bruni self-loading pistol" come from?

      and the beating of a teenage girl by the police.

      Citation?

      These protestors want the police and the government to respect them, and they are showing that by disrespecting the laws they have been forced to live under.

      That's why they're burning down government and police buildings, instead of looting local businesses and burning their neighbours cars?

    61. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would say this if it was your home that was set on fire? (Just because you happen to live above an electronics shop.)

    62. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find it hilarious that people think the UK or the US are still democracies! Since when? Both have devolved into fascist states!

    63. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      You said there is no question that the girl threw a stone. I say there is a question that there was a girl and that she threw a stone.
      Maybe there was a girl but maybe it was a fabrication. Maybe instead of a stone it was an incendiary. You assume without proof that this happened when it was reported by one unnamed witness that claims to have been hiding ten meters away.
      You are taking the view point that this was caused by oppression of a minority group in the area. I see very little proof of that and none in the data you presented.
      You say the gun was in a sock. I see not verifiable source that says that it was in a sock. I see lots of unverified reports that it was in a sock but none that it was.
      I have also heard that it wasn't a real gun and couldn't shoot. Now it has been verified that it was loaded and abile to shoot.
      The facts we have right now are this.
      A man that was suspected of dealing drugs was being arrested by police. He as armed with an illegal fire arm. He was shot.
      BTW I promise you that I can put a pistol in a sock and shoot it at a target without taking it out of the sock. Do you know what effect passing through a sock would have on a bullet? None.

      Really? You keep saying that it isn't about this or that but yet you present rumor as fact to justify the actions of the mob. From http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/07/police-attack-london-burns
      "The latest developments come as one community organiser suggested the handgun recovered was found in a sock and therefore not ready for use. It is likely to fuel anger on the streets of Tottenham and elsewhere in London if it provides evidence that officers were not under attack at the time they opened fire on Duggan."
      Really? You are say that this is a fact? I mean really?
      I will give you a counter suggestion. Maybe that gang the he was a member of is spreading false information. They are showing the police that if you come after them that you will pay. Spread a few rumors that a poor father of three was shot without reason by the police. Get a protest going of only a few hundred people and mix in. Stir the pot and let here rip. Get the gangs in other cities to join in and you have a lovely looting fest. The result is you depress the area even more, cause more misery, cause the police to tip-toe around because they do not want to cause another riot, and you spread you power base even more and increase your crack cliental.
      Of course you would say that is tin hat stuff because gangs are not that organized or think that far ahead. I mean gangs never start riots so then can carry out crimes right?
      I personally think it is the gangs taking advantage of the situation. They may not have planned the protest but it is easy to spread a few half truths to get people going. What is worse is when other people repeat them as fact.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    64. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 1

      You're not listening to me, so I'm done. Go on, keep trying to blame this on a specific incident and individual. I'll just hope that someday people will understand that it's a symptom of a problem in society, and the individuals involved are interchangeable.

      --
      Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
    65. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Here we have a supposedly democratic country where, at the first sign of trouble, government officials are suggesting exactly the same thing.

      Are they? Which ones? Do you have a citation?

    66. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      More people voted for the conservatives (which are part of a coalition government now) than voted for the majority labour government last time.

      Did you vote for voting reform during the referendum, or did you vote to retain first past the post?

      Labour used their time to power to ensure that the geographical constituencies were as biased as possible towards them.

      It's tempting to think that, because Labour does have an advantage in that they need less votes per MP. But it's not because of any change in the boundaries. It's because Labour votes are more concentrated in urban areas, whilst Tory votes are spread more evenly through city and country.

    67. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      There's no evidence that Mark Duggan pointed a gun.

    68. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Good for you in wanting solid information. You're quick to dismiss the GPs opinion. However you throw it all away in the last couple of paragraphs, giving your own opinion.

      So here's my angle: The police wouldn't say if Duggan had fired a shot. We now know from the initial investigation he didn't. If he had have done so the police would have said so day 1.

      The police said there was a bullet lodged in a police radio, leaving the public to assume it came from Duggan's gun. 5 days later we find from the initial inquiry that it came from a police weapon and Duggan didn't fire a shot.

      Likewise, the police say that there was a non-police issue gun found on the scene. If it had been in the hand of Duggan, they would have said so day 1.

      We've seen these kind of distortions to make it look like the police were blameless before in the cases of Ian Tomlinson, Jean Charles de Menezez etc.

    69. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      I'm not the original poster, but I can answer your questions:

      Citation? Where did the "converted BBM Bruni self-loading pistol" come from?

      If it was in the hands of Duggan, the police would have said so day 1. All they have said is that it was found at the scene. Which fits in nicely with the rumour that it was in a sock in the boot of his car. I don't know where the gun was, but if it was actually on his person, the police would be describing him as armed, and they aren't.

      [beating of a teenage girl by the police.] Citation?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bijq1wo2tE
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjT68msxvX4&feature=related&skipcontrinter=1

      That's why they're burning down government and police buildings, instead of looting local businesses and burning their neighbours cars?

      They're looting shops because they want free stuff. The Tories have taught them that greed is good. Consumer capitalism has advertised goodies to them all their lives, whilst racism has denied them the opportunity of getting the good jobs that pay. ANd their youth clubs have been shut down, so they have nowhere to go but the street. They have no respect for the police as the police have never shown any respect for them. In their minds why wouldn't they get free stuff, whilst the police are incapable of stopping them?

      The question you've got to ask is what kind of society breeds these kind of criminals. And the answer is one where we now have a record gap between the richest and the poorest. The Gini coefficient. That's the statistic that shows the most correlation with criminality.

    70. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Oh, and by the way, the sentiment that "We'll take free stuff, because the authorities are powerless to stop us" is not limited to the English rioters. It's endemic on Slashdot too with regard to downloading pirated movies and music.

      For that matter it's also endemic in the financial industry of rich dealers, traders and bankers, with fraud a daily occurrence. For example insider trading is readily identified every day by watching share prices move rapidly a day before an important official press release. Yet the authorities are powerless or unwilling to prosecute the white collar criminals that do it.

    71. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even the shooting looks like the person shot had a gun. At first they said it was just a replica but if and adult pulls what looks like a gun on an officer and points it at them do you wait to see if a bullet comes out of it? Now the BBC says it was a real gun.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGIS4zBoWHY

      Yes, you wait to shoot otherwise you end up looking like murdering thugs.

    72. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Whether or not it's valid or good is subjective. I'd rather not have censorship just to "stop" a few criminals.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    73. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Nice, thanks.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    74. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by Dr+Max · · Score: 1

      Its doubtful. Most people can't see the big picture.

      --
      Rocket Surgeon.
    75. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by Dr+Max · · Score: 1

      So as long as you only screw over the minority your free to do what you want.

      --
      Rocket Surgeon.
    76. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Wow, I kind of wish your worldview was a bit more discerning than 'power' and 'nonpower.' It's like you're still living in a stoned-rocker's dream world.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    77. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should listen to these people if they tell you their reasons? The Met (metropolitan police) has been more or less harassing black people for decades. Here, have some random excerpts from the Guardian (20011) the Daily Mail (2009), the London Evening Standard (2005), the Telegraph (2002). Note that although the problem has been known for decades, nothing changes.
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/oct/17/stop-and-search-race-figures
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1220860/Black-adviser-police-stopped-searched-100-TIMES-accuses-force-racial-profiling.html
      http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-10867097-met-is-racist-in-use-of-stop-and-search.do
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1412459/Black-people-more-likely-to-be-stopped-by-police.html

        I can really understand the respect issue. If I was searched more or less on every corner, just because my skin is black, I would feel somewhat disrespected as well!

    78. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what they've become - but it's not how they started. The rage is justified, it's merely being channeled in the wrong direction.

    79. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I am listening to you. You see it as a bigger problem with society. I agree with you. I feel the problem is a total lack of responsibility and manipulation for political gain. Time and time again unsubstantiated rumor is being introduced as fact if it supports a certain point of view. The girl, the gun, even the description of this man as a father of three are all presented in a way as to direct people to feel a certain way and you are doing the same.
      Here are two headlines and both are true.
      Father of three shot by police during a traffic stop.
      or
      Armed suspected drug dealer and gang member was shot while resisting arrest.
      Which headline is gong to inflame you to riot? What you are seeing is manipulation clear and simple.
      It was you that mentioned the girl and the gun in a sock rumor showing the he was "unarmed". You claimed that the the violent actions of the police towards a "little" girl was what turned a peaceful protest violent. You even gave the unnamed girl an age of 16.
      This is exactly what you wrote.
      "That caused a protest. When a 16 year old girl threw a stone at a line of riot shields and was beaten, that caused the riot."
      Yet we do not know the girls name? What she was wearing a shirt saying 16 year old girl on it? You right there put the blame on the cause of the riot on the police with only the unverified account of a single witness. What is worse is you embellished it with an age that came from where? You keep saying I don't hear what you say but I do. It is your opinion that this is caused by some kind of social injustice. If that is how you feel then that is how you feel. However every example of police abuse and cause that you give where based on rumor. I am saying that you need to question how your preconceptions are coloring your judgment in this case. Let me guess even before this you didn't have any faith or trust in the police? That makes it easy for you to believe anything now matter how marginal that renforces that belief. You are taking every piece of data and increasing the value of that data based on your bias and throwing out every bit that challenges it.

      Here is what I think happened.
      This young man was armed when he was pulled over, when he was going to be arrested he was trapped and couldn't run. He panicked and when for the gun. The officer saw him going for something and panicked and fired on him. Even with body armor a shot to the head will kill you so there is real fear of bodily harm when facing someone that is armed.
      He may not have gotten to the gun and it was at night and dark and the police may have fired too soon. That needs to be left up to an investigation what we don't need is a lynch mob.
      Yes I have listened but I do not share your opinion and you have shown no factual information to support it. As I have said I can not really question your opinion or how you feel. I can only show you where your statements lack evidence and even if some are factual I question your conclusions.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    80. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "Good for you in wanting solid information. You're quick to dismiss the GPs opinion. However you throw it all away in the last couple of paragraphs, giving your own opinion."
      I dismiss his opinion because I do not share it and the facts he used to support it are rumor. I can't question his opinion because he has a right to it. I can question his facts when they prove to be nothing more than rumor.

      "So here's my angle: The police wouldn't say if Duggan had fired a shot. We now know from the initial investigation he didn't. If he had have done so the police would have said so day 1."
      And here is a case of your bias. How about this. They didn't know they did know there was a bullet in the officers radio. At night in a situation like this once gun fire happens you can not trust peoples memories. The statement they gave was 100 precent accurate and frankly truthful. In the UK are to police only allowed to fire if fired on or are they allowed to fire on if threatened with a gun?

      "The police said there was a bullet lodged in a police radio, leaving the public to assume it came from Duggan's gun. 5 days later we find from the initial inquiry that it came from a police weapon and Duggan didn't fire a shot."
      I don't know what condition the bullet was in but it can take time to match bullets to guns. If it was just a bullet fragment it would be very hard to tell the type of bullet or the gun it was fired from. Of course if the police where trying to hide something or set this up why didn't they just put a bullet from the suspects gun in place of the bullet found in the radio? This is showing them to be honest in their investigation again.

      "Likewise, the police say that there was a non-police issue gun found on the scene. If it had been in the hand of Duggan, they would have said so day 1."
      But it wasn't If he was going for the gun he might have dropped it when he was shot. Again if your going to do a set up you lie and say you found the gun in his hand.

      "We've seen these kind of distortions to make it look like the police were blameless before in the cases of Ian Tomlinson, Jean Charles de Menezez etc."
      What distortions? That is where I have a problem. Each statement you gave was exactly accurate and truthful. They where incomplete because they didn't have all the answers at that time. As the more answers are found they publish them even when they can be seen in a negative light. Really if they are trying to do a coverup they are doing a really bad job of it. I mean really a 12 year old could do better at a cover up than the police are doing.

      And let's say that the police are in error. It is possible because the investigation isn't over. Wouldn't the correct action be to wait until the investigation is over before protesting? Well unless they are dragging it out not even a week has gone by yet. And then just what is moral and right about looting stores and burning down innocent peoples homes? Or killing innocent people?
      No the people that involved in running over people in cars, looting, and arson are not freedom fighters or protesters they are criminals. Their actions and those that condone their actions are hurting the cause of true political reformers and protesters.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    81. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      The big picture must be composed of facts not rumor and opinion. Never trust anyone that uses the "Big picture" to dismiss facts.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    82. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "If it was in the hands of Duggan, the police would have said so day 1. All they have said is that it was found at the scene. Which fits in nicely with the rumour that it was in a sock in the boot of his car. I don't know where the gun was, but if it was actually on his person, the police would be describing him as armed, and they aren't."
      Or he could have dropped it when he was shot.
      Score! a ten meter long jump to a conclusion based on a rumor.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    83. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Or he could have dropped it when he was shot.

      If the police could have said he was shot because he had a gun in his hand they would have said so. They haven't. Neither did the report of the initial investigation.

      Score! a ten meter long jump to a conclusion based on a rumor.

      You're the one saying he drew a gun with absolutely no evidence for it.

    84. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      In the UK are to police only allowed to fire if fired on or are they allowed to fire on if threatened with a gun?

      They are certainly allowed to fire if they are threatened with a gun. However you are assuming that is what happened without a shred of evidence for it.

      Of course if the police where trying to hide something or set this up why didn't they just put a bullet from the suspects gun in place of the bullet found in the radio?

      Fairly obviously because SOCO would spot immediately that it was a bullet that hadn't been fired from a gun.

      This is showing them to be honest in their investigation again.

      What? They didn;t do some self incriminating thing from your imagination, and that somehow makes them honest? You are irrational. No point in going any further.

    85. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      No I said he could have. He could have been reaching for it and fumbled it. You are putting it wrapped in a sock in the boot totally based on a rumor. I just said could have. Since it was in a Taxi don't you find it odd that he would say, "Hey let me put this very small item wrapped in a sock in your boot for this trip." Really?
      Why even be transporting a really illegal gun in a taxi in the boot? I mean does that make any sense to you at all? Have you ever ridden in a taxi? Would you ask the driver to open his boot?
      Also the vehicle he was in DIDN'T HAVE A BOOT! he was shot in a Toyota Estima which is a mini van! vans don't have a boot they have a back hatch that opens into the main cabin! So it is impossible for it to have been in the boot! Make that a 12 meter jump based on an impossible rumor.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    86. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm with you. I believe privacy is a fundamental, God-given, Constitutionally or otherwise guaranteed human right, but your rights stop when you decide to abuse them to violate those of the decent citizens, and that's what we have here.

      Ghandi and Martin Luther King knew how to get change without and didn't use this kind of violence. This is just crime.

    87. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can't see the difference between collective action to fight a dictatorship and rioting and looting in a democracy for the primary purpose of gratifying your own greed, lust, and anger over things with which the victims have nothing to do, you need to go back and repeat sixth grade.

    88. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by Dr+Max · · Score: 1
      yeah its a TREE, IT HAS LEAVES

      yeah but its part of a forest

      no its A TREE IT HAS BARK AS WELL

      Just because your only looking at one tree dosn't mean there isn't a forest behind it.

      stop dismissing my FACTS with your talk of the big picture this its just a tree.

      --
      Rocket Surgeon.
    89. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by N1AK · · Score: 1

      I did vote for AV during the referendum although I knew it was a futile effort. I stand by my position on Labour weighting the system in their favour. You're right about distribution, however I come from an area with a mixture of urban and rural constituencies and the changes to constituency boundaries under Labour were clearly intended to push more conservatitive support into heavily conservative constituencies leaving other constituencies that had been borderline as Labour supporting.

    90. Re:The thin veneer of civilisation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand BART went overboard in its cutting cell phone connections, no?

  5. Logic and reason by grimmjeeper · · Score: 1

    But Ian Maude, an analyst at Enders Analysis, said it's unfair to lay the blame on technology. 'Certainly, it's a lot easier for people to communicate with each other in real time via some of these services but that's a fact of life. They're not good or evil in themselves, its the purposes for which people use them.'

    How dare he bring logic and reason into the argument! Who does this guy think he is?!?

    1. Re:Logic and reason by Elbereth · · Score: 1

      Well, you have to understand that this is being framed in terms of the gun control debate. Nobody -- not even the British -- has a problem with hunting rifles. You can get hunting rifles easily enough anywhere in the world. Part of the reason why they're so unregulated is because they're really not very good at doing anything but shooting deer. Or maybe a passerby or two. It's not like you can mow down an entire school. Which brings us to semi-automatic weapons (scary), automatic weapons (very scary), and military-grade hardware (panic-inducing). Do assault rifles sprout legs, walk up to schools, and open fire? Of course not. You need a human to do that. Couldn't our psychopath just run around, hitting people with a nailboard? Yeah... but with an assault weapon, it's much more efficient. It seems somehow different, worse... something that needs to be regulated. At least, when you've got a psychopath with a nailboard, it seems like you've got a chance. Facing down a psychopath with an assault weapon seems terribly unfair, and, even if you've got your own assault rifle, he's fucking crazy -- he's got less to lose than you do.

      So, let's recap. Telephones: limited ability to incite anyone, perceived as safe, essentially unregulated. E-mail: can be easily used to incite others, yet the perceived lack of immediacy and instantaneous communication makes it seem a bit less scary. Instant messaging, text messaging, etc: scary, because it combines the ability to incite with the immediacy of face-to-face communications.

      People dislike the concept of ideas being communicated easily and quickly almost as much as they dislike bullets being disseminated quickly and easily. Back in the days when you had to run through each individual opponent with a sword or tell each individual citizen your revolutionary ideas, it seemed much safer and easier. Guns and mass communications are very similar. Both changed the world forever, and people have been trying to change the world back to how it used to work, ever since.

      I'm not making any value judgements here, just saying that I understand why people are in such a panic and why they're blaming technology, rather than themselves.

    2. Re:Logic and reason by Duradin · · Score: 1

      Generally, automatic weapons are military-grade hardware. Despite what the news may tell you, you can't just walk into a gun show and waltz out with a SAW no questions asked.

      The civilian (non-military non-law enforcement) market for automatic weapons is vanishingly small and requires some pretty hefty (FFL) permits and requirements.

      Give a marksman a deer rifle and a high vantage point and then tell me they'll only get a passerby or two.

    3. Re:Logic and reason by grimmjeeper · · Score: 1

      I think it's more insidious than that. This is yet one more situation politicians can use to force their intrusion into the lives of the unwashed masses. It's an excuse to pass all sorts of regulations. And not just to muscle in and watch everything that you type into your electronic devices. I wouldn't be surprised if someone proposes something to allow the politicians to shut down these devices when they want to. It may not come out of this specific incident. However, this kind of attitude towards government control over communication networks has already been proposed more than once in the US. It's only a matter of time before politicians in the UK get it into their heads that they want to have control over more and more of the telecommunications used by their constituents.

      The thing is, so many of them propose new restrictions and new intrusions into people's lives when the people are reeling from a traumatic event like this. I'd like to think that they don't scheme and plan for exploiting events like this but it always happens. They'll get on the idiot box and preach all about how "all this could have been prevented if we only could have [insert overreaching government intrusion into life that wouldn't have done squat to stop whatever just happened]." And the legions of people who hate thinking beyond their next meal will lap up whatever the politician says because they vaguely remember that politicians making some campaign promises that they liked. Never mind that the politician never acted on the promises...

      So eventually the laws will pass. But we'll still see riots. And the politicians will move onto the next topic that has nothing to do with the cause of the riots and figure out another way to leverage themselves further into the business of their constituents.

    4. Re:Logic and reason by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      You can get hunting rifles easily enough anywhere in the world. Part of the reason why they're so unregulated is because they're really not very good at doing anything but shooting deer.

      In Australia even air rifles are completely regulated... let alone hunting rifles. Better yet all the regulation came after a _single_ shooting in one state 15 years ago. Since then the anti-gun lobby has been slowly winning, not too long now.

      Hell even body armour is illegal, you require a special category firearms license for it that is pretty much impossible to get.

    5. Re:Logic and reason by Dr+Max · · Score: 1

      Paintball guns are regulated aswell not to mention half the brands are completly illigal (can't even get a licence for them) because they look to much like a real gun. How did one insane tasmanian stop me from being able to have a nice paintball gun.

      --
      Rocket Surgeon.
  6. Yawn Yawn Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The WSJ reports that following three nights of rioting and looting in London, Wooden 2x4s are being blamed by police, politicians and media organizations for helping rioters in London smash cars . It's an 'anonymous, very secure, safe, fast, cheap, virtually free, easy way for disaffected urban youth to break windscreens,' says Mike Butcher, editor of TechCrunch Europe and digital advisor to the Mayor of London. But Ian Maude, an analyst at Enders Analysis, said it's unfair to lay the blame on 2x4s. 'Certainly, it's a lot easier for people to smash up cars. They're not good or evil in themselves, its the purposes for which people use them.' The Metropolitan Police, known as Scotland Yard, say they are monitoring hardware stores such as B&Q and Home Depot.

    1. Re:Yawn Yawn Yawn by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      Soon, They'll make bigger boards and bigger nails, and soon, they will make a board with a nail so big, it will destroy them all!

  7. err. by EasyTarget · · Score: 2

    20 years ago the same area erupted in rioting.. Those rioters used social networking rather than social media, they knocked on doors, chatted in groups, and then went off to find trouble. None of them had mobiles then.. didn't stop the riots. Political action and talking did that.

    --
    "Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
  8. Very Secure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I was under the impression that RIM gave full access to their network to any government that asked.

    http://www.indianweekender.co.nz/Pages/ArticleDetails/10/1434/India/RIM-gives-in-to-Indias-concern-on-security

  9. Really? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

    "Disaffected urban youth" in England are toting around Blackberries? Thatâ(TM)s not very hip and edgy.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Really? by xaxa · · Score: 2

      "Disaffected urban youth" in England are toting around Blackberries? Thatâ(TM)s not very hip and edgy.

      It is if you're youth here. Smartphone brand choice (released a few days ago). 37% of smartphone-owning 13-15 and 37% of 16-24s have a BlackBerry.

      (My theory is they're either cast-offs from mum/dad, probably from business, or stolen. BlackBerry Messenger is popular, although I don't understand why, when things like MSN were popular before and work on all phones.)

    2. Re:Really? by Laurence0 · · Score: 1

      My explanation for this is that Blackberries can be bought cheaply and on pay-as-you-go. This makes them much easier to get if you're a teenager. Androids and (especially!) Iphones are much more expensive, especially without a contract.

    3. Re:Really? by xaxa · · Score: 1

      A quick look on t-mobile.co.uk suggests that's partly true -- Blackberry phones are probably good value for money (though I've never used one) : there are cheaper Android phones, but they're perhaps disappointing to use..?

      http://www.t-mobile.co.uk/shop/pay-as-you-go/mobile-phones/

    4. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Disaffected urban youth" in England are toting around Blackberries? Thatâ(TM)s not very hip and edgy.

      It is if you're youth here. Smartphone brand choice (released a few days ago). 37% of smartphone-owning 13-15 and 37% of 16-24s have a BlackBerry.

      (My theory is they're either cast-offs from mum/dad, probably from business, or stolen. BlackBerry Messenger is popular, although I don't understand why, when things like MSN were popular before and work on all phones.)

      BBM is popular because it doesn't come out of any data allowance as such, if you have BIS then you can message as much as you like.

      In addition, it's very easy to add new contacts, all you need is an 8 hex digit PIN. And since Blackberries have better battery life than most phones this stuff keeps working for a long time. Simple as that.

    5. Re:Really? by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      This could be why they're rioting... They want better smartphones!

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    6. Re:Really? by coolmadsi · · Score: 1

      "Disaffected urban youth" in England are toting around Blackberries? Thatâ(TM)s not very hip and edgy.

      It is if you're youth here. Smartphone brand choice (released a few days ago). 37% of smartphone-owning 13-15 and 37% of 16-24s have a BlackBerry.

      (My theory is they're either cast-offs from mum/dad, probably from business, or stolen. BlackBerry Messenger is popular, although I don't understand why, when things like MSN were popular before and work on all phones.)

      BlackBerrys are just popular among teenagers in the UK. I know more people with one than I do with an Android phone (and they weren't second hand or stolen, but brought). BlackBerry Messanger is particuarly popular, probabaly becuase it is a free version of text messaging (in the UK, you don't get charged for recieving a text message, only sending it. Historically, lots of teenagers prefer texting to calling their friends, and the BBM is an upgrade of this - free and can be sent to groups apparently).

  10. Idiots Blaming Objects Operated By People by cosm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Guns blamed for helping gunmen shoot people.
    Bombs blamed for helping suicide bomber blow up.
    Planes blamed for helping people crash planes.
    Fire blamed for helping people start fires.
    Phones blamed for helping people coordinate bad things.
    Internet blamed for child pornography proliferation.

    How about this?
    Sensationalist media blamed for making everything a scandal or a controversy!

    People wanting to ignore and pass off responsibility just fire the blame cannon everywhere. Why are they rioting? Why is there so much civil unrest in England? Are the English that repressed that this is a cry-out for help? Or is this all being blown out of proportion, and the riots are really just a couple of small groups causing trouble. Personally, I think the PoliceState in that country has spiraled out of control, and now there is a growing underground movement with there backs to the wall, so we are seeing the rebellion swell as more and more dissenters act out the only way they personally feel they can. How about looking at the fundamental causes for societal unrest, lets analyze the sociology of the The Land of the Panopticon Complex.

    --
    'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    1. Re:Idiots Blaming Objects Operated By People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couldn't say it better myself.

    2. Re:Idiots Blaming Objects Operated By People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Sensationalist media blamed for making everything a scandal or a controversy!"

      That usually comes up when some popular politician or other celebrity leader gets caught with his pants around his ankles, sometimes literally.
      (Hypothetical) For instance:
      - It is reported that a anti-gay religious leader got caught soliciting sex from a gay prostitute? It's the media's fault.
      - It is reported that an some famous environmentalist burns $10,000 a month in fuel traveling to vacation homes? It's the media's fault.
      - It is reported that a politician got caught taking bribes to vote a certain way? It's the media's fault.
      - It is reported that that a pundit says is not backed up by science, nor other forms of fact? It's the media's fault.
      - It is reported that a the owner of a famous charity uses the supply planes to smuggle blood diamonds back into the country? It's the media's fault.

    3. Re:Idiots Blaming Objects Operated By People by smallfries · · Score: 1

      FACT: Nobody can get shot if there are no guns.
      FACT: Nobody can get blown up without bombs. ...
      CLUESTICK: While communication tech may not *cause* riots it does *enable* effective organisation of rioters. It allows them to move from location to location to avoid the police. So, no sensationalism involved. Exactly the same tech that enabled protestors in the middle east to stay ahead of security forces is enabling rioters to stay ahead of the police. As a well organised riot is much more effective at destroying property it is much more dangerous than the old fashioned unorganised kind.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    4. Re:Idiots Blaming Objects Operated By People by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Personally, I think the PoliceState in that country has spiraled out of control, and now there is a growing underground movement with there backs to the wall, so we are seeing the rebellion swell as more and more dissenters act out the only way they personally feel they can.

      No, they're just feral thugs who want a free TV and like destroying stuff. Their parents probably spent their entire lives on welfare and if the police caught them during their earlier crime sprees they either let them go or the court said 'don't do that again' and sent them home.

      Hence they have no respect for anything, particularly not police who are more concerned with handing out speeding tickets than dealing with mugging or burglary, and no concern about what will happen after they burn down their own neighbourhood; after all, the law-abiding taxpayers will be forced to rebuild it for them, probably with more new shiny stuff.

    5. Re:Idiots Blaming Objects Operated By People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without you, nobody would have any idea what to mod up. You're the best.

    6. Re:Idiots Blaming Objects Operated By People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never heard of bows and arrows, I see

    7. Re:Idiots Blaming Objects Operated By People by elsurexiste · · Score: 1

      A few friends of mine told me that London is, indeed, filled with cameras and quite 1984-esque, although the countryside is not bad at all.

      --
      I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
    8. Re:Idiots Blaming Objects Operated By People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, actually the UK consists of four separate countries, though it's debatable whether NI or Wales actually count as such - they are typically considered principalities. But don't let a little thing like facts get in the way of your carefully constructed critique.

    9. Re:Idiots Blaming Objects Operated By People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh but the vast majority of the cameras are privately owned by businesses -- so that's OK then (if not, please explain why given the overriding libertarian message of 'private good, public bad' present on this site)

    10. Re:Idiots Blaming Objects Operated By People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Limbs blamed for helping UK rioters
      I've got quite a strong feeling that the riots wouldn't have taken place if none of the people had limbs!

    11. Re:Idiots Blaming Objects Operated By People by itchythebear · · Score: 1

      FACT: If humans didn't have: bombs, guns, arrows, swords, spears, knives, clubs, rocks, feet, fists, or teeth they'd still be killing each other by the truckload.

      --
      If what I just said sounded like a troll, it was probably just a failed attempt at humor.
    12. Re:Idiots Blaming Objects Operated By People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod parent up

    13. Re:Idiots Blaming Objects Operated By People by smallfries · · Score: 1

      Which doesn't change that fact that bombs and guns do the job a lot more effectively.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    14. Re:Idiots Blaming Objects Operated By People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FACT: Lots of people will get shot if there are 'no guns', because the government and the police will still have them. I'm not even counting criminals anymore, because the aforementioned groups have proven that they can (and will) behave as the latter if given the opportunity.

      FACT: Household chemicals and fertilizer can make a bomb. Good luck with that 'no bomb' thing, it has about as much chance of becoming reality as the 'no guns' thing.

    15. Re:Idiots Blaming Objects Operated By People by itchythebear · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and arrows are more effective than spears. And spears are more effective than swords. Why just stop at guns and bombs?

      Having more effective weapons is a good thing.

      Consider a 90yr old women defending her home against a group of thugs. All any of them have are their fists. How well do you think she is going to do in that scenario? Now give all of them guns. Do her chances of defending herself go up or down?

      --
      If what I just said sounded like a troll, it was probably just a failed attempt at humor.
    16. Re:Idiots Blaming Objects Operated By People by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      Er. Is this a trick question?

      90 year old woman with a gun vs. group of thugs with guns.

      I mean that's going to get pretty messy, but I don't see the outcome for her being especially good.

    17. Re:Idiots Blaming Objects Operated By People by itchythebear · · Score: 1

      I wasn't implying she was going to go rambo on the thugs. What I was asking is:

      Is a 90 year old woman with a gun vs. group of thugs with guns. BETTER than a 90 year old woman with her fists vs. group of thugs with their fists.

      Obviously, neither is an ideal scenario, but I know which one I'd rather be the old lady in. Thugs would be worried about getting shot by an old women a lot more than they would worry about being punched by an old woman.

      --
      If what I just said sounded like a troll, it was probably just a failed attempt at humor.
    18. Re:Idiots Blaming Objects Operated By People by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      about which you have absolutely no idea beyond the biased opinions of "your rights online" posts here, and the odd cliche from the 60s.

      Can you prove that?

      it's intellectually lazy teenagers like you

      What made you come to the conclusion that they are a teenager (or that they are locked up in their parents' basement, for that matter)? Or are those just random assumptions?

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    19. Re:Idiots Blaming Objects Operated By People by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      I suppose the real question (whose answer varies depending on who you ask), then, is whether limiting these things for everyone is worth it just because a few people might 'abuse' them.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    20. Re:Idiots Blaming Objects Operated By People by smallfries · · Score: 1

      Indeed that is the real question, and you would get very different answers from a cross-section of the slashdot population. But regardless of where people stand on the issue of gun control, it is disingenuous to pretend that guns (bombs etc) don't enable the task of killing people to be carried out much more effectively. Whether or not arming a population creates a stable equilibrium where less people are killed is an entirely different (and much more interesting question). Pretending that guns don't kill people is inane.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
  11. Of course, it has nothing to do... by rsborg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    With a weakened social safety net, rampant unemployment, eastern-european migrants taking over the few remaining jobs and the super-rich from abroad (mostly the middle east) causing housing prices to skyrocket...

    It also has nothing to do with the looting of the public done by the banksters and their enablers, the politicians.

    Finally, the Met police are trusted and can't be blamed for the vandals and looter's complete despise for the actions of the law enforcement... it's not the fault of the police that they are unaccountable.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    1. Re:Of course, it has nothing to do... by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 1

      it's not the fault of the police that they are unaccountable.

      That made me laugh. It's like "The police are not accountable for their unaccountability."

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    2. Re:Of course, it has nothing to do... by shugah · · Score: 2

      Or maybe it's just a bunch of young people who need very little impetus to smash shit up?

      --
      If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
    3. Re:Of course, it has nothing to do... by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      eastern-european migrants taking over the few remaining jobs.

      I have to argue with that point, with an official unemployment rate of 7.7%, it's not like the Thatcher era. Unemployment rates are relatively low, so you can't argue that unemployment is a factor here without ignoring the facts.

    4. Re:Of course, it has nothing to do... by Piata · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You don't riot for 3 days unless there's fuel for that spark to burn. Saying it's those damn young'ns is disingenuous.

      Not long ago they were rioting over changes to education. What's the difference between people that just want to "smash shit up" and people being tired of their government, the rich getting richer and the lack of accountability of civil servants (including police)?

    5. Re:Of course, it has nothing to do... by shugah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't live in the UK, so I obviously don't have my finger on the pulse of London. I'm sure SOME of the people are upset over actions of the police and real or perceived inequalities and the police shooting of a young man in a poorer neighbourhood. But there is undoubtedly a number of people for whom this is just an opportunity to behave badly.

      As someone who has observed pointless, causeless, riots, or attempts to get riots started at so many large public gatherings and events over the last decade, from the Seattle WTO meetings, the Toronto G8 summit, the Genoa G8 Summit, the Vancouver Stanley Cup finals, a failed attempt at the Vancouver Olympics, football hooliganism across Europe, etc. in most of these cases, there was really no social cause, just an opportunity to behave badly and anonymously in a crowd. Most of the participants, were simply partying violently and could not even articulate what social injustice they were upset about.

      No one loves their government, there is always unrest, and always the "disaffected" and "disenfranchised". Sometimes there is a cause, but it has to be recognized that every large public gathering provides an opportunity for the darker side of human "crowd mentality" to come out.

      --
      If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
    6. Re:Of course, it has nothing to do... by need4mospd · · Score: 1
      The UK youth unemployment rate is over 20%.

      Not to mention the UK, similar to the US, has redefined "unemployment" numerous times to make the number appear lower than it really is. I believe 7.7% about as much as I believe technology caused the riots.

    7. Re:Of course, it has nothing to do... by couchslug · · Score: 2

      People like to riot if they can get away with it. Sports riots have happened for decades. Don't blame the economy for thugs.

      The way to stop that sort of "recreational riot" is overwhelming force ruthlessly applied. Destroy the enemy. They deserve the sort of beatdown they'll remember in the future.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    8. Re:Of course, it has nothing to do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unemployment is a factor with a weakened social safety net.

      I'm out of work, resigned moments before the financial crisis to work abroad, now im back and there's nothing on the table and im applying for jobs nationally often for positions way below my previous rates of pay.

    9. Re:Of course, it has nothing to do... by delinear · · Score: 1

      Odd that we're not seeing similar trends in rich areas - they also have young people. The disenfranchisement of our youth is no excuse for the rioting, but to claim it's not one of the reasons is just being blinkered.

    10. Re:Of course, it has nothing to do... by Bongo · · Score: 1

      The difference is whether the people rioting have higher moral principles than the people they're protesting against.

      The real tragedy for these kids is that they've somehow been raised to not know that setting fire to buildings where there are flats with people sleeping in above them might be like, a really bad thing to do, and that stealing just for the sake of stealing is also really bad, and that they have been raised or educated to have very little desire to make themselves better, to work hard, and would rather sit drinking in the early hours of the morning and claim that the riot was great fun. That is the tragedy. They aren't "disaffected", they're worse, they are damaged young people.

      Their environment has failed them, both with their parents perhaps for being too insular culturally, and with their schools for being too liberal and not setting boundaries and discipline and a work ethic, and the companies that are too right wing and too busy looking after their own money interests than considering how to create jobs for very disadvantaged kids, and the government both on the left and the right for wasting money on stupid schemes that didn't work and then cutting that money, and all the bleeding hearts in-between who make a career out of "talking" and "community relations" and criticising the police instead of coming up with real solutions for developing these kids into healthy adults. It is so fucking tragic.

    11. Re:Of course, it has nothing to do... by JayBean · · Score: 2

      With a weakened social safety net, rampant unemployment, eastern-european migrants taking over the few remaining jobs and the super-rich from abroad (mostly the middle east) causing housing prices to skyrocket...

      It also has nothing to do with the looting of the public done by the banksters and their enablers, the politicians.

      Finally, the Met police are trusted and can't be blamed for the vandals and looter's complete despise for the actions of the law enforcement... it's not the fault of the police that they are unaccountable.

      That's no justification to smash the shops and cars of people mostly unrelated to the issues you cited.

      Don't try to say that there is a reason for this. Marches/sit-ins/hunger-strikes are peaceful, noble forms of expression. Rioting is juvenile and only hurts your fellow citizens.

    12. Re:Of course, it has nothing to do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Though I agree with your spirit, I think "destroy" is a bit heavy handed. Iran does a good job at that. So does Egypt. And Saudi. And Syria. And China. And N Korea. Seeing a trend? Perhaps you already got that and want a police state. /me nods knowingly.

    13. Re:Of course, it has nothing to do... by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      *NEWSFLASH* Youth unemployment rates are generally higher than unemployment rates of the general population.

    14. Re:Of course, it has nothing to do... by treeves · · Score: 1

      They're depraved on account of they're deprived. Gee, Officer Krupke!

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    15. Re:Of course, it has nothing to do... by FourthAge · · Score: 1

      Of course there is fuel. That's your civilisation they're burning.

      --
      The tao of democracy: the government you can vote for is not the real government.
    16. Re:Of course, it has nothing to do... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Your examples are ALL political and deliberately selected to be such.

      Are you implying all riot is political? In that case, say so!

      Whose side are you on? It's OK to say "fight the powah, smash everything" but be honest about it.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    17. Re:Of course, it has nothing to do... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      People like to riot if they can get away with it. Sports riots have happened for decades. Don't blame the economy for thugs.

      The way to stop that sort of "recreational riot" is overwhelming force ruthlessly applied. Destroy the enemy. They deserve the sort of beatdown they'll remember in the future.

      Unfortunately, the enemy is us. In the Vancouver riots, for example, most of the rioters weren't alive 20 years before when the last riots occurred -- and it sounds like this is the same case in London. The rioters in both situations appear to be, for the most part, fairly well-off upper middle class kids. The reason for the riots appears to be a combination of "I wanna riot like my parent's generation did" and frustration that they can't have everything they want in life. I'd prefer to term these sort of riots "group tantrums" to "recreational riots" -- which also works for the football riots, although in that case, they want to take someone else's ball and go home.

      Anyway, a beatdown won't do a thing, as the rioters will remember this in the future no matter what happens... but their kids won't. Expect another round of riots in around 20 years, just like there was 20 and 40 years ago.

      No matter whether the "Destroy the Enemy" or "Disperse the Radical" method is used to control riots, they keep happening. You don't remember them? Here's a list:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_riots

      There is nothing new under the sun.

    18. Re:Of course, it has nothing to do... by xelah · · Score: 1

      Unemployment will be a lot higher in the areas affected. They're mostly (but not entirely) shitholes and a lot of people move out if they find anything other than the lowest levels of employment. They're packed with a wide variety of immigrants (the council used to complain of having to deal with 113 languages when I lived in Tottenham) which doesn't do a lot of good for racial harmony. It's also the sort of area where the voluntarily welfare dependent and attitudinally unemployable seem to end up, along with a mix of the unfortunate and the otherwise normal urbanites who move there for the 'vibrancy'.

    19. Re:Of course, it has nothing to do... by publiclurker · · Score: 1

      Well, would you hire one of these people?

    20. Re:Of course, it has nothing to do... by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      And unless someone obtains some actual evidence that this is the case, this will probably just remain as mere speculation.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    21. Re:Of course, it has nothing to do... by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      The real tragedy for these kids is that they've somehow been raised to not know that setting fire to buildings where there are flats with people sleeping in above them might be like, a really bad thing to do, and that stealing just for the sake of stealing is also really bad

      "Bad" is, in my opinion, subjective. Perhaps they just have a different definition of it than you.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    22. Re:Of course, it has nothing to do... by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      That's no justification to smash the shops and cars of people mostly unrelated to the issues you cited.

      Whether it's a good justification for what they did or not is probably subjective.

      Don't try to say that there is a reason for this.

      I'm pretty sure that there is a reason. Whether that be people wanting to have fun or something else, all of those are reasons.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    23. Re:Of course, it has nothing to do... by coolmadsi · · Score: 1

      Don't try to say that there is a reason for this. Marches/sit-ins/hunger-strikes are peaceful, noble forms of expression. Rioting is juvenile and only hurts your fellow citizens.

      There was one interview that said the rioting was becuase when they tried a peaceful expression, it was ignored:

      As political and social protests grip the Middle East, are growing in Europe and a riot exploded in north London this weekend, here's a sad truth, expressed by a Londoner when asked by a television reporter: Is rioting the correct way to express your discontent?

      "Yes," said the young man. "You wouldn't be talking to me now if we didn't riot, would you?"

      The TV reporter from Britain's ITV had no response. So the young man pressed his advantage. "Two months ago we marched to Scotland Yard, more than 2,000 of us, all blacks, and it was peaceful and calm and you know what? Not a word in the press. Last night a bit of rioting and looting and look around you."

      Source: http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/07/7292281-the-sad-truth-behind-london-riot

      I'm not saying that the rioting is acceptable, nor that this is why everyone is doing so.

  12. This arguement is silly. by JustAnotherIdiot · · Score: 1

    If someone is shot, do you blame the gun or the shooter?
    Blame the idiots who used the tool, not the tool itself.

    --
    What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
    1. Re:This arguement is silly. by Dotren · · Score: 1

      If someone is shot, do you blame the gun or the shooter?

      If you're a government? The gun.

      Shooters can vote.

    2. Re:This arguement is silly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well in Florida they can't (if convicted) or can twice (if they aren't)

    3. Re:This arguement is silly. by JustAnotherIdiot · · Score: 1

      Well I suppose that's why I'm not a government. I may be an idiot, because I still retain an iota of common sense.

      --
      What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
    4. Re:This arguement is silly. by shugah · · Score: 1

      If it's a 15 year old doing the shooting I blame whom ever gave / sold / provided the weapon.

      --
      If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
    5. Re:This arguement is silly. by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Not quite, you missed the first few steps. First you need to vilify the weapon usually calling it something like an AK style assault weapon not a real class of weapon but a really scary sounding description. Now you also need to make the individual out to be a really scary person who had severe mental illness (probably did in reality) to make it seem like only crazies own these. Step 3 is to convince people that these types of weapons have no hunting or sporting purpose (even though a SKS makes a good entry level deer rifle especially if you are hunting in heavy woods) usually by further obfuscating the issue by claiming that no one needs to hunt with a fully automatic rifle even though the weapon used by the shooter was only a semi auto rifle. Now at this point you can push through various laws that further expand government all in the name of keeping people safe.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    6. Re:This arguement is silly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, 15 year olds know right and wrong.

      I don't know why suddenly people are overgrown manchildren into their mid-20s, not responsible for their actions. The whole concept of a teenager is post-war 50s bullshit where we want "our kids to have it better". It needs to end. A 15 year old should be expected to participate in society the way any other adult does.

    7. Re:This arguement is silly. by JustAnotherIdiot · · Score: 1

      I was going to make a comment, but you said it better than I could have.

      --
      What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
    8. Re:This arguement is silly. by treeves · · Score: 1

      Wish I had mod points right now.
      "People are apt to behave as they are expected to behave — whether well or foolishly."
      Is a quote from this article: http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/cross_examination/the_invention_of_adolescence.aspx
      I don't think that brain development is complete at age 15, and we do need to have higher education for some people, and vocational education for others, but I do think that expecting a fifteen year old to act responsibly is not too great a demand.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    9. Re:This arguement is silly. by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      No, 15 year olds know right and wrong.

      That would depend on the 15 year old, and it would depend on your definitions of "right" and "wrong."

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  13. It is bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was watching the news last night and every second question was "did you hear that they were using social media?" And almost everyone they asked, including the rioters, said categorically that they heard about it by word of mouth - not via social media, twitter, etc. But that hasn't stopped the media from harping on about the same thing over and over again.

    It is just complete and total bullshit. That's all I have to say about it. The most you'd see technology used is likely one rioter text messaging another.

  14. Re:Technology by Verdatum · · Score: 1

    Or lose....But actually, i like loose better.

  15. Twitter - also being used 'for good'. by Grumbleduke · · Score: 5, Informative

    Today has been a rather different story - Twitter has been used to organise a community-driven clean-up process, with large numbers of people gathering in the damaged areas of London to help fix things and tidy up. #riotcleanup is still trending worldwide, and has been for most of the day, #riotwombles (a wonderful tag) has been used for organising people on the streets, and @riotcleanup has picked up over 70,000 followers today. There's also a sort of website running now.

    Social media, the Internet and technology in general are just tools - it's how people use them that matters; and today we've definitely seen them being used for good.

    1. Re:Twitter - also being used 'for good'. by Nick+Fel · · Score: 1

      Fortunately, this is being reported in the media as well. It's slowly worked its way up the BBC News front page today. The person who started is is allegedly Sam Duckworth aka Get Cape. Wear Cape. Fly.

    2. Re:Twitter - also being used 'for good'. by BoberFett · · Score: 1

      Pass a law that forces looters to set the evil bit on their messages.

    3. Re:Twitter - also being used 'for good'. by mustPushCart · · Score: 1

      I had to lookup what wombles was and for those who dont want to take the trouble:

      The Wombles are fictional pointy-nosed, furry creatures that live in burrows, where they help the environment by collecting and recycling rubbish in useful and ingenious ways. Wombles were created by author Elisabeth Beresford, originally appearing in a series of children's novels from 1968. Although Wombles supposedly live in every country in the world, the stories are concerned with the life of the inhabitants of the burrow on Wimbledon Common in London, England.

      from wikipedia.

  16. Of course! Why didn't I think of that! by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 1

    It's totally not your ineptitude at being police, or the social wrongs that are driving people to riot, it's clearly their ability to communicate with each other which is to blame! Also, people don't kill people, bullets do, and car accidents are always 100% the vehicle's fault.

    --
    If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
  17. I blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Language, lets face it if the rioters didn't use a commun language they wouldn't be able to coordinate their actions

  18. And for coordinating the clean up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Twitter and Facebook users are harnessing the power of social networking to co-ordinate operations." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14456857

    1. Re:And for coordinating the clean up! by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      causing riots. stopping riots. identifying rioters. cleaning up after riots. social media, is there anything they can't do?

    2. Re:And for coordinating the clean up! by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      It can't make me a damned cup of tea.

  19. Gun/Phone control? by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

    How long before "democratic countries" start talking about phones like they talk about guns? Will we have to listen to chants like, "Phones don't kill people. People kill people." and "Phones don't piss people off enough to kill people. People piss off people enough to kill people."

    --
    Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    1. Re:Gun/Phone control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Phones don't piss people off enough to kill people. People piss off people enough to kill people."

      Whoever said that have obviously not used a "modern" smartphone.

    2. Re:Gun/Phone control? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      "Phones don't piss people off enough to kill people. People piss off people enough to kill people."

      Speak for yourself, I have Verizon.

      Actually, I suppose it is the employees at Verizon that make me violent...

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  20. Knife blamed for stabbing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A newly discovered device called knife with million of uses has been blamed for stabbing... Call for banning all knife now!

  21. Here's a novel idea by MikeRT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Give law-abiding Britains their gun rights back and let them use them in public when attacked by people who clearly intend to render substantial harm to life, limb or property.

    Liberals were predicting that the "make my day" self-defense statutes Florida and Georgia have would result in a bloodbath because recipients of violence could not only stand their ground (by abolishing the "duty to retreat") but also lowered the threshold for using a weapon in self-defense.

    Instead, a lot of criminals suddenly realized it would be open season on them.

    Of course, you're well within your right to lecture these "redneck states" on how uncivilized their behavior is--even as your city is struggling with outright barbarism in its midst.

    1. Re:Here's a novel idea by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Yes, the predicted "bloodbath" argument has NEVER EVER held true and yet people still decry that as a reason for banning firearms.

      I think international travel should also be banned because the Earth is flat and we are likely to fall off of it. I realize that historical evidence to the contrary exists, but I'm going to keep believing what I believe because it's right... right?

    2. Re:Here's a novel idea by Pope · · Score: 4, Funny

      Cool, so the chavs will shoot back. Problem solved!

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    3. Re:Here's a novel idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have never even fired a weapon, so I am not one of those NRA nuts.

      But it is interesting to note that Tombstone, during its bad ole gun slinging days had a lower per capita murder rate than most cities today that have strict gun laws. Like NYC, DC and LA.

    4. Re:Here's a novel idea by shugah · · Score: 1, Funny

      Rednecks - the slogans never change.

      --
      If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
    5. Re:Here's a novel idea by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      When were our "gun rights" taken away?

    6. Re:Here's a novel idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't the "law-abiding Britains" using guns against the rioters mean that they clearly intend to render substantial harm to the life of the rioters (or anyone marked as a rioter whether or not they actually riot)? Which in turn would mean that the rioters are in their full right to retaliate the same way.

    7. Re:Here's a novel idea by shugah · · Score: 1

      Because, of course, the solution to wide spread rioting, looting and violence is more powerful weapons.

      --
      If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
    8. Re:Here's a novel idea by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      Right... good point. Open slather on guns to a nation that has 0.15 deaths per 100,000 population under advice from the USA... with 3.98 homicides per 100,000. Great idea! (Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic. Praeger Security International. Westport.)

    9. Re:Here's a novel idea by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      (Sorry, it was 0.38 deaths TOTAL vs 0.15 homicides)

    10. Re:Here's a novel idea by Deviate_X · · Score: 1

      I suspect we would rather have 3 days of rioting than 3 hours of what happened in Norway.

    11. Re:Here's a novel idea by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I would propose that we add a law that states that pointing a firearm at someone is the same as attempted murder. Everything I have ever learned about proper handling of firearms supports this as you know to never point it as something you don't intend to shoot. So logically, according to all the firearm training I have had, if someone is point a firearm at me they intend to shoot me. Personally I think too many people think that firearms are an extension of the penis and we are far to lenient on people who basically treat them as toys (yes I know they are fun as hell to shoot) and don't have the proper respect for them.

      Also I do feel that there is a need for training with a firearm as there are an awful lot of people who I would never want to own a firearm as they would be a danger to themselves and others. I have had a fair amount of firearms training since I was about 8 starting with the grandpa's intro to shooting and firearms out on the farm (my grandpa was a WWII marine), hunter safety (age 12), Boy Scouts shotgun and rifle merit badges, and the Minnesota carry permit training. By far the most intensive, detailed and complete was the rifle or shotgun merit badge in Boy Scouts, they each covered the same detailed safety training, specifics on effectively shooting the specific type of weapon, and had a real proficiency requirement.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    12. Re:Here's a novel idea by couchslug · · Score: 1

      There was good reason the LA riots didn't spread to Red States in any meaningful way. Don't think the locals won't shoot or don't know how.

      Unlike places where one is taught that victims have no value and that the thugs are the real "victims", we don't buy that nonsense.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    13. Re:Here's a novel idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      god you are a fucking igniorant yankee cunt.
      We dont want your fucking stupid yankee bloodshed on ou rstreets. Your gun crime levels are astonishingly high. Feel free to keep blowing holes in youer own supersixed thick as shit asses, but keep us out fo it.
      Now go pay back your chinese loans you fucking ignorant american dipshit.

    14. Re:Here's a novel idea by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Total number of people killed in these riots: 1 (by gunfire, fired by police)

      Reason the riots started initially: fatal shooting by police of an allegedly unarmed man.

      We're just not a gun culture, and good thing too - while there has been some considerable animosity flying around (including arson, throwing improvised missiles [bricks, bottles etc]) there have been almost no deaths. I cannot imagine that situation would be helped if every Have A Go Hero was armed (and by extension, the rioters themselves). Even just indiscriminate firing can result in serious consequences.

      We *do* have an armed section of the police, but it is rare that they are used.

    15. Re:Here's a novel idea by delinear · · Score: 2

      Indeed - what's better than several thousand rioters armed with rocks and sticks and knives out on our streets? Several thousand rioters armed with (legally purchased and licensed) firearms! Not to mention that all the police would have to be similarly armed. As a resident Brit who is a non-participant in the riots, I certainly don't want either side to have lethal weapons.

    16. Re:Here's a novel idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, yes. Lets take the most outrageous claim our opponents make and disprove that. That will prove that our stance is correct.
      Here is a few other claims we can easily use.
      "If guns are allowed random shootings will occur all the time"
      "If guns are allowed, robbers will shoot people instead of just robbing them"
      "If guns are allowed bloodbaths will ensure"
      "If guns are allowed all children will die"

      Lets just hope the other side uses the same tactics on outrageous claims from our side like
      "If guns are allowed no one will ever commit robbery/burglary/riots etc"
      "If guns are banned all criminals will have guns and rob people all the time"
      "If guns are banned criminals will rule the city"
      "If guns are allowed no child will ever die again"

    17. Re:Here's a novel idea by Rising+Ape · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'm sure the situation would be much better if the rioters were armed with handguns instead of whatever they can find lying around to throw. For fuck's sake...

    18. Re:Here's a novel idea by kevinNCSU · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm not sure what difference it would make, you'd be unlikely to go the way of the US. We kill each other more for a variety of social, racial and cultural reasons. The guns aren't really to blame, we have a higher non gun murder rate higher then meany European countries total murder rate. You could also just as easily point out the Swiss and Israel which have a plethora of fully automatic weapons and have a very low murder rate in order to make the opposite argument.

    19. Re:Here's a novel idea by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      As a resident Brit who is a non-participant in the riots, I certainly don't want either side to have lethal weapons.

      One side already have lethal weapons, it's only the law-abiding who have been disarmed. Good luck when a rioting gang come down your street setting your houses on fire.

    20. Re:Here's a novel idea by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      Yes, they already HAVE those weapons, but have they deployed them yet? Would they be more likely to deploy them if the general populace had equal access to firearms?

    21. Re:Here's a novel idea by treeves · · Score: 1

      Depends on which "our" that you refer to. For some, they have not been. Please be more specific.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    22. Re:Here's a novel idea by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Cool, so the chavs will shoot back. Problem solved!

      There are far more chavs than non-chavs, and the chavs will be shooting 'gansta-style' so they won't hit a damn thing other than by luck.

      Plus they're a bunch of cowards, so after the first couple are shot they'll go back home and play gansta on their X-box.

    23. Re:Here's a novel idea by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Yes, they already HAVE those weapons, but have they deployed them yet?

      You mean like burning buildings down when people are living in them?

    24. Re:Here's a novel idea by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Rioters are choosing to pose a mortal threat to innocent people therefore shooting them is self-defense/defense of others.

      The innocent have an inalienable right to defend themselves. There is no self-defense that matters without the right to uses deadly force.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    25. Re:Here's a novel idea by couchslug · · Score: 1

      The US violence problem is largely a consequence of the behavior of a particular demographic. The white areas with high firearm ownership are normally very peaceful. As the UK demographics become Third World demographics you will see more violence there.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia

      Kennesaw is also noted for discouraging criminal demographics. I'll accept racism in trade for personal security any day, because my security is more important than Political Correctness. I don't care who thinks that's "wrong", because none of those people will ever do anything to protect my safety.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    26. Re:Here's a novel idea by shugah · · Score: 1

      Because comparing a small, rural, farming town to 3 large urban metropolises is reasonable and valid?

      In any of these cities you could find numerous apartment buildings with larger populations than Tombstone Arizona that have no crime to speak of.

      --
      If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
    27. Re:Here's a novel idea by xelah · · Score: 1

      1920ish, I believe. Before that the right for Protestants to bear arms was written in to the Bill of Rights.

    28. Re:Here's a novel idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give law-abiding Britains their gun rights back and let them use them in public when attacked by people who clearly intend to render substantial harm to life, limb or property.

      I agree with this except for "or property." Deadly force should only be used when in fear of great bodily harm or death--not to defend your stuff.

    29. Re:Here's a novel idea by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      When were our "gun rights" taken away?

      If you are British, then 1824 (allowed police to confiscate weapons they thought might be used in a crime), 1903 (limits pistol ownership), 1920 (requiring a license for all firearms), and 1937 (declared that self defense was no longer a reason suitable for a license), as the right to bear arms from the Bill of Rights signed by King James II which stated that people have the right to bear arms for self defence.

    30. Re:Here's a novel idea by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      And yet somehow this guy managed to obtain several firearms legally. I'd say our gun rights are still there.

    31. Re:Here's a novel idea by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Try reading the post above mine - it might give you a hint.

    32. Re:Here's a novel idea by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Give law-abiding Britains their gun rights back

      How could you give them back? We never had them in the first place, we never had America's cowboy culture. I don't see how adding guns to the equation would help anything. Do we really want these feral looters armed with guns?

      And do we really want angry shop-owners going Rambo, shooting at everyone, killing countless innocent by-standers? Even trained, professional police marksmen miss all the time, killing the wrong people even with rubber bullets.

      Keep your cigar-chomping gun-nut culture to your three-person redneck village where it belongs. There's nothing going on in London that can't be solved by a copper with a truncheon who's willing to use it. However most of the time they just stand around waiting until they have a hundred co-workers in riot gear before doing anything, by which time the looters have dispersed.

    33. Re:Here's a novel idea by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Hell, they just need to have saner self-defense laws. It's almost illegal to protect yourself in Britain, and it's almost universally illegal to protect your property. Note how it's just finally becoming explicitly protected to do so: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13957587

    34. Re:Here's a novel idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shit's going down and you wanna hand out guns?!

    35. Re:Here's a novel idea by dkf · · Score: 1

      Give law-abiding Britains their gun rights back and let them use them in public when attacked by people who clearly intend to render substantial harm to life, limb or property.

      So, instead of rioting scum you're proposing we should have gun-toting rioting scum? <sarcasm> Wonderful. Really going to make things better, that. </sarcasm> Whatever problems widespread carrying of guns solve, riot isn't one of them because in that case you end up just escalating things. It also increases the likelihood of non-involved people dying or being injured (from stray shots, under the minor assumption that at least some rioters won't be careful where they fire).

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    36. Re:Here's a novel idea by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Really? I've read a lot about the riots and seen pictures and videos, haven't seen looters with guns, just bats. Perhaps you could enlighten us.

    37. Re:Here's a novel idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. And the fact that people shoot at you on the highway in Miami is, what? Just one of those things I have to put up with so S&W, Colt, et al can make larger profits? Stick you damned 'gun rights' back in your wallet, sonny boy, and come up with a good reason to carry a gun.

    38. Re:Here's a novel idea by treeves · · Score: 1

      Well, if you're talking about the UK , it looks like they were reduced successively in 1903, 1920, 1937, 1968, 1988, 1997, and 2006. But if you live there, why are you asking?

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    39. Re:Here's a novel idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rubbish, during these riots we've had only one reported death, the damage has mostly been been to property and wealth which really can be replaced. Taking up a weapon on your own only makes you a target for the criminals trying to take your property. The lesson I've taken from these riots is that were a community can organise itself in numbers it can protect itself and send a powerful message of defiance.

    40. Re:Here's a novel idea by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Really? I've read a lot about the riots and seen pictures and videos, haven't seen looters with guns, just bats. Perhaps you could enlighten us.

      Thank God bats aren't lethal.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    41. Re:Here's a novel idea by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Kennesaw is also noted for discouraging criminal demographics. I'll accept racism in trade for personal security any day, because my I'm white.

      FTFY

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    42. Re:Here's a novel idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet somehow this guy managed to obtain several firearms legally. I'd say our gun rights are still there.

      They are there. However, you need a Firearms Certificate (FAC) and there are very strict requirements to meet before you can get one (and then you must have proper storage cabinets, etc). To get one, you have to have a good reason for owning a gun - either shooting for sport (eg target shooting as long as you are a full member of a club) or hunting/pest control (where you can prove you have access to land to shoot on). Even then, you can only have a rifle or a muzzle-loading pistol (no other handguns at all) and rifles can either be any caliber single shot or .22 rimfire semi-automatic.

      I think the law should change to allow home defence or business defence as a reason for obtaining an FAC as long as the weapon did not leave the property it is registered at (ie no driving to the shops with a gun in the car).

  22. Technology "blamed"? by blind+biker · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've followed the BBC feed on the riots, and I can't say I've heard anyone, including the police, "blame" the technology, as much as simply acknowledging that the rioters use it to organize. That's it. Nobody is screaming "remove technology from the premises".

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    1. Re:Technology "blamed"? by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Check the comments from the various MPs. They'll discuss the impact of technology on the riots and what can be done about it in their next sessions.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    2. Re:Technology "blamed"? by Piata · · Score: 1

      If that's really the MPs approach, I'm not surprised people are rioting.

    3. Re:Technology "blamed"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on, you know you only have to look so far as the Daily Fail. Not only have they blamed for it, they're calling for it to be banned:

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023924/London-riots-From-Hackney-Brixton-Twitter-Blackberry-help-looters-ordinate-raids.html

    4. Re:Technology "blamed"? by Martin+S. · · Score: 1

      The 'blame' for pointing the finger is Mike Butcher editor of TechCrunch.

      We were amongst the first to identify the BlackBerry mobile handset and its unique, private Blackberry Messaging service (BBM) as a method whereby rioters and looters, many of them teenagers, broadcast and swapped information in a way that effectively crowd-sourced the riots.

  23. Videogames by kikito · · Score: 1

    How did they miss the chance?

    1. Re:Videogames by kikito · · Score: 1

      xD they never fail to deliver.

    2. Re:Videogames by mlk · · Score: 1
      --
      Wow, I should not post when knackered.
  24. How about blaming... by ilsaloving · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    How about blaming themselves for their ham-fisted police action for sparking the riots in the first place?

    No? Funny that...

    1. Re:How about blaming... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      What? You mean the bottom feeding chav that was a known drug dealer, and had a rap sheet as long as my body couldn't have been the instigator?

      FUCK!

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:How about blaming... by MimeticLie · · Score: 1

      Yeah, one guy prompted 3 days of rioting.

      Or, the tuition hikes, massive youth unemployment, and harsh police reaction to previous protests might have had a contributing effect.

  25. Democracy doesn't guarantee freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In many ways it's starting to look like the exact opposite. As a realist, I have long believed that the class or style of government is largely irrelevant, and should be regarded by every citizen as irrelevant. Freedom is the bottom line. Period. If my god-given right to freedom (natural human right if you prefer) is respected by a monarchy more than a democracy, would I rather live under the rule of the monarchy? You're damn right I would. I've only got 80 years on this planet, and I'll be damned if I'm going to waste it on pipe-dream ideology (like the quaint notion that democracy is automatically more "respectable" than monarchy).

    1. Re:Democracy doesn't guarantee freedom by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      You seem to be missing the point that the UK is both a democracy and a monarchy... it's a constitutional monarchy.

    2. Re:Democracy doesn't guarantee freedom by Rising+Ape · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that democracy is necessary not because it necessarily makes the right decisions, but because it acts as a negative feedback mechanism to ensure that the governors at least approximately act in the interests of the population. Without it, the only way of getting rid of a bad government is through violence.

    3. Re:Democracy doesn't guarantee freedom by Wandering+Idiot · · Score: 1

      The monarchy's been stripped of any real power, though. If they tried to use the nominal duties they still have to actually affect policy, those would be removed very quickly.

  26. My personal take. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (of course, all this is my personal opinion, not of anyone else) ... is that some things are somewhat similar. E.g. UK and Lybia (fortunately, I'm donning my antiflame vest).

    The common denominator seems to be, in these broadband times, youngums cannot wait a femtosecond for things to change. If you like change, then great... if not... oh, boy!

  27. maybe... by swan5566 · · Score: 1

    They'll forgive technology once they remember how well it helps them track down those who rioted. And then help them prosecute. And then help them build profiling and monitoring software for riot prevention. And....

    --
    In debates about Christianity, there are two groups: those looking for answers, and those looking to just ask questions.
    1. Re:maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're already using technology to track the gatherings (we've had warnings about affected areas for tonight already based on Twitter trends and the like) and to track down the perpetrators (the police have their own Twitter feed on which they've been showing images of suspects today that they'd like to locate).

  28. Technology isn't the source of the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Disaffected urban youth" are. It's not as if faster and more effective communication has motivated these people to do what they are doing. It's greed that is motivating them, judging by the extent of looting. The availability of cheap and effective mobile communication to the public gives the police less advantage than they used to have from their own communication systems when responding to problems.

    If anything, these riots call into question the effectiveness of technology given that there are video cameras deployed all over the place. Maybe they'll develop some common sense and realize that investing money in camera systems is no substitute for having actual police officers on the street that are engaged with the community. It also makes you wonder whether endlessly cutting back on government services so that people can pay less taxes is as much of a net benefit to society as people sometimes claim. Eventually you might not have the resources needed to respond to a crisis or to maintain services needed to support a more equable society. This is not meant to be an excuse for the assholes doing the looting, but gangs of "disaffected youth" don't suddenly develop overnight. It means there are long-standing problems that haven't been properly addressed.

    1. Re:Technology isn't the source of the problem by Churnits · · Score: 1

      ... endlessly cutting back on government services so that people can pay less taxes ...

      Er, you're talking about the UK here right? This isn't the US, we don't do tax cuts anymore - we pay MORE tax (VAT up to 20% for a top-of-the-head example) AND get cuts in services. Everyone's a winner!

    2. Re:Technology isn't the source of the problem by shugah · · Score: 1

      We won't really know until the aftermath, but if the riots in London are at all similar to the Vancouver Stanley Cup riots, most of the 'disaffected youth" were middle class, teens and young men from the suburbs, spurred on by a handful of professional anarchists. The same black masked anarchists tried to get something going during the opening ceremonies for the Olympics, but fortunately, due to the enormous good will in the city at the time, the crowd turned on the small handful of rioters and shut them down really quickly. After losing the Stanley Cup final - the good will was absent and it took very little to get the crowd going. One thing that was common to both incidents in Vancouver was that early in the day, long before the events, the police began detaining people who were bringing cans of gasoline and weapons into the downtown core.

      --
      If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
  29. It's time to ban education! by erroneus · · Score: 1

    These smart people are simply getting out of hand. We need dumb people because they are easier to manage.

    1. Re:It's time to ban education! by royallthefourth · · Score: 1

      The school system in the United States fosters ignorance to sociology, philosophy, and history (aside from war) so you might say that they've already tried it here. Anything that might help someone understand his place in the world and history is considered a waste of time. Instead, students are expected to use their future to either create new business (management or advertising) or become a perfectly trained worker bee (math). Other fields of study are treated as specialized components of those primary objects. It's completely rational to argue about what education might make the best engineer, but to question to what end these engineers have been equipped to work is heresy. To the poor student who works his way through college, it is said that he may choose a course of mathematics to make his way out of poverty, but should he choose a course of study that shows him why he is poor, he will be kicked back to the curb. There is no job for the holder of any such degree. He has every opportunity to find an axis to place himself as cog in the already running machine, but education in the United States is a complete failure in creating illumination.

      Rationality stands as theocrat: question only the how; the what is sacred. Heretics are excommunicated from the coveted middle class and cast into social obscurity.

  30. Whats the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I grew up in London, it's always been overrun by thieves and other criminals, my uncle was murdered by teens a few years back, whats all the fuss about??

  31. It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by kurt555gs · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We are having these problems in Illinois and Wisconsin as well. Illinois has no concealed carry law, and Wisconsin's doesnt take effect until Nov 1.

    We are not seeing destructive flash mobs in Houston. It's won't happen there because both the organizers and participants know that lots of Texans walk around armed all the time. So, the concealed carry law it's self PREVENTS violence because these hooligans don't want to try something that will lead to them being shot dead.

    So, the UK can watch and spy, and listen all they want and it will have no effect on what is happening.

    --
    * Carthago Delenda Est *
    1. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, we in the UK should definitely consider selling our principles out.

      After all, a mere 10,000 people annually are killed by guns in the US, and when you compare that to the 40 or so people who have been injured in these riots the case is clear - we should have more guns in the UK.

      When the unrest does hit your state, and regular citizens are shot with their own guns, which is what always happens when inexperienced gun owners try to take the law into their own hands, I hope Slashdot is up long enough for me to laugh at you.

    2. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because the constant threat of violence is surely a sign of an advanced civilization. Now praise the lord and pass the ammo!

    3. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by kurt555gs · · Score: 0

      Well then, it seems that the answer is to be proficient in the handling and use of ones own firearms.

      --
      * Carthago Delenda Est *
    4. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We are having these problems in Illinois and Wisconsin as well. Illinois has no concealed carry law, and Wisconsin's doesnt take effect until Nov 1

      The "riot" in Wisconsin is not at all comparable to what is happening in London. That event was a bunch of stupid bored kids. The idea that they could get hurt would probably have not crossed their minds. Furthermore, do you really believe that people whipping out guns in the middle of a very large crowd is really a good idea? It is very crowded at the Wisconsin State Fair. The chances of an innocent bystander being seriously hurt would be near 100%. Especially if the rioters had guns of their own and decided to return fire. Then you're pretty much guaranteed to have innocent people dead.

    5. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by kurt555gs · · Score: 0

      You either miss my point, "Anonymous Coward", or are trying to twist it to your own agenda. What I am saying is the states where concealed carry is common are not having these flash mob incidents because the perpetrators know the citizenry is armed and they would be shot. So, they don't try it in the first place. No one would be pulling out guns and shooting rioters because there are no rioters. It's the law in and of it's self that allows concealed carry that prevents violence on either side.

      Clear? Anonymous Coward?

      --
      * Carthago Delenda Est *
    6. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes because that is what happened to the korean store owners in the LA riots.

      http://lapd.com/news/headlines/not_your_1992_lapd/

    7. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by geekoid · · Score: 5, Informative

      Specious Bullshit.

      Texas has the highest number of cattle per ranch; clearly that why you don't see destructive flash mobs.
      Hey, Texas has a nigher suicide rate then Wisconsin, clearly that's because lots of Texans walk around armed all the time.
      Stop pushing your ideological statements and specious reasoning and use facts.

      The highest gun death is in the states with the highest gun ownership.

      Texas has a lower concealed weapon owner ship then Michigan. Does Michigan have few crimes then Texas? How about Florida?
      Do any of these states:

      Percent of Adults with a License to Carry in each Shall Issue State

      7.45% South Dakota
      6.79% Indiana
      6.76% Pennsylvania
      5.23% Connecticut
      5.12% Washington
      4.34% Idaho
      4.10% Utah
      3.86% Oregon
      3.45% Tennessee
      3.15% Alabama
      2.72% Florida
      2.71% Kentucky
      2.67% Wyoming
      2.41% Maine
      2.18% Arkansas
      2.11% Virginia
      1.94% West Virginia
      1.76% Arizona
      1.75% Oklahoma
      1.70% Montana
      1.70% Michigan
      1.62% Texas

      Do you even realize that per capita, there are 32 other states that has more gun ownership then Texas?
      More data:
      States with the Five HIGHEST Per Capita Gun Death Rates

      Louisiana--Rank: 1; Household Gun Ownership: 45.6 percent; Gun Death Rate: 19.58 per 100,000.
      Alabama--Rank: 2; Household Gun Ownership: 57.2 percent; Gun Death Rate: 16.99 per 100,000.
      Alaska--Rank: 3 (tie); Household Gun Ownership: 60.6 percent; Gun Death Rate: 16.38 per 100,000.
      Mississippi--Rank: 3 (tie); Household Gun Ownership: 54.3 percent; Gun Death Rate: 16.38 per 100,000.
      Nevada--Rank: 5; Household Gun Ownership: 31.5 percent; Gun Death Rate: 16.25 per 100,000.

      States with the Five LOWEST Per Capita Gun Death Rates
      Hawaii--Rank: 50; Household Gun Ownership: 9.7 percent; Gun Death Rate: 2.58 per 100,000.
      Massachusetts--Rank: 49; Household Gun Ownership: 12.8 percent; Gun Death Rate: 3.28 per 100,000.
      Rhode Island--Rank: 48; Household Gun Ownership: 13.3 percent; Gun Death Rate: 4.43 per 100,000.
      Connecticut--Rank: 47; Household Gun Ownership: 16.2 percent; Gun Death Rate: 4.95 per 100,000.
      New York--Rank: 46; Household Gun Ownership: 18.1 percent; Gun Death Rate: 5.20 per 100,000.

      Think.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by Princeofcups · · Score: 1, Interesting

      We are having these problems in Illinois and Wisconsin as well. Illinois has no concealed carry law, and Wisconsin's doesnt take effect until Nov 1.

      We are not seeing destructive flash mobs in Houston. It's won't happen there because both the organizers and participants know that lots of Texans walk around armed all the time. So, the concealed carry law it's self PREVENTS violence because these hooligans don't want to try something that will lead to them being shot dead.

      So, the UK can watch and spy, and listen all they want and it will have no effect on what is happening.

      As an American, I am sickened and appalled by this post. That's all I have to say. We are not ALL gun carrying lunatics.

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    9. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by kurt555gs · · Score: 1

      OK, I will rephrase to "Shall issue" concealed carry states. By the way, I seem to have missed the news items about flash mobs in South Dakota. The highest on your list.

      Concealed carry does prevent crime.

      --
      * Carthago Delenda Est *
    10. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile in Oakland, CA people die from stray bullets and mysterious drive by shootings. Tell me again how people having guns has any effect on those things other than making the weapon that much more available?

    11. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Promoting vigilantism to counter rioting is NOT a convincing argument to support gun ownership. There are much better reasons.

      These "hooligans" are rioting despite facing various organized and ARMED law enforcement agencies. Having armed civilians would do little to deter them. And thankfully law enforcement agencies, in theory, wish to preserve the lives of alleged criminals which is why they try to minimize the use of lethal force in situations like this---tear gas, firehoses, audio guns, etc. Whereas you would prefer that these rioters be stopped immediately with lethal force, over what? Insured property? Such a callous attitude to have when the violence isn't even directed at you. And I do mean you specifically, because holding such an opinion implies that you are willing to take a life defending property that is NOT even yours and is more or less replaceable. The irony of it is that you brandishing and discharging a weapon at a mob will more than likely make you a target for retribution than something to be feared since you aren't part of an organized force. How many do you think you can take down before you'd be overwhelmed by a large group of people?

    12. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You try shooting a mob of rioters with your concealed pistol; let's see how long they let you keep it.

    13. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Can't tell if trolling.... ....or just stupid.

    14. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Except it's total nonsense. Concealed carry laws do not make it somehow "safer" due to the deterrence factor - all it does is encourage criminals to arm themselves.

      The UK has a very low death rate by firearms because it's simply not in our culture. Armed robbery is rare, civilian bystanders getting shot is even rarer (enough that it makes the national news for days when it happens).

      Your solution to "curing this violence" is that people should be armed, and it's just laughably silly. Even though you *can* get handguns here for the purposes of crime, they are not being used in these riots - if they were entrenched in our culture (if many people carried them, and you could buy one at a local grocery store for example) then we'd have heard of many more than just the single police-inflicted shooting that we have seen so far.

    15. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by kurt555gs · · Score: 1

      If you read what I wrote, I was not advocation shooting anyone. What I was saying is states with "Shall Issue" concealed carry, or constitutional carry are not having rampant mob violence.

      --
      * Carthago Delenda Est *
    16. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dont see the mob trying to rush these people.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUaoil0wsyU

    17. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, after one or two go down the rest kind of lose their enthusiasm. I base that on seeing the same from people that are fighting for their own countries, not just committing random acts of violence. If your life or the life of your child is threatened....who wouldn't use every tool available to save life?

    18. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's total nonsense, then why do so many law enforcement agencies endorse concealed carry laws? At the same time though, this entire conversation is Apples to Oranges. The US has a Constitution that guarantees that citizens have a right to defend themselves via the 2A.

      How's the rate of home invasion in the UK? How many are stabbed? (Serious questions, not being sarcastic as I have no idea)

      An armed populace is a deterrent, ask the Jewish folks how being disarmed worked for them.

    19. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by kurt555gs · · Score: 1

      You make a convincing argument not to outlaw 30 round clips for your Glock's is the right thing to do. They are in fact needed for situations like this.
       

      --
      * Carthago Delenda Est *
    20. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except it's total nonsense. Concealed carry laws do not make it somehow "safer" due to the deterrence factor - all it does is encourage criminals to arm themselves.

      Statistics clearly contradict your position. Crimes rates drop wherever concealed carry is introduced in the US. Interestingly enough, open carry has the same effect.

    21. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Except it's total nonsense. Concealed carry laws do not make it somehow "safer" due to the deterrence factor - all it does is encourage criminals to arm themselves.

      The UK has a very low death rate by firearms because it's simply not in our culture. Armed robbery is rare, civilian bystanders getting shot is even rarer (enough that it makes the national news for days when it happens).

      Your solution to "curing this violence" is that people should be armed, and it's just laughably silly. Even though you *can* get handguns here for the purposes of crime, they are not being used in these riots - if they were entrenched in our culture (if many people carried them, and you could buy one at a local grocery store for example) then we'd have heard of many more than just the single police-inflicted shooting that we have seen so far.

      Yes, very peaceful and civilized: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

      That took all of 5sec of google-fu.

      I know the U.S. has a much larger population, but still, how is a violent crime rate _per capita_ of 2034 per 100,000 [UK] better than 466 per 100,000 [US]?

    22. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We are not ALL gun carrying lunatics."

      Yea! Felons can't own guns! Neither can the mentally ill (e.g. bipolar). Even having recent legal issues (domestic violence, DWI) will stop you depending on the state. Living with someone that falls into these camps stop you from getting a gun.

      I'm not sure which camp Princeofcups is in, but we are all definitely not gun-carrying lunatics. ;)

    23. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      You reinforced my point for me - the idea that "if only Londoners had guns and they would;t be bothered by these riots" is just not a useful comparison since we have no gun culture here.

      In terms of stabbings and home invasion, both are possible, but it's not like we have a rampant criminal problem because burglars are "unafraid of being shot".

    24. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      That's from the Daily Mail. i.e., it's almost certain to be false.

      My own google-fu tells me there are 2 Popes per square kilometre in the Vatican. Statistics eh?

    25. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Compared to the UK's current crime rates? I do not think introducing guns into the equation will do much to *lower* the crime rates here - especially deaths that occur as a direct result of crimes (either of police, perpetrators or bystanders).

    26. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's from the Daily Mail. i.e., it's almost certain to be false.

      My own google-fu tells me there are 2 Popes per square kilometre in the Vatican. Statistics eh?

      Here. Some new, shiny statistics for your perusal:

      US Violent Crime Rate: 475 per 100,000 citizens
      (Year: 2003 http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2003/toc03.pdf )

      UK Violent Crime Rate: 4,100 per 100,000 citizens
      (Year: 2003 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr1804.pdf )

    27. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Compared to the UK's current crime rates? I do not think introducing guns into the equation will do much to *lower* the crime rates here - especially deaths that occur as a direct result of crimes (either of police, perpetrators or bystanders).

      British per-capita gun crime rates were lower back in the days when anyone with ten shillings to spend could buy a permit to carry a gun, and anyone could buy a gun over the counter no questions asked.

    28. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      You reinforced my point for me - the idea that "if only Londoners had guns and they would;t be bothered by these riots" is just not a useful comparison since we have no gun culture here.

      A century ago significant numbers of British people carried guns. Just read police reports from that time and you'll find ordinary folks either shooting at armed criminals or giving their guns to the police who were chasing them.

      Of course there weren't many such cases because armed criminals knew that they were likely to get shot.

    29. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      than -- learn it, love it, use it!

    30. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you won't see "destructive flash mobs" in Houston, but even if so the evidence that there is a correlation between violent crime and concealed carry laws is weak, and you may wish to compare the overall homicide and/or gun death rates in any state in the U.S. compared to the UK or plenty of other countries that have more restrictive gun laws.

      About the only thing you can guarantee by adding guns into the mix is that there will be more gun deaths, whether you're talking about the thugs or ordinary citizens, and whether you are talking about intentional or accidental deaths. When people have enough fear that they think they'll be safer if everyone carries a concealed gun it is a symptom of some serious problems. If people feel they have to carry guns with them at all times, then the attempt to create a civil society has utterly failed.

      Carrying a concealed weapon may solve individual security fears, but it solves nothing at the scale of the broader society. It just makes the carriers feel better about the situation.

    31. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Yes, because recorded statistics were much more... "lax"... back then.

    32. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      There were;t many *reported* cases.

      Crime stats from 100 years ago are about as reliable as Oracle in a "we got your back on this patent shit" fight.

    33. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We are not seeing destructive flash mobs in Houston. It's won't happen there because both the organizers and participants know that lots of Texans walk around armed all the time. So, the concealed carry law it's self PREVENTS violence because these hooligans don't want to try something that will lead to them being shot dead."

      Yes, probably not, because people are probably too busy at the hospital.

    34. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just curious if you'd be so kind as to list non-gun (violent) death rates for those states, along side?

      I recall more people dying to hands and feet than gunfire in NY. Also baseball bats / clubbing tools killed more than gunfire.

    35. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CA is a "May Issue state" not "Shall Issue" this translates into unless you know someone you do not get a CC permit. I am also willing to bet that the people that used the firearms did not obtain them legally.

    36. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by zifferent · · Score: 1

      Philadelphia is currently having issues with flash mobs. So much so that the mayor has issued a curfew. Yet Pennsylvania is third in granted concealed weapons permits. I don't think concealed weapons solve any social issue, much less prevent crime.

      --
      cat sig > /dev/null
    37. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by kurt555gs · · Score: 1

      Philly is anomaly because the sheriff there has been illegally denying concealed carry permits for some time. His anti civil rights actions are being challenged in court with several cases. Try Google. So, Philly does not count because of the his illegal actions. Cleveland Ohio has been trying the same nonsense, and has been soundly thrashed in court.

      My original argument still stands.

      --
      * Carthago Delenda Est *
    38. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that many people can't handle a cellphone responsibly (texters-while-driving, this means you), I hardly think giving them a handgun is an appropriate action.

    39. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      People are violent. That has never changed and shows no signs of doing so. On the other hand, those that are disposed to violence are typically those that will pick targets that they can likely "win" against. That's why you rarely get jumped by one guy, and these are gangs of youths doing these crimes. If the playing field is leveled, then there's less violent crime.

      More reading: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706

      There's more crime per capita in your "principled" civilization in Great Britian according to NationMaster, as well as double the number of assaults per capita. You can't just compare raw numbers because Great Britain is tiny compared to the USA. You really have no concept of how small your country is. You're sitting at around 62 million people. The USA has 308 million. Really, all you show is a major disconnect from facts but you have a very strong "feeling" that you're right.

    40. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      It's not a constant threat of violence. It's a constant threat of violence being responded to with violence rather than victimization. There are assholes out there who'll hurt other people to get what they want. Or just for the hell of it. If there's the threat of them getting hurt or caught doing so, that's about the only thing that makes them think twice.

    41. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      To quote an american slashdotter that posted earlier on this same topic

      I'm not sure what difference it would make, you'd be unlikely to go the way of the US. We kill each other more for a variety of social, racial and cultural reasons. The guns aren't really to blame, we have a higher non gun murder rate higher then meany European countries total murder rate. You could also just as easily point out the Swiss and Israel which have a plethora of fully automatic weapons and have a very low murder rate in order to make the opposite argument.

      Now for your argument.

      regular citizens are shot with their own guns, which is what always happens when inexperienced gun owners try to take the law into their own hands,

      So... how do you propose citizens get experience with guns when they cannot own them and legally shoot them on ranges/go hunting etc with their own rifles to get familiarized with it in a safe environment with training?

      The lack of availability of firearms also heavily affects the availability of training and experience with firearms. If you don't remove peoples gun rights this is not a problem with the general population. Those interested in firearms will acquire them and get experience with them. Those that aren't interested won't get them anyway.

    42. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I say take off and nuke the entire site from orbit, its the only way to be sure.

    43. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Specious Bullshit as well.

      Could you please break down Gun Deaths into sub categories of:

      Self-defense
      Undetermined
      Murder
      Accident

    44. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by itchythebear · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity...

      Is this all murders or do accidents count too?

      How about suicides?

      How about self defense? If a person shot and killed someone attacking them, does that count towards that total?

      I'm not trying to disprove your numbers necessarily, but you never distinguish what is meant by gun deaths and you didn't provide any sources for your numbers. A person committing suicide by shooting themselves is just as likely to do it another way. In the case of a person shooting an attacker, that could have still ended with a death, but it could have been the victim who had died instead of the attacker. It's also pretty reasonable to assume that a state that has more guns per person would have more gun accidents per person. So it may not be as black and white as the above numbers suggest.

      --
      If what I just said sounded like a troll, it was probably just a failed attempt at humor.
    45. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

      Think.
      Okay. I think using 'Gun Deaths' to make the point you're trying to make is statistical chicancery.
      You should subtract suicides from those numbers. Only the elderly and infirm need a gun to kill themselves- everyone else finds a different method if required.
      Then you should subtract self defense & home invasion shootings, because those aren't detrimental to society.

      What's left might be a reasonable aproximation of gun-based violent crimes.
      Oh, and then you should compare the overall violent crime rates in those states you cited.

      Think.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    46. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where does this data come from?

    47. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your benchmark includes suicides, which is of course going to correlate some - but it's also misleading. A counter benchmark would be firearm murder rates where it's not so cut and dry, e.g. New Hampshire (thirty-ninth highest rate of gun ownership) murder rate of 1.1 per 100,000 (lowest in US).

    48. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by randyleepublic · · Score: 0

      So less guns means less death by guns. Fair enough, and not surprising, but does it also mean less murder? And why is the United States one of the murder capitols of the world, yet our gun ownership is much lower than Canada's where they have a very low murder rate.

      --
      Social Credit would solve everything...
    49. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      gun death rate means nothing. How about people who SHOULD have gotten shot while robbing but didnt because no one could stop them?

    50. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are there any good studies comparing the level of crime per capita in the USA vs the UK? You can't just compare the raw statistics because of differences in reporting and in what is classed as a crime.

    51. Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see Louisana and Nevada ruining a perfectly good correlation. Oh well, we can just eliminate the outliers before publishing the graph.

  32. The printing press by Yaur · · Score: 1

    Really this is nothing more then the 21st century equivalent of the printing press. People are going to use it to communicate both good and bad things more efficiently then they were before.. this is both obvious and meaningless. I'm sure that both the automobile and public transport both factored into the riots and the only reason there aren't stories about that is that old people understand those technologies.

  33. Technology Blamed For Helping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Technology Blamed For Helping ..." Yep, that's what technology does - it helps.

  34. The real problem by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

    They said it... disaffected youth, why is the public so angry at the police that it spills over into riots?

    Not being from the UK, but I believe the police over there have more liberties with people, which opens up their ability to harass people, while police in the US can be dicks, we're talking about ALL of the police in the UK.

    1. Re:The real problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not being from the UK, but I believe the police over there have more liberties with people, which opens up their ability to harass people, while police in the US can be dicks, we're talking about ALL of the police in the UK.

      Come back when you have some real experience / evidence. Clue -- not everything shown on TV is real

    2. Re:The real problem by u38cg · · Score: 1
      Quite the opposite. Police in the UK are far more closely scrutinised than in the US.

      The anger is not at the police or indeed at anything else: it is simply inchoate rage. Most of the rioters are young unemployed men, a group which is not exactly known for keeping out of trouble anywhere. Some were set off by lies or misinformation, and frankly the rest can be explained by boredom and good weather.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
  35. Surveillance cameras by Krneki · · Score: 4, Insightful

    With all the surveillance cameras in London one would thought that is has to be the most secure city in the world.

    Oh the irony.

    --
    Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    1. Re:Surveillance cameras by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      The problem with that concept is that they're not all government owned and controlled, and they're not all hooked up to a central network... if they're hooked up to a networked or watched at all. It's supposed to be a deterrent but fails in that respect.

    2. Re:Surveillance cameras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cameras have little to do with real time; they are mostly there to provide evidence for a later prosecution.

    3. Re:Surveillance cameras by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      "to a network" ffs...

    4. Re:Surveillance cameras by xaxa · · Score: 1

      CCTV pictures of especially wanted people.

    5. Re:Surveillance cameras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This will just "prove" they need MORE surveillance cameras

    6. Re:Surveillance cameras by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      The problem with that concept is that rioters don't give a crap about CCTV because the smart ones have sophsiticated stealth 'mask' technology and the dumber ones know that the courts will just slap their wrist and send them home even if they get that far. Many of these kids will have been in and out of the police station so often they're probably on first-name terms with everyone working there.

    7. Re:Surveillance cameras by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      Like I said, it fails as a deterrent.

    8. Re:Surveillance cameras by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      I think you mean: this.

    9. Re:Surveillance cameras by Marcika · · Score: 1

      The surveillance cameras are concentrated in the City, the West End and Westminster. Guess which areas have been entirely devoid of looters (despite having the most valuable loot).

    10. Re:Surveillance cameras by Dilaudid · · Score: 1

      With all the surveillance cameras in London one would thought that is has to be the most secure city in the world. Oh the irony.

      And you know what the really strange thing is? After these riots, you can bet there will be a whole lot more CCTV cameras, and police, and I suspect that Theresa May is quietly reviewing the costs of getting a water cannon fleet. And what is even stranger is that the British people will be right behind her. Strange thing is, when people see their houses being burnt down, they stop caring about whether a CCTV camera guy might take photos of a stupid girl that leaves her curtains open, and start thinking it's nicer to lose a bit of privacy than be burnt to death. Funny old world, isn't it?

  36. WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The Metropolitan Police, known as Scotland Yard"

    That's like a story about the US saying

    "The CIA, known as The CIA Headquarters"

    1. Re:WTF by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      No, it's not.

      It would be like saying " The CIA, known as Langley...". And guess what... that's done too, though it's not as coloquel(sp?) as Scotland Yard.

    2. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US Gov and the Whitehouse too I guess.

    3. Re:WTF by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      Colloquial*

  37. The Princess Bride by fnj · · Score: 1

    Decry. I do not think that word means what you think it means. Or would you care to rephrase that first sentence?

    1. Re:The Princess Bride by erroneus · · Score: 1

      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decry

      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/decry

      Perhaps, perhaps not. But when I write what I wrote, it registers as correct in my mind. People "decry" the proverbial predicted bloodbath as the reason that rights to bear arms should be denied.

      I could easily have written "claim" but decry has the appropriate negative component where claim is neutral.

  38. Let's blame clothing manufacturers as well by boylinux · · Score: 1

    Hoodies and scarves allow these people to do things in plain view without being identified.

  39. And they didn't blame public transportation too? by DWIM · · Score: 1

    If they want to point fingers at technology enabling these riots, then they should indict public transportation as well. Given many statements to the press that the people participating in these riots seem to have come from all over London, I seriously doubt they all walked or drove to Tottenham or whatever riot spot was on schedule. Odds are great many rode public transportation to get there.

  40. The Police have it easier than ever... by Uhhhh+oh+ya! · · Score: 1

    They make it seem so sophisticated, "It's an 'encrypted, very secure..." I bet I could have made an account and figured out where they were going. People are now willing to post where they are going to strike next, open for anyone to see, and the police want to shut it down? Lets just face it, when even the rioters tipping off police ahead of time isnt helpful enough to do anything about the riot then you need to re-evaluate your law enforcement.

  41. Check yourselves, Americans by benjfowler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Living in London, and seeing the chaos first hand, I find the millions of ignorant teenage American basement dwellers posting here, with their stupid, teenage libertarian logic highly offensive. Britain is a different country, with different traditions, and different laws to the US.

    IF these gangs of hoodlums were all packing .45s, then hundreds of innocent people would likely be dead.
    There is NO government conspiracy to start riots as a pretext to limit our civil liberties
    CCTV does work -- ask all the homie-g gangbangers being busted right now, where the evidence that put them behind bars came from

    Grow up, and kindly refrain from commenting on things you obviously know nothing about. Ignoramuses.

    1. Re:Check yourselves, Americans by geekoid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "IF these gangs of hoodlums were all packing .45s, then hundreds of innocent people would likely be dead."

      Evidence suggest not.

      Who cares if CCTV works? The fact is it is a violation on basic freedoms. Treat your populations like they are all criminals, and eventually you moved from the police being a member of the society helping itself, to the police becoming outside of society and creating an US v Them attitude. History is filled withe examples.

      I am curious: are the CCTV recording available to everyone?

      And no , I don't think the riots ar a result of direct control from the government; however the government has clearly created a situation where a number of youths feel disenfranchised. There are only 2 things that happens when you hve a large enough sect of disenfranchises youths. You send them to war, or the government changes.

      And yes, the libertarian drivel spouted on /. is quite annoying.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Check yourselves, Americans by gibletparade · · Score: 2

      Evidence suggest not.

      Indeed, the hoodlums would be dead; not the innocent. The Police tend to fire on the armed. See reason for original protest.

      I am curious: are the CCTV recording available to everyone?

      I think not.

    3. Re:Check yourselves, Americans by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      Parent isn't flamebait... it may be an angry post, but there's still coherent logic behind it.

    4. Re:Check yourselves, Americans by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 0

      Despite popular US belief, the CCTV network is not a central 'Big Brother' style network of cameras... a large proportion of the cameras are privately owned/run, and the bulk of the cameras aren't hooked up to a central network.

    5. Re:Check yourselves, Americans by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 2

      And yes, the libertarian drivel spouted on /. is quite annoying.

      o.O

      Must be that special progressive brand of libertarianism.

    6. Re:Check yourselves, Americans by misexistentialist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How can it be a "CCTV network" if the "cameras aren't hooked up to a central network"? And of course most cameras are privately run: a supermarket might have 50, while you can suppress democracy in the town square with 5. You'd need a dozen cameras to secure your house, while the government can secure itself from you with 2 pointed at the doors.

    7. Re:Check yourselves, Americans by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Oh, I'm sorry... maybe I should have clarified that I was talking about the popular media representation of a central "CCTV network". There isn't one, stop believing everything you read.

    8. Re:Check yourselves, Americans by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2

      Living in London, and seeing the chaos first hand, I find the millions of ignorant teenage American basement dwellers posting here, with their stupid, teenage libertarian logic highly offensive. Britain is a different country, with different traditions, and different laws to the US.

      Are you sure you live in Britain? Because that refrain is something we usually here coming from the autocrats in China.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    9. Re:Check yourselves, Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who are you replying to?

    10. Re:Check yourselves, Americans by benjfowler · · Score: 1

      You're having a laugh.

      There's no comparison at all. If this was China, there would have been no riots, because the ringleaders would all be down at the police station getting the shit beaten out of them. The UK isn't China, and we have due process.

      Indeed, the police have shown enormous restraint, because here they have a model of 'policing by consent', and the police don't normally carry guns. Even a short distance away in Northern Ireland or over the Channel, these losers would be getting clobbered with water cannons, plastic bullets and tear gas.

      The hyperbole is silly. And it's suggestive of a gross lack of maturity and perspective on your part.

    11. Re:Check yourselves, Americans by bythescruff · · Score: 1

      "CCTV does work"

      No, it doesn't - ask all the researchers who did actual studies on behalf of the Home Office: CCTV systems 'fail to cut crime'

      ...or google 'home office study cctv'

      --
      Chuck Norris: Socialism == a thousand years of darkness.
    12. Re:Check yourselves, Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would suggest you do the same, ignoramus.

    13. Re:Check yourselves, Americans by Rising+Ape · · Score: 1

      Who cares if CCTV works? The fact is it is a violation on basic freedoms.

      CCTV isn't a violation of freedom because it doesn't actually stop you doing anything. It may be a violation of privacy, but since these are public spaces anyway, you don't have a huge amount of that to start with.

    14. Re:Check yourselves, Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently your hoodlums are packing guns. That's how the whole thing started.

      You have an odd sense of superiority as you cower in your burning cities.

    15. Re:Check yourselves, Americans by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      IF these gangs of hoodlums were all packing .45s, then hundreds of innocent people would likely be dead.

      Doubtful, these people are there to trash and steal. They probably don't mind some assault too but aren't going around slitting people's throats as far as I can tell. They aren't looking for a gun battle and if presented with store owners that also had guns, would probably just leave for easier targets. That is essentially what happened in the last LA riot anyway. When the rioters wandered into a neighborhood where store owners were there with their own guns, rather than get into a gun battle, they just left for a different neighborhood.

    16. Re:Check yourselves, Americans by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      The hyperbole is silly. And it's suggestive of a gross lack of maturity and perspective on your part.

      Now I am having a laugh. It's like you wouldn't even recognise your own reflection if you saw it in a mirror.

      Indeed, the police have shown enormous restraint, because here they have a model of 'policing by consent', and the police don't normally carry guns.

      Clearly they don't police by consent in the areas that have riots, else - by your very own logic - those cops wouldn't have had the guns they used to shoot the guy.

      Obviously the UK is not China, but that doesn't make China's "go to excuse" any more legitimate when someone in the UK uses it.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    17. Re:Check yourselves, Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who do you think taught the Chinese how to do Government?

      They then taught us how to do lazy, hence why the epitome of civil service laziness in the UK is referenced by calling them Mandarins.

  42. technology blamed for iraq war by decora · · Score: 1

    "The Congress's Blackberry messaging network and uncritical mainstream media outlets are being blamed by peace activists, security analysts, and anyone with a shred of common sense for George Bush spreading word about the next hot spot, Iraq . It's an 'encrypted, very secure, safe, fast, cheap, free, easy way for arrogant politicians to spread messages for the next targets'

  43. No Shit Sherlock! by polyp2000 · · Score: 2

    Tell me a time when technology in some form has NOT helped Rioters....

    --
    Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
    1. Re:No Shit Sherlock! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Luddites?

    2. Re:No Shit Sherlock! by someSnarkyBastard · · Score: 1

      Tasers and tear gas come to mind.

  44. Yio eman they use it by geekoid · · Score: 1

    like every other group? the deuce you say.

    Here is one, how about you drop the ideology and actually stop disenfranchising the youth?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  45. honestly a lot of them are just criminal thugs by decora · · Score: 1

    every 'revolution' may have legitimate reasons, but rioting and arson are their own animals, and often attract people whose main purpose in life is to loot and pillage... nobody 'needs' a Wii.

    thats one reason the civil rights groups in the South had training for their protest marchers, to keep out these types.

    and its why governments often try to infiltrate false-flaggers into these groups.

  46. Sad thruth about it - by data2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When a young man was asked by a reporter, if he thought rioting was the correct way to express disconsent, he answered with

    "Yes," said the young man. "You wouldn't be talking to me now if we didn't riot, would you?"
    The TV reporter from Britain's ITV had no response. So the young man pressed his advantage. "Two months ago we marched to Scotland Yard, more than 2,000 of us, all blacks, and it was peaceful and calm and you know what? Not a word in the press. Last night a bit of rioting and looting and look around you."

    http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/07/7292281-the-sad-truth-behind-london-riot

    1. Re:Sad thruth about it - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2000 people is not news worthy. People march in the capital every single day over one thing or another. If these black people wanted to get noticed, they'd need at least a quarter of a million to start getting coverage.

      Over 2 million marched over Blair joining Bush's attack on Iraq based on proven faked and unreliable evidence. Even that hardly made a blip on news outlets.

      2000? on a small town center might make the local paper. But in London? It's a pathetic turn out.

    2. Re:Sad thruth about it - by Ja'Achan · · Score: 1

      Peaceful protests work because of the implied threats of violence. Once politicians learn that they can ignore them without any repercussions, they have no reason to act on them any more.

    3. Re:Sad thruth about it - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...they'd need at least a quarter of a million to start getting coverage...

      Yeah, ...or a riot.

    4. Re:Sad thruth about it - by shugah · · Score: 1
      From the CBC:

      In London's Hackney district, hundreds of youths left a trail of burning trash and shattered glass. Looters ransacked a small convenience store, filling plastic shopping bags with alcohol, cigarettes, candy and toilet paper.

      "This is the uprising of the working class. We're redistributing the wealth," said Bryn Phillips, 28, a self-described anarchist, as young people emerged from the store with chocolate bars and ice cream cones.

      Doesn't seem much like a broad, populous, principled protest against tyranny. These "chavs" (I learned a new word) need to experience true tyranny - move to Syria.

      --
      If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
    5. Re:Sad thruth about it - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Appeal to bigger problems. There might be worse conditions elsewhere, but that doesn't mean there aren't problems in the UK. Of course, you do have a point about the rioters themselves not exactly bearing a high moral fiber.

    6. Re:Sad thruth about it - by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      What about Gandhi?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    7. Re:Sad thruth about it - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think anyone wants you TBH. Can we force you out?

    8. Re:Sad thruth about it - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These riots emerged simultaneously to the largest union organized protest in London for years. It was attended by hundreds of thousands of working class, ordinary people. People there are suffering. It's true that there are young people who are taking advantage of this for avarice, but that's always true in situations of public unrest.

    9. Re:Sad thruth about it - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going to call bull on the young man.

      2,000 marched on Scotland Yard.

      100,000+ are rioting, based on the numbers I've heard. There are over 15,000 POLICE alone currently mobilized. How about getting those 100,000 to try a peaceable protest first? You can't reasonably compare the two situations. The "Million Man March," an enduring socio-political event in the United States, was attended by somewhere around 500,000, which is 5x as many people as are rioting. The USA has about 5x as many people in general as the UK. So 100,000 in Britain is relatively equivalent to 500,000 in the US.

      Hmm.

    10. Re:Sad thruth about it - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [*snip snip snip*] ...all blacks... [*snip snip snip*]

      Have noticed that just about all seem to be black or of middle eastern heritage. Sad right?

      I feel sorry for all the blacks and semites and persians and anyone else (there's plenty of poor white people too) who do not "riot for bling and fags" and who are getting their lives ruined by self-destructive idiots with shit for brains.

      I also feel sorry for anyone dumb enough to think this is "political". Respect? They want respect? They're already gotten far more respect than they deserve solely by their own continued existence, I'll consider respecting them more if they off themselves.

    11. Re:Sad thruth about it - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Yet, just as the movement reached its apex, it ended abruptly as a result of a violent clash in the town of Chauri Chaura, Uttar Pradesh, in February 1922. Fearing that the movement was about to take a turn towards violence, and convinced that this would be the undoing of all his work, Gandhi called off the campaign of mass civil disobedience. According to Andrew Roberts, this was the third time that Gandhi had called off a major campaign, "leaving in the lurch more than 15,000 supporters who were jailed for the cause"." Wikipedia

      Gandhi might have been all peaceful, but that doesn't mean there was no implied threat of violence.

  47. Scotland Yard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Metropolitan Police, known as Scotland Yard...

    No, the Metropolitan police headquarters is known as Scotland yard...

    1. Re:Scotland Yard by digitig · · Score: 1

      Actually, the Metropolitan Police are sometimes referred to as "Scotland Yard", a textbook case of metonymy.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  48. Hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We got politicians asking for the whole BB network to be shutdown during the evening to stop the rioters communicating, it's hilarious! We also got a Sony warehouse on fire about 5 miles from my house, it got broke into last night and they nicked some stuff and torched the place as they left! Another politican is asking for a London wide curfew, yeah right, stupid cow! This is 24 hours city with night workers keeping the city ticking over and making the world turn, can't just clear the streets of anyone you think might cause trouble!

    Fun, fun, fun!

  49. technology is double-edge sword by peter303 · · Score: 1

    The tens of thousands of public and private security cameras must be capturing much of the action. Many of the 7/7 subway terorists were caught this way.
    I remember when there a spate of riots in Boulder Colorado a few years back the police posted suspect pictures on the web with modest anonymous rewards. And got good responses too. All this in is a laid-back, progressive city.

  50. OBVIOUSLY..... by twistedsymphony · · Score: 1

    ...it's the knife's fault that it keeps stabbing people.

  51. BBC blamed Twitter last night by jools33 · · Score: 2

    BBC news ran a story last night that basically blamed Twitter and Blackberry. When I logged onto Twitter - I would say approximately 95% of the posts that were rioting related were outright condemning the riots - and I could see no signs at all of this "organisation" that the BBC article claimed. It seems to me that journalists are just blaming the technology with no real evidence to back up these claims - apart from the fact that many of the rioters are using mobile phones.

    1. Re:BBC blamed Twitter last night by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps they were blaming the technology for making it so much easier for bored, alcohol fuelled skinheads to know where they could loot and vandalise inconspicuously, as opposed to blaming it for enabling the riots to begin in the first place. I can't say for certain, I didn't hear the story you're referring to.

  52. What is the problem? by kbg · · Score: 1

    Oh dear. So they are saying that technology that is designed to facility easy communications between people can be used for exactly that purpose but with evil intent. Well of course and what is the problem with that exactly? Maybe UK should try to consider what the underlying problem is for the riots. Can it be that most of these people are unemployed? Maybe these morons in the UK government should consider that the solution is not to turn the country into a police state but to actually help people with social issues, like jobs, education and health care.

    1. Re:What is the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and health care.

      You've just proved that you know absolutely nothing about the situation and are just having a pointless rant. You know in the UK we have the NHS right? Free health care? Like those crazy guys north of the border? Like most developed nations?

  53. Mod parent up by andrewbaldwin · · Score: 1

    This is one of the more insightful postings here.

    Elsewhere I read a comment along the lines of "poor brits having no guns to defend themselves" - completely missing the point that aggressors would also have guns and know where you lived.

    Benjfowler -- I hope that you and your neighbours are safe and that the after effects of the riots aren't too severe; from the relative peace of a town outside London it looked bad. Good luck.

    1. Re:Mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The funny thing is they don't want the police to crack it down (with CCTV, watercannons, baton rounds) because that's police brutality. However giving guns to residents to shoot the hoodies is ok, because it's done by civilians.

  54. come on guys by hypergreatthing · · Score: 1

    Obviously violent video games are to blame as well as violence in the media. Lets get all the standard scapegoats of modern society and blame them. You know, besides what's really to blame in this case: criminals, society, police.

  55. Blame Bicycles, Too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rioters have been using bikes and mopeds to get around the city quickly.

  56. Disaffected urban youth aren't the source either by Hatta · · Score: 1

    30 years of conservative rule is the source of the problem. Why are these urban youth disaffected? It's not their fault they were born without opportunity. It's the state's fault for not providing that opportunity.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  57. Reaping Long-term Economic Policies by StoneyMahoney · · Score: 1

    The trigger for all this may have been a hijacked peaceful protest but I think the sheer number of people involved in the rioting and looting shows a deep-running undercurrent of disaffection and disenfranchisement of a significant portion of the population. That kind of thing doesn't happen quickly, I think this situation has taken decades to develop and stems from the false capitalist assertions of trickle-down benefits and the redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich over the last 30+ years. The poor get poorer and have no opportunities to better themselves anymore. In the meantime, turn on the news and you'll see all kinds of rich people getting richer, government bailouts for bankers when they screw up so badly the world almost comes crashing to a halt. Maybe I'm just saying that because I'm looking to blame anything I can on neoconservatism and ubercapitalists, but if the shoe fits...

    I hate what these violent thugs are doing but by god do I sympathise with them.

    1. Re:Reaping Long-term Economic Policies by c6gunner · · Score: 0

      I swear the next person who says "the poor get poorer" is getting beaten to death with the $200 sneakers I just saw on the "homeless" kid down the street.

  58. Clarification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (A SUPPOSEDLY TRUSTWORTHY NEWSPAPER) reports that following three nights of rioting and looting in London, (THE POWERS THAT BE IN LONDON WANT MORE MONEY. THIS TIME THEY SAY TECHNOLOGY IS A PROBLEM AND MORE MONEY WILL FIX IT) . '(WELL DUH. OF COURSE PEOPLE TALK TO EACH OTHER THAT'S WHAT WE DO)' says Mike Butcher, editor of TechCrunch Europe and digital advisor to the Mayor of London. But Ian Maude, an analyst at Enders Analysis, said '(THIS IS ALL A LOAD OF BS. YOU CAN'T RE-BOTTLE THE GENIE. DON'T GIVE THESE GUYS A DIME).' The Metropolitan Police, known as Scotland Yard, say '(WE ARE ALREADY READING EVERYONE'S MESSAGES BUT WITH MORE MONEY WE CAN READ MORE)'. Research In Motion Ltd. (RIMM), the maker of Blackberry smartphones, says '(IT ISN'T OUR FAULT. PLEASE DON'T BLAME US)'

  59. Technology to Blame. by hackus · · Score: 1

    Sure it is.

    If you put a bunch of people who have no way to make a living in a city, because their government is as crooked at the Thames, I am sure taking away technology from them will make them cope better with no food, place to stay or any hope for the future.

    Yeah sure it is technology to blame. Everyone knows technology is very bad for society and creates misery for everyone.

    -Hack

    --
    Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
    1. Re:Technology to Blame. by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      How would they have the energy to riot if they had NO FOOD?

      Who in their right mind would buy a phone to text riot plans with...over FOOD?

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    2. Re:Technology to Blame. by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      Sssshhhhhh, don't interrupt his rant with logic.

    3. Re:Technology to Blame. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a long term investment.

  60. I'm a good guy really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure I post links to Goatse or call website admins fucking bastards on the internet but I don't set my city on fire or steal things.

    Anyway this will happen again and again until you accept that police need to deal with things the hard way.

  61. It's not blame but the danger is real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These flash mob lootings are pretty hard for the police to stop. Since they organize quickly through "one to many" communication channels. If you were a police officer I am sure you would want to know where they will strike next to stop an innocent shop owner from having his shop robbed. Police will start asking for broader eavesdropping rights because of this. And I don't see a counter argument how else one could stop a rogue flash mob.

    1. Re:It's not blame but the danger is real by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      And I don't see a counter argument how else one could stop a rogue flash mob.

      A shotgun under the counter tends to discourage robbery.

      But, of course, that's not possible in the UK so a police state will be required instead.

  62. welcome to the new world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is exactly what was done by the "poor innocent ".

    guess what UK? you are in the middle of an uprising by youth who are tired of you destroying their lives and futures.

    guess what US? you are next.

  63. Also Technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not mentioned by TFA, BlackBerry's messaging network is, of course, the only technology being used by the rioters. Things like lighters, guns, cars, and golf clubs are certainly no means of technology, as they are naturally occurring.

  64. MP calls for BlackBerry Messenger suspension by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Got so ridiculous that one MP is now asking for "suspension" of BlackBerry Messenger. - Reuters

  65. So you show me ads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And offer your content behind a paywall?

    Nice going WSJ.

  66. The old axiom by senorpoco · · Score: 1

    Blackberry messenger doesn't loot shops, people do.

  67. Re:Disaffected urban youth aren't the source eithe by deepershade · · Score: 1

    Politically biased and frankly ignorant of reality much? Knew it wouldn't be long before someone became an apologist for criminals and instead tried to score cheap political points out of it.

  68. Blame the technology and Shut It Down. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many lives have been lost because of the cell towers that have fascilitated 1000s of Detenations of IUDs over in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere? Its a no brainer to disable or destroy this capability before sending troops into areas where the cell towers are live. That pushes the battle to the satellites and Sat Phones.

  69. They also breathe air, don't they? And drink water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is stupid. I bet that when the mafia started using the telephone, it was also blamed for facilitating their crimes.

  70. Nope by robinsonne · · Score: 1

    You know what's really to blame here? The English language.

    How dare schools teach such a dangerous communication tool that lets these criminals and hooligans do such nefarious acts!?!!?

    We must halt this terrifying communication at the source. Only when everyone is reduced to pointing and grunting will we be safe!!!!

  71. Is this what happens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you start making cuts to entitlement programs?

  72. Where's the line? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    Weren't some throwing bricks? Bricks were once a new technology. Jus' sayin'.

  73. Re:Disaffected urban youth aren't the source eithe by Hatta · · Score: 1

    Do you deny that government policy has a part to play in the people's willingness to riot? I'm not saying these are great people here. I'm saying they haven't been governed well. The proof is right outside your window.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  74. Literally by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Blaming the Messanger.

  75. To adapt an idea from Sneakers: by StoneyMahoney · · Score: 2

    Posit: The rich abuse their wealth to gain political and economic control of a country.
    Consequence: Wealth is concentrated towards the powerful, the poor become poorer.
    Result: Over time a politically, economically and morally disenfranchised underclass is created.
    Conclusion: Democracy cannot survive when run exclusively for the benefit of the top 1%.

  76. Typo by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Blaming the Messanger

    Obviously, I meant to write 'Merganser'.

  77. Rot Starts At The Top by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The difference is whether the people rioting have higher moral principles than the people they're protesting against.

    And THAT is exactly the point. That is the key to the rioting and looting this time around. I've posted this in two place now, but here's goes again: The London riots cannot be divorced from the recent political and financial scandals in the UK and beyond.

    In the last few years, the general public has been made privy to the monumental failure of ethics and responsibility in institutions both public and private. Bankers and financiers have been seen publicly seen to profit enormously from feckless and irresponsible behaviour. Politicians and civil servants have been shown to be inept at best, and in collusion at worst. And--in particular in the UK--the media and police force have been found to be involved in the most scandalous, unscrupulous and unethical behaviour of recent times.

    We are living in an age of irresponsibility.

    It's interesting to see that many of the rioters are expressing no political, social, or ideological motivations. They are either engaged in arson or larceny. It is simple opportunism. But this behaviour not a random incident; it is an inevitable consequence of our times. I would hold that these rioters across the UK, discontented from the effects of austerity and unemployment, and cynicised by the endless stream of unresolved scandals, have simply decided to have their own slice of the rotten pie.

    If bankers can loot the nation without consequence, if the media can destroy lives with impunity, and politicians lie without consequence, then why should a young unemployed man with few prospects turn up what may be his only opportunity to own a big flatscreen TV, or some designer clothes, or to vent his rage at the state? Because it would be "wrong"? Because it is "immoral", "unethical"? But for his entire life this young man has been shown by example that crime pays, that ruthlessness and wrongdoing pays, that rage and emotion pay.

    I don't wish to sound like a religious reactionary, bemoaning the loss of public morality. But what kind of ethics have these young men learned from their leaders and public and private institutions? In the UK and beyond. Where are the ethical pillars of our society who lead by example? In politics? In the church? In the media? In private industry? I see none such. And moreover, I see those in such influential positions profiting from their poor examples.

    Remember to these young people, the state over the last 10 years is all they have ever known. A state that has lied and warred. A media that has colluded and harassed. Public institutions who have lost all sense of civic duty. Industries that have profited from the most wanton recklessness and greed. And everywhere, none have been held to account.

    There are other underlying causes such as deprivation, unemployment, and hooliganism. But such things have always existed in the UK and elsewhere, but I see this spontaneous outbreak of criminal opportunism first and foremost as a sign of our times. These opportunist rioters have been lead by example by our corrupted ruling classes. As the saying goes, "As above, so below".

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
    1. Re:Rot Starts At The Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a maths guy, you're pretty perceptive.

    2. Re:Rot Starts At The Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also: http://xkcd.com/137/
      Disposable people are disposing their city.

  78. Except the age of majority in the UK is 18... by tlambert · · Score: 1

    Except the age of majority in the UK is 18...

    People below the age of 18 aren't entering into legally binding contracts with the cellular providers, including RIM, so they are either cast-offs or they are otherwise cheap devices, on pay-as-you-go plans. Or the phones actually still belong to the parents. Or they're stolen, or grey-market, which would make them black-listed to the network as soon as the theft was discovered.

    People aged 18 or older are going to be able to enter into the necessary contracts to obtain the phones in the first place, but they'd be legally liable as adults for participating in the rioting.

    I think the articles pegging them as disaffected youth are probably the most likely to be correct.

    Given the problems in Greece and elsewhere in Europe, and the US unwillingness to do what any normal human being do when their income goes down, and freaking spend less, I imagine being disaffected that the nominal adults are mortgaging your future might piss some people off.

    American Revolutionary War soldiers were as young as 7. One Congressional Medal of Honor recipient was 11.

    The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 38, which only came into being in 1989 puts a cut-off limit of 15. but allows people 15-17 to voluntarily take the part of a soldier on the battlefield.

    The US in large part today owes its existence to disaffected youth and some rabble-rousing "old" men -- the Boston Tea Party, which could not be said to be other than rioting, from the British perspective, was largely laid at the feet of several people, including the then-27 year old Benjamin Rush (1773). Other "founding fathers" were younger than that; Alexander Hamilton was 18 at the time.

    I'm not saying that this is happening again, but the British have some track record here, and with communications blackouts being threatened, or at least the communications anonymity that was afforded the authors of the Federalist Papers, which shielded them from retaliation by the British crown at the time, it's unlikely that the real story has made it outside Great Britain.

    I'm sure we'll have more information as the situation continues to develop (or not develop).

    -- Terry

    1. Re:Except the age of majority in the UK is 18... by xaxa · · Score: 1

      People aged 18 or older are going to be able to enter into the necessary contracts to obtain the phones in the first place, but they'd be legally liable as adults for participating in the rioting.

      There are plenty of over-18s in the riots, and in any case the age of criminal responsibility in England is 10. Treatment as an adult for crime starts at 17 (not sure why, I'd have expected 16 or 18).

      with communications blackouts being threatened

      It isn't (official statement that it isn't, which I can't find, but I've been reading updates every couple of hours all day). The only source for it is a suggestion by a single MP. This story is much more informative (lots of law cited) than the article.

  79. NATO will need to start bombing run in London by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As soon as the police fire the first bullet on any protestor. They will have to protect the civilians from the evil Lybian I mean British government.

  80. Re:Disaffected urban youth aren't the source eithe by FourthAge · · Score: 1

    I really have to challenge you on this point.

    If nothing else, conservative government is surely characterised by its approach to law and order.

    And yet, right now, we see a huge amount of both crime and disorder which the authorities appear to be unable to control. This suggests that they may not actually be conservative at all

    This becomes even clearer if we look deeper, because when we ask why the police are not engaging the rioters, we find that they are afraid to do so, knowing that if someone is hurt, they will be blamed for it and hung out to dry by their superiors. They seek a guarantee from the top that officers will not be blamed if someone is injured. Example.

    It seems to me that if the government is truly conservative, then it would provide that guarantee in a heartbeat. But perhaps you can provide some other explanation as to why it has not and will not.

    By the way, you are right when you say that these people have not been governed well. You are simply mistaken about the way in which they have been misgoverned.

    --
    The tao of democracy: the government you can vote for is not the real government.
  81. Re:Disaffected urban youth aren't the source eithe by 0123456 · · Score: 1

    Do you deny that government policy has a part to play in the people's willingness to riot? I'm not saying these are great people here. I'm saying they haven't been governed well.

    But you blamed "thirty years of conservative rule", which means you either don't realise that Labour were running the country for about half that time, or just refuse to accept that their policies are even more responsible for the feral underclass than the conservatives. Both have been useless, but if we'd had a conservative government since the 50s, you wouldn't be seeing these problems because you wouldn't have had the bloated welfare state and destruction of effective deterrents which has allowed it to come about.

  82. My Road by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Colourspace - forgot login so posting AC, can't be bothered to reset password again...

    This was happening in Clarence Road Hackney where I live - see YouTube 'clarence road riots'. Pretty scary stuff. Funnily enough I was having a shower before going to work Monday morning after hearing about the second night of riots and decided to pack a bag and get out of London for a day or two. It turned out to be the most remarkable bit of prescience I have had in a long while. When I got back to my friends after work and tuned into the BBC live feed to notice a familiar looking road, and flat. Mine - with someone torching a car right where mine had been parked that morning.

    I went back today at midday to assess the damage - all cleaned up - you would never have known a riot had happened... Well I mean all the debris and burnt cars had gone. The tarmac is scorched, and there's some boarding up. Fortunately, so far, my property is OK.

    Not going back again for a few days, as I was leaving again I heard a police radio saying they were gathering down the bottom of Mare Street (our main road) again.. Hope they contain the bastards somewhere else tonight, like their own fucking estate..

  83. Flikr? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Haven't heard of it.....

  84. Looters gonna loot. by FatSean · · Score: 1

    There was plenty of looting during the Egyptian unrest. And in Syria. And in Libya. You better believe there was looting when Iraq was invaded. Looters gonna loot!

    --
    Blar.
  85. Re:Disaffected urban youth aren't the source eithe by Hatta · · Score: 1

    I used a small 'c'. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were conservatives by any meaningful sense of the term. The USA has also suffered under 30 years of conservative rule, even though we've had 2 Democratic presidents in that time.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  86. its called Suicide By Cop by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

    You Do Not Point Guns At LEOs (unless you really mean to shoot) it is an automatic response for that officer (and any nearby officers) to shoot if they think you are going to pull the trigger.

    --
    Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
  87. Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The Metropolitan Police, known as Scotland Yard," no they aren't, New Scotland Yard is location and name of the Metropolitan police Headquarters.

  88. Re:Disaffected urban youth aren't the source eithe by 0123456 · · Score: 1

    I used a small 'c'. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were conservatives by any meaningful sense of the term.

    LOL.

    Really, that's the funniest thing I've read on Slashdot in weeks.

  89. Hunting rifles on par with military rifles ... by perpenso · · Score: 1
    I am not advocating what should or should not be legal, however to claim hunting rifles are benign compared to military rifles is silly. The differences are largely cosmetic or mechanically minor.

    Well, you have to understand that this is being framed in terms of the gun control debate. Nobody -- not even the British -- has a problem with hunting rifles. You can get hunting rifles easily enough anywhere in the world. Part of the reason why they're so unregulated is because they're really not very good at doing anything but shooting deer.

    That is an ill-informed opinion. For example a popular bolt action hunting rifle with a 5 round magazine, the Remington 700, has literally been quite successfully as a sniper rifle in the US military.

    Which brings us to semi-automatic weapons (scary), automatic weapons (very scary), and military-grade hardware (panic-inducing).

    That is an insightful statement, but not in the way you intend. Note your use of the word of "scary". Military rifles look scary. In truth to a mechanical engineer the differences between civilian hunting rifle and a military rifle is largely cosmetic. Replace wood with composites, replace shiny "blued" metals with matte black, replace a low capacity magazine (a simple sheet metal box) with a high capacity magazine, ...

    Regarding automatic weapons vs bolt actions rifles, the differences may not be as great as you believe. A trivially simple (yet still ingenious) device was developed during WW2 to convert WW1 era bolt action rifles to fully automatic.

    Now consider hunting ammunition. It is far more deadly than military ammunition. It is literally a war crime for a soldier to use hunting ammunition.

    Facing down a psychopath with an assault weapon seems terribly unfair, and, even if you've got your own assault rifle, he's fucking crazy -- he's got less to lose than you do.

    And yet history shows sane police and soldiers defeating heavily armed zealots/fanatics on a regular basis. Enthusiasm nearly always loses to training.

    Again, I am not advocating what should or should not be legal. I am merely arguing that claiming that hunting rifles are benign compared to military rifles is silly. The differences are largely cosmetic or mechanically minor.

  90. Re:Disaffected urban youth aren't the source eithe by Hatta · · Score: 1

    Again, we're talking small c conservative. More British citizens identify Blair as right wing than left wing. Brown was supposedly left of Blair, but that doesn't hold up on analysis.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  91. Sublime by thomasw_lrd · · Score: 0

    It wasn't about the black man, it wasn't about the Mexican,and not the white man.
    But if you look at the streets, it wasn't about Rodney King,
    it's about this fucked up situation, and these fucked up police.

    Sublime
    April 29, 1992

  92. Round them up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Met should round up all the Yobs and send them to Australia...

    Hmm, maybe they should try to strike a deal with Russia and revive some of the old Siberian work camps.

  93. Re:Disaffected urban youth aren't the source eithe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that it? That's you're "meaningful sense of the term"? An opinion poll and the "analysis" of some leftie journalist?

    We were all hoping for something a bit more concrete than this lame argumentum ad populum.

    The fact is that words mean what you wish them to mean, and if you really want to believe that Blair, Brown and indeed Cameron aren't left-liberals, then you can play with definitions to your heart's content. But you will still be wrong.

  94. Crap by Hognoxious · · Score: 0

    "black people so fed up with the way they're treated that they go rioting".

    Cry me a river. The UK government bends over backward to pander to the poor ickle wickle effnics.

    These reatards don't know what real discrimination (South Africa pre 1994, USA in the 50s) is. I bet they can't spell it.

    To hear people like you talk you'd think they're Martin Luther King, Gandhi and the Dalai Lama rolled into one.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Crap by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Be it as it may, and be it as it is, what matters is how they perceive it. That's pretty much what motivates people. Not reality. Perception. And if they feel they're treated unfairly, and feel strongly enough to toss aside the fear of prison and everything commonly held up as decent behaviour, they will act accordingly.

      Reality or not.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Crap by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      These reatards don't know what real discrimination (South Africa pre 1994, USA in the 50s) is. I bet they can't spell it.

      Retards is spelled with only one a.

    3. Re:Crap by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      These reatards don't know what real discrimination (South Africa pre 1994, USA in the 50s) is. I bet they can't spell it.

      You bastard! You've made me piss myself laughing.

      (At you, not with you.)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    4. Re:Crap by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2377712&cid=37079276 - incorrect capitalization.

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2377712&cid=37079248 - incorrect use of semicolon.

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2377712&cid=37079224 - fucked up quoting

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2377076&cid=37079168 - "capricious" - that word does not mean what you think it does (though etymologically it may once have done so).

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2376000&cid=37079138 - multiple incorrect semicolons.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  95. Re:Disaffected urban youth aren't the source eithe by Hatta · · Score: 1

    If nothing else, conservative government is surely characterised by its approach to law and order.

    And yet, right now, we see a huge amount of both crime and disorder which the authorities appear to be unable to control. This suggests that they may not actually be conservative at all

    Not at all. What it suggests is that the traditional conservative approach to law and order is counter productive.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  96. Re:Disaffected urban youth aren't the source eithe by Hatta · · Score: 1

    Yeah, and I bet you think Obama is a socialist too. None of these people come close to being leftists. Some of them, on some issues, might be slightly left of where the established power structure would prefer, but that doesn't make them leftists by any stretch of the imagination. When it comes down to it, they will fight to preserve the status quo and that's what makes a conservative conservative.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  97. kimo sabe mean horse's ass by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    We didn't have any trouble crediting Twitter for the Green Spring unrest in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Iran, Libya, and Syria.

    Speak for yourself. I suspect I'm not alone in being outside the set of total and utter morons who are obsessed with new shiny shit.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  98. Right, by publiclurker · · Score: 1

    I always ask for respect by stealing television sets and burning down the stores that decided to take a risk setting up shop in my area.

  99. In other news ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other news, mainstream media bash food and beverages business for providing subsistence to petty thieves and mass murderers!
    Food and beverages business strikes back by bashing mainstream media for providing an outlet to petty thieves and mass murderers.

  100. Re:Disaffected urban youth aren't the source eithe by FourthAge · · Score: 1

    But the traditional approach is not being tried. As I explained.

    --
    The tao of democracy: the government you can vote for is not the real government.
  101. Connecting People... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Technology is being used by all parties involved in this. The Police are using Blackberry to spy on rioters, the rioters are using it to organize attacks, concerned citizens are using it to help clean up the city, and apparently TeamPoison is using it to retaliate against Blackberry:

    http://m.ibtimes.com/london-riots-team-poison-hackers-enact-revenge-attack-on-blackberry-for-cooporating-with-police-hack-195010.html

  102. Do I want them monitoring PUBLIC transmissions? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Do you really want law enforcement monitoring your personal device and delaying messages being sent?

    No, I want them monitoring trending tags like #letslootwestlodon that ANYONE CAN FUCKING SEE.

    Is that so evil? To actually read what you have CHOSEN TO PUBLISH TO THE WORLD???????

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  103. Ban by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should ban molotov and bats before the internet.

  104. Re:Disaffected urban youth aren't the source eithe by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    But the traditional approach is not being tried. As I explained.

    The "traditional" approach, that is murder innocent people for no particular reason was tried before and Ian Tomlinson was the unfortunate victim. It turns out that simply murdering innocent people doesn't do much to keep the peace.

    Hyporbole aside, there is a very fine line between cracking down on the rioters to protect innocent people and cracking down on innocent people who happen to be too close to the rioters. If you are suggestion that the police should be given immunity from the latter then it is entirely pointless to have the police since they are no longer keeping civil order and protecting people.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  105. Re:Disaffected urban youth aren't the source eithe by FourthAge · · Score: 1

    You can wish for situations like this to be resolved without violence, but your wish won't be granted. Would you prefer to have the small chance that some innocent person will be wrongly attacked by the police? Or the very real certainty that innocent people will be attacked in their homes and businesses by rioters and looters? That fireman and ambulances will be attacked? That people will be robbed and assaulted in the streets by thugs?

    That is the reality here. You either trust the police, or you let the gangs run amok.

    --
    The tao of democracy: the government you can vote for is not the real government.
  106. Not being blamed at all. by DaveGod · · Score: 2

    This is completely untrue. I'm from UK, on holiday from work at the moment and following the news all day on numerous formats.

    It is true that technology, particularly social networks and Blackberry messenger are being cited as a reason why pockets are able to spring up and move around quickly (hence being difficult for the police to respond to). It is an explanation - an absolutely valid explanation - but an explanation for a phenomenon is quite different from assigning it blame.

    Frankly local MPs and suchlike have come across as surprisingly knowledgeable. I got a schooling on Blackberries from a 50-something female MP from a fairly posh London borough this morning. I'd wager she knew more about these things and why they're popular amongst London youths than RIM's marketing department, she might be deserving of a commission on my next phone.

    I find it rather odd that /. posts a link to a tiny article (apologies if my adblock etc is cutting things out) on an American newspaper's site when there is a detailed discussion on the London-based BBC. I'll note the BBC carefully states "A number of politicians, media commentators and members of the police force have suggested that Twitter and BlackBerry Messenger, in particular, had a role to play." Again, having "a role to play" is quite different to being culpable or responsible, my impression is the BBC is responding to those misunderstanding the frequent references.

    Oh yeah and technology is also being mentioned with the likes of "Twitter and Facebook users plan clean-up" (again, not social media being credited but noted as a tool used for people worthy of praise).

  107. Ban all stationary shops by tuxisthefuture · · Score: 2

    "In the early months of 1811 the first threatening letters from General Ned Ludd and the Army of Redressers, were sent to employers in Nottingham. Workers, upset by wage reductions and the use of unapprenticed workmen, began to break into factories at night to destroy the new machines that the employers were using." - The Luddites, http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRluddites.htm "I say Edward, if it wasn't for these 'paper and quill' contraptions these Luddites would not be able to organise such thugery. They should close those so called 'stationary shops' before it is too late!"

    1. Re:Ban all stationary shops by Warwick+Allison · · Score: 1

      Stationery.

  108. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Arabs use technology to riot == good
    Western youth use technology to riot == bad

    Sure.. Police brutality and corruption is not as bad here yet as it is in the middle east, so apparently if the oppressed forms a minority it is OK. And when they organize it is bad (And enhanced by the use of efficient group organization tools)...

  109. David Cameron is Prime Minister, not just an MP by tlambert · · Score: 1

    David Cameron is Prime Minister, not just an MP

    He's the head of the executive branch of England's government.

    -- Terry