Slashdot Mirror


The London Riots and Facial Recognition Technology

nonprofiteer writes "A bunch of vigilantes are organizing a Google Group dedicated to using recently revealed facial recognition tools to identify looters in the London riots. While Vancouver discussed doing something similar after the Stanley Cup riots, the city never actually moved forward on it. Ring of Steel London, though, is far more likely to incorporate FRT into its investigative work." A related article points out how development of face-recognition technology has been kept under wraps by some organizations, but we're getting to the point where it'll soon be ubiquitous.

482 comments

  1. Re:would somebody tell me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're a bunch of white wankers who think they have it tough, but have no idea what a hard life really is. They're just using any excuse they can find to be assholes.

  2. Kool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Libertarianism is stupid, there can NOT be that much individualism simply because one of us isn't worth more than ALL of us.
    That is the sad truth.
    But then again, extremism is ALWAYS bad, left right or lib aut.
    I hope they get caught.

  3. Really? Vigilantes? by Syphonius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Could we find a more loaded term than that? I don't think so. Heaven forbid some folks actually try to glom together and do good.

  4. Re:would somebody tell me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    who are these people? I mean, white? black? muslim?

    It's not a race/religion issue.. the rioters are multicultural of every skin color..
    What most of them have in common (other than the urge for a good round of fistycuffs) is belonging to a lower social class without much hope for the future. The UK government have been cutting cost lately, with the result that school is now 3 times as expensive as it used to be. Funding to social services has been reduced.. etc.. So these people find themselves at the bottom without any real ladders to get out of there.

    But I guess a bunch of them are hooligans that just use it as an excuse to go rampaging too..

  5. Bias by qxcv · · Score: 1

    100% of rioters identified used Facebook, Twitter of flickr. In related news, a new study shows Facebook, Twitter and flickr users found to be 100% more likely to take part in riots than those who do not use Facebook, Twitter or flickr.

    --
    "The most dangerous enemy of a better solution is an existing codebase that is just good enough." -- Eric S. Raymond
    1. Re:Bias by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Funny

      Then it's easy, round up all Facebook users and lock them away.

      It's so win-win...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  6. Anti camera tech by irp · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Reminds me: Somewhere on the internet is a description of how to build an anti-camera cap. Basically a baseball cap with a battery, and a row of powerful IR emitters along the rim. It utilizes that most security cameras can see into the IR, so the camera will gain down and leave the face in darkness, or at least distort it enough to nullify automated face recognition. Can be used during transport, where wearing a cap is not as suspicious as covering the face. ... Or will it soon be so that anyone not instantly recognized will automatically be a suspect? :-)

    1. Re:Anti camera tech by Dachannien · · Score: 2

      Fortunately, most rioters are morons and will not go through the trouble of building (much less remembering to wear) an anti-camera ball cap.

    2. Re:Anti camera tech by whiteboy86 · · Score: 1

      > most rioters are morons

      I've read they coordinated themselves via smartphones/Twitter and actually blinded the expensive camera systems first, undoubtedly the expensive CCTV system will get targeted unless hidden.

    3. Re:Anti camera tech by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      I am sure all that digital traffic is been recorded and sorted in real time - face, voice prints, ip's.
      Roof tops, intelligence teams, air surveillance. The facial math for eye position, nose, lip is not too expensive to compare to every id photo in the UK.
      In the near term its gathering all the electronic data in near real time and acting on it with a lot of snatch squads night after night.
      Long term elite units fresh from colonial wars will start getting "supplies", images and maps ready.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:Anti camera tech by umghhh · · Score: 1

      great - modern version of a tinfoil hat - I was going to say that you should patent it but I suppose it is already patented as the rest of technology is patented also.

    5. Re:Anti camera tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The example I saw only worked during the night (when cameras have their gain turned all the way up), and basically resulted in your head being a giant ball of flare. Great for being unrecognizable, but you suddenly become an enormous beacon (at least in infrared). Unless everyone's doing it, it'll actually be even easier to follow you while it's turned on.

    6. Re:Anti camera tech by webmistressrachel · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, our police are wayto soft and stupid for that on this occasion.

      Don't worry, I'll qualify this, I'm not trolling tonight, I'm deadly serious.

      For years I've been filming and photographing peaceful demos here in Manchester (where it kicked off last night). When it was hippies, Green Party Comrades, and slightly biased press (count me in!), they used pyschological tactics like kettling, horse-trampling, and good planning, because we announce where we going and why well in advance (in accordance with our new Anti-Terrorist laws for peaceful protests - yes you read that right)

      They had uniform photographers which were highly visible, and others cleverly hidden on roofs and in windows nearby. These guys were shooting top-end Canons with long 500mm lenses, yes I did chat to a few and they were specialists, not bobbies showing off nice SLRs to scare us.

      Last night nothing like that was in evidence at all. They were charging anybody and everybody in their way (including me and other indie and staff journos hefting my SLRs), herding crowds of non-violent protesters along with the thugs, whilst completely ignoring looters. The above post just isn't accurate at all, and if anything they fought a losing battle again.

      The BBC are totally in their pocket - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14470533 - it's the only way they can avoid having their cameras nicked. Our (indie) stuff isn't being broadcast anywhere yet, and the youths aren't bothering us, they're giving us a great show! A lot of them WANT to be photographed grinning. And a lot of them can articulate their political views very intelligently. And they're not copypasta ' ing each other either, they each have their own particular reasoning. They're human beings.

      And on that note, I must relay a personal experience of mine last night. Staring down the eyepiece of a camera, I made eye contact with a "Robocop" riot officer looking at my camera and then rapidly side to side, and then at the camera again. I nearly cried, and I removed the camera from between with us and just bonded with him for a few seconds.

      Nobody should be mixed up in a all this. "Them" or "Us" alike. Those police can end this right now by turning around, and enforcing the people's will on those who have caused these problems, since, well whenever. Those with the boot on the face of humanity.

      --
      This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
    7. Re:Anti camera tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Risk of possible eye damage? I work in security. CCTV cameras with IR illuminators usually have a warning to turn off the IR light when you're working on them. Presumably when you're that close to the IR source it could damage your eyes?

    8. Re:Anti camera tech by webmistressrachel · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I didn't explain that beautiful moment properly, I didn't do him justice.

      Despite all that armour, the weaponry, and his comrades flanking him, that officer in that moment was scared, scared of me, scared of the camera, scared of the idea (speculation begins) that maybe, just maybe they shouldn't be there and neither should we, and we both knew the reasons underlying it all.

      Sharing that moment with him, and him seeing my expression and reaction, and the solid eye contact and mutual tears welling that ensued after I put my camera down from my face, has changed me forever. I can now view "the pigs" in a completely different light to my usual trolling self... I'm usually the first to slag authority and especially enforcement of same.

      They bleed the same. I saw it last night. Thanks for listening, I had to get that out. Some of them are "jobsworths", some bullies, but not all. Remember that next time you hurl abuse at a police line. They could be our comrades come the Revolution. I saw that possibility tonight.

      I'm going to bed, 24 hours awake now.

      --
      This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
    9. Re:Anti camera tech by nyctopterus · · Score: 1

      You mean they texted each other as to where to meet up? Diabolical! Criminal genius!

      GP is right, most of the rioters were probably "morons", in that they don't think too hard about this stuff.

    10. Re:Anti camera tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      remember they are the soldiers, sent from the generals which are a LONG way behind them, ready to escape the moment the revolution finally reaches them.

    11. Re:Anti camera tech by delinear · · Score: 1

      It doesn't really require them to build one, it just requires Nike/Adidas/Reebok/whoever to realise there's money to be made by selling one.

    12. Re:Anti camera tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on the camera. The better ones will have an IR filter that is automatically mechanically removed at night. That'll filter pretty well any IR floodlight you throw at it during the day.
      Not to mention LEDs are highly directional. Overall it sounds like a nice idea if you've never tested it.

    13. Re:Anti camera tech by Sqr(twg) · · Score: 1

      Actually, this hat is specifically designed for morons. Face recognition is done from normal digital cameras. (Lots of police and reporters are following the riots with telephoto lenses.) After that it's an easy task following the guy with the lights on his head on the security camera footage.

    14. Re:Anti camera tech by slater.jay · · Score: 1

      You can get IR LEDs with an 80-100 degree viewing angle, or you can make them yourself by filing down the tips of regular IR LEDs.

      /DIY head tracking enthusiast

    15. Re:Anti camera tech by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Those police can end this right now by turning around, and enforcing the people's will on those who have caused these problems, since, well whenever.

      If they were enforcing the peoples will, they'd start shooting looters on sight. Your perverse political beliefs notwithstanding, even you must realize that the majority of the citizens want the riots quashed and the perpetrators punished.

    16. Re:Anti camera tech by webmistressrachel · · Score: 1

      No, no you're obviously on the side of capital. The vast majority of residents leaving Manchester that night made their support for the actions clear. You're missing all of my points entirely; people are waking up to the fact that JD sports make 1000% profits whilst employing slaves in China for pennies, causing rife unemployment here.

      Get the fuck of my back, troll. My political beliefs are the only sustainable political beliefs in existence, it's you who is perverse if you can reply to a comment like that and not want to slit your wrists, scumbag.

      These kids went out of their way not to hurt bystanders and innocents, and so did the police, I have to say. This is mostly about capitalism and unemployment. So get off my thread. Slashdot, if there's an uber-delete, please delete this fucking troll, and my reply (this.)

      --
      This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
    17. Re:Anti camera tech by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      No, no you're obviously on the side of capital

      No, I'm on the side of law and order. I don't believe that self-righteous thugs should be allowed to harm people and destroy property built by the hard labour of others.

      The vast majority of residents leaving Manchester that night made their support for the actions clear

      That's just a lie. Either you're completely delusional, or you're intentionaly lying.

      You're missing all of my points entirely; people are waking up to the fact that JD sports make 1000% profits whilst employing slaves in China for pennies, causing rife unemployment here.

      If you honestly think that the riots are based on such abstract concepts, you're a bigger fool than I thought. The fact that the claim itself is complete bullshit just makes the whole thing even more absurd.

      My political beliefs are the only sustainable political beliefs in existence

      Wow. Talk about egomania. Yes, princess, youâ(TM)re the only one who matters and the only one who knows the truth. Whatever you say.

    18. Re:Anti camera tech by Cederic · · Score: 1

      if there's an uber-delete, please delete this fucking troll, and my reply (this.)

      Oh fuck no, you posted this utter bullshit, now deal with it.

      people are waking up to the fact that JD sports make 1000% profits whilst employing slaves in China for pennies, causing rife unemployment here.

      JD Sports Annual Report 2011:
      Revenue : £883m
      Operating Profit: £76m

      So around 8% profit. Sorry, that's a little less than 1000%. I don't know how much they pay their suppliers, but it's the customers that are benefiting.

      The vast majority of residents leaving Manchester that night made their support for the actions clear.

      I thought so too. They said, "I can't understand why they're doing it", and "I had to give up and come back to the office and ring for help", and "Yeah, I got pretty scared", and "Can you come and pick me up please?" and, "I need to leave before it all kicks off".

      Maybe it's only those stupid fuckwits that actually work for a living, paying the taxes that fund the incredibly poverty stricken underclass' sky tv, blackberry mobiles and trainers from JD Sports that think the looters are immature opportunistic criminals.

      Trying to tie the looting in Manchester last night to globalisation issues is nearly as idiotic as the looting itself.

    19. Re:Anti camera tech by Oakey · · Score: 1

      You're talking shit, innocent people have been mugged and stripped naked during these riots. You can't even deny it, the photos and videos are all over the net, as is footage of reporters, photographers, etc being threatened.

      --
      "Dre don't get as high as me.... I'm Cheech and Chong" - Snoop Dogg
    20. Re:Anti camera tech by Oakey · · Score: 1

      Ironically, who do you think JD Sports biggest customer base is most likely to be? That's right, the very people robbing them blind!

      --
      "Dre don't get as high as me.... I'm Cheech and Chong" - Snoop Dogg
    21. Re:Anti camera tech by webmistressrachel · · Score: 1

      "That's just a lie. Either you're completely delusional, or you're intentionaly lying."

      No, no I'm not. Were you here? Were you in the firing line? No, I didn't think so.

      "The fact that the claim itself is complete bullshit"

      Just look for yourself. It costs around 6.pence to make a Nike shirt in China, quoted from their own costings.

      "Wow. Talk about egomania."

      No thanks. I'm no princess, and I have no delusions of grandeur, I'm simply not interested. I want to help build a system with checks and balances that prevent ANYONE from having a abusing such power. As someone who already has money and power, you are obviously defending your position against people like me. Do not mistake my passion for egomania. Do not attack me just because my views put you and yours, deservingly, in the firing line. With a name "c6gunner" I would hazard a guess you think 9//1 wasn't an inside job and that Iraq had WMDs, but that would be guessing. I don't presume, unlike you seem to be doing.

      --
      This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
    22. Re:Anti camera tech by webmistressrachel · · Score: 1

      I don't condone the violence, I accept that it's wrong, but were were the vocal outcries when police were assaulting and kettling innocent protesters and journalists alike?

      Where's your outcry for the fact that 56 people apply for every job in Tottenham (BBC)?

      --
      This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
    23. Re:Anti camera tech by webmistressrachel · · Score: 1

      OK, my passion is overflowing from last night's action, and the profit is ridiculously overstated, I may even be wrong. But I honestly believe that this is occurring because of the huge gap between the richest and the poor, and the lack of opportunity those thugs have in life.

      People aren't born evil, they're made that way.

      --
      This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
    24. Re:Anti camera tech by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      With a name "c6gunner" I would hazard a guess you think 9//1 wasn't an inside job

      Yep, that's right, I'm not a whacked-out nutjob. Thanks for explaining what the problem is, here. I won't waste any more time. Cheers.

    25. Re:Anti camera tech by webmistressrachel · · Score: 1

      See, more name-calling, instead of tackling the issues. You're a typical dumb American gun-wielding bully.

      How the hell can one fire from a plane the size of planes which the WTC was designed to resist, with less fuel than in the original plans, cause a collapse on that scale?

      Even Underwriters' Laboratories threw in their two pence in court, and that case was settled out of court, with the US Govt. accepting that the laws of physics as UL saw them must have been bent, BECAUSE THE STEEL WAS OK???

      --
      This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
    26. Re:Anti camera tech by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      You're a typical dumb American gun-wielding bully.

      Perhaps you should learn to read sigs.

      How the hell can one fire from a plane the size of planes which the WTC was designed to resist, with less fuel than in the original plans, cause a collapse on that scale?

      It couldn't. Which is why you make sure your "question" is filled with lies - so that everyone will go "hrm, wow, that's weird!". I count three lies in just that one single "question". If you left out the lies, it would sound a lot less ominous.

      Even Underwriters' Laboratories threw in their two pence in court, and that case was settled out of court, with the US Govt. accepting that the laws of physics as UL saw them must have been bent, BECAUSE THE STEEL WAS OK???

      See, this is why I don't want to waste any more time arguing with you - because you honestly seem to think that your shitty research skills are a good basis for making far-reaching conclusions about global events. That's sad. I don't argue with people whom I pity.

      Tell ya what - if you can go, do a bit of research, and come back and tell me exactly what's wrong with your two "questions" - or at least tell me what three lies I saw in the first "question" - I'll take the time to try and educate you a bit. However, I'm not willing to put in that kind of effort unless you can show me that it will be worthwhile. The decision is yours - whether I respond again is entirely up to you.

    27. Re:Anti camera tech by Wandering+Idiot · · Score: 1

      Your premises are flawed, and I don't think you're actually interested in the answers to your questions (which aren't really that hard to understand), Are there entire forums where people with no knowledge of structural mechanics keep repeating the same misinformation to each other ad nauseum, or something?

      I mean, you seem to have good intentions, but believing everything you read on the internet just because it reinforces your worldview in some way leads to madness. That's how you get people thinking Bush was a shapeshifting lizard alien, just because it works with him being evil.

    28. Re:Anti camera tech by Wandering+Idiot · · Score: 1

      The vast majority of residents leaving Manchester that night made their support for the actions clear.

      Are you serious? The people whose homes and business were being burned and looted were in support of people doing those things? Did you ask them in front of large crowds of said angry folks, perhaps?

      My political beliefs are the only sustainable political beliefs in existence.

      Your political beliefs are the ones that generally get co-opted into millions of deaths to purge those "on the side of capital" and other undesirables, and the setting up of oligarchies to replace the old ones, just with a different set of slogans (Unless I'm totally off about yours, which I doubt). Ideals don't mean much without a means to implementation that doesn't end up betraying most of them.

      Also, everyone says the same about their political beliefs, that's why they're called beliefs.


      My own are that while roughly pyramid-shaped societies are probably inevitable at this stage of our technological development, they should be kept relatively flat, with the base raised as high as possible, both for humanitarian reasons and for the practical ones that it's easier in the long run the more people have an actual stake in society. Globalization has increased the steepness of the pyramid currently, since the top levels are fairly mobile with their money. Increasing automation of even things like service jobs is eventually going to force us to either lock up/dispose of ever larger portions of the population, or give up the idea of needing to work to live a decent life*. I'd like to think it'll be the latter, but there will probably be some horrible period of an in-between state (you could argue this process is already well underway, but different regional levels of technological development muddy it a bit). I'll admit I'm counting long term on even people near the top not being entirely innate sociopaths (as opposed to functional sociopaths who behave as such to get ahead), which some would argue.

      * Anyone worried about overpopulation without literal starvation to keep numbers down is being both cruel and uninformed, as a look at birthrate demographics in industrialized countries shows. The best way to keep people from having 15 kids on average (easily absorbed outliers aside) is to give them comfortable middle-class lifestyles and access to birth control.


      I probably don't even disagree with a lot of your thinking on the origins of the riots, just with your tendency towards hyperbole and binary thinking. Thing is, you could rally the entire underclass, throw out the oppressors, and end up back where you started in a few years. Because the only difference between the rich/powerful and the poor/underrepresented is that the former have more money and influence, so I'm not sure where the idea comes from that the latter would behave any better were their positions swapped. You could probably wipe the planet of all humans and repopulate it with identical clones of the same age, and still develop the same hierarchical structures (the people at the top who got lucky would still consider their positions the result of innate qualities, of course).

    29. Re:Anti camera tech by anyGould · · Score: 1

      Probably a bit of both. The trick is to make them popular enough that it can't be used as "proof you were planning something".

      On a lower-tech note, a nice wide-brimmed hat does a good job of obscuring your face as well. A return of the sombrero?

  7. Existing Database by falconcy · · Score: 1

    Since the introduction of biometric passports the UK already has a database capable of being used for facial recognition for the majority of people in the country.

    1. Re:Existing Database by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      only for people who have a passport. and seriously, have you looked like your passport photo lately?

    2. Re:Existing Database by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      You would have some photo taken at some point. School, welfare, bank account, job, passport, some licence may all need a new photo taken or photo id submitted on application.
      The math of your face would do the rest.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:Existing Database by Xest · · Score: 1

      Yes, except the sorts of scrotes involved in these riots are the sort of chav underclass who until now probably have never stepped outside their own estate.

      Thus, the chance of any decent amount of them having a passport- something which is optional in the UK, is pretty much nil.

    4. Re:Existing Database by nyctopterus · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, chances of them having been arrested before: good.

    5. Re:Existing Database by Xest · · Score: 1

      I think that's probably true. They've arrested 600+ already. Let's be honest, most of those arrests are probably because the police knew exactly who the people in CCTV images etc. were as soon as they saw them.

  8. How to defeat facial recognition technology by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

    1. ski mask
    2. ???
    3. profit!!

    brought to you by John Dillinger

    1. Re:How to defeat facial recognition technology by cc1984_ · · Score: 1

      1. ski mask
      2. ???
      3. profit!!

      Sound advice. However, I suspect the majority of rioters on the streets at the moment aren't the type of people who read Slashdot nor think about the consequences of showing their face in public to all those people with smartphones.

      For example: http://catchalooter.tumblr.com/ . No facial recognition technology with this site, just the "many eyeballs" technique.

    2. Re:How to defeat facial recognition technology by coolmadsi · · Score: 1

      1. ski mask 2. ??? 3. profit!!

      Sound advice. However, I suspect the majority of rioters on the streets at the moment aren't the type of people who read Slashdot nor think about the consequences of showing their face in public to all those people with smartphones.

      I heard one report that there was someone handing out scarves to people telling them to use it to cover their face. So while the majority might not be thinking of it, there are a few who are (and are sharing their knowledge)

    3. Re:How to defeat facial recognition technology by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Hence Manchester Police adopting tactics of "Take off your scarf/mask/hat/hood" on everyone in the city, irrespective of any evidence of wrongdoing.

      That way the CCTV and other cameras have a face to work from; any individual can be tracked back to that one camera.

      The cameras didn't prevent any looting, but they will help catch and convict a lot of people in the next few days/weeks.

  9. Re:would somebody tell me by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 3, Funny

    multiculturalism and tolerasty at its best.

    Hi! :)

    You seem to be trying to use a word that you don't really understand.

    Would you like me to...

    1. Find close matches in the dictionary, based on the first few letters...?

    2. Find likely synonyms in a thesaurus, based on context...?

    3. Fill in some garbage that means nothing but sounds good so people might not quite so easily cop to the fact that you're a functionally illiterate racist moron...?

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  10. Talking is not Doing! by JakFrost · · Score: 1

    All this talk and nobody posted a site up yet with all the perps identified and tagged? Sounds like design by committee, where there's only one real developer who understands and can do the work and a bunch of yakkers just chatting it up because they can't do it but want to be important or included.

    C'mon, website up in T-minus how many hours?

    PS: On a side note. Hearing the word Riot brings back the memories of the LA Riots and the one story that I remember is the guy with a hunting rifle living across the street from his friend's electronics store and keeping it looter free and allowing it to survive in tact while everything else got robbed or burned. When the shit hits the fan and the police aren't there to help you, just be prepared to help yourself and you'll do well! Too bad about London, as to quote FPS Russia, "One of those Beech countries, where you can't have guns!"

    1. Re:Talking is not Doing! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Hearing the word "poor" makes me think "blacks" (mostly 'cause I don't care to get racist when thinking). Astonishingly, I'm more often than not correct.

      Correlation is not necessarily causation. They're not rioting 'cause they're black. They're rioting because they're poor and see no chance to improve this situation, ever. Which in turn leads to a lot of frustration and, well, if there's finally a way to vent that anger, I can well understand why they jump on it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Talking is not Doing! by u38cg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, LA: lots of rioting, stores got looted. London: lots of rioting, stores got looted. Remind me again what gun control has to do with this?

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    3. Re:Talking is not Doing! by Xest · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you can't see the obvious problem in your post, then you're retarded.

      America has some of the most lax gun laws in the world.

      America still managed to suffer far worse riots than the UK has.

      As an aside, how many people did the rioters themselves shoot in those riots with legitimately owned guns? No? don't want to answer that? According to Wikipedia 53 people died. Thus far only one person has died in the UK and he was shot by a rival gang with an illegal firearm.

      Oh, but because one guy defended one shop, it's worth opening the tide of higher murder rates, and greater burden on health care that accidental and intentional gun wounds cause.

      Yeah, I think we'll pass thanks. That's a hell of a price to pay for one guy to be able to defend one shop.

      Oh, and for what it's worth you can have guns here. Just not things like automatic rifles and easily concealed pistols. You can have things like shotguns, and hunting rifles, but, well, even having them legal has led to questionable benefits:

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

      Criminals will find weapons regardless, but much better that the chavs are busy with knives against which there is at least some ability to defend or run from or at worst passing round the odd, knackered old fire arm with limited ammunition than all armed up with well maintained fully automatic weapons, and as much ammunition as they'd ever want to buy.

      No, you can keep your guns. With nearly 5 times our murder rate per head of population, most of which are a result of firearms incidents. As for Russia, well, their murder rate makes America's look good- at around 10 times our murder rate per head of population.

      Perhaps you should take lessons from us instead? no? the NRA and tea party nut jobs wont let you? That's a shame.

    4. Re:Talking is not Doing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      various stories about the greek and turkish community in N.London and Siihk community in west London coming out on mass with baseball/cricket bats to defend their businesses (and some of kebab shop owners standing in their doorways with the kebab knives). No looting in those areas as the rioters just moved on to easier targets

    5. Re:Talking is not Doing! by Xest · · Score: 2

      I wouldn't say it's because of race, but I do think there's more too it than that. We have some equally poor Kosovan communities around here but they would never dream of this and are appalled by it. That's not to say it's racial, but I don't think it's merely because of poverty either.

      I think there's a strong cultural element here too. Certainly there has been some evidence for this in the past- Somali populations in Bristol, and Nigerian populations in Birmingham most certainly brought with them some of the gang culture of their homelands when they immigrated into this country.

      It's a tough problem to solve because culture does correlate so closely with race a lot of the time and so gets hijacked by the far right and turns into an attack on race, and so attempts to suggest cultural change for immigrants brings down cries of racism, and complaints about how we're trying to dilute their cultural identity. So what's the solution?

      The worst part is that part of some cultural attitudes even seem to be at the root of the poverty. The Polish communities in the UK have no inherent advantage and in fact have had much less time to establish than many other groups (often they have as big, if not bigger language barrier), and yet they seem to be integrating very well- most have jobs, and their work ethic in general is excellent. I had a young Polish guy knock on my door the other day trying to sell paintings he'd done of the countryside around our area and I bought one because they were great. It's precisely that type of cultural attitude that matters- he may not be able to find a job, so what does he do? well, he makes one for himself. It may not pay much at all, but at least he's doing something- importantly, at least it means he's maintained a strong degree of self-respect, which is precisely what the rioters have lost.

      I'm not sure what the solution is, you have to be careful not to conflate race and culture despite the close correlation, but if you recognise it as a cultural problem then you run the risk of being called racist by people who prefer to just try and cover over the problems,than discuss and deal with them. Even if you can debate it with people who accept it as a possible cultural problem, then you run into a further issue, and that's whether it's more important to allow people to maintain their cultural identity even if it runs counter to the values of the country that person, or group of people has immigrated into, or whether you avoid cultural conflict at the cost of forcing people to accept cultural change.

    6. Re:Talking is not Doing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you see the irony in your post when you realize that the riots in London began because someone was shot and killed, and our riots began because someone was beaten.

    7. Re:Talking is not Doing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Criminals will find weapons regardless...

      So why remove the ability to defend one's self if the criminals will have guns anyway?

    8. Re:Talking is not Doing! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Troll

      Perhaps you should take lessons from us instead? no? the NRA and tea party nut jobs wont let you? That's a shame.

      We already took lessons from you. Our cops kill our citizens all the time. The difference is that in our country you can theoretically shoot back, which might make them a LITTLE less likely to open up on a crowd. Of course, most people who carry guns don't go to riots. They're busy trying to stay OUT of trouble. Meanwhile, you still seem to have gun crime. Further, your government is even more repressive than ours. How's not being armed working out for you in your 1984-esque surveillance society?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Talking is not Doing! by couchslug · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "America still managed to suffer far worse riots than the UK has."

      ONLY in DISARMED areas. There are two Americas, reasonable as the US is vastly larger than the UK. There is a generally peaceful part, and there is the violent part you read about in the news. The culture and demographics of these areas differ. Many of the lowest-crime areas of the US are heavily armed.

      The reason the LA riots weren't replicated in the Southern US is we would have cut the rioters to ribbons. The "goblins" (to use a fine Jeff Cooper phrase) tend to prey on each other instead. We have the right to kill in self-defense. We use it. You don't. When a thug breaks into a home in the US, their death at the hands of a homeowner is usually met with approval as it should be.

      "Criminals will find weapons regardless, but much better that the chavs are busy with knives against which there is at least some ability to defend or run from or at worst passing round the odd, knackered old fire arm with limited ammunition than all armed up with well maintained fully automatic weapons, and as much ammunition as they'd ever want to buy."

      You are confused about the real situation.
      The US "chav" equivalent are poorly armed, and good citizens much better equipped. The riotous sort sell their weapons for drugs or can't afford them in the first place. The good citizens often have a military background and plan accordingly.

      Trash, be they "chavs" or (insert epithet I'd get a troll mod for using) are merely a mob of beasts. In cases where the general public approve, massive force can be used against such people. We should remember that mobs can be destroyed by force, and get over the idea that mobs whose goal is mindless attack on the rest of us deserve mercy. What they deserve is ball ammo in the face.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    10. Re:Talking is not Doing! by Xest · · Score: 1

      Because then criminals have even more guns, and non-criminals become criminals because it's much easier for them to use guns where they otherwise would not have, and because non-criminals through sheer stupidity manage to accidentally discharge their guns killing other innocent people.

      If you're a heavily depressed person, why just kill yourself when it's trivial to buy a fire arm and go out with one hell of a bang, getting revenge and making a point in the process? Kinda like Derrick Bird did here in the UK, as a legal gun owner of the few types of firearms that are legal in our country. You really think someone in that state of mind, and with those financial problems making him cold hard broke would've been able to figure out how to get one on the black market and do what he did when many criminals even struggle to get hold of them?

    11. Re:Talking is not Doing! by Xest · · Score: 1

      "We already took lessons from you. Our cops kill our citizens all the time"

      Here it happens once every year or so, in your country it happens every week. I'm not sure that's something you want to be bragging about.

      "The difference is that in our country you can theoretically shoot back, which might make them a LITTLE less likely to open up on a crowd."

      Yeah because of course our cops do that don't they, they open up on crowds. Oh wait no they don't, in fact they've not to this point even deployed baton rounds, or water cannons. In fact, we don't even own any water cannons in the UK. So much for firing upon crowds I guess. Perhaps you got a bit confused, maybe you're thinking of Syria? I know Americans aren't renowned for their geography skills but I think you'll find that's about a few thousand miles East of us. Oh, that's the same Syria where handguns are legal by the way, looks like it's working out really well for them.

      "Of course, most people who carry guns don't go to riots. They're busy trying to stay OUT of trouble."

      Well, except those who actually did, and actually shot people dead in the likes of the LA riots- yes, apart from those. As long as we exclude those you're right, just like if we say all Americans are of Chinese origin it's true, as long as you include those who aren't of course.

      "Meanwhile, you still seem to have gun crime."

      Yes, but apparently the concept of "scale" is a tough one for you to grasp. Really, it's not hard. Gun crime can never be completely and utterly irradicated, what matters is that gun crime per head of population, and overally murder rates and so forth are drastically lower in the UK than the US. Scale. Go learn about it.

      "Further, your government is even more repressive than ours."

      Yes, it's absolutely terrible. It's so repressive that I'm forced to not have to worry about paying for my healthcare and things like that. I just don't know how we make it day to day. Every day I wish and pray so hard we lived in the land of warrantless wiretapping, guantanamo bay, and extraordinary rendition.

      "How's not being armed working out for you in your 1984-esque surveillance society?"

      Quite well actually. Sensible healthcare, lower murder rates, much lower prison population per head of population, and a political system that gives more options than just right wing corporate puppets, or very right wing corporate puppets to name a few benefits.

      Really, I'm not particularly one to pretend Britain is perfect, far from it, a lot needs to change. But that wasn't my point was it? my point was that in response to the person above- I'm fucking glad we don't have your retarded gun nuttery, because for all the benefits you think it gives you, all you've really got to show for it are a whole bunch of pretty fucking embrassing crime statistics. It's one problem I'd rather not see added to the problems we do have thanks.

      But keep telling yourself your country is perfect, and you're so incredibly free, and that Britain is so much worse. Meanwhile the rest of the world will keep chuckling about how naive you are.

    12. Re:Talking is not Doing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > No, you can keep your guns. With nearly 5 times our murder rate per head of population

      The USA also has 12 times the number of blacks by percentage than the UK. I think I'll keep my guns, thanks anyway, and leave the baseball bats (which I hear are selling exceptionally well around your parts) for baseball.

    13. Re:Talking is not Doing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't just one store, but many, that were defended by their owners during the Rodney King Riots. He just happened to cite only one. Want more? how about the whole Korean community barricading their shops and defending them with weapons, several thousand people I might add.
      These people are defending their livlihood by any means necessary, and if they have to excercise their 2nd amendment right to do it, then so be it.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_riots_of_1992#Riots_and_the_Korean-American_community

      furthermore, lets not insinuate that all 53 people died by gunshots, they most certainly did not, but I'm sure that little insinuation doesn't help in any case to enflame your argument right? actually the number is right around 36, based on this report

      http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~oliver/soc220/Lectures220/AfricanAmericans/LA%20Riot%201992%20Deaths.htm

      which is as close to accurate as i could find considering that the official toll of people dying from the riots was actually 51.

      http://www.nytimes.com/1992/08/13/us/los-angeles-riot-toll-dropped-to-51-after-review.html

      Oh, and for what it's worth you can have guns here. Just not things like automatic rifles and easily concealed pistols. You can have things like shotguns, and hunting rifles, but, well, even having them legal has led to questionable benefits:

      Funny, you also can't have automatic rifles here, and concealed carry weapons are allowed to less then half a percent of the American population, most of whom are ex-military or law enforcement.
      http://blogostuff.blogspot.com/2004/12/percentage-of-adults-with-carry.html

      What lax gun laws are you talking about? In California (the state where i live) you can't buy a magazine greater then 10 rounds for any weapon, and the most amount of boxes amount of boxes you can by at one time is 5. You are not allowed to carry around a loaded gun in public, and the mandatory mininum time you can spend in jail is 4 years if you use a firearm in the commission of ANY crime.

      So to summarize, we can have guns, yet they can only hold at max 10 rounds, we can't buy more then 5 boxes at time, we can't carry concealed weapons without a permit (which is a major undertaking to get in most places), and automatic weapons are a big no-no with major jail implications.

      So Yes, we will excercise our right to carry firearms, against criminals who most certainly will use and carry them against us.

    14. Re:Talking is not Doing! by Xest · · Score: 1

      Right, that's a very interesting little tale you've told.

      So how do you square your little fairy tale against your drastically higher levels of gun crime, and drastically higher murder rates per head of population? Or do you prefer to keep things like "facts" out of your stories preferring to keep them purely fictional?

      Oh and:

      "We have the right to kill in self-defense. We use it. You don't. When a thug breaks into a home in the US, their death at the hands of a homeowner is usually met with approval as it should be."

      You mean a bit like this?

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14248097

      Difference is, we don't need guns to defend our homes, because when the sort of criminals who resort to crimes like burglary don't have guns, why would we need them? Or what, do you also believe burglars in the US don't have guns, when they know home owners do?

    15. Re:Talking is not Doing! by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah because of course our cops do that don't they, they open up on crowds. Oh wait no they don't, in fact they've not to this point even deployed baton rounds, or water cannons.

      It's only a matter of time. Wish I were wrong, don't think I am. Time will tell.

      I'm fucking glad we don't have your retarded gun nuttery, because for all the benefits you think it gives you, all you've really got to show for it are a whole bunch of pretty fucking embrassing crime statistics.

      First of all, our retarded gun nuttery is your retarded gun nuttery, because we inherited it from you. You have simply outlawed it, with the effect that only criminals have guns. Second, gun crime has been waning in the USA in spite of generally permissive firearms laws. The only kind of gun crime which is actually on the rise in the USA is suicide. Suicide is on the rise pretty much everywhere, and we just happen to have guns to do it with. Aside from making things messier, this is really not a problem. So while gun suicide is on the rise, gun deaths are falling overall, suggesting that we have a handle on the problem.

      But keep telling yourself your country is perfect, and you're so incredibly free, and that Britain is so much worse.

      Nah, the USA and Britain are just two sides on the same die. On the other hand, your culture is provably less free than ours. I mean fuck, the truth is not a defense in a libel case? How are you not seriously more fucked up than the USA?

      Anyway, one more thing upon which time will tell; your country is totally played out. You're out of natural resources and useful allies. All there is left is to fight each other for the scraps. Without projecting imperialism as the USA is doing you have no future except as just another soon-to-be-homogenized member of the EU. That's a good thing for the world but not for your quality of life.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:Talking is not Doing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, but because one guy defended one shop, it's worth opening the tide of higher murder rates, and greater burden on health care that accidental and intentional gun wounds cause. Yeah, I think we'll pass thanks. That's a hell of a price to pay for one guy to be able to defend one shop.

      Nice straw man.

      With nearly 5 times our murder rate per head of population, most of which are a result of firearms incidents

      Source please?

      BTW, you can stop citing wikipedia like it's actually a reliable source of information.

    17. Re:Talking is not Doing! by Xest · · Score: 1

      "It wasn't just one store, but many, that were defended by their owners during the Rodney King Riots. He just happened to cite only one."

      Right, but it doesn't matter, because the fundamental point is that the net damage was still far worse in LA, and the level of deaths was still higher.

      People were defending their communities in the UK the last couple of nights too, the difference is that because the criminals didn't have guns, they didn't need them either. A simple intimidating prescence is enough to scare most rioters and looters off. Hence, it's not a sensible argument for lax gun control.

      "furthermore, lets not insinuate that all 53 people died by gunshots, they most certainly did not, but I'm sure that little insinuation doesn't help in any case to enflame your argument right? actually the number is right around 36"

      No let's not, which is why I didn't but let's not let reading comprehension get in the way of your ability to fail to make a point. Anyway, back to the point in hand, I'm glad you cleared up the fact that only 36 died by gun shots, this obviously helps demonstrate how useful guns were in preventing deaths. Oh wait, no, it doesn't- it proves that when you bring guns into the equation, people are likely to die to them. 36 people in fact, which is 36 people who died to gunshots in LA's riots than in the UK's riots, which er, nicely backs up my fundamental point that guns do not keep people safe but more likely do the opposite. So thanks for that.

      It doesn't really matter what per-state gun laws are. The fact is that the availability of a much wider range of guns, and much greater amounts of amunition across the US have left you with nothing to show for it other than higher levels of gun crime, and general murder per head of population. Your right to carry a gun has not made you safer- and whatever minor points you want to argue and niggle over here and there, that's the raw truth. Hence, it's a fallacy to imply carrying guns helps make the US a safer place. Clearly it absolutely and unquestionably does not. It's a failed experiment.

    18. Re:Talking is not Doing! by misexistentialist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Difference is, we don't need guns to defend our homes, because when the sort of criminals who resort to crimes like burglary don't have guns, why would we need them? Or what, do you also believe burglars in the US don't have guns, when they know home owners do?

      Guns give an individual of any strength or gender at least an equal chance against criminals, typically stronger, younger, and more numerous males who have spent their whole lives learning to take and administer beatings. Unless you are trained you will lose against a street thug in physical combat--and even if you are you will lose against two of them. On the other hand, burglary is a very unprofitable crime so the average burglar is not armed since guns cost hundreds of dollars. Forfeiting your right to a gun means you are trusting your life to the grace of criminals (who are practical enough to retain all their rights).

    19. Re:Talking is not Doing! by Xest · · Score: 1

      "It's only a matter of time. Wish I were wrong, don't think I am. Time will tell."

      A matter of time for what? baton round usage and water cannon usage against rioters? probably, if the riots carry on. But if you're talking about opening fire on crowds? I'm struggling to see what kind of circumstance would bring British fire arms units up against a crowd, and where they would then open fire- that's just not how our firearms units are used and deployed. Meanwhile, you're already at least 40 years ahead of us on this either way:

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

      "First of all, our retarded gun nuttery is your retarded gun nuttery, because we inherited it from you."

      Yes, the difference is, we grew up.

      "You have simply outlawed it, with the effect that only criminals have guns."

      Only some criminals have access to very limited number of guns, and an equally limited amount of ammunition you mean? This is much better than all criminals having the ability to trivially access all kinds of firearms, and as much ammunition as they really want.

      "So while gun suicide is on the rise, gun deaths are falling overall, suggesting that we have a handle on the problem."

      Yes, falling slowly, but still well above that of just about every other developed nation. I'm not sure that that's having a handle on the problem. For what it's worth, it's falling in the UK too, from it's already low starting point.

      "On the other hand, your culture is provably less free than ours."

      But does it matter? This idea that greater freedom = greater good is false, clearly the freedom to murder whoever you wanted is unacceptable, and clearly some freedoms are not necessarily a good thing. The freedom for Westboro' to picket the funerals of greiving families is a freedom we in the UK do not want, so sure maybe we are less free, but fundamentally as long as the population is happier, healthier, and suffers lower murder rates and our political system is much healthier, in that we can bring politicians to account over things like the expenses scandal, and we can hold Murdoch's empire to account over things like phone hacking then who cares about some arbitrary measure of freedom? It's not as if the government is interfering in our lives to a particularly problematic degree, and when Labour tried to do just that, they suffered catastrophic electoral defeat, and, as it happens, things like libel laws are, as a result, being reformed.

      "You're out of natural resources and useful allies."

      Really? You mean apart from the whole of Europe? the fact we still have very strong ties to our old colonies in India and other parts of Asia? But you may want to be careful what you wish for- in contrast to America, we ARE your last useful ally.

      As for natural resources, well, North Sea oil reserves are still greater than the reserves most other countries in the world have, so I think we don't need to worry about that for a while, not to mention our consumption is lower. Did you know the US uses more than 3 times the amount of oil a day as China does despite having 1/4th the population, whilst China, Europe and so forth have far greater green energy programmes than the US? I think you have much more to worry about when it comes to natural resources than us, because you're far more dependent.

      "Without projecting imperialism as the USA is doing you have no future except as just another soon-to-be-homogenized member of the EU. That's a good thing for the world but not for your quality of life."

      Are you sure about that? The EU is a larger economy than the US, has lower levels of crime, longer life expectancy, lower levels of infant mortality, higher average levels of education, lower levels of crime, higher levels of personal happiness. All in all, it sounds fucking fantastic for our quality of life. Even better, Britain is now one of the brightest economies in the Western hemisphere because we're one of the few that have b

    20. Re:Talking is not Doing! by 1s44c · · Score: 0

      So, LA: lots of rioting, stores got looted. London: lots of rioting, stores got looted. Remind me again what gun control has to do with this?

      If the UK police didn't get to play with guns 2 of the last 3 people they killed would not be dead. The riots would never had happened.

    21. Re:Talking is not Doing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you should take lessons from us instead? no? the NRA and tea party nut jobs wont let you? That's a shame.

      There are idiots with guns and there are idiots with knives and shivs, and there are idiots with bombs, and there are idiots with warships. That's the problem.. there are too many idiots believing they can make the world a better place by being idiots.

    22. Re:Talking is not Doing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its idiotical!

    23. Re:Talking is not Doing! by Xest · · Score: 2

      "Guns give an individual of any strength or gender at least an equal chance against criminals"

      This fallacy assumes that the criminal doesn't get the jump on you, which, when they're the ones knowing they're going to commit the crime, means they have the initiative.

      This is why, despite your theory, it doesn't work out this way in practice. It's also a problem that a criminal will commonly be more willing to shoot a person, than a non-criminal be willing to shoot someone, even if they are a criminal.

      "Unless you are trained you will lose against a street thug in physical combat--and even if you are you will lose against two of them."

      With guns, you'll lose against whoever raises their fire arm and shoots you before you even have a chance to reach for yours. I don't see how this is a better scenario.

      "Forfeiting your right to a gun means you are trusting your life to the grace of criminals (who are practical enough to retain all their rights)."

      Fighting for a right to have guns, means you are putting more guns into the hands of criminals than they could possibly obtain. It means more people capable of killing having the means to do so.

      This is once again illustrated by America's high level of gun crime, and this is the fundamental point those of you arguing against me fail to address.

      If guns help to protect you, and to make the world a safer place, why has America got orders of magnitude more murders, more gun homicide? and more gun massacres (particularly ones where the perp shoots himself at the end, and isn't in fact stopped by some heroic citizen shooting him)?

    24. Re:Talking is not Doing! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Yes, the difference is, we grew up.

      Uh no. The difference is that you are never going to grow up. You've only succeeded in deferring the problem, while we're actively working on it. Nice try, though.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    25. Re:Talking is not Doing! by Xest · · Score: 1

      Actively working on it by failing to agree to a solution to your massive debt and deficit problems?

      Meanwhile our budget deficit is on course to being dealt with within a few years.

      With the Fed's latest move, it doesn't even sound like even your own financial oversight folks have any faith that your problems will be anything like on their way to being solved any time soon.

      That's also why even China feels it has the moral authority to lecture you about your financial situation now. If you can't see that you're an empire on it's last legs in the face of a rising China and India, then, well, that sucks to be you as it'll make it all the more painful for you.

    26. Re:Talking is not Doing! by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Thank God the rioters didn't have guns or this would have been much worse!

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    27. Re:Talking is not Doing! by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Excuse me for being lazy and not looking up the link- but google it yourself. Statistically you are much more likely to be shot during a break-in if you own a gun than if you don't. Home-owners who are not pumped up on adrenaline from breaking into a house are much less likely to actually shoot than the one breaking in. If you break into a house and see someone with a gun- you'll shoot.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    28. Re:Talking is not Doing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Difference is, we don't need guns to defend our homes, because when the sort of criminals who resort to crimes like burglary don't have guns, why would we need them? Or what, do you also believe burglars in the US don't have guns, when they know home owners do?

      I think you mean the difference is that if British homeowners shoot burglars, they will spend more time in jail than the people who broke into their home.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/717511.stm

      Please dial 999, wait for the police to arrive, and whatever you do, do not shoot the burglars in the UK.

    29. Re:Talking is not Doing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can't see the obvious problem in your post, then you're retarded.

      America has some of the most lax gun laws in the world.

      America still managed to suffer far worse riots than the UK has.

      These current UK riots start because the London police shot a man who had a handgun, which by your strict gun laws is pretty much per se illegal. Not only have your strict gun laws failed to stop four days of rioting, it is precisely the violation of these strict gun laws that led to the very incident that started the rioting.

      Good job.

    30. Re:Talking is not Doing! by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      You don't need guns to defend yourself, you American twatburger, you just need community spirit, as happened in many areas of London last night. If you come across a couple of hundred Sikhs ready to fight back, you'd have to be fucking stupid to try any looting in their area.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    31. Re:Talking is not Doing! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      The Polish communities in the UK have no inherent advantage and in fact have had much less time to establish than many other groups (often they have as big, if not bigger language barrier), and yet they seem to be integrating very well- most have jobs, and their work ethic in general is excellent.

      And, in case you hadn't noticed, Polish people tend overwhelmingly to be white. Their more favourable reception here is actually evidence of racism, when as you say they have greater language and cultureal differences than many immigrants from Commonwealh countries (who happen to have brown skin).

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    32. Re:Talking is not Doing! by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "So how do you square your little fairy tale against your drastically higher levels of gun crime, and drastically higher murder rates per head of population? Or do you prefer to keep things like "facts" out of your stories preferring to keep them purely fictional?"

      Crime in the US is mostly a racial problem. Most of the murders etc are trash taking out trash. I live in a good, safe WHITE neighborhood which is good and safe BECAUSE it's White. That racial reality is inescapable.

      I can't repatriate the people who were kidnapped hundreds of years ago, but I can defend myself against them and avoid them since the US has ample space for relocation.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    33. Re:Talking is not Doing! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Criminals will find weapons regardless...

      So why remove the ability to defend one's self if the criminals will have guns anyway?

      You don't need guns to go rioting and looting, the sort of crims who carry weapons tend to use themon each other (and innocent bystanders). And you don't need guns to defend yourself.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    34. Re:Talking is not Doing! by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Bingo. White areas tend to be safe areas. When White areas flood, the residents don't behave like New Orleans Africans.

      Reality isn't often Politically Correct. I have no problem with that.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    35. Re:Talking is not Doing! by couchslug · · Score: 1

      The death of rioters is completely desirable. Where rioters know they will be shot, for example the South, they don't riot.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    36. Re:Talking is not Doing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I think we'll pass thanks.

      I'm sorry, but you do not speak for WE. Thanks for participating.

    37. Re:Talking is not Doing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, but because one guy defended one shop, it's worth opening the tide of higher murder rates, and greater burden on health care that accidental and intentional gun wounds cause.

      Yeah, I think we'll pass thanks. That's a hell of a price to pay for one guy to be able to defend one shop.

      What is the point of 2nd Amendment if isn't there to allow one to protect their own life and liberty? You may not give a shit about his shop, but for that one guy it puts food on his table and at the end of the day that is fairly important for a lot of people.

      You counter with additional healthcare costs associated with gun shot wounds, so the solution is to eliminate guns. Have you ever stopped to wonder if maybe the healthcare system is broken, not the 2nd Amendment?

    38. Re:Talking is not Doing! by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      The USA has a lot higher traffic fatalities too. Is that a reason to restrict vehicle-use as much as the UK does? Sure freedom has it's price, but gun crime is mostly criminal-on-criminal. There would probably be a lot fewer rioters on the street if they had had more opportunities to get shot and arrested for illegal gun possession (though I guess in England you can get them for pocket knifes and letter-openers).

    39. Re:Talking is not Doing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why take a gun and go out with a bang, when you can chain a couple doors shut and kill several hundred by burning down a building?

      Last time I checked, gas cans were legal in the UK.

    40. Re:Talking is not Doing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would like to present a similar argument to a friend but I notice you do not actually cite any statistics.

    41. Re:Talking is not Doing! by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Before spouting your racist views, can you please factor in levels of income, inherited wealth, education, opportunity, treatment by civil authorities, treatment by law enforcement, treatment by the judicial system and other factors that generally demonstrate that race is rarely the issue and that you're a bigot.

    42. Re:Talking is not Doing! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You don't seem to understand, our leaders are bastards, but your leaders are bastards too. That's OK though, most of our people don't get this about our leaders either, so you're in lots of company. Our leaders are more successful bastards than yours, that is all.

      China is not lecturing us about our financial situation due to moral superiority, but due to a desire to put the screws to us to get a better deal.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    43. Re:Talking is not Doing! by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Wait, what? You're suggesting the police should _not_ act in self defence?

      The official police story on this is that the officer opened fire because he felt there was a threat to his life.

      The legality of the non-police firearm found on the scene has absolutely nothing to do with it.

      So no, the violation of strict gun laws is utterly fucking irrelevant. An armed policeman feeling justified in shooting in self-defence was the incident that led to the protest that escalated into the rioting.

      Whether policeman was justified or not will be determined by a subsequent enquiry. A reason the protest happened was that such enquiries have historically found the police to be entirely blameless, even where all evidence suggests that they've acted illegally - and again, fuck all to do with the strict gun laws.

      I don't actually like our gun laws, but please, at least argue against them using a basic minimum of knowledge, logic and intelligence.

    44. Re:Talking is not Doing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You clearly don't understand the purpose of the right to own guns. It's about the ability to overthrow a tyrannical regime without getting slaughtered in the streets. Maybe we should take after you and put up a million closed circuit tv cameras in every city. However I could point to the same arguments you just used to say that millions of cameras don't prevent any crime. Why have all those cameras? Oh wait you don't have a choice do you? Maybe if you had guns to shoot them out... This is the classic road to oppression mind set, trade freedom for security. I feel threatened by guns so I say no one can have them, except the nanny state. But how do you enforce the law? At gunpoint.

    45. Re:Talking is not Doing! by AmbushBug · · Score: 1

      +5 Informative, seriously!?! Let's see...

      So while gun suicide is on the rise, gun deaths are falling overall, suggesting that we have a handle on the problem.

      You will have a "handle on the problem" when you manage to get your gun deaths down to saner levels (like in the UK).

      Nah, the USA and Britain are just two sides on the same die. On the other hand, your culture is provably less free than ours.

      Bold claim, my friend! I suspect if you line up all the laws and balance out their "freedomness", etc. you guys will be too close to call.

      Anyway, one more thing upon which time will tell; your country is totally played out. You're out of natural resources and useful allies. All there is left is to fight each other for the scraps. Without projecting imperialism as the USA is doing you have no future except as just another soon-to-be-homogenized member of the EU. That's a good thing for the world but not for your quality of life.

      This one's the best... Out of natural resources and useful allies? Really? As a Canadian I can say that we have plenty of natural resources (including oil!) which we will happily sell to the UK (as we do to you). As far as useful allies (Canada not so much ;-) ) remember that the US is the UKs best buddy (remember the "special relationship"?) so I think they will be ok.

      TLDR; Nothing to see here, move along...

    46. Re:Talking is not Doing! by Xest · · Score: 1

      Might want to check the date on that. It happened 11 years ago, things have long since changed both legally, and in terms of public opinion.

    47. Re:Talking is not Doing! by Xest · · Score: 1

      I don't think that's true. Hostility against Polish people is at least as bad if not worse for one important reason- because they're so hard working they genuinely are getting employment over many local people simply because they have a better work ethic than many white, native, British people.

      In recent years much of the BNPs campaign has been against Polish people at least as much as it has Islam and so forth. They definitely have at least as hard a time, they just deal with it better.

    48. Re:Talking is not Doing! by Xest · · Score: 1

      Because it's a fair bit harder to have control to end your life at the end of the spree. Guns are pretty foolproof and quick as a suicide tool at the end of it all. Burning down a building and trying to make sure you die in it? not so much.

    49. Re:Talking is not Doing! by Xest · · Score: 1

      "+5 Informative, seriously!?! Let's see..."

      It's the usual Slashdot idiocy. You get moderated up for pointing out the flaws in the arguments of American gun nuts throughout most the day until around the time Americans start working, and until they go to bed. Sanity is sometimes restored by morning at Asian and European peak, but retarded moderations in relation to right wing Republican/American ideology always occur in relation to American time zones.

    50. Re:Talking is not Doing! by Xest · · Score: 1

      Don't be silly. It's about weighing the benefits of something against the downsides. Cars are kind of useful, so whilst the US should certainly look at how it can improve road safety, there's no need to ban cars because they're essential and the benefits far outweight the downsides.

      The benefit of guns for private citizens isn't really measurable. They're useful for entertainment and ego, but that's a weak justification from all the problems that result from such gun ownership.

    51. Re:Talking is not Doing! by Xest · · Score: 1

      "You don't seem to understand, our leaders are bastards, but your leaders are bastards too. That's OK though, most of our people don't get this about our leaders either, so you're in lots of company. Our leaders are more successful bastards than yours, that is all."

      An American saying this in the face of the economic embarassment they're facing is one of the most comic things I've read on Slashdot for a while.

      It's like you actually think America is still a superpower with a bright future and that the whole world respects or something. It's like you don't realise that it's already too late, the balance of power has tipped beyond a point of no return. America simply no longer has the power it has enjoyed over the last century, and it'd take a miracle to change that back. A miracle that has zero chance of happening under the current US political climate.

      Our country? most of us recognise we're a fallen empire, some don't certainly, the rest of us? We know our place in the world has changed, and we're quite content with that thanks.

    52. Re:Talking is not Doing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you've been listening to the news. There are neighbourhoods in London which have done the exact same thing with sticks and knives. And even one which did with no weapons, just the power of numbers.
      See, when your assailant has little probability of bringing a gun to the party, you do not necessarily need one. Some of you just have no idea how different life can be in a society with gun control.

    53. Re:Talking is not Doing! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You will have a "handle on the problem" when you manage to get your gun deaths down to saner levels (like in the UK).

      The answer is not banning everything. You have people in the UK speaking seriously about banning long knives of all kinds because someone might get seriously stabbed. No attempts at legislation yet, but when stuff like that gets traction in the media I consider it the powers-that-be testing the waters to see what the public thinks, and if there is not an unmanageable level of resistance then they go ahead and let it fly.

      Nah, the USA and Britain are just two sides on the same die. On the other hand, your culture is provably less free than ours.

      Bold claim, my friend! I suspect if you line up all the laws and balance out their "freedomness", etc. you guys will be too close to call.

      I don't really think our laws are more free, necessarily, but that we are less well-tracked. I consider the US and UK to be a single entity in all but name. It's not like either of us actually have a voice in our governments.

      As a Canadian I can say that we have plenty of natural resources (including oil!) which we will happily sell to the UK (as we do to you).

      As a singular Canadian, you don't even begin to matter. Those in power in your country are determined to sell you out to the USA, and it's only a matter of time.

      The fiercest serpent may be overcome by a swarm of ants. Ants, however, have stings.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    54. Re:Talking is not Doing! by Xest · · Score: 1

      Right, which is why no one rose up in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain etc.

      Oh wait. Slight flaw with your theory.

    55. Re:Talking is not Doing! by Xest · · Score: 1

      We being the majority, and where the majority have presented the same view as me based on every survey on the subject done in recent years, I think you'll find you couldn't be more wrong.

    56. Re:Talking is not Doing! by Xest · · Score: 1

      I don't suggest people shouldn't have the right to defend their property, I just think allowing guns whereby it's much easier for criminals to obtain them, and whereby law abiding citizens wont obtain them doesn't solve the problem.

      In the UK recently 4 men tried to break into a house, the owner stabbed one of them and killed him. Everyone was fine with this, he wasn't charged, the guy defended his property, no guns needed on either side.

      Bringing guns into the equation just makes it more deadly for everyone- if one of the burglars had a gun which would be likely under US style gun laws it would've almost certainly gone the other way because criminals have the initiative, but the initiative doesn't help so much when the fighting is hand to hand as it does with firearms.

    57. Re:Talking is not Doing! by Xest · · Score: 1

      It's called Google. My mistake for thinking people on Slashdot would be technically competent enough to use it to check things for themselves if they feel so inclined. Try it, it's not hard.

      But if you're lazy/struggling still try here:

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

      or here:

      http://www.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=441

    58. Re:Talking is not Doing! by Xest · · Score: 1

      "You clearly don't understand the purpose of the right to own guns. It's about the ability to overthrow a tyrannical regime without getting slaughtered in the streets."

      No, I do understand this. The problem is it's never actually happened.

      America has never had to do it since it's independence and creation of the constitution, and despite countries in the Middle East and Africa having a variety of gun laws the ability to own handguns hasn't helped the Syrians, and gun control in Egypt didn't prevent them overthrowing their leader without guns. In other words, your theory is great, but is irrelevant in reality.

      History has shown that firearms play no part in revolutions beyond those that the military has. If the military supports your revolution then you don't need guns, if it doesn't then it doesn't matter if you have guns, you'll still be oppressed and lose.

      Call me when your tyrannical government overthrow gun ownership theory actually plays out in real life. Then I'll pay a bit more attention to it, until then it's mere fantasy used to justify needless gun ownership.

    59. Re:Talking is not Doing! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's like you actually think America is still a superpower with a bright future and that the whole world respects or something.

      The whole world respected us before? That was dumb. We are still however a superpower with as bright a future as anybody, barring natural cataclysm centered here.

      Our country? most of us recognise we're a fallen empire, some don't certainly, the rest of us? We know our place in the world has changed, and we're quite content with that thanks.

      Well, sorry, we have yet to fall... unfortunately for the middle east and South America. We can exploit South America (building on many decades of oppression) commercially well into the future. We already own most of the water down there... anything not bought up by the French, anyway. Coca-Cola actually has their own paramilitary forces down there... And we've got Panama addicted to flushing away their water into the ocean, so that really gives us a massive edge.

      None of this makes me happy, mind you. I don't think that our fearless leaders have bright plans for my future.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    60. Re:Talking is not Doing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why these savages are the way they are is an interesting academic exercise, but is of little use to someone getting mugged.

    61. Re:Talking is not Doing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crime in the US is mostly a racial problem. Most of the murders etc are trash taking out trash. I live in a good, safe WHITE neighborhood which is good and safe BECAUSE it's White. That racial reality is inescapable.

      If you think race is at the heart of crime then it sounds more like you live in a wooden shed in the sticks and don't get out too often. Here's some food for thought: What do redneck trailer trash, Latino street gangsters, thuggin' blacks, petty criminals, and sure let's also toss in foreign examples like chavs and suicide bombers, have in common? Next, what do Wayne Brady, George Lopez, Bill Gates, Prince Charles, and high Saudi Sheikhs have in common?

    62. Re:Talking is not Doing! by JakFrost · · Score: 1

      You don't need guns to defend yourself, you American twatburger, you just need community spirit, as happened in many areas of London last night. If you come across a couple of hundred Sikhs ready to fight back, you'd have to be fucking stupid to try any looting in their area.

      Good will, kind wishes, and a friendly cooperating community is not enough when you are all alone and there is nobody holding the front or protecting your back. In London the police were out in force and each community came out to protect their neighborhoods because they had the backing of police. Remove the police from the picture and see how brave those community members get when even a single rioters pulls out a firearm of any kind and opens fire. Unless you can return in-kind you'll see a quick disappearance of "the community" from the streets. Good thing that there are some people in some communities that think ahead and become the sheepherders for the sheeple that live there when the shit hits the fan.

      The Koreans did good because they and their parents remember their own country's war. The Philippinos also do the same here also because they remember. How quickly the others forget and then try to bury the painful history.

      There was a more detailed article that I was referring to, but I guess WikiPedia summary will have to be good enough to let you start digging into the official news report and video recordings.

      Los Angeles Riots of 1992 - Koreatown

      Koreatown experienced the hardest crime and destruction of the ordeal. Hundreds of Korean owned businesses were looted, damaged or burnt down and an unknown number of Koreans physically attacked. By the second day of rioting, the LAPD and County Sheriff had been overpowered by the number of rioters forcing the departments to pull all units from patrol. As violent rioters next turned its attention to firefighters, the LAFD also recalled their teams. This left unchecked crime and fires which quickly expanded. The Korean American community, seeing the police force's abandonment of Koreatown, organized gun-wielding groups to protect businesses and area residents. Open gun battles were televised live as shopkeepers defended their business from the crowds of violent looters.

    63. Re:Talking is not Doing! by trickyD1ck · · Score: 1

      Here's some food for thought: What do redneck trailer trash, Latino street gangsters, thuggin' blacks, petty criminals

      Low IQ

  11. Insufficient evidence by tftp · · Score: 1, Interesting

    After the dust settles I'm sure only the people caught in the process of rioting will be prosecuted. Even if a camera records a man running into the store, grabbing something and running out, and even if that man is uniquely identified, he can always claim that someone forced him to do that, threatening him with a knife. In a quiet situation this lie can be untangled, evidence found, witnesses questioned, etc. etc. However in *this* mess it is impossible to prove or disprove the story, even though it is obviously a lie through and through. But you can't convict based on "obvious" things; you convict based on proven facts. Besides, the police already has about a thousand of rioters caught red-handed. They don't need more; they can't even find enough jail cells.

    1. Re:Insufficient evidence by Xest · · Score: 1

      A lot of them will be caught in the coming weeks and months. Most don't realise many modern devices like iPhones, XBox's etc. have unique identifiers such that if they ever use them online they'll almost certainly be flagged up and the police will be round to their house in no time where they can do them for stolen goods.

      The jail cell shortage is no big deal, a criminal record and community service to clean up the areas they fucked up and then some will be a good enough response to many of the lesser offenders who just grabbed stuff and ran - effectively shoplifters. Save the jail cells for those who broke in in the first place, smashed up police cars, and most importantly- the arsonists. There'll be plenty of room for them.

    2. Re:Insufficient evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You cannot use someone threatening you as a defense for committing crime.

    3. Re:Insufficient evidence by BondGamer · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Seriously officer, this guy had a knife and he forced me to steal this big screen TV that is in my living room. I was going to return it after the riots were over!"

    4. Re:Insufficient evidence by Rutefoot · · Score: 1

      And for every 4 people that claim it wasn't them or they didn't intend to break that store window there will be 1 person who admits freely to doing it. That's better than nothing

    5. Re:Insufficient evidence by couchslug · · Score: 1

      That's why the police should use enough force to inflict physical damage on the enemy even if they can't reel them in. Massive use of riot control agents and plastic bullets would be a good start.

      Take the fight to the enemy.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    6. Re:Insufficient evidence by delinear · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure where you got that idea, but duress certainly can be a defence.

    7. Re:Insufficient evidence by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      That's why the police should use enough force to inflict physical damage on the enemy even if they can't reel them in. Massive use of riot control agents and plastic bullets would be a good start.

      Take the fight to the enemy.

      If the police kill more people this will become an even bigger mess. I think the police realize this as they are avoiding anything too heavy handed.

      By 'riot control agents' do you mean chemical warfare agents? They can't use them because they can kill.

    8. Re:Insufficient evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Even if a camera records a man running into the store, grabbing something and running out, and even if that man is uniquely identified, he can always claim that someone forced him to do that, threatening him with a knife.

      Sorry.. I'm not buying it. If you're trying to vindicate yourself or your boyfriend, you will have to come up with a much better story. That one has been used before, to no avail http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/terrorists_spies/terrorists/hearst/1.html . No help here. If they need more space for idiots who have completely lost their minds, rioting, looting, destroying the property of hard working people, etc.. they will build a city to house them or in this case they may get more creative, maybe with some super glue and thumb tacks or how about a little bamboo or electricity. The possibilities are endless!

    9. Re:Insufficient evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Encouraging the police to treat the citizenry (even the misbehaved ones) as "the enemy". How can that possibly go wrong..............

  12. Re:would somebody tell me by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Inflation is 4% for the rich, and 40% for the poor - might have a bearing on it. Plus the fact that the banks and insurance companies, utilities, etc are allowed to thieve from poor people while the government makes statements about "disapproving" but does not actually stop them, and the police keep being caught lying and cheating..

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  13. If Only... by IonOtter · · Score: 3, Informative

    If only this technology were JUST going to be used on a bunch of minging neds and chavs, I'd have no problem with it.

    But it'll be used for everyone all too soon.

    Ah well, in the meantime, I'll be only too happy to watch a bunch of warbling brats get their arses handed to them by the cops.

    --
    [End Of Line]
    1. Re:If Only... by trickyD1ck · · Score: 1

      I don't break the law so I am all for it being used on everyone who does. Why aren't you?

    2. Re:If Only... by delinear · · Score: 1

      Maybe because the technology has been proven incredibly unreliable and even if you did nothing wrong it's at the very least an incredible inconvenience to be suspected of a crime you didn't commit and at worst you might serve someone else's sentence. The more widespread technology like this is, the more chance there is for false positives.

    3. Re:If Only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I don't break the law so...."

      You do, I can almost guarantee it. Most western countries have such complex legal systems, which are interpreted so widely, that most of their populace is technically guilty of a felony. Here in the US many police departments are charging people for videotaping them, using laws specifically written to prevent phone wiretapping. In my state it is a crime for "a man and woman not related by blood or marriage" to occupy the same house. There is also a tendency for governments to create more laws to create more criminals, 50 years ago drug use was a relatively minor offense, today a person (at least in the US) can be thrown into jail for years and have their property seized by the state for merely possessing small amounts of "controlled substances". The only thing that keeps most of us out of prison is the fact that the police & courts have limited resources to track down and prosecute "criminals", so far.

    4. Re:If Only... by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      I don't break the law so I am all for it being used on everyone who does. Why aren't you?

      Because it's a myth that the innocent have nothing to fear.

    5. Re:If Only... by evil_aaronm · · Score: 1

      -Today- you don't break the law. Tomorrow, your same actions may, in fact, break the law. Will you be concerned about its use then?

    6. Re:If Only... by anyGould · · Score: 1

      I don't break the law so I am all for it being used on everyone who does. Why aren't you?

      Because they don't use it on "everyone who breaks the law". They use it on "everyone, period".

      And once that false positive decides that you're the guy who robbed the LiquorMart that night, you might decide that you're not so fond of the infallable tech.

      On a practical note, we spend $X on these fancy-dancy technological gizmos; why don't we spend $X on officers? Create jobs, all that good stuff.

  14. Re:would somebody tell me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/metropolitanpolice/

    You know you cant go picking races like that but I does appear to be a majority black youths assumably from poor areas going on the photos, etc - and that is just simple statistics from what is available. I'm not a sociologist so I dont know why these things come about. I dont like picking on other races but thats what the pictures show. I think why there are so many seemingly unemployed youths kicking for a fight is the real question.

  15. Re:Fix the problem... by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
    I eagerly await more riots in England. In fact, go nuts UK!

    Looks like your wish is granted!

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  16. Re:This will never work by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
    Most of the rioters are black, and they all look alike.

    Maybe you need to break into a store near you and get a better TV. The ethnic mix of the rioters is quite visible on most modern screens.

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  17. Anarchy in the U.K. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's coming sometime, maybe, uh, now...?

    1. Re:Anarchy in the U.K. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks more like the rise of the Planet of the Apes to me.

  18. Re:would somebody tell me by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes massive cost cutting and "positional asphyxia" over the years "Deaths in police custody since 1998: 333; officers convicted: none"
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/03/deaths-police-custody-officers-convicted
    http://cryptome.org/info/totten-protest/totten-protest-01.htm
    The Darcus Howe interview with the BBC is very telling too.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  19. Re:would somebody tell me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/metropolitanpolice/

    You know you cant go picking races like that but I does appear to be a majority black youths assumably from poor areas going on the photos, etc - and that is just simple statistics from what is available. I'm not a sociologist so I dont know why these things come about. I dont like picking on other races but thats what the pictures show. I think why there are so many seemingly unemployed youths kicking for a fight is the real question.

    They are mostly black. But the press, being the politically correct organ it is, is making certain to amplify the exposure of any whites participating. Not that anyone is fooled, other than those that want to be.

  20. Smartwater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I was just in the UK and in some of the suburbs in London there were signs up about SmartWater being used in the area. I think it was just being used to tag property but some of the other applications there seem interesting.
     
    In a riot-like situation where there are too many people to feasibly make significant arrests it seems like it would be useful to have a way of "tagging" them and then pull them more of them in in the subsequent days.
     
    A week ago I was also in Nottingham and walked past a police station was firebombed yesterday. When in Fulham I twice took my 9 month old baby to the swimming pool at Normand Park. I didn't perceive any sort of tension while I was there and it seems like the whole place just went mad between me getting on and off a plane back to Australia.

    1. Re:Smartwater by u38cg · · Score: 2

      But what would you charge them with? "Your honour, we have proved that this person was, on Tuesday 9th August, the target of a police waterpistol"? To convict someone, you need a specific act and a charge. Smartwater won't give you that.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    2. Re:Smartwater by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 2

      If a log of where and when the Smartwater is deployed is maintained and possibly tallied with police video (or testimony) it should not be too hard to tie people to individual acts. I believe that is the actual point of Smartwater in that usage, you can tie a person (or persons) to an individual deployment of the SmartWater (as each deployment can be uniquely identifiable) and therefore tag people as associated with an to an act while it is ongoing.

      --
      Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
    3. Re:Smartwater by kraut · · Score: 1

      They were refusing to disperse after being lawfully ordered to do so by a police officer.

      I'm fairly sure that qualifies as an offence.

      --
      no taxation without representation!
    4. Re:Smartwater by LizardKing · · Score: 1

      But what would you charge them with?

      Rioting, which in the UK carries a maximum jail term of ten years. The CPS (not the police - they don't prosecute) would argue that the individual could only have been hit with SmartWater if they had been in the vicinity of a riot.

      As for why an apparently calm neighbourhood would suddenly kick off, London has council estates nestling within and alongside otherwise affluent areas. The affluent parts may give the illusion that all is nice and pleasant, but venture down the wrong side street and you can find yourself in a very rough part of town. For example, I used to live in Hampstead - possibly the most affluent part of London - but we had huge problems with feral kids coming in from neighbouring areas like Kilburn, Gospel Oak and Kentish Town.

      And finally, I'm sick of people calling the rioters "protesters" or "working class". Looting shops isn't protesting (even if it was, why protest about a known crack dealer armed with a gun getting shot by police?) and most of these chavs have no interest in working. They're an underclass, not working class.

    5. Re:Smartwater by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Have you heard of this wanker and his sodding book? He was on the news a few weeks back, what a pretentious twat. I doubt he's actually ever met a chav. If he did, they'd call him a wanker. So would I, actually. Maybe the burberry baboons aren't entirely bad...

      Demonisation of the working class my arse. Shirking class more like.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:Smartwater by delinear · · Score: 1

      The presence of the water doesn't mean that the person wasn't in the process of dispersing - maybe he was leaving but others weren't and he just got caught in the spray. The police are more likely to use this as an investigatory rather than an evidentiary tool (to highlight or rule out persons of interest to their investigation). It's too flaky to be evidence of anything in court but it's probably a godsend when you have several thousand suspects and need to sort the not guilty from the worth following up quickly.

    7. Re:Smartwater by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Rioting, which in the UK carries a maximum jail term of ten years. The CPS (not the police - they don't prosecute) would argue that the individual could only have been hit with SmartWater if they had been in the vicinity of a riot.

      People I work with were walking through Manchester last night. They had no choice; the office is in the city centre.

      If the police sprayed rioters with water, my colleagues would've got wet. Shit, my car would have a new colour, I had to drive through a pack of them to get home myself.

      Being in the vicinity of a riot is not against the law. Living, working or frankly just walking through a city in which a riot is occurring is not against the law. Being charged with a crime because some cunt in a landrover turned a hose on you would be grounds for some serious civil disturbance.

      I don't support, I don't like and I don't want the rioting, the looting or the stupidity of the last few nights. I also refuse to accept encroachment of civil liberties to prevent it. The law is already sufficiently strong, and it's too easy to get your life fucked up by zealous, incompetent or corrupt policemen anyway..

  21. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by terraformer · · Score: 1

    And it's not even an accurate use off the term to boot.

    --
    Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
  22. Re:would somebody tell me by polar+red · · Score: 1

    them not being able to get what they want for free .

    as opposed to the upper class who DO get what they want for free. THAT's the problem : a very WIDE gap between the working poor(look up what that means) and the very rich.

    --
    Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
  23. Re:would somebody tell me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, all that "upper class" who's got their business and property thrashed are obviously guilty that a couple of hundreds of lazy immigrants won't learn English, won't find a job and won't work to buy whatever shit gets them high. Praise the lord, you found the solution to all our problems. Let's hang the rich and spread the wealth.

  24. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by mug+funky · · Score: 1

    i believe that's the correct word.

  25. Re:would somebody tell me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >civilization
    a civilization that can only sustain itself trough raping, plundering, slavery and 'donating' free weaponry in the third world.(of which the population tries to get into the first world, can you blame them ?

  26. Re:would somebody tell me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know about the rioters, but the vigilantes who are looking to find a way to stop this should be pretty easy to identify. All this rioting was tolerable up to this point, but it's only recently that the unrest threatened to derail the start of the football season. People could tolerate the unrest so long as it was isolated to poorer areas and didn't hit home, but god help any group trying to stand between the English and their Premiership.

    This could be one of the first times in history that football has contributed towards ending violence.

  27. Re:would somebody tell me by mcvos · · Score: 1

    who are these people? I mean, white? black? muslim?

    It's not a race/religion issue.. the rioters are multicultural of every skin color..
    What most of them have in common (other than the urge for a good round of fistycuffs) is belonging to a lower social class without much hope for the future. The UK government have been cutting cost lately, with the result that school is now 3 times as expensive as it used to be. Funding to social services has been reduced.. etc.. So these people find themselves at the bottom without any real ladders to get out of there.

    But I guess a bunch of them are hooligans that just use it as an excuse to go rampaging too..

    Don't make it more political than it is. Yes, they are from the lowest social classes, but mostly, they're just itching for a fight. They want to have some impact, even if the only thing they can accomplish is to burn the place down. As I understand it, they're mostly gang members who set aside their differences to fight a common enemy: the police and society in general. They're definitely not representative for the regular (also poor) people in these neighbourhoods; if anything, those are their victims.

    Though my impression is that the Met police isn't free from blame either. They seem to have a tendency to forget that normal citizens have rights, and seem to have a knack for making a really big mess out of relatively small issues.

  28. Re:would somebody tell me by umghhh · · Score: 2
    you exaggerate of course but there is something to it. Desperation in mass of unemployed young people (lots of energy) can not be underestimated. In Germany people are conditioned into bearing own poverty with dignity i.e. not to ask for help or riot or any such nasty things.

    As a side thought - fighting the government (policy) is becoming increasingly difficult. The masses seems to be immobile and largely ignorant so political actions are close to impossible but at the same time the state is becoming ever more powerful in finding out who did things and how to prevent them in acting - and masses love such protection because we value our security so much. Yet the state is unable to control organized youths too much so far. It seems cameras and NSA like technology are not sufficient to contain mass rage.

  29. Re:Anti camera tech - lemon juice :) by Willbur · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of McArthur Wheeler: (from http://plus.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php/component/content/article/62/103182-pittsburgher-stupidity-in-the-news-the-mcarthur-wheeler-effect- )

    At 5 feet 6 inches and about 270 pounds, McArthur Wheeler is an easily recognizable man — even when wearing lemon juice on his face.

    That certainly came as a surprise to Wheeler, 45, of Versailles Street, McKeesport. He was incredulous in April when Pittsburgh robbery detectives told him that he had been identified in surveillance photographs as one of the two men who robbed two banks in Brighton Heights and Swissvale on Jan. 6.

    "But I wore the lemon juice. I wore the lemon juice,'' a puzzled Wheeler told the even more puzzled detectives.

    The detectives' confusion turned to incredulity as Wheeler explained about his would-be lemon aid.
    "Someone told him that if you put lemon juice on your face it makes you invisible to the surveillance camera,'' recounted a still chuckling Cmdr. Ronald Freeman of the investigations branch.

  30. Re:would somebody tell me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    only sustain itself trough raping, plundering, slavery and 'donating' free weaponry in the third world

    If you really believe that, you should switch off your computer, get out, make your own javelin and begin fighting the good find to defend the raped and plundered slaves. Too bad you'll probably get off the hook with that mental disability you display.

  31. Re:would somebody tell me by mcvos · · Score: 2

    They are poor. No doubt non-whites are overrepresented, but there's a fair share of whites too. It's not a race thing. From what I understand, it;s mostly a gang thing.

  32. Re:would somebody tell me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is the reason more than all the other stupid shit I've heard bandied about.

    The whole think has been in the making for years.

    From the BBC

    "He said youths aged from nine had been on the rampage through the city centre."

    "When the BBC asked two youths why they were rioting, one responded: "Right, why are you going to miss the opportunity to get free stuff that's worth like loads of money?"

    "The BBC's Chris Buckler watched police try to manage masked youths in Manchester
    But they said it was not just about that, adding that it was in response to the government cuts."

    Bullshit, they're 9 FFS, they're nothing more than thugs

    "One added: "How many people have they arrested really, though, 10? I'm not really bothered. I'll keep doing this every day until I get caught."
    He said he might be shouted at or grounded when he returned home but he would "live with that".
    He added that it would be his first offence "so I'm not really bothered"

      If you want to stop it, do what you should of been doing for the last 20 years or so, and did to my generation.

    When he gets home, give him a damn good thrashing and take him to the police station.

  33. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by prefec2 · · Score: 1

    In an European context, vigilantes are also criminals, as the only organization which is allowed to use force is the state, which is legitimatized by the citizens.

    On a side note: The problems in the UK are the same as in France or other countries. You people without a perspective and treated as second class citizens do not accept the state as their institution. They perceive the state as their enemy. In the UK they used CCTV to keep these people under surveillance which results in two things:
    a) Crimes move to other areas
    b) People get even more suppressed (at least they feel that way) which can erupt at any time.

    To prevent such developments in future, we have to find a way to share the GDP more fairly.

  34. "V for Vendetta" by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1, Funny

    What? You guys haven't gotten your masks from Fed Ex yet?

  35. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by Xest · · Score: 1

    It's only a loaded term if you have a belief that vigilantism is always inherently bad.

    Personally, I'm not convinced it is, so to see them called vigilantes doesn't give me a bad impression those folks.

    Sometimes vigilantes can be real heroes, sometimes they can be complete idiots. Take the case in hand and decide for yourself what kind of vigilantes they are, don't assume they're always inherently bad.

  36. What is going on? by rmstar · · Score: 1

    I fear that a purely technical solution will make this situation a lot worse. People filming the riots will be beaten up, or worse.

    Watching this amazing video, I can't but wonder: what the hell is going on in the UK? Where did so much hate and anger come from?

    1. Re:What is going on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government doesn't pay them enough to do nothing all day, and they can't afford the HP on their flat screen TVs. Also, the cops killed a drug dealer who instead of giving up, started shooting at the cops.

    2. Re:What is going on? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You have a lot of people, young people, who notice that they do not have a job, have no chance to ever have one that's worth having, have no perspective and no outlook in life and essentially have no future. And their present isn't too stunning either.

      The combination thereof leads to a lot of frustration, anger and helpless rage. There is a lot of energy, a lot of very negative energy, built up and waiting for an outlet. This outlet has come now.

      This is a phenomenon that's not unknown. People are willing to uphold the law unless they get the impression that a lot of other people break it and hence the threshold to step over the line gets lowered. You can easily see it in this example: Imagine a sign, "no littering". Nobody would dump his garbage there. Unless there is already a pile of trash lying around. Then more people will lose the inhibition to do the same. It's a group phenomenon, people feel safe and acknowledged in a group, and if the group is doing it, they can follow easily.

      Now, the group is rioting and looting, so the inhibitors telling those people to not do it are eroding. Everyone's doing it, so I can too. Another example would be copyright infringement. Everyone's doing it. So why not me?

      Once the dam that keeps the flood at bay has cracks, it takes very little to make it crumble. The UK now has two options: Take the pressure off the dam or reinforce it. Sadly, I think, they'll take the solution that is, at least in my opinion, the inferior one.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:What is going on? by u38cg · · Score: 2

      Some legitimate grievances, some cultural issues, and large numbers of unemployed young males, always a recipe for disaster.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    4. Re:What is going on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Posting anon to avoid voiding moderation...

      Also, the cops killed a drug dealer who instead of giving up, started shooting at the cops.

      Except that the only bullets fired were police bullets according to the forensic evidence. The bullet stuck in the radio of the cop came from a police HK MP5 that fired two rounds, one of which killed the suspect.

    5. Re:What is going on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I see this same justification for arson and looting again and again and again and you know what - it's bullshit.

      There are always opportunities for anyone who wants to work / learn - but these people can't be bothered to start at the bottom and work there way up - they want it all now. They think minimum wage jobs are beneath them and think that everyone else owes them something. These same people are already having their housing, clothing, food, education and health care provided by the state for nothing - but no they want more and it's got to be someone else fault that they don't have it and never their own.

    6. Re:What is going on? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not a justification. It's an explanation. I don't say I think it's the right thing to do, nor do I say that I think they're justified. I explain why it is happening.

      Btw, while we're at "seeing always the same", I always get to see the same reasoning why these people are "bad" and how they could better their lives. Short answer: They can't. Long answer... well, let's see. Allow me to hold this conversation that I held many times before. Often enough that I can probably also play your part.

      "They needn't riot. They could get a job and work their way up"
      No. First of all, would you give them a job? You're looking at someone from a bad neighborhood, loaded with prejudice and a general resentment against it. Immediately he's seen as lazy, not dependable and probably more interested in stealing your goods rather than selling them. In an economy where jobs are rare, these are the ones that can't get one. No matter how minimum the wage.

      "Then they should go and learn something to be more qualified"
      I don't know about your country, in mine, learning as an adult costs money. And they don't have money to spare.

      "Then they should have learned something while they were still in school"
      Have you ever been in a school in such a ghetto? Be glad if you speak their language, they won't speak yours. You're looking at classes where the mob rules. Try learning something and you won't really have a life worth living. Not only inside, but also outside your school. If you get out alive and with all your teeth, you really have a career going. As a boxer, not as a scientist, though.

      "They already get everything for free, why are they complaining?"
      Would that satisfy you? Knowing that you have to live from handouts because you're unable to afford your own life? Personally, it would frustrate me greatly. Also, look at what they get. A flat, usually too small for the amount of people cooped up in it, in a neighborhood where you better don't own anything worth being stolen, an education in schools where... see above and health care where you better don't have a job because you'd miss quite a few days of work for waiting alone. What people miss is that they see "oh, free", and consider the quality level equal to what they are paying for. Hint: It's not. Not by a longshot.

      It is actually someone else's fault that they can't get out of this ghetto. It's insanely hard to claw your way out of this hell, and I dare say facing the same level of hardships, most people would do exactly the same.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:What is going on? by squizzar · · Score: 1

      And they recovered a handgun from the scene. There aren't a lot of armed police in the UK, and they don't just open fire because you looked at them funny. The very fact that they were present for an organised arrest suggests the police considered him to be very dangerous. We won't know exactly what happened for a while because every single police shooting gets investigated thoroughly, but my money is on the guy having done something that made the police officer(s) think he was reaching for a gun and therefore shot him to prevent him from injuring anyone. The UK law only permits the police (and the public for that matter) to use deadly force if they have good reason to believe that deadly force will be used against them or someone else.

    8. Re:What is going on? by digitig · · Score: 1

      I see this same justification for arson and looting again and again and again and you know what - it's bullshit.

      There are always opportunities for anyone who wants to work / learn - but these people can't be bothered to start at the bottom and work there way up - they want it all now.

      If only. There are not always opportunities. One old friend of mine has been unemployed for decades. He does a lot of voluntary work, so he's not afraid to work, there's just no paying work out there. And my son can't even get voluntary work because even that is fiercely competitive around here (it looks good on a CV).

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    9. Re:What is going on? by kraut · · Score: 1

      > fiercely competitive around here
      Move?

      --
      no taxation without representation!
    10. Re:What is going on? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      > fiercely competitive around here

      Move?

      In some cases what you are proposing is that someone move to another country, often with a different language, and work for peanuts, because that's where the jobs they're qualified to do have gone. This whole outsourcing/free trade thing has been a massive failure for developed nations worldwide. We've sold out our futures so that a few rich fucks can make more money.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:What is going on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our economy has been looted on an enormous scale by banking corporations and none of the perpetrators have faced justice. The government have helped them, and the private media have turned out to be illegally invading people's privacy for money and in order to extort commercial advantage from the government, and the police have been found to be getting rich off media bribes to keep the whole thing quiet. As for justice for these looters, none has been forthcoming. It seems we have been teaching our children that looting is good, and the more you steal the less likely you are to face justice. They have learned the lesson well, so now instead of a little shoplifting with the chance of being caught they have decided to take the whole shop wearing masks with very little chance of being caught.

    12. Re:What is going on? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      and they don't just open fire because you looked at them funny.

      There's simply no such thing as human error or corrupt policeman.

      suggests the police considered him to be very dangerous.

      Therefore, he was.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    13. Re:What is going on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The initial reports I saw yesterday clearly indicate that the recovered non-police gun was unfired. Sort of goes against the "started shooting the cops" story, now doesn't it?

      For the last bit: it's not like the British cops have ever shot innocent people dead in the past, while lying through their teeth about the circumstances to cover themselves and absolving themselves every time... ever heard of Jean Charles de Menezes, Stephen Waldorf, James Ashley, Harry Stanley?

    14. Re:What is going on? by digitig · · Score: 1

      > fiercely competitive around here Move?

      I do have a job, thanks. And he wouldn't be able to afford anywhere to live where employment situation is better.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    15. Re:What is going on? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I don't know about your country, in mine, learning as an adult costs money.

      So you're not from the UK? Why, then, do you think you're such an expert on the situation there?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    16. Re:What is going on? by dyingtolive · · Score: 1

      So, what I think you're trying to say here is "We can trust the police, because they say that we can trust them", right?

      If so, no further questions. That sums it up.

      --
      Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
    17. Re:What is going on? by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      Where did so much hate and anger come from?

      The police's attitude towards the public, politicians who fiddle expenses, poor education, and cuts to public services like youth schemes.

      Did I mention the police killed 3 people recently, 2 of which were totally innocent?

    18. Re:What is going on? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I don't see anybody on those pictures who isn't wearing good enough clothing, without some corporate logo on them. However I do see that the guys, who tried to protect their properties were murdered. This speaks volumes:

      First: the thugs are pieces of shit, never new real poverty, taken care of by the state, regardless if their flats are tiny. Fuck them. Why aren't they living in the woods in rat holes? That's where they actually belong.

      Second: the individuals who were killed couldn't protect themselves, and what they needed were guns and enough ammo to shoot at the attacking crowd. The law abiding individuals are the ones who are suffering: paying taxes to support the thugs and then paying with their lives because when the thugs come to get them, they don't have any protection thanks to the government.

      Time to make some money on guns.

    19. Re:What is going on? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Hell yeah, and the pics of the CCTV cams are going to pay per view TV, and the damn budget is balanced. It's so win-win...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    20. Re:What is going on? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The situation is not one specific for the UK and isolated there, unrepeatable and unimaginable anywhere else. You have exactly the same situation all over the globe, in most cities. Disillusioned youths, prepared to use violence to gain what they think they "deserve", who feel ignored and rejected by "the system" and who want to lash out. At anyone posing as a target.

      This is not a UK phenomenon. It's a global one. And yes, most of the times immigrants (or second/third generation immigrants) are involved. Also very easy to understand. Not only, but also. The amount of people near or below the poverty line is on the rise. And increasingly these people feel like they got nothing to lose and everything to gain through violent means.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    21. Re:What is going on? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Trust me, learning as an adult in the UK is fucking expensive.

      And yes, I live here.

    22. Re:What is going on? by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a lot of self inflicted problems. When you say "It is actually someone else's fault", in all the points you brought up the "someone else" is the person's neighbor.. and for their neighbor, the someone else is the first guy.

      And their plan of action is to destroy their own community even more. You know, some people just can't be helped. There will always be criminals.

    23. Re:What is going on? by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Where did so much hate and anger come from?

      In most of the videos I've seen there's no hate, except when they're directly confronting the police. Most of the looters appear to be having a great time. They're not fighting with each other, nobody's being trampled or beaten. I see young girls walking around with shopping bags smiling, people working together to break into stores, etc.

    24. Re:What is going on? by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      suggests the police considered him to be very dangerous. Therefore, he was.

      Unfortunately, the police have an appaling track record on this. They shoot more innocent people than guilty ones, and a record of the police lying about it. Which is why, when the police statement about this case was shown to be wrong in this case, a known gangster has as much credibility as the police.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    25. Re:What is going on? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The problem is that even decent people get turned into criminals in such a system.

      Think back to your school days. The bullies were usually the ones that weren't really the brightest, were they? And they also usually didn't do so well in school, did they? Yet I guess you managed to get out of it quite all right and with decent grades, i.e. it didn't really affect you that much. At least I hope it didn't.

      Now imagine not one bully in a class of 20, but about 30 bullies in a class of 35. Why so many? Well, not because they are inherently dumber. But because they spent a good deal of their primary educational years learning the language so they could understand at all what is being taught. The first thing necessary to get foreigners into our system is to teach them our language. The first thing necessary! Unwilling to learn? Get the fuck out of here! I want to be able to communicate with you and I want to be able to teach you.

      I expect a willingness to learn from them. Their kids at least. And I am very much for reaching out for them and trying to teach them so they don't get frustrated and descend to bullying, I want them to WANT to get better.

      But for that they first of all have to learn the language of the country they're in. It's funny, in my country this makes me the right wing asshole that wants to oppress them and their culture, I feel kinda out of my league to argue for the "left" here... but so be it. I am firmly convinced that someone isn't "born a criminal", and I do want to offer their kids at least a hand up for a better life and a way to get out of the ghetto. That in turn can also affect their peers who don't make it, since family ties usually run strong in poorer families, due to the necessity to rely on each other. And that way, we can maybe eventually get out of this mess.

      Not over night. But with time.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    26. Re:What is going on? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      A pathologically shy, anorexic agoraphobic with low self esteem goes to the doctor and asks for help.

      He replies, "pull yourself together, go out for a nice meal and meet some new people."

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    27. Re:What is going on? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      > fiercely competitive around here Move?

      Says the well-off, well-educated slashdot reader with no family or friends.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    28. Re:What is going on? by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Think back to your school days. The bullies were usually the ones that weren't really the brightest, were they?

      They were average. I certainly wouldn't call them dumb.

      Now imagine not one bully in a class of 20, but about 30 bullies in a class of 35. Why so many? Well, not because they are inherently dumber. But because they spent a good deal of their primary educational years learning the language so they could understand at all what is being taught.

      Those are some really pessimistic numbers. You think

      1. More than 85% of the kids in these rioting neighborhoods didn't learn English until halfway through school and
      2. A very high (95%+) percent of those ESL students turn into bullies

      That's really far-fetched. You might have a case about the language for the parents, but I don't think so with the kids. I've tutored some young immigrant children in English, they learn the language very quickly. They certainly don't waste half their childhood not understanding what's going on in school. Older kids have problems, especially boys, but hey that's getting back to genetics, which you really can't do anything about. If someone has a hard time learning the language, let's not even waste our time on them.

      I am firmly convinced that someone isn't "born a criminal", and I do want to offer their kids at least a hand up for a better life and a way to get out of the ghetto.

      No of course not but many people have so many negative factors in their lives that nothing you do, including taking them away and putting them in foster homes, is going to change the outcome. They're damaged goods in a sense. You would have to expend massive resources to help 1 out of 10 people escape. 90% of the money is wasted and could be put to better use. Instead of trying to turn every poor uneducated person into an engineer how about creating job options that are realistic for them. You can't tell me that a majority of people on welfare or engaged in criminal enterprise couldn't

      1. Learn and then teach English and other basic integration skills to adult immigrants
      2. Clean streets and other public areas to improve everybody's (including their own) quality of life
      3. Work on infrastructure projects like digging ditches or repairing roads
      4. Do many of the jobs that illegal immigrants do in the US such as gardening and lawn care
      5. Take care of animals at shelters or help with farm work
      6. Help at nursing homes, food banks, etc

      It's all a matter of how you spend what resources you have. You can try to force them through the same round peg that everybody else goes through in school, which is doomed to failure for most of them, or you can adapt and come up with a more realistic multi-generational plan that puts them in subsidized but societally useful roles until they are naturally ready to integrate.

    29. Re:What is going on? by anyGould · · Score: 1

      You have a lot of people, young people, who notice that they do not have a job, have no chance to ever have one that's worth having, have no perspective and no outlook in life and essentially have no future. And their present isn't too stunning either.

      Then add in the fact that they can see the same people who have the well-paying jobs and bright futures actively cutting services that might help them get a leg up. That's the rub - you get poorer while you watch the rich get richer. At some point it's not a stretch to decide that Working Within The System is not going to end well for you.

    30. Re:What is going on? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I don't think that blanket-bombing them with education is going to accomplish anything, you cannot teach everyone, if anything you can see it in our population as well, there are simply people who are not cut out to be engineers, lawyers or managers, likewise few of those who are would be good carpenters, bricklayers or plumbers.

      The ideas you present have a lot of merit and given that, at least to what I could observe dealing with immigrants, their cohesion is usually a lot higher than what can be observed in the local population. In other words, they stick together and aid each other. For good and ill, i.e. the same applies to rioting, but I think it can be turned into a beneficial effect. Teach one of them law and you have a legal representation for the community. Teach a few nurse and doctors and you have healthcare. It's also quite possible to tie the (free) education to making them serve their community in return. And I think you wouldn't have to apply much pressure for them to accept that, what I could observe, the sense of responsibility towards the rest of those around you seems to be pretty high, along with a sense of shame for people who fail to "fit in".

      Still, I'd be wary to create a "society next to society", where "our" and "their" societies live next to each other but not with each other. That's pretty much what happened in many towns in Europe where a "foreigner" society established itself next to the local population with little interaction. I think it would also be necessary to make sure the cultures mix and get together, if only to avoid any xenophobic tendencies which already clog our political system now, it's a breeding ground for racist and foreigner-hating political campaigns.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    31. Re:What is going on? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Pretty much that. For reference, see your feelings towards bank managers.

      Seriously, it's not limited to immigrants, we, too, have people we see as if they got everything handed for free while we struggle to make ends meet, and then we get to see how our social services get cut to keep another manager from hanging himself over driving his bank into the ground. Isn't that getting you a little bit miffed?

      Now try to imagine what it's like to have NOTHING, get that NOTHING taken away from you and see the people who took it from you get richer and richer.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    32. Re:What is going on? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Really? There's a library near where I live and it's free.

      Or by "learning" do you mean "going to university"?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    33. Re:What is going on? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      You have exactly the same situation all over the globe, in most cities.

      Really? How can you possibly know, unless you manage to live in all of them simultaneously?

      Just admit you're making things up.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    34. Re:What is going on? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You don't have to live everywhere at once. I know it might be alien to you, but you can actually talk to people without insulting them. Then they will actually talk with your about various things, including their living situation.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  37. Re:would somebody tell me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    maybe you should visit some non-first world countries.

  38. Were any of them identified as by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guy Fawkes?

    I mean, if there was ever a right occasion for wearing that mask, rioting in London would be one, right?

  39. Re:would somebody tell me by artor3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Fuck off you racist piece of shit. There is no such word as "tolerasty" except as invented by European neo-Nazis so that they can pretend to be smart while treating blacks, Jews, gays, Muslims, and virtually everyone else as sub-human vandals in their precious homogenous society. It is a portmanteau of tolerant and pederast, created with the intention of implying that tolerant people condone pedophilia.

    What is happening in London has nothing to do with "your colored cousins". I won't even bother arguing why, because frankly, you're a monster of the same sort that murdered all those children in Norway, and as such are impervious to reason. I wish only that you die before you hurt anyone, and that no one follow you down that road of hatred that you're on.

    I'm only even responding so that people see you for what you are, and know to distrust your every word.

  40. Stylish anti facial recognition by mikejuk · · Score: 3, Informative

    I think that the idea that these fashions will catch on to stop day to day facial recognition quite reasonable. See: CV Dazzle

  41. Re:would somebody tell me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're definitely trolling - no one can be as dumb as you're pretending to be!

  42. Re:would somebody tell me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe I do visit some. I have not seen many raped and enslaved, except by their own dictators, but maybe sometimes I see their welfare exploding because of civilized medicine, because of jobs they get from the civilized world. Maybe I see this is happening despite their traditional "values", which, if left unchecked would keep them where they already were 1000 years ago.

  43. Re:This will never work by blind+monkey+3 · · Score: 1

    Most of the rioters are black, and they all look alike.

    Maybe you need to break into a store near you and get a better TV. The ethnic mix of the rioters is quite visible on most modern screens.

    It depends on what he chooses to see.

    --
    BM3
  44. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by mvar · · Score: 1

    Heaven forbid some folks actually try to glom together and do good.

    Not always

  45. Oh goody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An automated way to identify and persecute the demotivated, malcontent, teevee educated victims of your lovely welfare state. At least the Katrina strand-ees had an excuse.

    1. Re:Oh goody by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      An automated way to identify and persecute the demotivated, malcontent, teevee educated victims of your lovely welfare state. At least the Katrina strand-ees had an excuse.

      How can you be a "victim" of the welfare state? Do you think they'd all be better off if, apart from being unemployed, they also had had no education at all, couldn't afford to go to a doctor and had to live in a cardboard box begging for scraps of food while they contracted various unpleasant diseases?

      Oh, let me guess, if they weren't mollycoddled by the Evil State, they'd just have to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps? If they weren't weighed down by the Evil Government's unemployment and housing benefit, they'd all be out creating start up web businesses?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  46. Re:would somebody tell me by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Somehow I doubt it's a race issue. It's simply that non-whites are overrepresented in the poor demographics. If it was the other way around, you'd see more white people rioting.

    It's a rich vs. poor thing. Not black vs. white. You have angry, disillusioned, poor and hopeless people with a bleak outlook on their future, seeing that they have rather little of one. What do you expect them to do? Grin and bear it? Be honest, would you?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  47. Re:would somebody tell me by gibbsjoh · · Score: 1

    "Brought there by our coloured cousins."

    Asshole. You had a point right up to that last sentence. Go crawl back under the rock from which you came.

    --
    -- "...I'm a bad guy because I, well, I sing some rock-and-roll songs." M. Manson
  48. Re:This will never work by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    A better TV helps little if the viewer is color blind.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  49. UK Riots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facial recognition may be awesome, but that aside, police seem to be under budgets globally. Even if the rioters are eventually convicted, most of us don't earn in a day what it costs to keep a person in jail/prison for one day, let alone the millions and millions of dollars/pounds to run people through the legal system. Additionally, billions have been spent on wars in far off lands. With no hope for many of seeing a wage increase anytime soon, the cost of food and lodging increases by the week, Most of us are in the majority of being soon to be pentioned with 10 or 20 years left, but the rioters appear to be young by all reporting. What is their future -- of a worse life of 60 or 70 years?. Who is holding the cards of hope? .

  50. Re:Promote it boys! by Jedi+Binglebop · · Score: 0

    They should be promoted for outstanding service to society those vigelantes. It's nothing less than the guerrilla gunners in east timer, the land of the rising run it's called, stamping out the abhorrant Indonesia nation from their cities. TAKe Up YOUr EFFORt FOr FREEDOm BABy! JAMie OLIVer should be the first to be commended for standing up to the institution. Great job Dire Straits; and Bladerunner soundtrack. Great job Vengalis. Your a hacker mate. A pro. -Oscarian aka Ian O Stolz

    Some nice music to listen to, guys, (and, gals):,)>.;=#-sun_=#-glasses:nnow, :=#_=#:do,you,see,it,now? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kSj2WgwEsI

    --

    "I love deadlines. I love the "whooshing" sound they make as they pass by." - Douglas Adams.

  51. Re:would somebody tell me by webmistressrachel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I just spent an evening embedded with indie journalists in Manchester. It's definitely at least two-thirds white.

    And there's more to it than "mindless violence" too. The train station here, just a few hundred metres from one main flashpoint (Piccadilly Gardens), it fucking immaculate. I was in there at 5am this morning insisting that Network Rail put in an official statement to that effect. I hope they do.

    They said themselves that last time there was disorder in Manchester (caused by a certain Scottish football team) Piccadilly Train Station was, to put it bluntly, completely ruined.

    I saw all kinds of colours and themes of clothing; wierdos with cameras being ignored in favour of fasion shop windows. Most people stood around to bolster numbers, and those smashing windows are NOT those looting. The looters come after, and the are primarily white trash but I saw one Asian guy who was abusive to our photographers taking a whole glass shop counter in a van using a trolley.

    "It's mine. You got a problem with that?"

    --
    This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
  52. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by rbrausse · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You people without a perspective and treated as second class citizens do not accept the state as their institution. They perceive the state as their enemy. [..] People get even more suppressed (at least they feel that way) which can erupt at any time.

    slightly off-topic. this msnbc blog entry shows some interesting insight in the dynamics of the group:

    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."

  53. Re:would somebody tell me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Holly shit, 333 deaths no convictions.

  54. Re:would somebody tell me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Watch some coverage from the events, my friend, and if you don't see the obvious, you probably need a more unbiased news channel, a better TV or an ophthalmologist.

  55. Re:would somebody tell me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not about class (I'll ignore the implication that anyone you consider "upper class" hasn't worked for what they have).

    This is about scum who do not want to work for what they have. They feel entitled to take from others anything that they choose. Others includes people who actually have less than them, but have worked hard to gain something.

  56. Re:This will never work by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    Maybe he got his TV on a special Daily Mail promotion, and it has a Daily Mail approved colour filter that makes bad people look black (and adds 'Muslim!' as a subtitle when they appear), and good people look white.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  57. Re:would somebody tell me by dintech · · Score: 1

    But there's the catch. These aren't 'working poor', they're feckless poor. There's a difference.

  58. Re:would somebody tell me by Inda · · Score: 1

    It is a poverty thing.

    It's also a boredom thing, especially with the youngest of the rioters. School holidays are three weeks in and the weather has been shite up until now. Being involved is an electric buzz. It's probably the most exciting thing a lot of them have ever taken part in.

    People have witnessed police bribery and corruption on a local level for years and recently we've read about it on a nation level in the newspapers. Politicians have been caught with their fingers in the till. Obscene millionaires and their obscene amounts of power and money have been caught having their cake and eating everyone else's. Morality in the UK is shot to shit. Greed is the norm.

    Is it any wonder they rioters have grasped their opportunity?

    --
    This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
  59. David Cameron Masks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oops, blacklisted!

  60. Re:would somebody tell me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    except by their own dictators

    correction : *OUR* dictators. all have been put into place by OUR corporations, OUR kings, OUR governments. this has been going on for more than a century.

  61. Re:would somebody tell me by polar+red · · Score: 1

    maybe not raped. but sweatshops = slavery.

    --
    Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
  62. Re:This will never work by webmistressrachel · · Score: 2

    Why the hell would the Guardian (world-reknowned for voluntarily reporting from a neutral point of view) and the BBC (legally bound to do the same thing) want to skew statistics against the same race that makes up most of their staffers? You are seriously fucking trolling, I'm pretty damned sure the stills of crowds here in Manchester will prove you wrong.

    Now why is this upload. taking so long? And before you ask, no I don't upload to that free-for-all Flickr or anything else like that, I upload to big three: BBC, ITN and Sky. And I give them time to publish before I even think about sharing them elsewhere, too. It's called getting paid for hard work, which these kids deserve a chance to do.

    I've taught dozens of these same kids (I counted scores of Hi! Rachel's from the crowds last night) to shoot an SLR or a DVCam in safe environments like Moss Side, and Hulme. I've only ever had one camera stolen, a Nikon D40, and guess who stole it? A white smackhead. And we all know what I think of those. I'd sooner lock THOSE up than these "mindless thugs" and "different gangs" you're all getting worried about.

    It's only the selfish and greedy who need fear this crowd, no matter what colour they are.

    --
    This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
  63. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Mod parent up. When people are out of "civilised" ways to put across their message, they resort to violence. This isn't violence with a direct aim - e.g. as the violence by the US in the Middle East is subjugation of strategically important areas - this is violence as a way of saying "I'm fed up and someone to take notice!" If you loved your society, you wouldn't destroy it. If, as a young man (or teen, it seems), you do not feel a sense of belonging and love and support - if you are not given the opportunity to contribute - then why would you value what is around you?

    The looters coming in after the riots are being emphasised because it's pretty hard to argue about the social plight of someone who runs off with a 42 inch TV "because I can". There is a massive PR exercise to paint this as merely thieves thieving. There's also a PC exercise to avoid pointing out the cultural make-up of rioters - predominantly black in some areas, white in others - because people are so afraid of thinking they're implying "black people are criminals!" rather than "youths in black communities in central London are alienated and have no voice, no meaningful representation and no opportunity to do anything about it". We have moved on from overt police racism of the '80s (and well done to the police for doing that) but we have not moved on from the power dominance of a single culture in Britain.

    Unfortunately, in any class struggle (sorry, Torys, that's exactly what it is!), these sorts of organic riots tend to result in more oppression. It may do something to raise awareness, but absent an organised army it is only joint peaceful action which tends to effect change. In particular, had the unions not been so far up New Labour's arse over the last decade that the wider working population would be forgiven for remembering who they were created to serve, they would have opposed changing market and labour conditions.

    In short, it still takes a village to raise a child. Even the most stable and loving family (which, as anyone knows, inner London is full of) can only do so much. When the average boy turns 16 - and we're not talking about the geniuses of the world, but the majority of average ability - society has the choice to lift him up or to leave him to fend on his own. Where resources exceed demand, he might be able to do the latter. Where they do not, what should he endure? And, if you have not helped him, what gives you the right to tell him what is right and wrong? Even if you think you have some natural superiority, what makes you think the young man will listen?

  64. Re:This will never work by webmistressrachel · · Score: 0

    By the way, in case that wasn't clear enough for you, Moss Side and Hulme are "rough" areas of Manchester. Well, if you're a cop or banker, anyway.

    The point is intended to illustrate their attitute towards opportunity - "here film this with me. You try the 55m lens and you try the 200. You can swap later" compared to obstruction (a line of shields and a pittance because they can't find work - NOT don't want work - it's not the same thing!)

    --
    This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
  65. Re:would somebody tell me by DrXym · · Score: 1

    Colour doesn't come into it. The criteria required to participate in the riots is a subtle blend of youth, resentment, stupidity, entitlement, poverty, criminality, irresponsibility and disrepect for authority. Morons basically.

  66. Re:would somebody tell me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, if you feel guilty, you can contribute to the social funds of their respective countries. I am sure they will not refuse. I'll abstain, since my corporation and my government have nothing to do with placing dictators anywhere. As for this "more than a XXX centuries" thing, you know what - fuck off. Should Britain still hold a grudge against Italy about Hadrian?

  67. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So when the jails overflow in England, where will they send them?

    I don't think they've ever had to do something like this before.

    1. Re:So... by digitig · · Score: 1

      Cox and Box them.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    2. Re:So... by LizardKing · · Score: 1

      The prisons have capacity for over 3,000 more people according to the Home Office reports yesterday. So far the arrests are around 1,000, and plenty of them will be bailed rather than being placed on remand so the system isn't creaking at the seams yet.

    3. Re:So... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      So when the jails overflow in England, where will they send them?

      I don't think they've ever had to do something like this before.

      I hear Western Australia is short of workers...

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  68. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by randomlogin · · Score: 1

    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."

    I guess they must have been marching on Scotland Yard to protest at the lack of policing in their area and that the police were taking too much of a 'softly softly' approach on gun and gang crime, then. Because the net effect of the riots and the media coverage is going to be an increased police presence, possible increases in police powers and wide support in the general population for the 'robust' use of those powers. I'm sure that's what he and his fellow 'demonstrators' would have wanted.

  69. Re:would somebody tell me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lol. fucking retard alert. most of the people involved in teh riots aren't the "working poor". look up what it means -- i'll even give you a hint. the word "working" appears in it.

    a lot of the looting has been in large chain stores, but a large amount has also been in newsagents, small privately-owned shops, family businesses. a lot of the people who own these are not wealthy. i probably earn significantly more than them and i'm not that well paid. they are working class. they are the "working poor" and they're being fucked over by gangs of fuckheads who deserve to be bludgeoned to unconsciousness and then shipped to afghanistan so they can see what an actually poor society is. the fact that they'll never come back would fill me with happiness.

  70. Re:would somebody tell me by Alranor · · Score: 2

    Better than that, why not actually go there and see for yourself. Oh wait, I did, and there were plenty of black and asian faces in the sea of people helping to clean up the streets after the rioting.

    Go crawl back under your rock.

  71. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > To prevent such developments in future, we have to find a way to share the GDP more fairly.

    What you mean is you want to take even MORE of MY money and give it to other people.

    Given that I already pay 40% + income tax, plus a second income tax called "National Insurance", 20% on everything I buy, more on alcohol, something like 70% taxes on petrol....I don't think so.

    I'd diagnose a different problem:
    - After over a decade of a government whose priority was "education, education, education", we have reports that 20% of kids in London leave primary school unable to read - Evening Standard
    - Burglary, Assault, etc are generally not punished in any meaningful way - people get community sentence upon community sentence, instead of a visible, clear, deterring punishment

    But why blame the arsonsists and looters when instead you can blame "society"

  72. Re:would somebody tell me by kraut · · Score: 2

    Indeed, but anyone who can afford to buy £100 trainers and a blackberry isn't actually poor.

    That leaves them just feckless.

    --
    no taxation without representation!
  73. Re:This will never work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's only the selfish and greedy who need fear this crowd, no matter what colour they are.

    I hope you get your chance to meet this pleasant crowd. It will be interesting to hear your report of the events.

  74. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

    Britain hasn't had a recent history of long-term police oppression of freedoms following riots in the style familiar even to Europeans and Americans. What is more, any such action may raise group awareness: "I'm not the only one who feels like this, though I see rioting will not solve the problem." There's always a segment of society that would want anyone who isn't like them to be put in chains and into forced labour, but it's not pervasive. You're right that it will make things feel worse in the shorter term. But when someone is stuck between a rock and a hard place, sometimes he ends up throwing rocks.

    I'm not certain that anyone minds an increased police presence per se, though. Has anyone actually objected to seeing uniformed policemen walking around in the street? Much better that than CCTV or plainclothes. What matters is the laws the police are made to enforce and whether they enforce them equitably according to process.

  75. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rioting and looting is far more news worthy then a protest march so it isn't exactly surprising is it?

    Maybe the next time I protest something and it's not headline news I should start rioting too?

  76. Re:would somebody tell me by kraut · · Score: 1

    There are plenty of ladders, but you still need to make the effort to climb them.

    Let's clear up some misconceptions:
    "School" hasn't become more expensive. Schools are free.

    University is now being funded more via student loans, rather than general taxation - given that the interest rate is extremely low, and you don't have to start paying it off until you earn enough, it's still a good deal, assuming you study something worthwhile, rather than art history or media studies.

    And most of the "swingeing cuts" everyone's moaning about aren't actually cuts, they're just reductions in increases in spending. After a decade plus of ever increasing state spending on the NHS and social programs.

    --
    no taxation without representation!
  77. Re:This will never work by kraut · · Score: 1

    > the Guardian (world-reknowned for voluntarily reporting from a neutral point of view)

    You must read a different Guardian, or live in a different world.

    --
    no taxation without representation!
  78. Re:would somebody tell me by digitig · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't bank on it -- have you heard any of the interviews with the rioters?

    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  79. Re:would somebody tell me by digitig · · Score: 1

    That's what the media would have you believe. But those who have appeared in court so far have mainly been employed or college students. And remember that much of the coordination of the riots seems to have been done via Blackberry. Even if they stole the handsets, somebody is paying for a data package that I can't afford.

    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  80. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why the hell are you giving these people any legitimacy? If you're well enough off to have a Blackberry to organize looting, you are not fucking oppressed.

  81. Re:would somebody tell me by digitig · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And plenty of white faces in the riots. Nobody here on the ground can think that these are predominantly racial riots, but the white supremacists do seem to be trying to turn them into race riots.

    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  82. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Indeed playing the racial card always gets everyone.

  83. Re:would somebody tell me by digitig · · Score: 2

    He said he might be shouted at or grounded when he returned home but he would "live with that".

    If that's the interview I think it is, he actually said that because it would be a first offence he would only get an ASBO but could live with that. He might be in for a surprise, because the magistrates courts that have heard the cases so far have referred many of them up to the crown court, even in the case of guilty pleas, because the crown court can hand out much longer custodial sentences than the magistrates court can.

    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  84. Re:would somebody tell me by digitig · · Score: 1

    "Youth" apparently being as old as 46 -- last thing I heard that was the age of the oldest rioter arrested.

    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  85. Woosh by Lanteran · · Score: 1

    Ugh. *facepalm*
    Sarcasm. Learn it.

    --
    "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
  86. Re:would somebody tell me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    my corporation and my government have nothing to do with placing dictators anywhere

    HAHAHAHAHAH you're so fûcking naive!

  87. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by smallfries · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why on earth would your beliefs be in any way relevant? Are you aware that the machine in front of you allows you to search for information so that you can test your beliefs. Shocking, eh?

    A member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate)

    The key point of the definition is that a vigilante takes extra-legal action; a vigilante is one who acts outside of the existing legal framework. Publishing the identity of the looters is not operating outside of the law. In fact it actually supports the official effort to identify looters from video shot during the riots. Only acting on the identities to go and mete out some kind of illegal retribution would be vigilante action, and as there is no suggestion that they will do so the use of the word is loaded as the GP originally stated.

    --
    Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
  88. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Vigilantes. Plural form of Vigilante.

    Definition of Vigilante: A member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.

    TFA is about a group of citizens who have chosen to band together in order to compile evidence of criminal activity, without authority from the government, because they don't feel that the LEO agencies are pulling this off. ... So it's actually EXACTLY the right word.

  89. Re:would somebody tell me by digitig · · Score: 3, Informative

    In fairness, most of those deaths are not suspicious. You'd expect some deaths in police custody just from random natural causes, and when you factor in the fact that people in police custody are more likely than the population at large to be long-term drug or alcohol abusers (and so are likely to have increased mortality) the numbers are not particularly surprising. Yes, some of the deaths are suspicious but only a very small proportion of them. If you read the Guardian article you'll see that only 13 officers have been recommended for prosecution; since they usually work in pairs or teams that means something like 6 cases, not 333. Even if you take in the cases that were suspicious but the CPS couldn't get enough evidence you are still way below the 333 cited.

    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  90. Re:would somebody tell me by digitig · · Score: 1

    it's still a good deal, assuming you study something worthwhile, rather than art history or media studies.

    It's still a good deal whatever you study, considering that you need a degree to hand out the towels on the reception desk at the gym I used to belong to.

    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  91. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by DanyX23 · · Score: 1

    Sure, and if they went on a killing spree they would get even more media coverage. The point being?

    It certainly doesn't legitimize rioting and looting as a political tool.

  92. Re:would somebody tell me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the original point was that this underclass are following the example of politicians (with expenses scandals and the like) and those in the financial sector (who brought us global economic disaster and a year later are awarding themselves record bonuses) who seem to take what they want with little or no consequences. I absolutely do not agree with what the rioters are doing, it's absolutely disgusting, but I feel exactly the same about what the bankers did, and how many of them faced police charges and criminal sentences?

    The fact is the government has been happily furthering the consumer society where, if you're not acquiring new shinies, you're worthless - then they encouraged the banking sector to play wild and free with the economy, resulting in a sudden increase in unemployment, and now suddenly they're surprised when those who have no prospects, no jobs and no money, go on an all you can eat rampage?

    You are right that this is partly about scum who don't want to work for what they can steal, and that that has nothing to do with class (there are as many of these types at the "top" of society as at the "bottom"), but what it's really about is equality - people are not being treated equally in the eyes of the law. Someone steals clothing worth a few hundred pounds and gets a custodial sentence and loses all prospects of finding a job, while someone else steals a few million pounds and gets a slap on the wrist at worst. The thing that sparked the riots was yet another police shooting - the poor in our country feel they're cattle to be milked for cash and summarily executed without repercussion whenever the police feel like it. Is it any wonder a tinderbox like that went up in flames? Let's get back to a society with equality - I was reading that the happiest countries in the world don't necessarily have lots of uber rich, they just have less disparity between the very richest and the very poorest in their society.

  93. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Their claims about borderline police abuse seem also legit. Seems like the Met (metropolitan police) has been more or less harassing black people for decades. 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

    If I was searched more or less on every corner, just because my skin is black, I would feel somewhat disrespected as well...

  94. Re:would somebody tell me by xelah · · Score: 1

    Two particular things have been cut, maybe not unreasonably but it may be relevant to some of the rioters. One is that incapacity benefit has been reassessed and a large proportion of claimants told that they're not so ill they can't work, or possibly that they're not ill at all (some people have even previously been receiving it because of obesity). Secondly, housing benefit is being capped. Those not in the UK may not know that if you're unemployed or on a very low income and can't afford to rent a house or flat in the UK then you're entitled to have it paid for you. You don't exactly get a palace, but you can be funded up to some proportion of the average rent in your area. In some areas, especially in London, that's still a very large amount of money. That amount is being capped. A lot of non-working and low income poor may be forced out of London.

  95. Re:would somebody tell me by DrXym · · Score: 1

    I would be surprised if the mean age was higher than 22. Most of the footage mostly shows youths and young men.

  96. nonono by fireylord · · Score: 1

    The AC troll's television and eyesight are fine, it's what laughingly passes for a brain that's defective :)

  97. Re:would somebody tell me by isorox · · Score: 1

    them not being able to get what they want for free .

    as opposed to the upper class who DO get what they want for free. THAT's the problem : a very WIDE gap between the working poor(look up what that means) and the very rich.

    I assume that "working poor" means you actually have to be working?

    The people I saw that were
    a) Working
    b) Poor

    Are the ones struggling to make ends meet working, or even owning, small businesses in seedy parts of London, living in crap flats above their businesses, and having their lives destroyed by this scum.

    There's a few upper-class toff-twats rioting too, but the same applies. People who are WORKING don't have time to go rioting even if they want to.

  98. Re:would somebody tell me by isorox · · Score: 1

    I think the original point was that this underclass are following the example of politicians (with expenses scandals and the like) and those in the financial sector (who brought us global economic disaster and a year later are awarding themselves record bonuses) who seem to take what they want with little or no consequences. I absolutely do not agree with what the rioters are doing, it's absolutely disgusting, but I feel exactly the same about what the bankers did, and how many of them faced police charges and criminal sentences?

    If people are angry at (perceived or real) abuses by the governent/police/bankers/toffs, then which of the following places would you think they'd set on fire?
    1) Houses of parliment
    2) Bank of England
    3) Any bank
    4) Stock exchange
    5) Canary wharf area
    6) Police stations
    7) Council offices
    8) Newspapers in Fleet Street/Wapping
    9) Small independently run local businesses
    10) Halfords
    11) Cheap flats in not so nice areas

    I think there's been 1 instance of a police station being attacked (in Nottingham).

  99. Re:would somebody tell me by digitig · · Score: 1

    Mean age you are probably right.

    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  100. The real reason's for the riots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    i will tell you whats going on, i am from Hackney , London one of the worst affected areas. Hackney even though it gets bad press , is not L.A, it can be a nice area. The problem with these youths is that they rejected society, it wasn't society that rejected them. They have contempt for the law , because the law puts reasonable boundaries on acceptable behavior.They rejected education which was given freely because they wanna be a rap star, or a gangster and get easy money. they reject hard work , social convention's because they wanna be bad men.
      A lot of them can barely read, barely write, and barely talk. They are un-employable and scream racism when they can't get a job as a banker, or a lawyer, because they have minimal qualifications and a huge chip on there shoulders.
    I grew up in Hackney and had exactly the same chance's and become successful, why because i valued education.

    These looters have no political motivation, this is about stealing, stealing from shops which give the local community employment, bacuse of these looters, there friend's, there families will be losing job's. Companies will not want to invest in these area's and they will compound there issue's and all the stereotypes about them. Do not see this about empowerment, or getting back at capitalism, it's about getting the newest trainers, the newest blackberry. Most of them wouldn't know who Malcom X or Martin Luther King where.
    The people they are stealing from are not rich, they are not banker's, they are Sri Lanken immigrant's, poor White, Poor Black, poor Asisn's people.Hackney is not LA, it is not divided on Race Lines, communities get along and deplore the action's of these rioters.

    These fools, these scum are not heroic or nice, they would stamp on your head until your brain damaged, just to get your phone.
    If people want to look at who the Racist's are in this whole mess, start looking at the Rioters.

    1. Re:The real reason's for the riots by LizardKing · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've no mod points, but as someone who has lived all over London (New Cross, Waterloo, Hampstead and now Enfield) I couldn't agree more. This is not about police brutality, over use of stop and search tactics or lack of opportunity. This is about feckless scum who want a new pair of trainers. If this was about a lack of opportunity, then why have huge numbers of Eastern Europeans managed to find jobs in London over the past decade? And it isn't about them taking jobs at lower wages than British born people, as many of the immigrants have gone from planning on being here for a few years before returning home to having established careers and businesses that are so successful that they now plan on staying here permanently.

    2. Re:The real reason's for the riots by couchslug · · Score: 0

      This is Slashdot, where your explanation is not acceptable, because only government is capable of evil.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    3. Re:The real reason's for the riots by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      So just to be clear, your logic is that since the system works for some people, the system must be working for everyone? That's a nice piece of reasoning there, for a total idiot.

      People steal for one of two major reasons. Either they do it for the feeling of empowerment, or they do it because they want or need something. Society tells these underprivileged that if they don't have a new pair of trainers, they are lower than squashed snake shit. Given the opportunity to make themselves a member of society that someone will take seriously because their kicks aren't falling apart, they take it. As long as our society is a corporate one whose messages are based primarily around making you feel inadequate if you are a has-not, people will steal to make themselves feel better, and not just to feed their families. As a retailer who is stolen from, you have to suck it up and accept responsibility for helping to create this culture of conspicuous consumption.

      Or in short, businesses that sell shit that we don't need help create riots and indeed, help create looters themselves.

      Seriously though, because "many" immigrants have made it there, you think that there's opportunity for everyone? That's just beyond dumb.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:The real reason's for the riots by Hartree · · Score: 1

      No, not at all. On slashdot, it's all about evil large corporations that control the government.

      You're behind on your accepted dogma.

    5. Re:The real reason's for the riots by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      So just to be clear, your logic is that since the system works for some people, the system must be working for everyone?

      Nope. It's that if the system was as broken as you claim, it wouldn't work for anyone.

      If I have a USB drive[1] that doesn't work in any computer, what do you conclude? If it works in some computers but not others, what do you conclude then?

      [1] like this one, if it makes it any easier.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:The real reason's for the riots by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Nope. It's that if the system was as broken as you claim, it wouldn't work for anyone.

      That's a ridiculous assertion. In order for the system as designed to work for those who designed it, it must give the appearance of being fair. But it is patently unfair, and the unfairness is built into law for anyone to see.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:The real reason's for the riots by LizardKing · · Score: 1

      People steal for one of two major reasons. Either they do it for the feeling of empowerment, or they do it because they want or need something.

      In this case it's almost entirely for reason three - because they can. Until Tuesday night, the police were so overwhelmed that the looters acted with a considerable degree of impunity. And it's not society at large telling the gangster wannabe scum that they are nothing if they don't have a box fresh pair of trainers - it's their peers and the narrow selection of talentless celebrities they look up to.

      That's a fucking nice dig at the retailers, many of which in the places that have been hit are one shop operations serving the local area. Must be fucking great to be you, no doubt working in some company office or on a college course that insulates you from the sharp end of running a business. Twat.

      As for whether there's opportunity for all, how come my Eastern European colleagues (some of whom came here as refugees from Kosovo) have made it when the odds are stacked way more against them than it is for these rioters? Yeah, this country is far from perfect, but in London at least there's plenty of opportunity to work if you can actually be bothered.

    8. Re:The real reason's for the riots by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That's a fucking nice dig at the retailers, many of which in the places that have been hit are one shop operations serving the local area. Must be fucking great to be you, no doubt working in some company office or on a college course that insulates you from the sharp end of running a business. Twat.

      I may or may not be a twat, but one thing I am not is wrong about the results of promoting a disposable consumer culture that enshrines trademarks. If you're selling a harmful product (it is crap which falls apart, made in toxic conditions by people in the third world who can't say no, literally in many cases) to people who are addicted to it (through marketing messages which make them feel inferior if they don't have it) then you're going to have to take at least partial responsibility when they go nuts and steal the crap as the only expression of their ability to influence their world.

      As for whether there's opportunity for all, how come my Eastern European colleagues (some of whom came here as refugees from Kosovo) have made it when the odds are stacked way more against them than it is for these rioters?

      I don't know, but I suspect it has something to do with the environment they grew up in. In my country, Mexicans succeed where others fail, drawing admiration from those who do not fear them, because they live in conditions that the same people who admire their success would consider poverty in order to be frugal — and/or to avoid detection for having entered the country illegally, of course. I grew up in Santa Cruz, went to (junior kiddie) college in Marysville, and live in Kelseyville, so I have lots of experience being surrounded by migrant laborers, often literally.

      It is simply true that if you sell a harmful product, there will be consequences. Selling crap no one needs at prices inflated by artificial demand constructed by the use of media which uses proven techniques to negatively manipulate the mind states of potential consumers is an evil deed. Indeed, the western lifestyle is predicated upon evil in nearly every case. Practically everything in our modern reality involves heinous pollution in its production or disposal, does harm when used or consumed, is produced with slave labor, and/or funds the ongoing obliteration of our rights when purchased.

      When you tell me about an organic vegetable stand being looted by someone who can afford to eat then I'll get all incensed.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:The real reason's for the riots by evil_aaronm · · Score: 1

      I thought it failed because it completely avoided a car analogy. Have we moved past that, too...?

      I do wish they would post current guidelines on these things.

    10. Re:The real reason's for the riots by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      I've no mod points, but as someone who has lived all over London (New Cross, Waterloo, Hampstead and now Enfield) I couldn't agree more. This is not about police brutality, over use of stop and search tactics or lack of opportunity. This is about feckless scum who want a new pair of trainers

      It it's about scum wanting new trainers then why were the first two things to get destroyed both police cars?

      No doubt there are a lot of casual thieves taking advantage of the situation but the rioting was started by a police killing. The Jean Charles de Menezes and Ian Tomlinson incidents are still more or less fresh in people's memories.

    11. Re:The real reason's for the riots by LizardKing · · Score: 1

      Oh fuck off. Duggan was a known crack dealer, and police intelligence indicated he often carried a gun. Hence the armed police apprehending him, as unlike many countries the British police do not routinely carry guns. When asked by reporters on Sunday, none of the scratters going wild in Enfield - where I live - could even name Duggan. As for your assertion that "the first two things to get destroyed both police cars", so fucking what. Within minutes they were smashing up shops on Tottenham High Road and torching a carpet shop with flats (apartments) above it. Then they torched an independent jewellery store, with the fire spreading to the houses converted into flats behind it. That'll show the fucking man wont it. Cunt.

    12. Re:The real reason's for the riots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm from an Eastern-European country (Hungary). I condemn these rioters as much as I can, but I have to add that your comparison isn't completely fair. Here higher education is free (for about 9 semesters for Bsc, and you can get your Msc free as well; and you can get student loan on subsidized intrest as well). On the other hand you just tripled your tuition fees. A Hungarian youngster can easier exploit the discrepancy between the British and Hungarian price levels. A British person with a huge student loan has no wealthier country to immigrate to.

    13. Re:The real reason's for the riots by sourcerror · · Score: 1

      " If you're selling a harmful product (it is crap which falls apart, made in toxic conditions by people in the third world who can't say no, literally in many cases) to people who are addicted to it (through marketing messages which make them feel inferior if they don't have it) then you're going to have to take at least partial responsibility when they go nuts and steal the crap as the only expression of their ability to influence their world."

      They also thrashed hairdresser saloons. How are the evil hairdressers ruling the world, and what can you steal from them?

    14. Re:The real reason's for the riots by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      They also thrashed hairdresser saloons. How are the evil hairdressers ruling the world,

      Extensions are evil. Seen Good Hair?

      Seriously though, people are destroying shit because, again, it's the only way they can see results of their actions. Most of what the underprivileged class does from day to day amounts to jack diddly shit, unless they're digging ditches... work which barely even exists any more, and in my country, work which is done by the least privileged classes for so little money it's not even legal to hire anyone that cheaply.

      Either we fix basic inequalities in society, or the same will continue ad infinitum. The typical teen of today knows he has no prospects for even a ditch-digging job. He has nowhere to go but down. If he works really hard then he can live with his parents for the next few years while he tries to save enough money to go rent part of a a poorly maintained slum. It's all a big jackoff waste of time to worry about who failed him; what we need to do is figure out what to do with him rather than putting him in prison.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:The real reason's for the riots by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      Feeling aggressive? It seems to be going around. I lived in Enfield for many years and I lived in Tottenham. I've seen the situation the police have caused. Some of them are perfectly reasonable but a lot are just out to get black men.

      Protests against anything often turn into protests against everything including innocent victims. The looters were just taking advantage of the situation the police killing caused.

    16. Re:The real reason's for the riots by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I grew up in Hackney and had exactly the same chance's and become successful, why because i valued education.

      Indeed, and in the US anyone can become president.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    17. Re:The real reason's for the riots by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      as someone who has lived all over London (New Cross, Waterloo, Hampstead and now Enfield)

      Blimey, what went wrong?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    18. Re:The real reason's for the riots by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      No, not at all. On slashdot, it's all about evil large corporations that control the government.

      You're behind on your accepted dogma.

      It's about the military-industrial complex, except that on slashdot guns are cool so the military part is OK.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  101. Re:would somebody tell me by delinear · · Score: 1

    If you want to stop it, do what you should of been doing for the last 20 years or so, and did to my generation.

    When he gets home, give him a damn good thrashing and take him to the police station.

    The problem with this suggestion is twofold:

    Firstly, we have a society now where people are afraid to use force in their discipline of children - be they parents, teachers, etc. The stigma of being a parent who would smack their child, coupled with the prospect of social workers or even the police being involved is a huge disincentive to even responsible parents who would only ever use force as a last resort where absolutely necessary.

    Secondly, many of these rioters are second, third, fourth generation descendents of familes who are entrenched in the "benefits culture" of never having to work for a living. You can't realistically expect that the children are going to be reprimanded when in many cases the parents can't see a problem with what they're doing. This needed to be tackled a long time ago before it ever got to this state, it's hard to see how this culture can be changed at this time.

  102. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

    Precisely. If the government stripped away most of your rights, but you retained your Blackberry for some reason, you're clearly not oppressed. What determines if you're being oppressed is whether or not you have a Blackberry.

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  103. Re:would somebody tell me by delinear · · Score: 1

    You can't rule out the factors that caused them to unite against the police and society. Gangs have been around for many, many years but it's telling that none of this happened during the boom years. I have no doubt that the collapse of the economy, the rise in unemployment, the incredible rise in the cost of higher education, a culture where the rich seem to go unpunished for their actions and the police appear to have free reign (shootings without repercussion, hiding their faces and badge numbers while using unecessary force at demonstrations, etc), demonisation of the poor in the media and swathing cuts to local services from the government have all contributed to this bout of violence. It's not like it's even unexpected - we had exactly the same circumstances leading to exactly the same outcome back in the 80's and nothing was learned.

  104. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, and if they went on a killing spree they would get even more media coverage. The point being?

    The point being that desperate people do desperate things.

    It certainly doesn't legitimize rioting and looting as a political tool.

    That does not make it disappear though, nor can it be solved by arresting thousands of people and installing 20 million more cameras (with or without facial recognition).

  105. Re:would somebody tell me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    like every other liberast, you like to slap labels.

    Priceless

  106. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In this case we are talking about looting thugs, looking for any excuse to get violent.

  107. Ah what a load of left wing crap by Viol8 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    People like you have been excusing this behaviour for years blaming it on social ills and lack of this that or the other. Bollocks! Most if not all of the rioters have far more material wealth than a number of east european states yet you don't find mass rioting there. The problem is lazy feckless children brought up by lazy feckless parents with a liberal education system that doesnt' teach them any discipline or respect. And no , teachers shouldn't have the "earn" respect from a teenager, they should be given it automatically.

    "Unfortunately, in any class struggle"

    Oh grow up student boy and smell the coffee of reality. Class has nothing to do with it - most of the properties looted and burnt were owned and run by working class people. If there was any class in volved it was the workshy violent underclass.

    In any other country a lot of those rioters would have been shot dead already , its only in namby pamby liberal britain run by hand wringing excuse everything muppets like you where we let them burn the place down.

    1. Re:Ah what a load of left wing crap by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      In any other country a lot of those rioters would have been shot dead already , its only in namby pamby liberal britain run by hand wringing excuse everything muppets like you where we let them burn the place down.

      I think you'll find that the sort of countries who shoot rioters are indistinguishable from those that shoot peaceful protesters, and tend not to have many friends. Even Greece, a country with a relatively recent fascist past, only shot one protester in their recent riots, as I recall, and countries like France also try not to shoot people if they don't have to.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    2. Re:Ah what a load of left wing crap by coastwalker · · Score: 2

      The UK is a centre left country with respect to the USA, we have a fully free health service and a huge range of other social benefits to help the less well off and the less able to live decent lives. Unfortunately there is a group of people who don't want to be part of our society, whether its through greed, loss of hope because of lack of opportunity or expectations set by left wing apologists isn't clear. But you can bet your bottom dollar that the bulk of tax payers view this current rioting as nothing more than opportunist looting and it has done terrible damage to fulfilling the legitimate needs of poor people and less able people in the eyes of those people paying for it. About a third of the money that people earning the average wage goes to fund our State but the current mindless vandalism isnt going to persuade them that spending more money this way is a good idea. This is a dreadful day for the socialists and they are very much mistaken if they think that they can make political capital out of it.

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    3. Re:Ah what a load of left wing crap by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      Our NHS is good for many routine physical conditions, though lacking for mental health.

      But, no, we don't have a huge range of social benefits which "help... to live decent lives". Eligibility is increasingly restricted and a handout isn't what people want anyway (despite what the Daily Mail thinks) - what people want is the chance to be treated well and to play a productive part in society.

      High taxes don't imply an effective welfare state. Feudal landlords also collected high taxes.

  108. Re:would somebody tell me by kraut · · Score: 1

    You clearly use a high class gym!

    --
    no taxation without representation!
  109. So there will be facies discrimination by Nolaan · · Score: 1

    It seems that facial recognition don't recognize "dark-skinned" faces ! Remember back in 2009 : http://idle.slashdot.org/story/11/06/29/1228216/Using-Facial-Recognition-To-Find-the-Best-Bar And know the kinect : http://www.gamespot.com/news/6283514/kinect-has-problems-recognizing-dark-skinned-users So....

  110. Re:would somebody tell me by jimicus · · Score: 1

    It's still a good deal whatever you study, considering that you need a degree to hand out the towels on the reception desk at the gym I used to belong to.

    This would suggest that if that's the sort of qualification required to hand out towels, most who can't get into university (and don't already have some experience) are more-or-less unemployable.

  111. Re:would somebody tell me by kraut · · Score: 1

    Well, if you're well enough to loot, surely you're well enough to work? ;)

    The problem with incapacity benefit is largely that it's been used for years by governments to massage unemployment figures down. It is simply inconceivable that there are 3 million people in the UK who are completely unable to work.

    As to housing benefit, it is being capped at an extremely high level; IIRC you'd have to earn something 1.5 * median income to have the same amount left over after taxes (and don't forget that if you get housing benefit, you're likely to be "entitled" to other benefits on top).

    London is extremely expensive; lots of people can't afford to live there. It's hardly fair to take money away from working people who already have to commute from outside London to support people who want to live there, but expect others to pay.

    --
    no taxation without representation!
  112. Re:This will never work by kraut · · Score: 1

    > It's only the selfish and greedy who need fear this crowd, no matter what colour they are.

    So owning a shop, or living in one of the flats that got torched, or perhaps owning a car that got burnt, makes you selfish and greedy?

    --
    no taxation without representation!
  113. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by kraut · · Score: 2

    > When people are out of "civilised" ways to put across their message, they resort to violence
    It's 2011. There are a gazillion ways to put across your message, completely for free. You're using one of them right now.

    --
    no taxation without representation!
  114. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by rmstar · · Score: 1

    - After over a decade of a government whose priority was "education, education, education", we have reports that 20% of kids in London leave primary school unable to read

    That is interesting. Anyway, over here in continental europe, we have been wondering for ages why you destroyed your own university system so thoroughly (as measured by competitiveness of English researchers in an international setting). It is a complete mystery to us why your school system is so miserable, etc. Maybe the ruling class is not actually interested in helping the people?

    - Burglary, Assault, etc are generally not punished in any meaningful way - people get community sentence upon community sentence, instead of a visible, clear, deterring punishment

    I don't know what you are talking about. The british system is extremely opressive and repressive. Ever heard of ASBOs?

  115. Bleeding heart much by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    1132: BBC reporter at Highbury Magistrates Court John Brain tells BBC 5 live the first person who appeared in the dock this morning was a 31-year-old teacher called Alexis Bailey. She pleaded guilty to being part of the looting of the Richer Sounds store in Croydon

    The above from the BBC.

    The below from me.

    Now I guess some will say that teachers are not payed well enough but second class citizens? Come on, it ain't that bad. Not even for art teachers.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  116. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by kraut · · Score: 1, Troll

    Great, I'll try that. I'll start by thinking of your money as mine.

    --
    no taxation without representation!
  117. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by gibletparade · · Score: 1

    In an European context, vigilantes are also criminals, as the only organization which is allowed to use force is the state, which is legitimatized by the citizens.

    It is easy to ignore your further points when your initial premise is instantly recognisable as utter bullshit. Use of force is not vigilantism unless it is dishing out punishment outside the law. As for the state being the only thing allowed to use force, does a club bouncer/doorman not use force from time to time to keep to defend themselves and others and to keep the peace in the club? Are you under the impression we have state-run clubs?

    More detail on the UK situation if you're interested at all in the truth: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/

    One of the more inspiring aspects of this whole situation is how well some immigrant communities have been stepping up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3Hp2pOQYqk

    Not that any of this has anything to do with the original post about image analysis.

  118. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That's an indictment of the press, nothing more.

    I live in Clapham Junction about 100m from the center of the riots there. I was down there there watching. Most of the kids (and they were kids) were having a great time, throwing bottle and having a laugh - I didn't see anyone I'd describe as angry.

    All night people were wandering up my street stashing loot in rubbish bins, then coming back later to collect and load into cars that were doing the rounds. Nice cars, bit boy-racerish for me but not cheap. The ones that were seen "stealing milk and baby clothes" were no more significant than the ones stealing shampoo - there are cases of it on my street - and I suspect they were just a little late to the party. A friends sister saw her neighbours kids walking home with a TV each - a 2 bedroom house on that street will go for £400,000.

    Yes, there's undoubtedly some alienation but there bigger problem is the unwarranted sense of entitlement - "I deserve a TV", "I'm getting my taxes back". As a genuine guardian reading, hand-wringing socialist leftie I didn't see a great deal of urban alienation on display, but I did see a great deal of self-absorbed greed.

  119. Re:would somebody tell me by Hognoxious · · Score: 0

    The thing that sparked the riots was yet another police shooting - the poor in our country feel they're cattle to be milked for cash and summarily executed

    Your bleeding heart is making a mess on the carpet.

    He was a known drug dealer who pulled a gun on the police.

    We aren't talking about a newspaper seller with his back turned and his hands in his pockets or an old man with a chair leg here.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  120. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by delinear · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nevertheless there is a significant number of people in this country who feel they have no voice - and that's not just those who resort to violence, but the hard working, law abiding too. Look at the way Blair ignored 1.5 million people turning up on his doorstep to protest going to war in Iraq. Look at the way there were thousands of students protesting tuition fees peacefully yet the media was dominated by the handful who decided to break things. If the people in power constantly refuse to acknowledge the voice of the masses (and people feel they have no real representation at the polls, when every party seems to have the same approach of empowering the powerful and taxing the poor and even the party they supported can volte face on their promises) then this is always going to be the end result sooner or later.

    It doesn't legitimise their actions in any way, but it damn well helps to explain them. I see politician after politician on the news this week saying they can't understand why people would react this way - THAT is scary, it should be blindinly obvious why people are reacting this way and the politicians should be talking about how they deal with the factors that cause this reaction, not trying to blame it all on mindless yobs.

  121. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by delinear · · Score: 1

    It's nothing to do with taking more of your money, it's to do with making sure everyone is taxed fairly. That 20% you pay on everything you buy, the tax on your petrol, these are unfair taxes, they disproportionately hurt people the poorer they are. The truth is, if we abolished all these ridiculous "hidden" taxes and had a single tax based on income (real income, no fudging the numbers or porting your earnings through an offshore umbrella company or whatever other tricks people use in the name of creative accountancy) then we could do away with tiered income tax bands and the vast, vast majority of people in the country would be better off - probably yourself included unless you're rich enough that you have nothing to complain about. You still wouldn't have a fair society (the poor still need to eat or heat their homes and the prices here will still disproportionately hurt them) but you'd have a fairer society, which is a start.

  122. "Ring of Steel"? by stereoroid · · Score: 1

    The "Ring of Steel" surely refers to the City of London, a.k.a. the Square Mile or Financial District. Security there is heightened because it was an IRA target on more than one occasion. There wasn't much rioting there this time, though I was there in 1999 when the anti-globalisation protests were taking place. But the rest of Greater London is not "ringed" in any real sense - nothing that onerous in Tottenham, for example.

    --
    (this is not a .sig)
  123. Re:would somebody tell me by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    fighting the government (policy) is becoming increasingly difficult. The masses seems to be immobile and largely ignorant

    No doubt there are plenty of ignorant people out there, but I think the general lack of interest and immobility is due to politicians not taking any notice what so ever any more, and dishonestly from politicians is not just tolerated but is the normal response now.

    The watershed moment was the Iraq protests. 2 million people marched in London against the invasion, but were completely and utterly ignored. Before when that happened violence would eventually force them to listen, as it did with the Poll Tax protests that turned into riots. Now even that doesn't work. Hauliers blockaded petrol depots for days and all it achieved was a delay in raising fuel duty by 2p, about 2% of the price.

    The Lib Dem betrail was the last straw for many people. I was suckered into it myself, I actually thought that they might be different if they ever got into power. Turns out they are just as full of shit as the rest of them. Notice how politicians never admit to anything any more too. Lying is the default position, they just don't call it lying because they are careful not to speak any literal untruths by not answering the question.

    What is an ordinary citizen to do? I'd riot if I thought it would help, but chances are I would just be beaten up or murdered by the police and nothing would change.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  124. Re:would somebody tell me by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    One is that incapacity benefit has been reassessed and a large proportion of claimants told that they're not so ill they can't work

    Most jobs these days can be done sitting down. It's not like it was 100 or even 50 years ago - coal mining, farming etc.

    In some areas, especially in London, that's still a very large amount of money. That amount is being capped. A lot of non-working and low income poor may be forced out of London.

    I don't see why those without jobs need to be there; you can be unemployed anywhere. And if they move away then lower demand will take the price pressure off for those who really do need to be there.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  125. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by Xugumad · · Score: 1

    I'd have been rather interested in their answer to the question "How did you vote in the last election?"

  126. Re:would somebody tell me by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    He wrote "pederast" and "pedophile", but it was a bit too hard for him to notice which part of the words is the same.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  127. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    (1) Stop thinking of money as "yours" in some philosophical sense and start understanding it as a way society chooses to allocate resources to those best able to manage it.

    You mean, best able to use it to do evil.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  128. Re:would somebody tell me by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    just some yobs who believe they can do what you want because the police won't stop them. multiculturalism and tolerasty at its best.

    Is that toleration of Rastafarians?

  129. Re:would somebody tell me by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    And plenty of white faces in the riots.

    Define "plenty". One? Two? Roughly the same proportion as in the population as a whole?

    Hint: it's not the last one.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  130. Re:would somebody tell me by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    I'll ignore the implication that anyone you consider "upper class" hasn't worked for what they have

    If you mean upper class (aristocracy) rather than upper middle class (business owners, entrepreneurs, company directors, etc.) then I think GP is correct 90% of the time.

  131. Re:would somebody tell me by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Puhleease, stop with the drama already. They aren't desperate. They don't know what desperate is. They should go to Haiti or Somalia. They'll know then.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  132. Bad excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The NBC article repeats the same bad excuse as we've heard a lot of so-called experts put forward, that the rioters are more or less justified because they're poor and have been for generations. That you're poor does NOT justify setting fire to businesses or other people's homes, nor creating anarchy in the streets. Fighting with the police does not solve anything. Burning things does not solve anything. It basically makes no sense to explain away the events using this bad excuse.

    No, the heart of the matter is that the youths are out of control. They have no respect for anyone or anything, least of all the police and other authorities. The reason for this is generations of equally dysfunctional people give up in advance and blame everybody but themselves, especially during the daily trips to the local pub where they meet each other and further reinforce this. The highlights are the regular fights with various 'enemies' usually under the guise of football hooliganism or similar.

    If you watch UK tv-shows like "Road Wars" or "Brit Cops" or "Police, Camera, Action" (sort-of UK variants of "Cops") you'll notice that every time the police encounters youths for whatever reason, they almost always spit, swear aggressively and abuse the officers verbally right from the start, and they do it non-stop. The interaction is severely limited to the police using whatever force they need to make the youth accept that he's the underdog and that the police control the situation. It is obvious that there's an extreme hate towards the police for whatever reason, but that this hate has taken on a life of its own. It's gone beyond reason and seem psychopathic.

    There's no fix through social efforts here. These people are basically somewhere between deranged and evil, and social efforts will yield nothing. It has been tried countless times and it always fails. There is only one thing that works: Force, and a lot of it. It is necessary to remove at least one generation of misfits completely and send them somewhere for re-education or 'storage' (jail) if that fails. They have reached a critical mass and feeds and reinforce each other, and you have to remove from that mass in order to regain control.

    There are two steps - One to handle what has happened, and two to prevent more. The first step involves every means necessary to identify the people rioting and looting and bring them to justice. Facial recognition is a great way to do this. There's a gazillion CCTV cameras in the affected areas and almost everybody exposes their face at some point. These people must be arrested and punished as hard as possible. It is important to send the signal of the severe punishment. We're talking lengthy prison sentences as well as restitution for the damages. I know most are poor but someone has to pay and it's only fair that the rioters and looters pay up in full, even if it will take them the rest of their lives and then a few generations to pay. If they can't or won't pay, they can rot in jail for the rest of their lives. At least it will insure that they don't do any more rioting or looting, and maybe someone will come to their senses and realize the evil circle must be broken in order to make any progress and move on and up from there their parents came from.

    The efforts following the riots will help prevent more, but until people grow up and starts behaving, a massive police presence is necessary. Only that way can any attempt at restarting anything quickly be brought under control and whatever offenders arrested immediately and prosecuted. When it's obvious that mischief and crime are stopped quickly and punished swiftly the people will move on. It's what worked elsewhere through the times and it will still work in the UK.

    1. Re:Bad excuses by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      Fighting with the police does not solve anything. Burning things does not solve anything.

      Nor does anything else. Voting didn't solve anything, they just got different self-interested people making the same old excuses whilst fiddling expenses.

      So what's left? Peaceful protest? That didn't make any difference with the millions that protested the Iraq war, it's clear it's not going to make any difference on anything else. It's clear the government and the police either don't care or are outright hostile to the people they are meant to be serving.

      At least this way the rioters got some attention, the whole world knows they are pissed off and is wondering why.

    2. Re:Bad excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " It is obvious that there's an extreme hate towards the police for whatever reason, but that this hate has taken on a life of its own. It's gone beyond reason and seem psychopathic."

      "In July 2006, David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party, made a speech suggesting that the hoodie was worn more for defensive than offensive purposes.[14] The speech was referred to as "hug a hoodie" by the Labour Party.[15][16]"

      Maybe they would rather need a "hug a policeman" campaign.

  133. Re:would somebody tell me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Indeed! They all need more feck.

  134. Re:would somebody tell me by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    2 million people marched in London against the invasion, but were completely and utterly ignored.

    What about the 50 million who didn't march? Is it better to ignore them?

    Hauliers blockaded petrol depots for days and all it achieved was a delay in raising fuel duty by 2p, about 2% of the price.

    Quite right too. A small minority with a vested interest in causing congestion and pollution shouldn't be allowed to hold the whole country to ransom. It's not 1978, for fuck's sake.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  135. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    so the choice is between:

    1. not hearing a good message
    2. hearing a bad message

    because whatever the rioting produces, it certainly doesn't promote any valid agenda

    you can't fight injustice with injustice

    and looting is certainly injustice

    so now, whatever positive changes SOME of the looters sought (the rest are simple criminal hooligans) is now utterly and completely destroyed, and won't happen, because the rioters have turned society against them, they are not sympathetic to their concerns anymore

    good job

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  136. Re:would somebody tell me by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    Just fuck off, we English have been doing rioting for hundreds of years before there were any more than a handful of non-white people living here.

    Just because you can string a few sentences together wihout using the word "nigger" doesn't stop you being a racist moron as GP said.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  137. Re:would somebody tell me by 1s44c · · Score: 2

    who are these people? I mean, white? black? muslim?

    It's not race, it's social class. They are all the people who are old enough to have been seriously pissed off by the police, the system, and each other, and young enough to not realise that breaking everything within reach doesn't really help.

    So mostly 16 to 21 and from the kind of areas where the police victimise innocent people and threaten the victims of crime.

    I know, I lived a short walk away from where the police started all this.

  138. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FFS, at least give a modest description of what the video is next time.

  139. Re:would somebody tell me by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    While your general point may well be correct (these riots seem more criminal than political in any sense) I think you'll find that the Houses of Parliament and most police stations have a lot better security than your local Currys or JD Sports.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  140. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by calzakk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, it doesn't help to explain them at all. Did 1.5 million people riot in London just because they were ignored? Nope. Because these were ordinary, civilized, and decent people.

    The truth is, these rioters are hopeless waste-of-spaces that have no respect for anything or anyone, and are just looting and vandalizing for no reason other than "it's a bit of a laugh" or "I can get away with it, so why not". These really are the type of scum that you wouldn't piss on if they were on fire.

  141. Re:would somebody tell me by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    He was a known drug dealer who pulled a gun on the police.

    Oh, sorry, I must have missed the bit on the news when they announced the full findings of the IPCC investigation which proved that. And "drug dealer" covers a multitude of sins, from Paolo Escobar down to your mate who sells weed in pubs for a tenner.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  142. Re:would somebody tell me by 1s44c · · Score: 2

    Just some people who have had their pockets turned out by the police twice a week for as long as they can remember. Just some people who have been threatened with violence from the police whenever they dared answer back. The same people who saw the police kill two innocent people and totally get away with it in recent history.

    These people have been trained by the police to hate the police. They saw the latest police shotting as an execution and it made them angry as hell. Once the first two police cars were burnt out the rest realised the police were powerless so they went on a looting spree.

  143. Re:would somebody tell me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Labelling isn't a bad thing when the correct labels are used.

  144. Re:would somebody tell me by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    People who are WORKING don't have time to go rioting even if they want to.

    Except at weekends and in the evenings...oh, wait that's when the riots happened.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  145. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by elsurexiste · · Score: 1

    Want to know what it accomplishes? Nothing.

    People would be better in the US if, instead of whining on the internet, they get up and protest.

    --
    I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
  146. Re:would somebody tell me by 1s44c · · Score: 1

    It is about class. It's about a class of people who were sick with the police abusing them.

    The police have abused their anti-terror powers beyond all reason and they have killed two innocent people in recent history not counting the recent shooting which is still unknown.

  147. Re:would somebody tell me by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

    I'm not generally opposed to spanking. The available research shows quite conclusively that there is no harm when used on smaller children, and for somewhat older children that it can still work - though it's less efficient than other forms of discipline. If you find it works for you and your child, I think that should be completely up to you and the state should butt out.

    Having said that, the idea that a child running wild - after years of lacking discipline and parental neglect - could be cured by a single spanking ... that's beyond naive. It takes years to raise a child, you are not going to make a significant difference by a single application of discipline - no matter what that is.

  148. Re:would somebody tell me by xelah · · Score: 1

    I don't see why those without jobs need to be there; you can be unemployed anywhere. And if they move away then lower demand will take the price pressure off for those who really do need to be there.

    Oh, I agree. It's insane to house long term unemployed in London whilst millions of employed spend hours on overcrowded trains commuting. (Of course, some may have been previously employed in London and likely to employed there again; it's not necessarily sensible to force people out immediately). That's not going to stop them bitching about, though.

  149. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by Viol8 · · Score: 2

    The fact that you got modded down for that shows the child like mentality of the moderators on here. Teenagers don't get irony and of course they're never to blame either - its always someone else fault.

  150. Re:would somebody tell me by mrRay720 · · Score: 1

    "A lot of non-working and low income poor may be forced out of London"

    About damn time.

    If I can't afford to live in London, while working a productive job and contributing to society, why the hell do you think that someone else should get given housing in an area I couldn't hope to afford to live in? And it's ME that has to pay for it?

    Sorry, but if someone wants money taken from the pockets of working people, the least they can do is live somewhere that makes that more affordable.

    Any system where it's more profitable to work than not, is inherently broken.

  151. Re:would somebody tell me by 1s44c · · Score: 1

    You assume they are intelligent and planned this out.

    They are just taking advantage of the immediate lack of law enforcement and acting on anger at the police and the system as a whole. And while they are at it they want some free stuff.

  152. Re:would somebody tell me by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    But there's the catch. These aren't 'working poor', they're feckless poor. There's a difference.

    Ah yes, the lovely old Victorian differentiation between deserving and undeserving poor, always clearly differentiatable by those in power, living comfortable lifestyles.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  153. Re:would somebody tell me by amck · · Score: 1

    From local reports (see guardian.co.uk reportage on the peaceful protests before the riots) the police took the attitude of retreating from the streets and protecting only the police stations.

    Not so surprising, then, that they avoided attacking police stations.
    Especially since the protest was about police going OTT.

    --
    Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist
  154. Re:would somebody tell me by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    I'll ignore the implication that anyone you consider "upper class" hasn't worked for what they have

    If you mean upper class (aristocracy) rather than upper middle class (business owners, entrepreneurs, company directors, etc.) then I think GP is correct 90% of the time.

    By definition if you're part of the aristocracy/upper class and have inherited land and money, you haven't worked for it yourself.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  155. Re:would somebody tell me by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    Indeed, but anyone who can afford to buy £100 trainers and a blackberry isn't actually poor.

    That leaves them just feckless.

    And anyone who can afford a meal every day and access to clean water isn't poor compared with half of the world's population, but so what?

    Poverty is a relative thing.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  156. No opportunities? How did 500,000 polish get work? by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    Yup , 500,000 polish came over here and most of them got jobs that the chavs are too lazy to take.

    Sorry, there are plenty of opportunities but its far easier for some members of society to sit on welfare and whinge. And when they bored whining because everyone got fed up with listening, they cause trouble.

  157. Re:would somebody tell me by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    Should Britain still hold a grudge against Italy about Hadrian?

    Well, the Romans appear to have invented the riot shield, but apart from that, what have they ever done for us?

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  158. Re:would somebody tell me by digitig · · Score: 1

    I rather think that they are perfectly employable but employers don't employ them because of irrelevant requirements for qualifications.

    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  159. Re:would somebody tell me by dyingtolive · · Score: 1

    I could use a good fecking.

    --
    Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
  160. Re:would somebody tell me by digitig · · Score: 1

    Nope; cheapest in the area.

    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  161. Koreatown by nten · · Score: 1

    LA only has slightly more lax gun laws than London, and the shop the GP was talking about wasn't an isolated incident. Koreatown was isolated by the riots so that the police weren't there. The residents organized an armed resistance and survived the riots by carrying out a protracted gun battle against the rioters.

    And our murder rate... I'm afraid that is down to our culture. In the U.S. you could outlaw pointy sticks and not affect our murder rate. We are just seriously violent people. Which means the U.S. really shouldn't be used as an argument for or against firearms controls in European nations. Better to look at examples like Czech Republic and Belgium to predict the effect of more lax gun laws in the UK would be. Switzerland's low murder rate with high gun ownership is likely also due to a unique culture (and high standard of living) and not replicable elsewhere.

    --
    refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
    1. Re:Koreatown by Sedated2000 · · Score: 1

      I can't exactly agree that americans are "seriously violent people". We are subject to things that the UK simply is not. We experience changes in population due to immigration that the UK does not. Norway, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium... they have all had shootings. Look at Norway. One man took out so many people and Norway is largely seen as a very wealthy, peaceful, and safe nation. We have two very large borders with countries that also have guns. The border with Canada is easily crossed with firearms. If all of the guns were removed from the law abiding citizens (who are in their very nature the only ones who would comply with the law to relinquish them) then the undesirable elements can quite easily purchase them elsewhere and get them in to the country in any amount they choose. The UK is much more easily restricted. In a related note, someone last night in the riots mowed down a bunch of people with their car, then torched the car. When they don't have guns they simply find a different tool to use.

  162. Re:would somebody tell me by digitig · · Score: 1

    It's not far off the last one for the areas where the riots are happening. It all depends what population you take.

    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  163. There's no hope for society with people like you by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    Christ , you're beyond dumb if you seriously believe any of that sub-undergraduate level sociology drivel you just posted. You should get a job with Liberty or the Howard League, you'd be perfect.

  164. Re:would somebody tell me by 1s44c · · Score: 1

    Morons basically.

    You don't have to be a moron to disrespect authority that mistreats you. The police routinely stop and search kids, they routinely stop cars and they routinely threaten anyone who dares question them. They also killed two totally innocent people recently and it looked like this was the third.

    The police pushed too far so certain people pushed back. Remember the first two things that were destroyed? A police car, and another police car.

  165. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by cavreader · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Violence just perpetuates the hate used to drive these types of conflicts. Protesting only works when you actually protest for something and not just against something. You need more than empty slogans and rhetoric if you expect to really change anything. Look at the protests in the Egypt, the protesters were more than willing to organize to storm the barricades but once they achieved their goal of removing the person they felt was responsible for their misery they have reverted to fighting and arguing amongst themselves and have not accomplished anything to improve their society. The downtrodden masses in London or in any other country never accept that they themselves are partly responsible for their situation. Personal responsibility and the willingness to improve your own life plays a big part on the quality of life. The organized marches in DC during the fight for minority rights are a good example of how to achieve positive results using public protests. Throughout the country protesters and their supports were attacked violently and yet they still continued on with their cause until they were either killed, beaten down, or arrested. At the same time the leaders of these protests displayed both intelligence and competence that heled to demolish the stereotypes of that era. The protesters in the 60's knew exactly what they were protesting for which was equal protection and rights under the law and they achieved that goal without resorting to mindless violence. Had they done so they would have failed in their quest. Of course racial discrimination did not end overnight and it is still an ongoing struggle today but who could have even entertained the idea in the 1960's that the US would elect a black president? None of these efforts used to achieve this goal resulted from the type of violence and anarchy sweeping England or other countries today. The rioters in England have focused the public's attention on the violence instead of the underlying reasons they use to justify their violence.

  166. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by bug1 · · Score: 1

    Do some good ... do you mean,

    Get together and workout how to prevent people from _wanting_ to cause such social disruption in the future ? or
    Go to extreme lengths to make sure every wrongdoer is punished to the maximum extent of the law.

    For some reason I thought you pommies where more socially evolved, and actually looked after your people.

  167. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by equex · · Score: 1

    No, no. All the worlds political leaders get their cues from slashdot posts and polls on facebook.

    --
    Can I light a sig ?
  168. Re:would somebody tell me by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    Watch some coverage from the events, my friend, and if you don't see the obvious, you probably need a more unbiased news channel, a better TV or an ophthalmologist.

    Even if all the rioters were black (which they clearly weren't) that would still not mean that all black people are rioters. There are very few rioters and a fairly high proportion of non white people living in London generally, and Tottenham in particular.

    Similarly, because almost all rich upper class people are white, does not mean that almost all white people are rich and upper class, unless the population of white people is more or less the same size as the population of rich upper class people.

    Simple logic.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  169. Re:would somebody tell me by 1s44c · · Score: 1

    Or maybe the police are beating some of these people to death and covering up for each other.

  170. Re:would somebody tell me by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    And plenty of white faces in the riots.

    Define "plenty". One? Two? Roughly the same proportion as in the population as a whole?

    Hint: it's not the last one.

    According to this this, in London only 58% of the population is "white British", and in somewhere like Tottenham (for instance) the figure will be a lot lower.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  171. Re:would somebody tell me by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    Firstly, we have a society now where people are afraid to use force in their discipline of children - be they parents, teachers, etc. The stigma of being a parent who would smack their child, coupled with the prospect of social workers or even the police being involved is a huge disincentive to even responsible parents who would only ever use force as a last resort where absolutely necessary.

    No, it's the poorer, stupider parents that hit their children. Once you can't verbally outwit a child, you're finished as a useful role model anyway.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  172. Re:would somebody tell me by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

    A lot of non-working and low income poor may be forced out of London.

    They will be forced out of homes that people on middle-to-good incomes who don't get benefits can't afford to pay for. And if you have no job and no income, then you should have plenty of time to look for a home in a cheaper area.

  173. Re:No opportunities? How did 500,000 polish get wo by digitig · · Score: 1

    Yup , 500,000 polish came over here and most of them got jobs that the chavs are too lazy to take.

    Most of my work is elsewhere in the EU. What goes around comes around.

    Sorry, there are plenty of opportunities but its far easier for some members of society to sit on welfare and whinge. And when they bored whining because everyone got fed up with listening, they cause trouble.

    I know some people who prefer to sit on welfare and whinge, so I'm not disputing that they exist. But believe me, if you think there are plenty of opportunities then you have no clue what's happening on the ground. Did I mention that my son is severely dyslexic, so to all intents and purposes he can't read or write? That doesn't stop him doing physical work, except when the employers demand a degree to hand out towels. It's wrong to assume that because the articulate and well educated can usually find something that everybody can, and it's wrong to assume that everybody is able to respond to education.

    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  174. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by FourthAge · · Score: 1

    "we have not moved on from the power dominance of a single culture in Britain."

    Well, obviously. It's called government. Now, just what would you suggest we replace it with?

    --
    The tao of democracy: the government you can vote for is not the real government.
  175. Gun Control and Peaceful Protest by sp3d2orbit · · Score: 2

    I am never amazed at the sense of helplessness I get from Europeans. They expect the government to do everything for and when it doesn't, for some reason petty theft is "justified". Pathetic.

    Gandhi said "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." These current groups of thieves and thugs aren't noble citizens rising up against their oppressors. They are violent, thieving thugs with no concept of passive resistance -- no concept of the better good.

    Poor you say? Look at these people

    http://catchalooter.tumblr.com/

    They are very well dressed. They are very well fed. These are not helpless Somalis trying to get their food aid. These people would be upper middle class in 75% of the countries on Earth but are so consumed by jealousy and helplessness that they have turned to selfish destruction.

    Many of you, who are paralyzed by the thought of another citizen owning a gun, try to draw comparisons to the LA riots in 1992. Do you not remember Korea Town? Lack of gun control works. The LA riots were not brought under control by the police. It was private individuals, with their private guns, that laid down the law and stopped the anarchy.

    The British people are helpless and dependent. From yesterday's Guardian:

      "Scotland Yard’s 6,000 street officers were hopelessly outmanoeuvred" by " boys and girls, most no older than 15, and some apparently as young as eight". One resident: “Where are the police? Why are they not here? People are frightened.”

    Americans in the 1992 riots were in no such mood:

    "We are glad the National Guard is here. They're good backup."

    Many years ago a historian (please enlighten me to the name if you can remember) did a study on the rise and fall of civilizations. He identified a phase immediately before collapse: Dependence

    1. Re:Gun Control and Peaceful Protest by buglista · · Score: 1

      53 people died in the 1992 LA riots. We're at 4 or so right now. I prefer our way.

    2. Re:Gun Control and Peaceful Protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. Re:Gun Control and Peaceful Protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think Americans are in a position to lecture anybody. As America so often tells the rest of the world, please piss off, we'll handle our own business thank you very much.

    4. Re:Gun Control and Peaceful Protest by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      I am never amazed at the sense of helplessness I get from Europeans. They expect the government to do everything for and when it doesn't, for some reason petty theft is "justified". Pathetic.

      That's not why people are rioting. At least that's only a small part of it, it's more complex.

      The minimum I expect of a government is not to kill innocent civilians. The UK police killed Jean Charles de Menezes, they killed Ian Tomlinson, both totally innocent people. When it looked like they killed another innocent, Mark Duggan, certain people wanted to correct the injustice. It should be noted that even though Jean Charles de Menezes and Ian Tomlinson were both innocent of any crime no officers were ever prosecuted for their killings. The IPCC whitewashed both killings thus reducing trust in the police service even more.

      The whole stop and search without even the suspicion of a crime experiment is alienating great numbers of law abiding people.

      Recent tax raises and high inflation is making a lot of people really angry.

      Paying freaking billions for the Olympics when more important things are being neglected is reckless and stupid and the people don't get any say in it. This only makes them more angry.

      Voting in a new government didn't change anything. Just more broken promises to be angry about.
       

    5. Re:Gun Control and Peaceful Protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you referring to Jared Diamond? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed

    6. Re:Gun Control and Peaceful Protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you haven't thought this through very thoroughly. It's just a question of escalation and who loses or blinks first no matter what weapons are involved, from sticks and stones right through to nuclear weapons. For an example of criminals willing to escalate look at what happened after Katrina, or currently in Mexico.

          In the current troubles people ARE defending their property despite what you see on TV. Unfortunately some looters are willing to escalate (eg. the looter who killed three guys defending their property by running them over). Throwing guns into the mix just increases the body count, and not only for people attacking or defending property (eg. the number of innocents shot in the aftermath of Katrina).

    7. Re:Gun Control and Peaceful Protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad that the responders have all the facts and can read the minds of the people in London. I'm still trying to find out what is going on there.

      A little over two hundred years ago, British officials made announcements about how they might have to suppress an uprising by a bunch of traitorous vagabonds over in the American colonies.

    8. Re:Gun Control and Peaceful Protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The historian I believe you refer to is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Spengler

    9. Re:Gun Control and Peaceful Protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow. and you think you're better of with the US government or your neighbor to have your back? I'll just lay back and enjoy the fact that both America and the UK are... islands. Not connected to mainland Europe (unless we don't close down that stupid tunnel :D )

  176. Re:would somebody tell me by FourthAge · · Score: 1

    It cannot have escaped the attention of Britain's criminal underclass that our government has a policy of trying to avoid sending anyone to prison if at all possible. Those who do go to prison serve pathetically small sentences. And our "conservative" Justice Minister is intent on further cuts to sentences and greater use of "community punishments", known amongst criminals as "a joke" or a "walkout".

    --
    The tao of democracy: the government you can vote for is not the real government.
  177. Re:would somebody tell me by FourthAge · · Score: 1

    Are you really telling us that a rioter, smashing up a shop, is completely indistinguishable from the shop's owner?

    Or, worse, are you telling us that such a distinction can be made, but should not be, lest someone be discriminated against?

    The fact is that you can make a distinction between deserving and undeserving, it isn't even difficult, and doing so is absolutely necessary for law enforcement. By refusing to admit that such a distinction may be worthwhile, you betray your responsibility to side with the civilised working class against the yobbos and the scum. It is our duty to discriminate in favour of the civilised. And if you don't want that duty, maybe you don't deserve civilisation. Somalia's just over there.

    --
    The tao of democracy: the government you can vote for is not the real government.
  178. Re:would somebody tell me by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    Let's clear up some misconceptions: "School" hasn't become more expensive. Schools are free.

    University is now being funded more via student loans, rather than general taxation - given that the interest rate is extremely low, and you don't have to start paying it off until you earn enough, it's still a good deal, assuming you study something worthwhile, rather than art history or media studies.

    Until recently, the target was that 50% of people would go onto university in the UK so you would consider that part of normal schooling for half the population at least. Anyway, I imagine the word was bein used in its American sense.

    As for your asinine point about art history, the whole point was that thirty years ago, you could study art history if you were interested in/good at it, and not have to have a rich daddy to finance you, as will happen now. Education is not supposed to be fucking job training, you do that after you have finished university. (Well, you do if you were lucky enough to go to Eton/Oxbridge and stroll into your father's friend's investment bank).

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  179. thanks for translating by decora · · Score: 1

    i heard the same interview, and i couldnt believe these people were speaking english.

    i hear people from all over the world speak english on news reports, people from vietnam, pakistan, east africa, the middle east, russia, etc. i even heard vladimir putin speaking english to a CNN reporter.

    i can understand vladimir putin's english, but i can't understand teenagers in the middle of london.

    1. Re:thanks for translating by digitig · · Score: 1

      I live here so I'm ok with it, but it is a strong accent, isn't it?

      One interview I saw last night was with a Scouser (native of Liverpool) and (I think) an Indian and a Pole. The Indian and Pole were much easier to understand than the Scouser -- and I am originally from Liverpool.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  180. Whats going on over there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are these people not getting enough entitlements?

  181. citation needed by decora · · Score: 1

    that is, if you believe in things like evidence and reason.

  182. citation need... by decora · · Score: 1

    oh fuck it , nobody cares anymore

  183. Re:would somebody tell me by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    I don't see why those without jobs need to be there; you can be unemployed anywhere. And if they move away then lower demand will take the price pressure off for those who really do need to be there.

    Brilliant! What you could do is stuff them onto trains and move them out to special "camps" in the middle of nowhere. As they're only poor and unemployed, you could cram a lot of people into a small space, therby "concentrating" them in a small space. With any luck, you could get some free work out of them, and they'd soon be both more free and more healthy, because we all know that arbeit macht frei.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  184. Re:would somebody tell me by bberens · · Score: 1

    I think you have to look at two sides of the situation. The first is what the people doing this *think* are the reasons for their behavior and I would wager that ranges from some semi-intellectual/political ideology all the way down to "Free stuff!" I would suggest that's only half (perhaps even less than half) of the real story. There's clearly some pent up frustration in these communities that could come from any number of places ranging from police brutality/racism, social inequality, economic inequality, etc. but those are not the types of things I would expect young and/or uneducated people to be able to articulate about their rage. Lack of respect for property has a tendency to be derived from a lack of your own property. In particular this young generation is facing a situation where the job market is already poor, older people are unable to retire because their investments went sour, and/or people with 10+ years of experience are out competing for entry level jobs that the young generation would usually be scooping up to get their foot in the door. They will truly be a lost generation because they will not have had the opportunity to create that foundation for building a career. Does that excuse their behavior? Of course not, they should all be locked up, but I do think it's important to understand what's going on so that we can make a point of attempting to help the people who may be in the same boat, but were wise enough not to get violent.

    --
    Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
  185. Re:would somebody tell me by digitig · · Score: 1

    Well, I think they're right to be more selective about who they send to prison, because it's an expensive solution that acts as a very efficient training ground for criminals. Yes, our incarceration rate of 150 per 100,000 is tiny compared to the USA's 743, but it's higher than Canada (117), Denmark and Norway (each 71). I don't think I'd hold up the USA as an example of how to achieve a low-crime society.

    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  186. Re:This will never work by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    > the Guardian (world-reknowned for voluntarily reporting from a neutral point of view)

    You must read a different Guardian, or live in a different world.

    The Guardian's political slant (which is what Americans would call extreme left wing, but here in the UK is slightly left-of-centre in the same way that the LibDems were before becoming BFFs with the Tory Scum) is confined to its opinion/comment pages. Its news coverage is as unbiased as any other quality newspaper or TV station can be.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  187. off site storage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A lot of security cameras are controlled from a central (off site) location. The video is almost always saved. There will surely be video data up to the point where the camera is destroyed. I'll bet there would be a very good close up shot of the perpetrator. The point is that while they might be useless after being destroyed, they would still gather useful data up to that point.

  188. Re:would somebody tell me by FourthAge · · Score: 1

    I don't think I'd hold up any modern Western nation as an example of how to achieve a low-crime society, since they all have the same laissez-faire approach.

    --
    The tao of democracy: the government you can vote for is not the real government.
  189. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by stdarg · · Score: 1

    What makes you think those two goals are any different?

    1. Punish the wrongdoers very harshly
    2. People won't want to cause social disruption that results in harsh punishment for themselves

  190. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by MarkvW · · Score: 1

    "Violence only perpetuates the hate?"

    Violence also perpetuates one other thing you might have overlooked: CHANGE.

    The Vandals and the Visigoths didn't just "perpetuate the hate," they also effected change. Same for the U.S. Westward expansion.

    The French Revolution was very violent, but it effected a change that many perceive as good.

    If you don't address the root causes of violence, you just seal the lid on a boiling pot of water.

       

  191. Re:No opportunities? How did 500,000 polish get wo by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    "f you think there are plenty of opportunities then you have no clue what's happening on the ground"

    I have plenty of a clue thanks. There is work out there if people want to do it. Where do you think the jobs to keep the polish and other recent immigrants employed came from? Did Harry Potter way his magic wand?

    "Did I mention that my son is severely dyslexic"

    That didn't stop Richard Branson nor plenty of other well known business and scientific people.

  192. Re:would somebody tell me by digitig · · Score: 1

    So you have a hammer, and everything is a nail? Laissez-faire is wrong whatever the facts show? Western or not, laissez-faire or not, high incarceration rates seem to correspond (roughly) to high crime rates, so it's hard to argue that incarceration brings crime down. It's easier to argue that bringing crime down reduces incarceration. The incarceration rates are here, and I'd feel safer in some of the countries at the bottom than some of the countries at the top..

    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  193. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by elsurexiste · · Score: 1

    Those were different times. Martin Luther King was educated and believed in civil societies. Remember that this was just after WW2 and before punk rock, so security, hierarchy and order were a must for those fellas. Race is a great common denominator, makes it easier to have a cohesive group (you can readily identify with your leaders, see). Mohandas Gandhi was a lawyer, a highly learned person, and he too believed in law and order. Finally, they all knew why they were fighting, as their enemy was also highly cohesive: white laws and white people.

    The banner of this generation is "Indígnese", "Indignez-vous", "Be pissed". No race or national interests here; you just have to feel angry about your current situation to get involved. There are no leaders and no reason to have them: It's more about figuring out what to do next and people will vote with their attentions and feet. As any self-regulated system, chaos is part of the meal. So what if there's violence, it furthers our goals, as GGPP put it. And why are they rioting? Whom are they rioting against? In a context of exclusion and poverty with no clear antagonist, it may as well be society as a whole. Egypt protesters were at the beginning highly organized and mostly peaceful because there was a defined enemy (the dictator) so even the military recognized this and wouldn't interfere. Until something big happens, these will be the protests in the Western world, at least for a few decades more.

    Finally, your remarks about responsibility are interesting, to say the least. These people are responsible for their actions, true, because it's the only resource available for them. But what about the prime minister, or the members of the parliament? They made the laws and took the decisions that led to this situation, after all. They are much more responsible for the current state of affairs as they affect the whole country, so why do you leave them outside of your comment? There's no spontaneous generation, this couldn't happen in my city even when somewhat violent and big demonstrations are not uncommon.

    --
    I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
  194. Re:No opportunities? How did 500,000 polish get wo by digitig · · Score: 1

    Have you noticed that a lot of the recent immigrants went back smartish when they discovered that the opportunities here were not as good as they expected? If there are so many opportunities, care to suggest what my son should be doing other than spending every day scouring the newspapers and the net, knocking on the doors of local businesses with his CV and filling in job applications? Don't say "set up his own business"; he wouldn't be capable of running one because of his learning difficulties. Don't say "Go to college", he's been and failed, and is struggling to pay off the debt he incurred. It's no good citing Branson. Times have changed since he made his fortune, every dyslexic has a different spectrum of abilities and difficulties, and he needed his stroke of luck of editing a student magazine at just the time the government removed the retail price regulations on music media (and the mainstream outlets missing their chance to capitalise on that). Just because one made it doesn't mean that the path is available to everyone.

    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  195. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    > When people are out of "civilised" ways to put across their message, they resort to violence It's 2011. There are a gazillion ways to put across your message, completely for free. You're using one of them right now.

    Violence gets you listened to much quicker. It's why terrorism works, depending on the situation.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  196. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    "It's a fair cop, but society is to blame for failing to lift me up."

    Well it may be to blame for keeping you down.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  197. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    It's all wonderful, however right now the rest of the population also needs to start thinking about rioting against the system in a different way: guns.

    If the police cannot help the home and business owners to protect their properties, if people are getting mugged and killed on the streets, it's time for the people to realize - there ain't nobody out there to help you. Get guns. Fuck the government - they can't protect you. If you are in this situation and police can't protect you, you must protect yourself.

    I believe this is a great business opportunity at this point - selling guns and ammo to general population in places where guns are generally outlawed. Lots of money can be made on this I bet.

  198. "kept under wraps"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF? Try heading to your local university library and reading any machine vision journal from the last decade. Loiter detection, shoplifting detection, crowd estimation, it's all there.

  199. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by phantomfive · · Score: 1
    It's hard to get a good characterization of the rioters. It's too bad the young man in that report didn't press his point home by actually saying why he was rioting. If his point is, "nobody listens to us!" well, start a blog like the rest of us?

    There are other interviews too. Like this one, where the riots are 'good fun.' Cute accents in that audio clip even if you don't care what they are saying.

    Or the story of this guy who must have a miserable life:

    In many ways, Mr. James’s circumstances are typical. He lives in a government-subsidized apartment in northern London and receives $125 in jobless benefits every two weeks, even though he says he has largely given up looking for work. He says he has never had a proper job and learned to read only three years ago. His mother can barely support herself and his stepbrothers and sisters. His father, who was a heroin addict, is dead.

    He says he has been in and out of too many schools to count and left the educational system for good when he was 15.

    “No one has ever given me a chance; I am just angry at how the whole system works,” Mr. James said. He would like to get a job at a retail store, but admits that he spends most days watching television and just trying to get by. “That is the way they want it,” he said, without specifying exactly who “they” were. “They give me just enough money so that I can eat and watch TV all day. I don’t even pay my bills anymore.”

    The poor guy's drawn a raw lot, but it's not the government's fault either, unless you think they should sterilize incompetent parents or something. One wonders what he would do if he were given more money.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  200. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    Why the hell are you giving these people any legitimacy? If you're well enough off to have a Blackberry to organize looting, you are not fucking oppressed.

    Every child in London has a mobile phone, many of which are Blackberry. It's the old "if you are rich enough to have a car/TV/shoes/tin roof over your head you're not poor" argument always trotted out by people.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  201. they are already using crowdsourcing by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Boulder did this a few years back for their riots very successfully. They posted security picture images on the web with a $50 anonymous reward.

  202. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    Yes, there's undoubtedly some alienation but there bigger problem is the unwarranted sense of entitlement - "I deserve a TV", "I'm getting my taxes back". As a genuine guardian reading, hand-wringing socialist leftie I didn't see a great deal of urban alienation on display, but I did see a great deal of self-absorbed greed.

    Interesting, but isn't there a distinction between the torching of buildings/attacking the police and the subsequent simply criminal looting?

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  203. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    - After over a decade of a government whose priority was "education, education, education", we have reports that 20% of kids in London leave primary school unable to read - Evening Standard

    Call me thick, but I don't see how reducing taxes and spending less money on education is going to improve this.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  204. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    That is interesting. Anyway, over here in continental europe, we have been wondering for ages why you destroyed your own university system so thoroughly (as measured by competitiveness of English researchers in an international setting). It is a complete mystery to us why your school system is so miserable, etc. Maybe the ruling class is not actually interested in helping the people?

    The Establishment absorbed and neutered any of the radical left wing energy that Labour had, transformed it into "New Labour" (which is/was just watered down Conservatism) and proceeded to fuck up education because they realised that being able to think may help you get a better job, but it also encourages you to question the system.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  205. Re:would somebody tell me by stranger_to_himself · · Score: 1

    This is not about class (I'll ignore the implication that anyone you consider "upper class" hasn't worked for what they have).

    This is about scum who do not want to work for what they have. They feel entitled to take from others anything that they choose. Others includes people who actually have less than them, but have worked hard to gain something.

    Who are you talking about, the rioters or the conservative government?

  206. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by Sheik+Yerbouti · · Score: 1

    Wow never have I seen such a sense of entitlement in all my life. Society does not owe you a sense of love and belonging that would be your families job. Ultimately you are responisible for yourself, your happiness and your behavior. The world owes you nothing and if you start relying on society to take care of your every whim then you will also have to give up your freedom. Because if other people are responsible for you then much like your family they get to say how you will live what you will and won't do. Grown ups that are even semi responsible people don't want a nanny state.

  207. Re:No opportunities? How did 500,000 polish get wo by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    "Have you noticed that a lot of the recent immigrants went back smartish"

    No I haven't noticed. I still hear plenty of foreign languages on the tube.

    "care to suggest what my son should be doing "

    How about getting a job on a building site, or cleaning or 101 other low skilled jobs. If he's that badly dyslexic then thats going to be his lot for life. Unfair but thats just the way it is. Either way , given that blind people can manage to get jobs citing dyslexia as an excuse for being unemployed is frankly pathetic.

  208. Re:would somebody tell me by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    I assume that "working poor" means you actually have to be working?

    Now, now. Let's be fair. The rioters ARE the working poor. Selling drugs and stolen car stereos is a type of work. And they only had one 52" LCD TV at home - clearly they're poor, and had no choice but to steal a second one.

  209. There's already an app for this by HansonMB · · Score: 1

    The police in the US have an app that searches for outstanding warrants + criminal histories using facial recognition. Pretty scary http://slashdot.org/submission/1751294/Sending-you-to-Jail-Theres-an-app-for-that

  210. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by BStroms · · Score: 1

    You know what violent protesting accomplishes? A lot of publicity yes, but negative publicity. There's hardly a faster way to alienate potential supporters than acts of violence. I know I'm far less interested in helping their cause than I was prior to the riots in London. Now I'm rooting for them to find the people responsible for the riots and throw the law at them to hopefully discourage such acts in the future.

  211. Re:would somebody tell me by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    It is about class. It's about a class of people who were sick with the police abusing them.

    Oh, ok. In that case, when can we expect to see a riot of middle-class people who are sick with the gangs and criminals abusing them? I can just picture it now: a bunch of lawyers and businessmen with torches and pitchforks, burning down the ghetto and beating up anyone wearing 'bling' or a hoody.

    Whattayamean that never happens? Why not?

    The police have abused their anti-terror powers beyond all reason and they have killed two innocent people in recent history not counting the recent shooting which is still unknown.

    Yeah! Just like those bus drivers who keep abusing their power, and have killed at least 3 innocent people this year alone! I totally get why the rioters were torching busses.

  212. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, obviously. It's called government. Now, just what would you suggest we replace it with?

    A better government?

  213. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by Serious+Callers+Only · · Score: 1

    Mod parent up. When people are out of "civilised" ways to put across their message, they resort to violence.

    Well, that can be one reason. Here's some other reasons people resort to violence:

    * They don't think at all and don't really give a shit, they just like the buzz
    * They think it's not really doing any harm to anyone they know, so why should they care?
    * They are greedy and want stuff without any effort, and violence seems like a good way to get it
    * They think they will get away with it, so why not?
    * They are sociopaths (see above - common emotions felt by sociopaths)
    * They have grown up in a violent community and it is the only way to get by

    None of that really supports your silly 'class struggle' assertion though does it?

    Additionally, a riot is not a protest, stealing is not a protest, arson of shops and homes is not a protest, looting is not a protest, and it should be treated completely differently - if you start looting and burning shops, I'm afraid different rules apply, and you can expect to be treated harshly and to experience violence in your turn from those you threaten. The police have been remarkably lenient, many in the UK would say far too lenient.

    And, if you have not helped him, what gives you the right to tell him what is right and wrong?

    So what is housing benefit, unemployment benefit, free schooling, free medical care, if not help? What a washed-out tired excuse of an argument - it's all the environment's fault, and the poor little rioters could do nothing to save themselves. These people have had plenty of help, and have chosen to reject the society they live in - there should be consequences for that, or we won't have a society at all in the end, just a free for all. Everyone in the UK has the right to judge the scum doing the rioting, and they do judge them harshly - let's hope the courts agree.

  214. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by cavreader · · Score: 1

    I said the people were "partly" responsible for the situation they find themselves in. Why did it take 25 years for the Egyptians to get a thumb out and do something about their situation? What exactly are the protesters in England trying to accomplish? And spare the "truth and justice" bullshit and layout some concrete reasons and realistic solutions to correct the problems. Running government officials out of office might make the mob feel good until they stop and look around and find no one running the store and realize they can not blame anyone except themselves since they no longer have a government to blame. And someone above mentioned violence being a good way of changing things and I totally agree. It's good to have a forest fire every now and then to clean out the dead wood and reinvigorate growth but running through the streets stealing and burning isn't going to accomplish anything. The next global war will most likely be the only solution to changing the entire paradigm of our current civilization. Hopefully enough people will survive and they can start over from scratch and apply the lessons learned if there are actually any records remaining to learn from.

  215. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great, I'll try that. I'll start by thinking of your money as mine.

    The grandfather post didn't say 'assume you are a government', but whoever modded you 'Troll' is monumentally stupid.

  216. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they're just trying to identify people from photos they're not doing "law enforcement" without legal authority. Saying they're vigilantes is like saying that people who report a crime are vigilantes.

    If they were going around punishing people without legal authority then sure they're vigilantes.

    So no it's not the right word at all.

  217. Re:This will never work by webmistressrachel · · Score: 1

    I fucking did you tit, I was there, all night, in it!!!! FUCKING IN IT!!! With a £700 Nikon! Read my other posts before you post flamebait like that.

    --
    This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
  218. Re:No opportunities? How did 500,000 polish get wo by digitig · · Score: 1

    "Have you noticed that a lot of the recent immigrants went back smartish"

    No I haven't noticed. I still hear plenty of foreign languages on the tube.

    I said "a lot", not "all". And we do get tourists in London, too.

    How about getting a job on a building site

    They all need at least City & Guilds certificates (because of safety); he's tried to get one, but failed the course because he couldn't do the written elements.

    or cleaning or 101 other low skilled jobs.

    That's what he's trying for. None around, at least not for anybody with learning difficulties.

    If he's that badly dyslexic then thats going to be his lot for life. Unfair but thats just the way it is.

    We know.

    Either way , given that blind people can manage to get jobs citing dyslexia as an excuse for being unemployed is frankly pathetic.

    Blind people count towards disability quotas. Dyslexics don't. And even so, the unemployment rate for blind people is over 70%.

    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  219. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by nyri · · Score: 1

    slightly off-topic. this msnbc blog entry shows some interesting insight in the dynamics of the group:

    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.

    That is because the reporter was not up to the work he was doing. He should asked the guy what he would like to say now that he has a possibility to speak. He would have produced a gush of drivel of leftist platitudes. They usually do and with the general idea that they are victims of "state" and "society" while they are completely ignorant about their own conduct that adds to their state of being bored.

    And bored they are as they do not really have material poverty: They know not hunger, not cold from winter. That is what this is all about: This is about nihilistic, bored, self-centered people doing something. People who do not have a slightest interest in anything sensible. If they would, they would appreciate other people's life's work (like a small business shop) and would refrain from burning it down.

    God, I fucking hate when people are being complete dicks and these lefties treat them like some fucking victims.

  220. Re:This will never work by webmistressrachel · · Score: 1

    You're missing the point, and you're also playing your cards face up - you short-sighted capitalist scumbag. You're part of the system which keeps the boot on the face of man, and I hope you slit your wrists when you see this reply.

    Yes, owning a shop is seriously fucking unethical, although not as much as owning a bank, and nowhere do I say that anybody's flat being torched is a good thing (and also no one *targetted* flats anywhere in the UK - collateral damage is OK when dropping bombs on Muslims and spending our taxes but not when overthrowing our corrupt overlords?).

    Capitalism is designed to do one thing and one thing only - amass the wealth at the expense of others.

    If you haven't figured that out yet, then you are selfish and greedy, just as I assert, and you should not be in this thread. How dare you.

    --
    This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
  221. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our beliefs are all we have.

  222. Re:would somebody tell me by xelah · · Score: 1

    Employed people move all the time when they lose or change jobs, or when a areas becomes more or less expensive. It isn't unreasonable for the long term unemployed to have to move as well. Newham and Tottenham aren't exactly glamorous, there's cheaper and better housing elsewhere.

  223. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "the ends justify the means"

    "the ends justify the means"

    "the ends justify the means"

    Yeah, we got your point.

  224. Re:would somebody tell me by tom17 · · Score: 1

    Roads?

  225. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I could care less what they call them. Just round me up a posse so I can chase the slime balls and hooligans who created this havoc and put each ans every one of othem in a public pillory, with nothing but bread and water for two days. Not to mention providing locals with one free rotten tomato throw. I really want to see those assholes cry, and beg for mercy.

  226. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by elsurexiste · · Score: 1

    Don't know why everyone assumes I was talking about violent protests... whatever. You can close your eyes and say "Meh, throw them to jail", or you can bypass the tediousness that this "negative publicity" creates and think about what's going on. Guess what, at this point there's no cause anymore! This is just angry people, opportunists, and sheeple. It's out of control now, but at the beginning they were peaceful protests, and there was a reason. Most likely, if we believe the article GGGPP showed, this started because of alienation and poverty that eventually exploded for the slightest reason. Want to discourage future riots? Don't alienate your citizens.

    --
    I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
  227. Re:would somebody tell me by 1s44c · · Score: 1

    It is about class. It's about a class of people who were sick with the police abusing them.

    Oh, ok. In that case, when can we expect to see a riot of middle-class people who are sick with the gangs and criminals abusing them? I can just picture it now: a bunch of lawyers and businessmen with torches and pitchforks, burning down the ghetto and beating up anyone wearing 'bling' or a hoody.

    Whattayamean that never happens? Why not?

    The middle classes have less to be angry about so it takes more to push them to violence. However it's happening right now. Lots of people are grouping up to defend their communities. You can bet they will go way beyond the law should they actually get hold of any rioters. The authorities are appealing for them to go home and let the police handle it.

    The police have abused their anti-terror powers beyond all reason and they have killed two innocent people in recent history not counting the recent shooting which is still unknown.

    Yeah! Just like those bus drivers who keep abusing their power, and have killed at least 3 innocent people this year alone! I totally get why the rioters were torching busses.

    The bus was just an easy target. These rioters hadn't exactly planned it out, as soon as they realized the police could not stop them they just attacked whatever was nearest.

    I never said the police killed 3 people this year, I said in recent history. I'm referring to Ian Tomlinson who died after being assaulted by a police officer whilst walking home. There is video of this on youtube, he didn't so much as glance at the police, was just an walking home innocently. I'm also referring to Jean Charles de Menezes who was followed onto a train, held down by 3 police, and shot in the head seven times with hollow point bullets. This was in the middle of a busy train. He was also innocent of any known crime. In both of these cases the IPCC whitewashed the whole thing. The third killing I'm referring to is Mark Duggan. We still don't really know what happened there.

    The police got away with some nasty things, they broke the social contract by killing those they should have protected and the result was the break down of law and order.

  228. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by elsurexiste · · Score: 1

    I said the people were "partly" responsible for the situation they find themselves in.

    And I said you are correct, but they are just a small, if not the smallest, cog in the machine.

    Why did it take 25 years for the Egyptians to get a thumb out and do something about their situation?

    It took 25 years because the Egyptian culture (Arab, in general) had elements that made it possible. It isn't strange that young adults were and are instrumental for the Arab Spring to succeed.

    What exactly are the protesters in England trying to accomplish? And spare the "truth and justice" bullshit and layout some concrete reasons and realistic solutions to correct the problems.

    Ok, I'll spare you. At this point, they don't want to accomplish anything, they are just angry and/or taking advantage of the chaos around. I never said violence was good, necessary or justified, only that it was hardly a surprise, given the circumstances. I may like pacifism, but I am a pragmatic. As to the specifics, stop alienating the population. I read an article a few months ago about this stuff: pacific protests against corporations that did creative accounting, taxes for the wealthy, cuts for tertiary education, etc. It was really just a matter of time if you ask me. Happened in Greece, Spain, Chile and Argentina. Why wouldn't happen in the UK?

    Running government officials out of office might make the mob feel good until they stop and look around and find no one running the store and realize they can not blame anyone except themselves since they no longer have a government to blame. And someone above mentioned violence being a good way of changing things and I totally agree. It's good to have a forest fire every now and then to clean out the dead wood and reinvigorate growth but running through the streets stealing and burning isn't going to accomplish anything. The next global war will most likely be the only solution to changing the entire paradigm of our current civilization. Hopefully enough people will survive and they can start over from scratch and apply the lessons learned if there are actually any records remaining to learn from.

    I find absolute chaos somewhat distasteful. I would much rather avoid further disorder, as it makes the whole process of improvement slower.

    --
    I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
  229. Re:No opportunities? How did 500,000 polish get wo by 0123456 · · Score: 1

    Where do you think the jobs to keep the polish and other recent immigrants employed came from?

    Laying off British workers.

    Where I was working at the time the borders were opened, within about two weeks all the British cleaners disappeared and were replaced by Poles. Who were mostly young blonde girls with degrees so we didn't complain too much, but I'm guessing the women they replaced weren't too happy about it.

  230. Re:would somebody tell me by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    The middle classes have less to be angry about so it takes more to push them to violence.

    Hardly. I'm pretty pissed off about half my paycheque being confiscated to pay for people who don't work, and then having those same people turn around and attack cops, loot businesses, and set buildings on fire. Far as I'm concerned, the middle class has way more to be angry about. The very underclass which we're paying to support is attacking us and destroying our stuff because we apparently don't give them enough.

    Give a man a fish, and pretty soon he'll riot for more fish.

    The bus was just an easy target.

    I was being sarcastic. Making the point that more innocent people get killed by bus drivers than by police, yet you don't see people calling bus drivers "pigs" or using those deaths to justify rioting. Why? Because it has nothing to do with "innocent deaths" - it has to do with the fact that cops are the embodiment of the power of the state, and the fact that certain types of people hate authority of any type. Poor understanding of math/statistics doesn't really help, either.

  231. Re:would somebody tell me by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
    Im in Hackney - a good part of the population is from Somalia - perhaps their perspective will be interesting.

    Goes outside for a bit

    Unfortunately, the mobile phone shops and internet cafes are closed at the moment (its 8:30 PM). Turkish kebab shops are all open though ...

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  232. Re:would somebody tell me by FourthAge · · Score: 1

    There's a correlation between high crime rates and high incarceration rates? Well, in that case, it's obvious that prison causes crime. There is no other possible explanation.

    --
    The tao of democracy: the government you can vote for is not the real government.
  233. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by FourthAge · · Score: 1

    What government would not involve the power dominance of a single culture?

    --
    The tao of democracy: the government you can vote for is not the real government.
  234. Re:would somebody tell me by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1

    And labour will have no chance of being re-elected.

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  235. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by ZmeiGorynych · · Score: 1

    What is it about torching buildings that you wouldn't describe as 'simply criminal'? I would be strongly in favor of death penalty for arson, myself.

  236. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

    Here's some other reasons people resort to violence:

    None but the last explain simultaneous peaceful protests, subsequent riots and following looting across the country.

    Additionally, a riot is not a protest, stealing is not a protest, arson of shops and homes is not a protest, looting is not a protest,

    A protest is what? Is it when someone whispers that they're unhappy and you ignore them?

    This might not be the most effective way to protest, and in the short term it will act against the favour of the protestors, but it's certainly a protest. I'm sure the current government is very happy about what's going on - just as Thatcher was happy when people rioted and grinning like a clown over the Falklands. Desperate people resorting to violence make the best targets.

    and it should be treated completely differently - if you start looting and burning shops, I'm afraid different rules apply,

    What if I start a war and that war involves bombing shops and killing its owners? What if my financial hoodwinking means your finances are ruined and your shop is dismantled? Do different rules apply then? Or is the destruction of one business a tragedy but the destruction of a million businesses a statistic?

    you can expect to be treated harshly and to experience violence in your turn

    Civilised society would expect its police force to stop you by using means only in proportion to the threat you cause. If you want violent retribution, please move to the Middle East - you sound like you'd be most welcome.

    So what is housing benefit, unemployment benefit, free schooling, free medical care, if not help?

    Housing benefit does not guarantee you a safe home suitable for a human to live in a dignified manner. It's also in the process of being reduced substantially such that many people in inner London will have to move. Tell me: why do you think some people are homeless for more than a few days? Either it is that everyone who is homeless chooses (i.e. while of sound mind) to live without a home, or not even housing benefit guarantees a safe home. What is more, it is not a requirement for councils to provide housing or even to refer to private housing unless you pass several stringest tests; in my borough, there are zero council houses as the remainder have been sold off over the last few years, so any referrals would be to private housing associations.

    Unemployment benefit has many conditions attached to it and is often taken away at the whim of your supervisor (never been on it, but have worked with people reliant on such). Anyway, people don't want £65/week, they want the chance to participate in society - which includes a job. There are always jobs for the bright and the well-connected, but there are simply very few jobs for the average youth in inner London right now. While the looting is a minor part of the riots, emphasised by the appropriate PR machine, do you see riots and subsequent looting in rich, happy communities? No, because people who are rich and happy will go along with the system and buy the TV - there are always exceptions but they are too few and far between for a riot+loot. A necessary prerequisite for simultaneous riots across some country is deep discontent.

    Schooling doesn't guarantee you an education. Have you ever worked in a London school? Even the average state school fails at preparing your brain since Thatcher's National Curriculum and sale of exam boards to publishing houses have together created a racket of inflated grades and learning only to pass the test.

    The NHS is still plodding along nicely as long as your problems are physical and fairly routine. But if you have a complex mental health problem, you may be waiting for years to see the right person, or not have the appropriate treatment available to you on the NHS at all (it depends a lot on the Trust you're under).

    You s

  237. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

    Society does not owe you a sense of love and belonging that would be your families job.

    OK, let's say you as part of wider society do not owe the disaffected youth anything.

    Then the disaffected youth owes you nothing either.

    In particular, he does not owe you the respect not to smash your store and take the stuff inside.

    I guess you have made your bed.

    The Internet is built on so much "nanny state" academic and military research that I question the sanity of anyone who sits online with an argument such as yours.

  238. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

    One where the cultural background of people in government varies?

  239. Re:would somebody tell me by digitig · · Score: 1

    Come on, you know that Correlation does not imply causation! ;-)

    But it certainly looks as if places that have low crime don't have low crime because they lock up more people.

    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  240. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by FourthAge · · Score: 1

    Is that really what you meant? Cultural background? We already have a parliament, indeed a Cabinet, like that. I wonder how much more diverse, and in what way, it would need to be in order to meet with your approval. Are we talking quotas here?

    But of course, no matter how culturally diverse the MPs may be, there still has to be a single culture of government and establishment. Otherwise power could not be exercised, and a government that cannot use power is no government at all.

    --
    The tao of democracy: the government you can vote for is not the real government.
  241. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by smallfries · · Score: 1

    Rene Descartes step forward from your anonymity and create a user account.

    --
    Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
  242. Re:would somebody tell me by FourthAge · · Score: 1

    That's the wrong conclusion. There's something else about those places that causes low crime and consequently low incarceration. It might well be a more robust approach to law enforcement, or something different about the culture which discourages crime.

    For instance, the UK prison population was pretty low until the latter half of the 20th century. This is because there wasn't much crime. That was because the culture was very different and the approach to policing was also very different.

    --
    The tao of democracy: the government you can vote for is not the real government.
  243. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by Sheik+Yerbouti · · Score: 1

    As long as the youths want to spend time in jail then they are free to act like asses. That's why we have laws and law enforcement.

    These dissafeccted youths are spoiled rotten little shits that from a global prespctive are very wealthy. Ask the Somalis that are currently starving what they think of these little self absorbed pricks.

    They should be arrested by the cops so they get it through there dense little prick skulls that the world does not revolve around them and there are consequences to being a little prick that thinks he's owed something by society.

  244. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

    You appear to have quite a sense of entitlement. You think society, via taxpayers, should pay policemen to arrest these people and a justice system to house them in jail just to accommodate for your particularly Daily Mail brand of anger.

    I say that society should, via taxpayers and voluntary schemes and good example, give these people a part to play so they are productive and contributing rather than unhappy and a burden. I don't think that anyone is entitled to anything, but it's what you've got to do if you want to live in a functioning, comfortable, happy environment.

  245. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

    Did 1.5 million people riot in London just because they were ignored? Nope. Because these were ordinary, civilized, and decent people.

    Nope. Because they weren't the ones suffering directly and substantially from the war in Iraq.

    ...hopeless waste-of-spaces... scum... wouldn't piss on...

    Ah, the sub-humanity argument. It was only a matter of time. Is Godwin invoked yet?

  246. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

    The worst I've heard is "if you stop providing help for people and they don't commit suicide it means they're happy enough to live and don't need any more help". It sounded insane at the time, but it's just the reductio of any "it could be worse thus it's good enough" argument.

    (And the uniforms were really smart, so you were free... would any non-free person have such a smart uniform?)

  247. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

    Not cold from winter? Well, Britain doesn't have the coldest winters in the world, but what the hell are you talking about? Thousands more people die in the UK during cold winters. Study Dept of Health figures or any number of newspaper articles - even in the right wing papers - which regurgitate figures. Older people are of course more vulnerable because, well, they're older.

    As for hunger, you're right, the one thing most first world countries have achieved is hardly anyone without an eating disorder dying from simply not having enough food available. Malnutrition, on the other hand, is a very real problem tackled with various advice for health professionals. The effects of malnutrition in youth are far more insidious.

    People don't want to simply be alive: they want to live. A handout of enough food and shelter to remain alive is not good enough. You can give that to any poorly treated animal in a cage.

  248. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

    I really want to see [another human] cry, and beg for mercy.

    That says enough about you.

  249. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

    The unions funding Labour let it happen. Was it because their members were stupid or because their leadership are corrupt hoodwinkers? Did they think they would still receive (temporary) concessions for their members while ignoring their wider role protecting the working population?

    The merest suggestion of the dropping of Clause IV should have been cause for every union funding Labour to totally withdraw support. I do not understand why any worker is prepared to remain a member of these hypocritical institutions.

  250. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe because it's only loaded for RETARDS LIKE YOU, you disgusting piece of maggot-riddled cattle shit!

  251. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by bug1 · · Score: 1

    Didnt your grandmother tell you "preventing is better than cure" ?

    Harsh punishment might stop known wrongdoers from repeating their actions, but its not going to stop people from being in the situation where they would consider "turning bad".

    If people feel like they are part of society, they wont harm it, and go to great lengths to protect it.

    What should happen is for the government to try and understand why these people became so desperate and opportunist in the first place, and try and stop people from getting into that situation.

    If you understand the person/group your in conflict with, then your opposition to it becomes more effectively.

  252. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by Sheik+Yerbouti · · Score: 1

    Firstly the taxpayer is me, I am the taxpayer. It is the governments responsibility to make and enforce the laws that is why we agree to pay taxes. That is why we all agree to have a Government it is a fundamental cornerstone of civilized society. If the government chooses willfully or through incompetences not to enfore their own laws then they are no Government at all. They Govern nothing. At that point it is anarchy and survival of the fittest.

    Young people have a part to play they are choosing not to play it and be productive memebers of society therefore they deserve our scorn and to be locked up. We all have a part to play in society, simply many people these days are only in it for themselves and chose to do as they please and not agree to societal norms, which is fine, yet they should pay the agreed upon proce for their behaviour. Plenty of people are not happy that's no excuse for lawlesness, looting and stealing rather it is an excuse and a poor one at that. These people are feckless criminals nothing more.

    It's people with your attitude that will be the end of civilized society. You simply can't have a civilized society without laws and law enforcement willing to enforce those laws that is the very definition of anarchy.

  253. Prague Spring / Stazi help? by theNAM666 · · Score: 1

    While they're at it, can they look over a few remaining photos from Prague in '68? The Stazi didn't manage to track down and shoot *everyone* there.

  254. Re:would somebody tell me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's the wrong conclusion. There's something else about those places that causes low crime and consequently low incarceration. It might well be a more robust approach to law enforcement, or something different about the culture which discourages crime.

    For instance, the UK prison population was pretty low until the latter half of the 20th century. This is because there wasn't much crime. That was because the culture was very different and the approach to policing was also very different.

    No, it's the right conclusion and it's the same conclusion as you give there. If you want to reduce crime the sensible approach is to find out what that something else is and to try to emulate it.

  255. Robert Putnam's study by jawahar · · Score: 1

    Harvard Professor Robert Putnam's study showed that the more racially diverse a society is, the lower the levels of trust.
    http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/

  256. Common POS system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Common POS system
    May alsonorth face sale make you more in the meeting, to improve the sound of your ambitions, and sits east toward the west. Face to the west is especially good, because you can not only get some ambitions, but you may also get some content. And, if you are training office romances, facing west. Common POS system
    May alsonorth face sale make you more in the meeting, to improve the sound of your ambitions, and sits east toward the west. Face to the west is especially good, because you can not only get some ambitions, but you may also get some content. And, if you are training office romances, facing west. Common POS system
    May alsonorth face sale make you more in the meeting, to improve the sound of your ambitions, and sits east toward the west. Face to the west is especially good, because you can not only get some ambitions, but you may also get some content. And, if you are training office romances, facing west. Common POS system
    May alsonorth face sale make you more in the meeting, to improve the sound of your ambitions, and sits east toward the west. Face to the west is especially good, because you can not only get some ambitions, but you may also get some content. And, if you are training office romances, facing west. Common POS system
    May alsonorth face sale make you more in the meeting, to improve the sound of your ambitions, and sits east toward the west. Face to the west is especially good, because you can not only get some ambitions, but you may also get some content. And, if you are training office romances, facing west.

  257. Re:would somebody tell me by NickDB · · Score: 1

    How exactly is verbably outwitting a child going to make him \ her feel any consequences for their actions?

    Oh my mum made me feel stupid, guess I won't go through this rock through the window.

    People who are capable of acts like we're witnessing in the UK at the moment don't give a flying shit about, Oh you're so clever I better not do this stupid action then.

    BTW, if you think hitting a child is the same as smacking a child, you need some serious help.

  258. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by Serious+Callers+Only · · Score: 1

    None but the last explain simultaneous peaceful protests, subsequent riots and following looting across the country.

    There was one peaceful and justified protest in Tottenham, the rest is just looting and anarchy because they think they'll get away with it. The violence is completely unrelated to one man's death - see the multiple interviews with looters which prove this. Remarkable how you justify all this violence and stealing with 'peaceful protest' because it fits your wold view. Do you have any sympathy for those who have been burned out of their homes, and shopkeepers who have lost their livelihood, who you apparently consider collateral damage, or is all of your sympathy for the scum who are doing the burning?

    What if I start a war and that war involves bombing shops and killing its owners?

    That war would be wrong, illegal and a waste of money and life, like most wars in history. It would also have nothing to do with riots. Nice try.

    Civilised society would expect its police force to stop you by using means only in proportion to the threat you cause. If you want violent retribution, please move to the Middle East - you sound like you'd be most welcome.

    i.e. violence is met with violence. I said nothing about retribution, and I don't wish you to leave my country, just that you would grow up and face the real issues here instead of hiding behind your off-the-shelf lefty opinions. Stop and think for yourself for once instead of spouting platitudes.

    You speak, evidently, like someone who hasn't actually had it tough and who assumes that all people need is a small handout in order to live a safe, happy life.

    You speak like someone who is happy making assumptions without any sort of evidence, so long as they reinforce your ossified world view.

    In our society in over to find useful employment and have a decent standard of living all people need is a positive attitude, some luck, and the little bit of help from society (which society provides, in an imperfect way) - their background is of course going to determine a lot of their life unless they are remarkable - like most people and most places in history, that's a very hard problem to crack, and no-one has done it yet, but they *can* escape it, even if in some small way, and they are encouraged to do so. No-one starves unless they have other issues, no-one goes without a home for long (run-down as much of our public housing is, it is still a roof over your head), and it is possible to get a job in most circumstances, even if you have to leave where you live and move (as I did). I'm not saying I agree with cutting this safety net even further, or that it is universally fair, but that is completely unrelated to the issue of whether people should be allowed to riot and loot to express themselves. PS I've been on the dole, and I know life isn't easy, another assumption completely wrong. I'm well aware of the limitations of the safety net, and how it is being dismantled - I'm also aware there is a culture of lawlessness and selfish exploitation in our country (at both ends of the social scale) which needs to be stamped out. There are plenty of things that need fixed in our welfare state, without dismantling it, and many of the cuts this gov. has started are ideological and unneeded, but your pontifications and religion of dependence do nothing to help this problem, quite the reverse.

    Go back to your Daily Mail and thank working society for building and running the civilisation which keeps you in comfort.

    I don't read the daily mail (it's full of puerile rubbish and bad writing, much like the guardian), don't use the word nigger, and consider looters scum (of all races and backgrounds, many are not black). Funny how your assumptions are universally wrong isn't it? Perhaps you should examine some of your other thoughtless opinions as well. I do find it interesting

  259. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    Well said. Wish I had mod points. Even after everything thats happened I can't believe there are still liberals like the OP who seem to be utterly detached from reality. I can only think they're nothing more than pseudo intellectual bookworms who are up on trendy theory but completely lacking in real world experience. I can only hope the OP is a student and will grow up eventually.

  260. Re:No opportunities? How did 500,000 polish get wo by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    Lets face it , a large number of british workers are just bloody lazy and do a poor job. Sure, some employers sacked brits to employ foreigners on lower wages but thats the exception rather than the rule. Generally eastern europeans that come over here have a better work ethic than native brits. The lazy polish stay in poland.

    Also lets not forget that a lot of these immigrants do jobs the british simply won't do such as working on farms.

  261. Re:would somebody tell me by FourthAge · · Score: 1

    So, Britain 1910. About 10,000 people in prison within a country of 42 million.

    Do you honestly think this is because of a liberal attitude to crime that favours community punishments, fines, ASBOs over incarceration? In Edwardian Britain? Where criminals are still be hanged for murder and beaten by coppers and prisons are so strict that convicts are not even allowed to speak? Come off it. As a historical theory this is on a par with David Irving.

    But you're otherwise right. The sensible approach is to emulate the "something else". Unfortunately, if you don't approve of prison, you're really not going to like the "something else".

    --
    The tao of democracy: the government you can vote for is not the real government.
  262. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by Serious+Callers+Only · · Score: 1

    You appear to have quite a sense of entitlement. You think society, via taxpayers, should pay policemen to arrest these people and a justice system to house them in jail just to accommodate for your particularly Daily Mail brand of anger.

    You're the only one bringing up the Daily Mail, says something about you and your prejudices I suppose, but it really is not the stinging rebuke you seem to imagine.

    I say that society should, via taxpayers and voluntary schemes and good example, give these people a part to play so they are productive and contributing rather than unhappy and a burden. I don't think that anyone is entitled to anything, but it's what you've got to do if you want to live in a functioning, comfortable, happy environment.

    You really do seem completely divorced from reality - have you ever lived on an estate? Have you any idea what life is like? If not I suggest you do and see how far your 'good example' gets you - it really would be an education for you. Some people are selfish, violent and beyond redemption (at least in the short term) - to deal with them we need prisons and the force of law, or there will be no public space left in which to build a functioning, comfortable and happy environment. Among those people I would class looters - perhaps you'd like to have them as neighbours, but personally I would not.

    Encouraging people to lead a happy and comfortable life (by providing opportunities and education) comes after society's rules have been enforced by the rule of law. We can argue over the benefits and costs of both, but one cannot function without the other, and stealing playstations and attacking innocents are not an acceptable form of expression, no matter how frustrated or downtrodden teaching assistants are feeling.

  263. Not just a riot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Posting anonymously, because cowardice is sometimes in order.

    In Manchester, the crime boss of neighbouring Salford has been arrested.

    Some of the London activity may have been political, but the looting in Manchester and Salford was just mass robbery. Social problems may have helped Noonan recruit these looters, but organised crime supplied the organisation.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8693843/UK-riots-suspected-Manchester-gangster-Dominic-Noonan-arrested.html

  264. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by stdarg · · Score: 1

    Didnt your grandmother tell you "preventing is better than cure" ?

    Harsh punishment might stop known wrongdoers from repeating their actions, but its not going to stop people from being in the situation where they would consider "turning bad".

    Yes but the idea is to prevent the next group of people from turning bad.

    If people feel like they are part of society, they wont harm it, and go to great lengths to protect it.

    Societies get divided up based on race, class, and religion. The more that is done to stoke tensions, the stronger the divisions become. But that includes when liberal politicians instigate class warfare by talking about "the rich" (as if they're some monolithic bloc) stealing from "the poor". A lot of the explanation and justification I'm seeing presented on behalf of the rioters is going right along with that. They're not trying to heal society or ease conflict, they're just trying to make "the rich" into the bad guys to give them an excuse to do whatever they want.

  265. So, how long before Anon poisons the well? by anyGould · · Score: 1

    1: police ask the public to send in pictures of the riot to help identify "criminals"

    2: it is astoundingly easy to make decent Photoshops these days.

    3: how long before faked pictures start being submitted, showing politicians/businessmen/celebrities/enemies of the hacker at the riot scenes?

  266. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by anyGould · · Score: 1

    It's only a loaded term if you have a belief that vigilantism is always inherently bad.

    To law enforcement, it is always bad - you're cutting into their monopoly.

    I would say I'm being sarcastic, except that the cops are actually complaining about citizen groups that are defending houses and stores.

  267. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by formfeed · · Score: 1

    What about "English Defence League", these are definitely folks that get "together and do good".

    Because on one side we have these rioters, who just come together to riot for fun, most of them people who shouldn't be in England to begin with. On the other side we have the friendly Neighborhood watch, hard-working, law abiding fascists, who just know how to solve social and economical problems the old-fashioned way.

  268. The london Riots - Vigilantes??? by thesquire · · Score: 1

    It is obvious that whoever is attempting to characterize as 'vigilantes' people who are trying to identify and bring to heel the mindless rioters in Britain is much more sympathetic to the hoodlums and their destructive tendencies than to stopping such behaviour. This is so typical of today's moral relativists who have such a slippery set of pseudo-values that they are unable to recognize mindless hooliganism when it occurs. There is little doubt that unemployed young hooligans who infest the streets of Britain's cities need to be channeled into constructive behaviour that might benefit both themselves and society, but trying to deal with at least part of the problem is more constructive and necessary than mere carping criticism from the do-nothing liberal left. During the last major social upheaval in North America, unemployed and potentially violent young men were conscripted into work gangs to help build needed infrastructure and to head off the kind of violence seen in Britain in the last week. Perhaps something of that nature is now needed again.

  269. Re:Really? Vigilantes? by bug1 · · Score: 1

    "Societies get divided up based on race, class, and religion."

    And that is the problem.

    Capitalism encourages people/business to compete to sell their products and services, the _reward_ is money, thats fine. The problem is that money is not only a reward, but also a means of _survival_.

    So people who cant compete for the "reward" depend on social security to survive, its that or starve on the street.

    So when a society has financial difficulties, it has to choose to either reduce the _reward_ for the rich or make it harder for the the poor to _survive_.

    If a society doesnt want division between rich and poor, then choosing to reduce the _reward_ is the only reasonable choice, as those who need money for _survival_ dont have a choice.

    It takes two sides to have an argument, if you think its all the other persons fault then you should realize you are biased.

  270. There are so many different function by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are so many different function
    Thanknorth face jackets you, "and the aquatic" words will no longer sunscreen is an advertising. Use prevent bask in one reason is the skin protection more and more aging.There are so many different function
    Thanknorth face jackets you, "and the aquatic" words will no longer sunscreen is an advertising. Use prevent bask in one reason is the skin protection more and more aging.There are so many different function
    Thanknorth face jackets you, "and the aquatic" words will no longer sunscreen is an advertising. Use prevent bask in one reason is the skin protection more and more aging.There are so many different function
    Thanknorth face jackets you, "and the aquatic" words will no longer sunscreen is an advertising. Use prevent bask in one reason is the skin protection more and more aging.

  271. Re:would somebody tell me by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Doesn't the fact that they're present give enough perspective? You don't hear about people paying thousands of dollars to be smuggled out of the UK in cargo containers, do you?

    At least, not yet...

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."