Essex Police Arrest Man Over Blackberry Water Fight Plan

An anonymous reader writes "Under the banner headline 'Police reassure residents they are working to keep county safe,' Essex police proudly proclaimed that they arrested a 20-year-old man from Colchester who 'allegedly sent messages from a Blackberry encouraging people to join in a water fight.' Having also made a number of arrests of people sitting at home on Facebook, Acting Assistant Chief Constable Mason wrote: 'Police will continue to monitor social networking sites for unlawful activity.'" That's some good police work there, Lou.

Comments

Just Protecting Him From Himself

[WrongSizeGlass]

The police are just looking out for the man's interests. If he took his Blackberry to a water fight it could get wet and be ruined and it would just end in tears (which he would hide by getting wet again). They saved his Blackberry to tweet/text/post another day.

Re:Just Protecting Him From Himself

[discord5]

They saved his Blackberry to tweet/text/post another day.

Just found this on twitter:

Currently in jail for planning aquatic mayhem. Now my cellmate is planning aquatic mayhem in the shower.

Re:Just Protecting Him From Himself

[duguk]

I'm sure it was just meant to be a fun water-pistol 'fight' - it's taken place in nearby Chelmsford in the park in the past.

It's totally fun, and from what I hear; people are pretty respectful of those who don't want to be involved.

Presumably this this dangerous terrorist will be next. [events site, so much for hacking BBM]

Re:Just Protecting Him From Himself

[rednip]

OMG, so we're like doing that now? And it's being modded up?

The end days are here indeed.

Re:Just Protecting Him From Himself

[Hognoxious]

Well said. I mean what's wrong with punching people, carrying offensive weapons and knocking children off horses? Eurofaggots with their nanny states...

Re:Just Protecting Him From Himself

[BasilBrush]

I hate to link to The Sun, but it was linked to from TFA. It seems these things aren't always quite as much fun as one might think.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1499810.ece

Re:Just Protecting Him From Himself

[duguk]

You are joking, right? One problem over hundreds of events in the country?
It's hardly "plotting violence, disorder and criminality", is it?

Its more like the police and Government going bat-shit insane now they have the opportunity to get and do whatever they like.

Re:Just Protecting Him From Himself

[BasilBrush]

You are joking, right? One problem over hundreds of events in the country?

I guess you didn't read to the end of the article. It said that at a similar event 2 weeks before someone was fatally stabbed.

Don't get me wrong, from the story as presented by the Guardian, it sounds like the police completely overstepped the mark. I just wanted to point out that they may have reason to believe it won't be the fun you seem to think it is.

Re:Just Protecting Him From Himself

[duguk]

I guess you didn't read to the end of the article. It said that at a similar event 2 weeks before someone was fatally stabbed.

Don't get me wrong, from the story as presented by the Guardian, it sounds like the police completely overstepped the mark. I just wanted to point out that they may have reason to believe it won't be the fun you seem to think it is.

I guess you missed what I said - there were hundreds of these water pistol events across the country. One person gets stabbed. Outcry, but it's not cancelled.

This guy then tries to arrange it again this year over BBM, has he messages hacked, his privacy raped, a lot of peoples fun is cancelled, and he ends up in court, probably with a record that will stick with him the rest of his life.

I'm sure you're right. The police just overstepped the mark, and decided to hack an innocent man's messages JUST IN CASE he decides to murder under the guise of being in a water pistol fight.

*sigh*.

Re:Just Protecting Him From Himself

[BasilBrush]

I guess you missed what I said

I read exactly what you said. You said one problem. Yet I had linked to an article which described multiple problems on that day, and linked back to the stabbing of two weeks before. That isn't "one".

I'm sure you're right. The police just overstepped the mark, and decided to hack an innocent man's messages JUST IN CASE he decides to murder under the guise of being in a water pistol fight.

I think you need to calm down. There's no evidence of "hacking", and the encryption on system is strong enough that the police couldn't decipher the messages without RIM (A Canadian company) cooperating. The Occam's razor explanation is that someone forwarded BBM to the police because they were concerned.

Additionally the possibility that possibility that this wasn't really a water fight being planned hasn't occurred to you. Even though it's only a week ago that riots were being planned through the same service.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/blackberry/8702164/UK-riots-Essex-police-charge-man-over-BlackBerry-Messenger-water-fight-plot.html

*IF* this truly was a simple water fight, then he won't end up with a criminal record, as that isn't illegal. Trouble is you're not admitting the possibility that there is more to this than you realise.

Re:Just Protecting Him From Himself

[duguk]

You said one problem. Yet I had linked to an article which described multiple problems on that day, and linked back to the stabbing of two weeks before. That isn't "one".

Nine people... in one location... in Hyde Park... and you're getting your information from The Sun 'newspaper'.

There were hundreds of these across the country every year! You've picked one place that had trouble THREE YEARS AGO, in arguably the second worst newspaper in the country?

I'm sure you're right. The police just overstepped the mark, and decided to hack an innocent man's messages JUST IN CASE he decides to murder under the guise of being in a water pistol fight.

I think you need to calm down. There's no evidence of "hacking"

TLDR; keep yourself up to date: MI5 joins social messaging trawl for riot organisers, Riot inquiry to go ahead as MI5 helps investigations and Prime Minister David Cameron said last week that the government would investigate shutting down social networking platforms like BlackBerry Messenger and Twitter if they were helping to "plot" crime. The police recently called on MI5 to crack encrypted messages sent through BBM..

No evidence of hacking, eh? Why are MI5 involved?

This is a annual water fight, it's meant to be a bit of fun, ffs!!

Re:Just Protecting Him From Himself

[BasilBrush]

You've picked one place that had trouble THREE YEARS AGO, in arguably the second worst newspaper in the country?

I didn't pick it. It was linked to from TFA. And I've since linked to a Telegraph article that covers the same ground.

TLDR; keep yourself up to date: MI5 joins social messaging trawl for riot organisers [guardian.co.uk], Riot inquiry to go ahead as MI5 helps investigations [smh.com.au] and Prime Minister David Cameron said last week that the government would investigate shutting down social networking platforms like BlackBerry Messenger and Twitter if they were helping to "plot" crime. The police recently called on MI5 to crack encrypted messages sent through BBM. [wired.co.uk].

I was aware of all that. None of which indicates that GCHQ has made the breakthrough in cryptography that would be needed to crack the 256 bit AES encryption on Blackberry messages in less than a few million years. And note that each message has a different key, so they don't just have to crack it once.

Why are MI5 involved?

Because that's who the government would ask. Yet they are no more capable of hacking the contents of Blackberry messages than GCHQ or RIM themselves.

Of course it's not impossible that GCHQ HAVE made a breakthough in cryptography that no one else is aware of. However it's more likely that someone who received the message just passed it onto the police. As I said, Occam's razor.

This is a annual water fight, it's meant to be a bit of fun, ffs!!

So you keep asserting, with no more evidence for your certainty than you had for the "hacking" claim.

Re:Just Protecting Him From Himself

[Synerg1y]

Prior to Jail: Water fight
After Jail: Pillaging and mayhem
--
"The System"

Re:Just Protecting Him From Himself

[Synerg1y]

if Twitter was to be banned for being used to "plot" crime, why wasn't it getting previously getting credited with "not plotting" crime? If I go on twitter and make a tweet that doesn't involve me "plotting" crime, what does twitter get? Checks and balances anyone?

Re:Just Protecting Him From Himself

[Coren22]

And because some protests end in violence, we can no longer have any protests.

You do realize the guy was organizing a water gun fight, not a brawling match, don't you?

England

[Anonymous Coward]

They're really determined to become Airstrip One, aren't they?

Re:England

[Anonymous Coward]

The debate in the British Parliament was scary. It was endless calls for more police officers, more cameras, allowing police to use tactics like water cannons, more cameras, sending everyone even tangentially involved to jail for the absolute maximum possible, and more cameras. The sadly few occasions an MP would mention looking for the root causes of this social unrest, the British PM would ignore that part of the question.

Airstrip One now has telescreens everywhere with MPs crying out for even more of them, and an incestuously close relationship between government, law enforcement, and the media. (News of the World scandal? What News of the World scandal??)

Re:England

[Heed00]

And now MI5 (GCHQ) has been drafted in to help crack BBM:

Intelligence agency asked to crack encrypted messages – especially on BlackBerry Messenger – to help police

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/15/mi5-social-messaging-riot-organisers-police

Re:England

[Darinbob]

Of course it's scary. It's also highly predictable. I'd just sigh whenever someone mentioned support for the rioters because they had some grievances because it was obvious that the rioting would only reduce freedoms. Just like the anonymous bozos, who claim to fight for freedoms but who will only end up hurting them in the long run.

That's why anarchy at the beginning of last century didn't work. The "theory" that the government would look incompetent due to random violence and be weakened didn't work and instead governments just cracked down harder. In one hundred years it seems the only thing that does get democratic governments to relax is nonviolent civil disobedience. That is you shame the government and the people because they see police hitting peaceful people with batons and arresting non-violent chanters who are not blocking anyone, as opposed to seeing them hit violent mobs with batons and arresting people during a time of crisis.

Re:England

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately the police have figured out how to deal with peaceful protests. All they have to do is surround a small group of protesters, force them into a corner, and keep them there until someone does something stupid. Then wait for the media to get a few juicy shots of the "violence" which can be repeated over and over on TV.

This is partly the reason why the riots got so out of hand: These tactics don't work *at all* if everyone shows up looking for trouble.

Re:England

[_Sprocket_]

Yet either way, the "protest" ends up looking bad in the media. Go figure.

Re:England

[_Shad0w_]

MI5 and GCHQ are two entirely different agencies. MI5 are counter intelligence and internal security, MI6 are foreign intelligence and external security, and GCHQ are in charge of intercepting and decoding communications and, iirc, also developing ways of protecting the UK's own communications. GCHQ basically do a lot of back room work for MI5 and MI6.

MI5 are what John Le Carre used to refer to as "the security mob" in his books based in the intelligence community.

Re:England

[robthebloke]

GCHQ is a large dougnut shaped building on the edge of cheltenham that intercepts and listens to communications - they are simply a data gathering agency. . MI5 (in london) is the brains of the operation (and scours the data that GCHQ collects). If you like, GCHQ is 'google' for MI5/MI6

Re:England

[Heed00]

GCHQ basically do a lot of back room work for MI5 and MI6.

Right, which is why I wrote GCHQ in brackets after mentioning MI5.

Re:England

[Heed00]

The actual subject is both agencies, but I should have included the term "via" -- that is, MI5 works through the information and assistance that GCHQ provides:

MI5 intercepts communications though officially can only do so with warrants signed by ministers. It seeks technical help from GCHQ.

I was being naive that the actual link I provided would be read and clarify any questions -- silly me.

asking undefined amount of people to meet

[gl4ss]

asking undefined amount of people to meet in public is illegal in increasing number of countries.
because that's a riot. or unlawful assembly. or whatever.

he should've sold something and advertised for people to come buy it - at least that's still legal almost everywhere.

next up, banning using post office to invite people. commercial spam's going to be ok though.

Re:asking undefined amount of people to meet

[h4rr4r]

Right to peaceably assemble sound like something you have heard of ?

Re:asking undefined amount of people to meet

[Anonymous Coward]

as long as you have approval from the government yes you are allowed to peaceably assemble citizen

Re:asking undefined amount of people to meet

[Anonymous Coward]

Essex isn't in the US.

Re:asking undefined amount of people to meet

[Baloroth]

He might have. I don't think the government has, though. Seriously, I'd bet quite a few of them don't even know about that right, having never actually read whatever equates to the Constitution in England. Assuming that is a right in the UK, maybe it isn't.

Either that or they just don't care anymore. I'll give most of them the benefit of the doubt and call them ignorant rather than willfully tyrannical. This is the government we're talking about here, and not the competent branches like MI-6 either.

Re:asking undefined amount of people to meet

[h4rr4r]

asking undefined amount of people to meet in public is illegal in increasing number of countries.

GP was not talking only about the UK.

Re:asking undefined amount of people to meet

[Riceballsan]

What exactly is a water fight anyway? Just a protest involving water guns + balloons or what?

Re:asking undefined amount of people to meet

[Hatta]

Indeed. It seems to me that the police have violated this fellow's rights under article 20 of the UN's universal declaration of human rights.

Re:asking undefined amount of people to meet

[Hatta]

Not a protest. Just a bit of fun.

Re:asking undefined amount of people to meet

[sjames]

And the right to peaceably assemble isn't confined to the U.S. it just happens to be specifically codified here.

Re:asking undefined amount of people to meet

[Grumbleduke]

No, but it is in the UK, where "Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others," - and people wonder why the government doesn't like the Human Rights Act...

Re:asking undefined amount of people to meet

[Grumbleduke]

Iirc the UNDHR isn't binding in the UK. However, the police are bound by the Human Rights Act which protects freedom of association (Art. 11). Unfortunately, like freedom of speech and privacy it comes with the annoying qualifications about doing things "in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others".

Re:asking undefined amount of people to meet

[interkin3tic]

asking undefined amount of people to meet in public is illegal in increasing number of countries.

I'm declaring this now: any meeting of any type I call for, in public or in private, the maximum number of participants I'm asking for shall forthwith be defined as "seven billion." If there is no obvious defined number in my call to meet, know that number is not undefined, and thus not illegal, the number is seven billion.

That is all.

Re:asking undefined amount of people to meet

[digitig]

Now look at the exceptions: "No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others." Can you think of a large public assembly that doesn't fall within of those exception?

Re:asking undefined amount of people to meet

[digitig]

"Whatever equates to the Constitution in England" would be our constitution. And in the case of the Human Rights Act 1998 most politicians will be well aware of it, and aware that it contains enough exemptions that they can still do pretty much what they like.

Re:asking undefined amount of people to meet

[Nadaka]

State organized propaganda spectacles of course.

Re:asking undefined amount of people to meet

[Grumbleduke]

Mmm, the restrictions are rather broad; but then there's the bit about being "prescribed by law" and "necessary in a democratic society", which tends to mean "proportionate" or "no more than is necessary." However, most of us can't afford the lawyers needed to argue these things out and the lower courts seem to just do whatever the police ask of them.

Re:asking undefined amount of people to meet

[Rob the Bold]

Right to peaceably assemble sound like something you have heard of ?

I vaguely remember it from somewhere. History class, I think.

Re:asking undefined amount of people to meet

[SecurityTheatre]

Their argument is that these water fights have devolved into fist or knife fights several times during the last few years, with a number of injuries and at least one death.

It doesn't necessarily make organizing one illegal, but it does make it questionably wise in light of recent calls for increased police presence.

Re:asking undefined amount of people to meet

[neo8750]

Guess this is the one time bringing a knife to a gunfight would work out.

Re:asking undefined amount of people to meet

[rhook]

Pocket knives are illegal in the UK.

Re:asking undefined amount of people to meet

[mwvdlee]

Are kitchen knifes illegal?

Re:asking undefined amount of people to meet

[isorox]

Pocket knives are illegal in the UK.

Rubbish. It's illegal to carry certain types of knives in certain places in certain cases.

Re:asking undefined amount of people to meet

[Archtech]

Rubbish. It's illegal to carry certain types of knives in certain places in certain cases.

In other words, it's OK to carry a pocket knife as long as you remember to take it out of your pocket and put it in a drawer every time you leave your house.

That sounds useful to me. And certainly not anything you would ever forget to do, thus rendering yourself an instant criminal.

Re:asking undefined amount of people to meet

[Archtech]

Can I get into trouble if I incite riots in London (I'm in the U.S.)?

That's an easy one. The answer is "No".

It would be unwise to try it the other way round, though.

Re:asking undefined amount of people to meet

[AmiMoJo]

There is the right to do something, and then there is the police harassing anyone who does it, the so called Chilling Effects.

It happens regularly in the UK. The police film demonstrations to compile mug shots of known agitators. They then get hold of the person's car number plate and plug it into the automatic number plate recognition system that is running on most major roads now. When that person starts driving towards London to join a peaceful protest the police stop and search them and their vehicle. Obviously they have to let them but between that and police brandishing weapons, surrounding you and filming your every move it is a pretty effective deterrent.

The other problem is that peaceful protest doesn't work. Politicians completely ignore it no matter how large. They have effectively neutralised protesters and subdued an important part of our democracy.

Re:asking undefined amount of people to meet

[Sl0vi]

Wow, that law is literally saying: "No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than all the restrictions placed on the exercise of these rights"

Re:asking undefined amount of people to meet

[Sl0vi]

Yes, let's start arresting people and putting them in jail, because they might do something criminal in the future. Arrest all teenagers that get too close to any stores, because they might just start looting the place, give speeding tickets to anyone driving a car, because they might just break the speeding limit, etc. etc.

Re:asking undefined amount of people to meet

[isorox]

Rubbish. It's illegal to carry certain types of knives in certain places in certain cases.

In other words, it's OK to carry a pocket knife as long as you remember to take it out of your pocket and put it in a drawer every time you leave your house.

That sounds useful to me. And certainly not anything you would ever forget to do, thus rendering yourself an instant criminal.

Which particular laws are you talking about? There's a specific exemption to allow pocket knives like swiss army knives in the Criminal Justice Act 1988

Re:asking undefined amount of people to meet

[Pseudonym Authority]

Oh, it's allowed, I see. It sure is nice when they through the dogs a bone and let them sleep at the foot of the bed, isn't it. How charitable, how gracious.

Compensation

[Andy Smith]

This is an age-old debate but in my opinion there needs to be significant compensation for arrests that don't lead to convictions. Even more so if the arrest doesn't even lead to a charge.

The way things are at the moment, people who are wrongly arrested are expected to see their eventual release as a "relief" and be thankful for it. That's not how it should be. Otherwise the police had might as well arrest and hold everyone, take their time investigating all of them, and then release everyone who didn't do anything wrong.

In the venn diagram of arrests and convictions the target intersection is 100%. Currently it is nowhere near 100% and that is not entirely due to a flawed court system, it is partially due to too many innocent people being arrested.

Re:Compensation

[Anonymous Coward]

That would just add more incentive to fudge the evidence/facts.

Re:Compensation

[Grumbleduke]

They also need some controls on how long they can keep people on bail for (currently indefinitely thanks to our incompetent, reactionary Parliament - in practice this can be years, then a few more years in prison between being charged and tried), and restrictions on what they can do with seized property, i.e. having to give it back quickly, and in good condition.

Rather than just arrests and convictions, it might be worth comparing investigations (or stop-and-searches), arrests, charges and convictions (the Home Office probably has stats somewhere) and seeing how terrible it is. [I found some stats on Terrorism laws, particularly the s44 stop-and-search powers - where in 2009-10, they had arrest rate. Oh, and not one was related to terrorism.]

Re:Compensation

[Threni]

> This is an age-old debate but in my opinion there needs to be significant compensation for arrests
> that don't lead to convictions. Even more so if the arrest doesn't even lead to a charge.

Won't that just lead to an increase in people being arrested and charged - say, for 'wasting police time' or whatever - and then released and the charges dropped, just so the police won't have to pay out?

Re:Compensation

[Darinbob]

I think there is a large difference between just arresting a random person on the street for no reason and arresting someone in the middle of a huge angry crowd at the same time that there are violent riots going on. Maybe there's no reason to arrest the second person but it is a much more effective strategy; arrest a chunk of people and others will be less likely to come out and "support" the violent rioters; arrest the loudest voices that seem to be crowd leaders and it does make a difference in breaking up the crowd.

Yes it is an erosion of rights but you really can't compare this to "arrest and hold everyone". You can make an argument that there's no need to break up a peaceful crowd but there are extremely violent and murderous crowds in many cities in England currently. What would have been appropriate last summer is not necessarily appropriate this summer.

If you allow significant compensation for this sort of arrest I can guarantee you that people will be out in greater numbers trying to get arrested and doing their best to piss off a cop as their chance to get some cash. Did you see the famous civil rights marchers in the US south whining when they got arrested or demanding compensation?

Re:Compensation

[Grishnakh]

Laws prescribing much harsher penalties for such things might help. For instance, if someone is found guilty for murder, but later DNA evidence exonerates him, then the prosecutor, and anyone found to have fudged evidence or ignored critical evidence, should be executed. In fact, prosecuting attorneys should always be automatically executed any time an innocent person is convicted.

Re:Compensation

[Grishnakh]

Did you see the famous civil rights marchers in the US south whining when they got arrested or demanding compensation?

No, but they should have. They deserved compensation for the terrible treatment they endured under color of authority.

If you allow significant compensation for this sort of arrest I can guarantee you that people will be out in greater numbers trying to get arrested and doing their best to piss off a cop as their chance to get some cash.

With today's technology, this isn't such a problem. Cops should wear helmets with cameras at all times; what the cop sees, the camera sees. If some hooligans are out causing trouble, and the cops arrest them, no problem: they have video evidence against them, placing them at the scene and showing their actions. If there's thousands of people rioting, video showing a person in the rioting crowd, and that same person being whacked by cops with batons and arrested, is sufficient to show that the cops acted properly. If they just bring in some random guy with bruises and claim he was rioting, but have no video of his actions or his takedown and arrest, then the cops have done something wrong.

This video evidence should also be made immediately available to the public as soon as technically possible (e.g. when the cop gets to the station and turns in his memory card for the day), in case any interested citizens want to keep a watch on the cops. This type of system can serve to protect both the cops from false allegations, and potential victims of police abuse, and also to repair the public's distrust of cops.

Re:Compensation

[jklovanc]

First point is that police are not lawyers. Police just need to be reasonably sure an offence has or will be committed for an arrest to occur. Someone can be arrested for purpose of verifying identity.

What if someone matches the description of a suspect that just committed a crime. They get arrested and when seen by the victim they are released.
What about the drunk friends who fight in the street? They both get arrested and when sober refuse to press charges.
What about the alcoholic who is so inebriated that he can not talk? He gets arrested and released when sober.

There are many valid reasons arrests that do not lead to charges or convictions. There are many petty crimes, usually alcohol related, that need not be prosecuted.

Re:Compensation

[Cruciform]

Executed? The death penalty is an appeal to the ignorant. "Oh look at how hard we are on crime!"
If you support the death penalty you're either ignorant of how the law works and the cost of killing innocent people, or you are aware and are just an immoral shit who doesn't mind people being murdered by the state "as long as it's not me".

Re:Compensation

[Grishnakh]

Actually, I'm against the death penalty for any crime where there's no clear evidence proving the accused is guilty (no, eyewitness testimony doesn't count). I'd also go so far as to say it'd probably be better if we just eliminated it altogether. However, I'm willing to make an exception for prosecuting attorneys, since they hold peoples' lives in their hands and act under color of authority. Similarly, I'd support exceptions for politicians and police, for the exact same reasons.

Please explain why a prosecutor who ruins someone's life by getting them convicted, even though they were innocent and there was evidence they chose to ignore (because they were more worried about winning their case than finding the truth), shouldn't be executed. After all, they would happily have an innocent person executed, just so they can win a case.

If someone isn't willing to consistently do the right thing, and is only doing a government job like this for personal gain or power, they have no business being in that job. A death penalty for false convictions would help dissuade the sociopaths who usually have these positions from seeking them out. Killing innocent people shouldn't be a problem here; all the prosecutors' actions are part of court records.

Re:Compensation

[Grishnakh]

It doesn't matter, they were unjust laws, so they should have been compensated, and the people who passed those laws should have been punished.

Re:Compensation

[rtb61]

The law is the law. You can not selectively break the law because it suits you or because it is convenient to do so. Don't want rioters on your streets, then solve the problems that put them out there in the first place. When the police start acting like thugs, randomly beating people up, randomly torturing them with chemical weapons and grossly abusing the law by, let's put this is full context
Physically assaulting them
Using death threats
Kidnapping them
Illegally detaining them
benying them their freedoms and rights

Re:Compensation

[rtb61]

I am just wondering, should you not also be able to apply this to citizens arrest. A group of hooligans, grab a young lady during a riot, making a citizens arrest, tie her up, threaten to kill her if she resists, take her back to their gang clubhouse, strip search her including cavity search, torture her with chemical weapons for protesting the arrest, apply electric shocks to random parts of her body, keep her overflight and then, whoops, tee hee, she did nothing wrong lets release her the next day, bruised, battered and terrified.

Dude, you are one sick puppy. An arrest is not just an arrest, it is a whole series of escalating crimes, that would see a regular person in jail for many years. To ensure restraint, it seems necessary to force penalties upon policing organisation and their officers to ensure they do not break those laws and they do break all those laws when it is a false arrest.

Re:Compensation

[jklovanc]

One of the stipulations about citizens' arrest is that a suspect must be turned over to authorities at the earliest opportunity. Citizens are not allowed to hold someone in custody. Police have a different standard than citizens. They are trained to deal with suspects and have rules they must abide by. If they go beyond those rules they are charged with excessive force. It is understandable to fight against a gang of hooligans. The police have a different authority so don't fight against them. If you fight you are turning an unpleasant night into a horror show by your own decisions. Fighting won't get you out any earlier it will just lead to escalated force. If you want to protest afterwards go ahead.

You should check the laws about cavity searches. They can only be done under specific circumstances and only by medical personnel. For example, the laws in California would not allow a cavity search on a person at a riot.

Re:Compensation

[Yamioni]

Please explain why a prosecutor who ruins someone's life by getting them convicted, even though they were innocent and there was evidence they chose to ignore (because they were more worried about winning their case than finding the truth), shouldn't be executed.

Because it's too merciful. I get why you want them executed, being that they have fundamentally wronged us and we have no further use for them. Sure, get rid of them, but no, don't kill them. Exile them. Tattoo the words "Exiled Offender:" followed by a country code (US) and an offender number, boldly on their forehead. Keep offender records with the DoJ, public to any person or entity that requests them on the face of the planet. Allow them to correct their lives and stop being douchebags. But never allow them to escape that black mark in their past. And make the the ink used lethal if heated (blocking tattoo removal.) Maybe even etch the words onto their skull for insurance in case they try skin grafts.

I may not agree with pretty much everything modern religion preaches, but attoning for one's sins is something I think we can all agree upon. Executing them just lets them take the easy way out.

Re:Compensation

[Grishnakh]

You make some very good points here, and I think this sounds like an excellent way to handle bad prosecutors, like the guy who prosecuted the Duke University guys.

What was illegal here?

[dbc]

Does he not have the freedom of assembly? Does he not have the freedom to call for an assembly? What part of a water fight is not legal? If he was planning a non-crime, then what is the pre-crime? Can you be arrested for a pre-crime in England?

Re:What was illegal here?

[aesiamun]

Probably not, he's British.

Re:What was illegal here?

[westlake]

Does he not have the freedom of assembly? Does he not have the freedom to call for an assembly? What part of a water fight is not legal?

It comes usually down to when, where and how many people?

Re:What was illegal here?

[jfmiller]

I bet your one of those who answered "D) Slavery" when asked what caused the American Revolution.

Re:What was illegal here?

[Grumbleduke]

Does he not have the freedom of assembly?

Yep, he has that. Although it can be restricted.

Does he not have the freedom to call for an assembly?

Probably covered by the above.

What part of a water fight is not legal?

Well, it could be some sort of offence against the person (would certainly be battery, if there was no consent). Then you have all those lovely "breach of the peace" or "affray" things that the police love to (often incorrectly) apply when they want to round someone up. They could also go with s127 Communications Act 2003 (as with the Twitter Joke Trial) if they can show that calling for a water fight is "menacing".

Can you be arrested for a pre-crime in England?

Of course you can - planning, or conspiracy to do a crime is arrestable most places.

Times like this I wish I was a lawyer already....

welcome to 1984!

[Joe_Dragon]

welcome to 1984!

Intelligence gathering on the police themselves

[J'raxis]

So this storiy is basically a tacit admission either that:---

Blackberry and Facebook are doing realtime or near-realtime surveillance of users and sending suspicious information to the British police; or

The British police are capable of, and are, listening in on Blackberry or Facebook* without the co-operation of these corporationsi i.e., they're surveilling network traffic or similar. Facebook is entirely conducted through HTTPS nowadays, so if this be the case, that the bobbies can listen in is an even more significant revelation.

* This conclusion wouldn't hold of course if the police are merely trolling through what people post in public on Facebook, which is entirely a possibility considering how ignorant many people are about discretion and privacy.

Re:Intelligence gathering on the police themselves

[rocket rancher]

So this storiy is basically a tacit admission either that:---

Blackberry and Facebook are doing realtime or near-realtime surveillance of users and sending suspicious information to the British police; or

The British police are capable of, and are, listening in on Blackberry or Facebook* without the co-operation of these corporationsi i.e., they're surveilling network traffic or similar. Facebook is entirely conducted through HTTPS nowadays, so if this be the case, that the bobbies can listen in is an even more significant revelation.

* This conclusion wouldn't hold of course if the police are merely trolling through what people post in public on Facebook, which is entirely a possibility considering how ignorant many people are about discretion and privacy.

Well, there is a third possibility. It is entirely possible a friend of a friend got invited to the water fight, and decided to fuck over his mate by showing the local constable selected bits of the original invitation. No need to postulate that level of surveillance by the police when simple human maliciousness is available...

Re:Intelligence gathering on the police themselves

[Sinthet]

I agree that people generally don't care about privacy and/or security, but I would never have expected being arrested for inviting people to come to a water fight. Unless this "water fight" was supposed to be a large coordinated attack on civilians via water balloons, the arrest is totally unwarranted.

Re:Intelligence gathering on the police themselves

[Em Adespoton]

Or, it's an admission that people receiving BBN broadcasts are reporting the broadcasts to the police/are the police. I find this significantly more likely -- especially as this would explain the screwups due to actual content being lost in translation.

Re:Intelligence gathering on the police themselves

[adamofgreyskull]

1. AFAICT: The police are already investigating Blackberry messages (with RIM's co-operation) as part of the riot/looting investigation.
2a. Facebook is not entirely conducted through HTTPS. There is an option to always connect through https, but as far as I know it is turned off by default.
2b. Where it is turned on, many Facebook games/applications don't support https and you will be prompted to "turn it off." We all know how well security fares in the face of "You have to do this to click the dancing monkey. Do it now or you won't get to click the dancing monkey"
2c. As you say, who gives a pig's trotter if it is "conducted through HTTPS", if it's a status message. It doesn't matter one jot that "I think we should loot some TVs from Dixons" was encrypted end-to-end because it's now right there as your status. Hell, even if it's a Facebook message, there is now nothing to stop a recipient of the message forwarding it to the police.

Re:Intelligence gathering on the police themselves

[J'raxis]

I don't know how bad it is in the U.K. yet, but I read almost daily about arrests for things "I would never have expected" over here in the land-of-the-free United States.

Re:Hyperbole much?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure in the US they would have got a good tazering, or just skip to the live ammo.

Look at the G20 in Canada. Police left empty cruisers parked for convenient torching. They neglected to arrest or stop any actual thugs that were vandalizing local businesses even when officers were nearby. The police chief then went to his alibi, hobnobbing with world leaders, as somehow (nobody will admit responsibility) the police's tactics then changed. Large groups of police went to other sections of the city, where peaceful protesters were protesting peacefully in areas set aside for them. The officers brutalized these people and arrested over a thousand, held them in inhumane conditions, and dropped nearly all the charges a day or two later. Even in London, with cameras everywhere, less than a thousand people had been arrested four days after the riots.

Water fight deaths in 2008?

[j-beda]

I don't know if this is over reaching or not, but there was at least one death and a number of serious injuries back in 2008 in these mass water fight events.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1499810.ece

If every time one of these events happened, there were serious injuries, I can see the logic behind trying to prevent the gatherings in the first place.

Re:Water fight deaths in 2008?

[syousef]

I don't know if this is over reaching or not, but there was at least one death and a number of serious injuries back in 2008 in these mass water fight events.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1499810.ece

If every time one of these events happened, there were serious injuries, I can see the logic behind trying to prevent the gatherings in the first place.

Well then by that logic you must be in favour of banning sports clubs, churches, mother's clubs, and schools for that matter. How often do interactions in those places lead to violence?

Re:Water fight deaths in 2008?

[MozeeToby]

How many deaths were caused by people crossing the street at appropriate crosswalks and with the traffic lights? Better make that illegal. How many deaths playing football in after work leagues? Better make that illegal. How many deaths falling out of bed? Better make that illegal!

I don't say this often, because I try to be generally polite even on the internet, but your logic is retarded. It is what leads to kids not being able to play tag during recess. It is the levels of paranoia that makes an adult male hesitate to help a terrified child because someone might think that they are trying to kidnap them. It is a significant portion of what is wrong with our society: the idea that everything and everyone can, and should, be made as completely safe as possible, regardless of the consequences.

And just so we're absolutely clear, I'd rather live in a world where one or two people die having a water fight than live in a world where someone can arrest an adult for planning a water fight.

Re:Water fight deaths in 2008?

[digitig]

A "newspaper" owned by the (then) owner of Myspace blames a civil disturbance on Facebook? Have a look at this if you think The Sun is a reliable news source.

Re:Water fight deaths in 2008?

[dissy]

If every time one of these events happened, there were serious injuries, I can see the logic behind trying to prevent the gatherings in the first place.

There have been injuries and deaths resulting from posts made to online web forums before too. Are you implying the activity we both just did should be illegal? By your logic, it sure seems so! I'll let you turn yourself in first however...

Granted, FAR more posts are made safely every day than those that result in injury or death, however the exact same is true of water fights.

Of course our water fights always involved just water, no asshole kids punching people in the face for being squirted with water at a water fight, like in the article you link to.

Perhaps what should be illegal is going to random unrelated events and punching people in the face! (Quite a bit to expect out of our current legal framework I know, but it's nice to dream)

Re:Water fight deaths in 2008?

[tibit]

Go and procreate. We need more people like you! :)

Re:Water fight deaths in 2008?

[iceaxe]

And just so we're absolutely clear, I'd rather live in a world where one or two people die having a water fight than live in a world where someone can arrest an adult for planning a water fight.

As a corollary I'd like to go on record preferring a country (or world) where there is a small risk of being blown up by a terrorist nutjob to one where I am made "safe" from insignificant risks by the loss of significant freedoms, while things that pose much larger actual risks are allowed to go on, largely because someone is making a pile of money off of those larger risks.

In general I prefer freedom to safety, though I will accept a certain amount of restriction where it makes reasonable sense. But for Crom's sake, do it for real reasons, not for political expediency.

Re:Water fight deaths in 2008?

[j-beda]

If every time one of these events happened, there were serious injuries, I can see the logic behind trying to prevent the gatherings in the first place.

There have been injuries and deaths resulting from posts made to online web forums before too. Are you implying the activity we both just did should be illegal? By your logic, it sure seems so! I'll let you turn yourself in first however...

Granted, FAR more posts are made safely every day than those that result in injury or death, however the exact same is true of water fights.

Sure, general water fights seldom result in any troubles, but what about "open call" water fights such as these? If 10% of them result in someone's death - probably we want to do something about it.

Hey, I think it is a bit over the top too, however I can understand at least some of the reasoning. It looks like back in 2008 there were at least a few instances of people calling for a great big waterfight and a bunch of thugs turned up and caused troubles for the water-people and "innocent" bystanders were also negatively impacted. If this becomes common, then it makes sense to try to do something to prevent the unwanted outcomes. In my opinion one should be using existing laws against the "troublemakers", but there is some justification in assigning some share of the responsibility for problems with the people who "organized" the event in the first place.

Freedom of speech and assembly are limited in a variety of situations where other people's safety are impacted for example. One might be charged with some sort of "public nuisance" type of offense if you started to throw money into the street, and there is the famous prohibition of shouting "Fire!" in crowded theaters if in fact no fire exists.

Re:Water fight deaths in 2008?

[adamofgreyskull]

Except that there are 10s or 100s of 1000s of after work football matches every year. How many result in a woman being punched to the ground by a man? How many end with someone being stabbed to death? How many end with 9 arrests and "children as young as 5" at a riding school being thrown from their horses?

And these water-fight events aren't the same as children in the back-yard playing, they're 100s of "adults" getting together to have a water-fight so please don't try and conflate the two to argue that similarly high numbers of water-fights take place compared to football matches.

Your logic is just as faulty as the grandparent's. You're comparing apples with oranges. Getting run over crossing the road and falling out of bed result from necessary activities. Moreover, millions of instances of "crossing the road" occur harmlessly every day (hour? minute?) and 100s of millions of people go to bed every night without falling out of bed and dying.

You're right, it would be great if 100s of people could get together and have an innocent water-fight where no-one gets hurt and nothing gets damaged. You're right, but they demonstrably can't. It is a sad state of affairs when an adult is arrested for planning a water fight. You're right and I completely agree!

However:

• This takes place barely one week after 4 major cities in England suffered some of the worst rioting the country's ever seen resulting in 1000s of arrests.
• The London riots started after a "peaceful protest".
• The riots were organised by people using BlackBerry messenger
• Previous large "organised" water-fights (disproportionately so, compared with other organised events) have led to criminal damage, violence and death.

Taken in context, the police force's reaction is a little more understandable than the title suggests: "Police arrest man over blackberry water fight plan". It's still bloody ridiculous, and should never have happened, but if you insist on ignoring history, and the context of the news, you're not much better than the people who think this arrest was entirely appropriate.

Oh, and as an aside, to all the people whining about Rupert Murdoch and The Sun, just shut the fuck up. As much as I hate The Sun, and I hate them enough that I won't visit that link, someone was stabbed at one of these events, people were assaulted and people were arrested. Those are, what I call, "facts". It's almost completely irrelevant to the discussion to harp on and on about The Sun as if you're the first person to realise what a shit paper it is when you can get the same facts (albeit with considerably less bias and bile) from any number of other newspapers.

Re:Water fight deaths in 2008?

[adamofgreyskull]

Granted, FAR more posts are made safely every day than those that result in injury or death, however the exact same is true of water fights.

Millions of posts are written on the internet, every day. How many result in injury or death? Now, how many of these massive, "organised", water-fights among "adults" occur every year?

Oh, and please don't confuse "a few kids running around in the yard squirting each other" with "100s of adults in a public space squirting each other", it makes you look foolish.

Re:Water fight deaths in 2008?

[j-beda]

How many deaths were caused by people crossing the street at appropriate crosswalks and with the traffic lights? Better make that illegal. How many deaths playing football in after work leagues? Better make that illegal. How many deaths falling out of bed? Better make that illegal!

Neither you nor I know the stats for dangers associated with this type of mob event. In general I agree with you, but it seems like there is at least the potential that this type of event could be orders of magnitude more likely to result in injury or death than the examples you site. We already do have laws prohibiting crossing against the light - do we perhaps need laws to address the dangers associated with "open invite" style of "fun" events? Will our existing laws against bad behaviour be sufficient if this type of event becomes common? Frankly I don't know.

I don't say this often, because I try to be generally polite even on the internet, but your logic is retarded. It is what leads to kids not being able to play tag during recess. It is the levels of paranoia that makes an adult male hesitate to help a terrified child because someone might think that they are trying to kidnap them. It is a significant portion of what is wrong with our society: the idea that everything and everyone can, and should, be made as completely safe as possible, regardless of the consequences.

And just so we're absolutely clear, I'd rather live in a world where one or two people die having a water fight than live in a world where someone can arrest an adult for planning a water fight.

Is there any level of death rates where you would be willing to do something more than go with the "hey, shit happens" type of attitude? Does it make a difference if the deaths are participants or "innocent" bystanders?

In general I do agree with your assessment that as a society we have become overly risk averse, to our detriment. However, I will restate: "If every time one of these events happened, there were serious injuries, I can see the logic behind trying to prevent the gatherings in the first place." Personally I would give more support to less draconian measures than "making water fights illegal", but to deny that there are certain levels of danger that should be addressed through legislation is at least as "retarded" as the logic that I claim to be able to see.

Re:Water fight deaths in 2008?

[j-beda]

And just so we're absolutely clear, I'd rather live in a world where one or two people die having a water fight than live in a world where someone can arrest an adult for planning a water fight.

As a corollary I'd like to go on record preferring a country (or world) where there is a small risk of being blown up by a terrorist nutjob to one where I am made "safe" from insignificant risks by the loss of significant freedoms, while things that pose much larger actual risks are allowed to go on, largely because someone is making a pile of money off of those larger risks.

In general I prefer freedom to safety, though I will accept a certain amount of restriction where it makes reasonable sense. But for Crom's sake, do it for real reasons, not for political expediency.

I can get behind that sentiment.

Re:Water fight deaths in 2008?

[dissy]

I still don't see how either of those points matter.

Water fights are just that. The idea is to soak everyone and get soaked yourself.
The idea is not to punch people and start real fights.

Is this seriously that big of a problem in the UK, where -most- turn outs like this end up with thugs showing up picking real fights?
Seems a bit hard to believe, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt if you say its true.

Either way, everything these thugs have done is already illegal. Arrest them for that.

But to me it sounds like the problem is punks showing up starting fights, not the water fights themselves.

Re:Water fight deaths in 2008?

[dissy]

In my opinion one should be using existing laws against the "troublemakers", but there is some justification in assigning some share of the responsibility for problems with the people who "organized" the event in the first place.

Let me first say, just because the above is all I am quoting, doesn't mean I'm dismissing the rest of your post.
In fact I'm singling the above out because I agree with that statement 110%

I also realize things are pretty different in the UK than the US (I'm in the latter) so quite possibly don't know what I'm talking about..

But as I've said in another post, it seems to me the problem is not the water fights themselves, but the punk thugs showing up starting real fights.
There are already laws against all of that, as you say, and those should very much be acted on. But unless the people organizing such a thing are purposely trying to entrap a bunch of people into showing up at a real fight when expecting just to soak people (and get soaked) then I can't see how they would share any of the blame at all.

About the only thing I can see even being an option (Other than to simply stop hosting such gatherings) is to contact the police ahead of time and ask for some sort of watch to be there when the water soakings go down.
Personally, I wouldn't really have thought of that myself if I was to organize such a thing, thinking that is way too overkill... But here we don't seem to have such problems as often or as bad.

Hell, what if the organizers DID go out of their way to inform the police and try to get a more official gathering going? Would it make any difference as far as being able to get arrested for setting it up? On another topic, would it even help, given the current story about the police being there anyway and being attacked?
Shut down the water fights, and won't the problem just move elsewhere? After all the thugs knifing people will still be on the street, since that doesn't seem to be the problem people are focusing on.
Couldn't one even say that by closing one event, forcing the thugs to go elsewhere, could be claimed as endangering other people now? (Not that those others weren't already in danger as things stand now)

It just sounds like taking a problem of a drug dealer selling drugs on the street corner, instead of addressing the selling of drugs, instead they make standing on the street corner illegal.
It doesn't address the real problem one wit, and ruins a perfectly normal activity for a whole bunch of others.

Re:Water fight deaths in 2008?

[Hognoxious]

Well then by that logic you must be in favour of banning churches for that matter. How often do interactions in those places lead to violence?

Quite often, if you and your tribe are nearby.

Re:Water fight deaths in 2008?

[Hognoxious]

The very same people who are yelling "OMG1984nazis" are exactly the ones who, if they or their relatives were injured by the violence, would be the first to complain that the police should have done something.

Re:Water fight deaths in 2008?

[syousef]

Well then by that logic you must be in favour of banning sports clubs, churches, mother's clubs, and schools for that matter. How often do interactions in those places lead to violence?

What happens if 100,000 people show up...

Just how big do you think this water fight is???

It's a good thing

[frogjimmy]

I'm glad they arrested him for attempting to organize this. They have to keep the momentum on BBM crackdowns after all of the arrests made from the rioting and looting earlier. You know what was started with a water fight? World War I. Archduke Ferdinand took a water balloon off the temple and there's your catalyst.

The ECHR protects freedom of Assembly in England

[vorlich]

Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Under article 11. Since there are two different systems of Law in The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the European Convention on Human Rights is the final adjudication on this. So he can go to a water fight - however the possibility that a water fight could affect the "peace" it could be restricted on the grounds of possible public safety. In Scotland, which is the country with a different legal system, the possibility that a "water fight" could get out of hand would be classed as "intent to commit a breach of the peace". However a regular water fight in a sensible location would be hardly fall into that category.

However this is all academic because it appears to come from a collection of stories in today's Colchester gazette where it reports that a man was arrested for trying to organise a thousand strong water fight in the town centre or 'inciting public disorder.'http://mobile.gazette-news.co.uk/news/9194795.Man_charged_after_allegedly_trying_to_organise_a_mass_water_fight/
I'm reasonably certain that if their is any truth in the story, the local constabulary would have to take it seriously and avoid charges of complacency.The story appears to have been drawn from the Monday morning court calendar - the normal source of news on a Monday morning. The same report mentions another man, posting on facebook, one assumes he is the main feature of this post and he was released without charge.

Sarcasm

[intellitech]

It's only used to protect the public, of course.

That was sarcasm, right?

Re:HAAHAAA

[maxwell demon]

That's what you get for giving up your gun right's you flippin fairies.

Sure, because that could never have happened to gun owners ...
</sarcasm>

In my opinion

[Dunbal]

Just using facebook should be a crime.

Re:In my opinion

[lexsird]

We might get our wish. Let me wax poetic with this if I may.

Be care what we wish,
wish upon a star,
its on the satellite dish
on the road there is On Star.

God hears what we say,
but he is not alone.
Be careful little kids,
never leave without your phone.

When will my words be free to be said,
without wondering who will be poking in my trash.
Some say that freedom is dead,
but will know for sure when their backs feel the lash.

Re:Definite Overreach: Thugs w/Knives not Kids w/H

[Rob the Bold]

nuff said

If I were a cop, and had a choice to arrest one of two potential criminals -- one that had a knife and one that had a water balloon -- well I think I'd take the safer choice, too.

England and Iran now have something in common.

[lexsird]

They are both afraid of water fights in their streets apparently. I was just looking at an article just the other day on how the youth in Iran were gathering for water fights, and the article showed this beautiful Iranian girl with a squirt gun, (Super Soaker type) with a big smile on her face. It was talking about how the regime frowned on these water fights, but the youth of Iran would not be daunted and were out in the streets having fun. It's just a peaceful assembly of young people having fun.

Even in Iran, the crazy old men in charge there have had enough common sense to just back off and let the kids play. It's a water fight, if you can't let the kids play in the water, what kind of monster are you?

Behold the irony, a man gets arrested for communicating a water fight with friends in Britain. Fear, and Loathing in England. My attorney and I need plane tickets, a fast red convertible, some cash and a hotel room in London immediately. I need to cover this story.

Re:huh?

[jklovanc]

Any assembly over a certain number requires a permit because the following needs to be done;
1. Extra policing arranged in case things get out of hand.
2. Extra clean up to deal with the mass of garbage left behind by many people.
3. Extra paramedics to deal with injuries.
4. Restroom facilities for such a large number of people.
5. Blocking off streets so people do not get run over.

The article is also misleading in showing two people with small water pistols. What was being organized was hundreds, if not thousands, of people converging in downtown public streets to in effect take over the area and have a water fight. Any business in their right mind would close their doors to protect themselves from the mayhem. Don't the shops and business have a right to do business? Who will pay for the policing, Who will pay for the cleanup? Who will pay for damages?

A water fight is not illegal; hundreds of people taking over a city centre without proper planning and a permit for what ever reason, even a water fight, is illegal.

Re:Dissident British Performance Artist Arrested

[jklovanc]

There was no "pro-democratic protests". Where were the banners? Where were the slogans? Where were the orderly marches and sit ins? Where were the calls to change the political landscape. None of that happened. There is nothing "pro-democratic" about a water fight.

What occurred was gang of people committing crimes of vandalism, theft, battery, destruction of public and private property and in one case murder. This was not "protest" it was pure anarchy.

Re:HAAHAAA

[Mashiki]

Probably not. That's why the statement of 4 boxes in liberty exist.

Same cops that arrested guy for calling horse gay?

[schwit1]

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/london-311857-want-book.html

Rain

[MrL0G1C]

So what are the police going to do if it rains heavily, arrest god?

Re:Memes are newspeak - the enemy of thought

[Archtech]

Conspiracy theories aside, the UK still has a free press and a functioning democracy. I don't know what kind of utopia you're dreaming of but I'm afraid to say that we in the West may not be far off having it as good as it gets, civil liberties-wise.

1. "Free press" - but one that subtly conforms to establishment preferences (like the US media, but not quite as much yet). It's only when you latch onto some important and interesting story that is consistently appearing in none of the media that you start to wonder, "Why?" The beauty of this is that there is no conspiracy: it is a natural consequence of good journalists and editors being ambitious, and knowing where the path to promotion and preferment lies. (Not in stirring up trouble on behalf of unpopular minorities).

2. "Functioning democracy". Well, I grant you something is functioning in its own way. Why it ever got called "democracy" I have not the slightest idea. Except that calling something exactly what it isn't is a very effective technique of controlling people - remember the "Big Lie"? (No calling Godwin - I'm referring to Madison Avenue, which pioneered the method, although it had many forerunners such as Machiavelli and virtually any ruler before the 19th century who stayed alive for more than a year or two). "Democracy" means "power [of] the people", and that is exactly what we don't have. When is the last time you tried to get anything significant to change in our "functioning democracy" or yours? Just try some time.

Re:Memes are newspeak - the enemy of thought

[BasilBrush]

1. "Free press" - but one that subtly conforms to establishment preferences (like the US media, but not quite as much yet).

Yes, if by the establishment you mean people like the Murdochs, the Barclay brothers and the city. It's important to note that they don't conform to government preferences. Rather governments conform to the preferences of the popular press. As do the people that read it.

When is the last time you tried to get anything significant to change in our "functioning democracy" or yours? Just try some time.

The last time was when I supported the Alternate Vote system in the referendum. Despite the fact that all rational arguments pointed to AV being a little bit better as a system than FPTP, the sheep voted to keep things the same. The fact was the establishment had money to fund their campaign, and newspapers to support them. Rational argument made no difference, it all came down to who could put more propaganda out there.

Certainly it's more blatant in the US - Fox News is a pure propaganda channel, and yet it has higher ratings than the real news channels. In the UK we don't have the same degree of propaganda on the TV. But our press is far, far worse.

Remember

[lolococo]

the 5th of November!

flash mobs are a threat to the country!

[mshenrick]

so basically, harmless flash mobs are illegal now