Slashdot Mirror
UK Men Get 4 Years For Trying to Incite Riots Via Facebook
An anonymous reader writes "In addition to the 12 arrests from last week, a judge has sentenced 20-year-old Jordan Blackshaw and 22-year-old Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan to four years in prison for their failed attempts to use Facebook to incite riots in the UK. The judge said he hoped the sentences would act as a deterrent. The two men were convicted for using Facebook to encourage violent disorder in their hometowns in northwest England."
Wow, so the trial took at least an entire day?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inchoate_offense
If you are going to make an example of someone, make an example of someone who actually succeeded in using social networking to incite violence and cause damage. These two were just some drunken idiots who thought the riots were cool and wanted to bring them to their town while in a state of inebriation. Fine the hell out of them and make them do some work for the community, no need to take four years of their lives away for something they failed utterly at.
The article says they're appealing it and I'll wager they'll see drastically reduced sentences. 4 years is utterly absurd. Put the people who were actually throwing molotovs and smashing storefronts into the joint for four years, but not guys who made Facebook posts, especially when one deleted it after waking up with a hangover.
I'll wager these guys won't do much in the way of hard time. They certainly shouldn't.
It's a riot.
...goolies.
Still the best practical (albeit politically incorrect) response to hooligans.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
It just goes to show that even on the internet you can get in big trouble. A lot of people are learning that you can't get away with "everything" on the internet anymore. I'm surprised these people actually used their name. Haven't they heard of the people that have gotten fired for posting things about their job from there?
From reading the article (yeah, I know) it sounds like they just posted placeholder pages so people could comment on something that might happen. It would be like MSM putting together a video obit for a politician in anticipation of their being asassinated, and then broadcasting it as opposed to airing a video that actually said "you should kill this politician".
It's weird and in poor taste; but is it actually incitement? IANAL (and not British) but don't you actually have to say "go do this" or "you should do this" for it to be incitement?
Where is the limit with political speech ? Is that forbidden to state the opinion that violent action is the only way to bring change in a corrupt system ? Not that I defend this opinion, but the fact that is is censored disturbs me deeply.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
unless it's a war crime, right rupert?
Where is the limit with political speech ? Is that forbidden to state the opinion that violent action is the only way to bring change in a corrupt system ? Not that I defend this opinion, but the fact that is is censored disturbs me deeply.
I'll use my right of free speech and call you a bloody idiot. This wasn't to "bring change in a corrupt system", this was about having a bit of fun destroying stuff, beating up people, and looting.
just planning a crime isn't a crime everywhere though.
but it's ridiculous if you can get away from manslaughter for less time.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
they aren't going to catch most of the actual rioters?
Where is the limit with political speech ? Is that forbidden to state the opinion that violent action is the only way to bring change in a corrupt system ? Not that I defend this opinion, but the fact that is is censored disturbs me deeply.
The limit is in both impact and the success. There shouldn't be a limit on your speech as long as you are nonviolent and not forcing yourself upon others. If you are willing to become violent to make your point, you had better be ready to take it all the way *and win*. See American Revolution (violent, yet successful) vs. current situation in Syria (violent, yet getting mowed down in the streets).
As far as "this is censored" goes... I call bullshit. One of the few things that government is actually supposed to do is to protect its law-abiding citizens from real dangers - most tangibly represented as foreign armies and violent thugs. Physical security is among the most basic responsibilities of a government. The rioting kids are fortunate to be alive at the same time as the most convenient and far-reaching communications breakthroughs in human history. The government isn't telling them they can't have a voice, the government is telling them they can't smash up poor shopkeeps' storefronts to make their point.
considering there have been multiple deaths because of the riots it is hardly unjust that they get at least what someone guilty of manslaughter gets.
The judge said he hoped the sentences would act as a deterrent.
This could be a pretty big problem.
The Judge himself is pretty much saying here that he considers the punishment to be excessive compared to the crime but that Jordan Blackshaw and Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan should be punished more because the legal system doesn't want to bother with the rest of the criminals.
Well, it is not exactly his wording and it might not be that way in this particular case but I have seen that kind of reasoning in other cases and I seriously doubt that the two boys even would have been arrested if it weren't for a lot of other people running around causing trouble in the UK at the moment.
Compare to the average file sharing case where the plaintiff is punished because he could potentially have distributed a work to 10000 other people.
In those cases it is assumed that the plaintiff has distributed the work to 10 other people and that he should take the punishement for the crimes that those other 10 people did. (Not that it clears them from any legal action in the future.)
I wonder what rationalization people use to distinguish between this man and those that incite a populace to support military invasion of other countries to loot their goodies.
Who are you and what have you done with "Anonymous Coward"? Even AC's normal comments, miserably low on thought process and deliberately provoking aren't a patch on this steaming pile of manure.
Are you just visiting this planet? If so, please take everything you've learned so far and delete it. If not, please take everything you've learned so far in life and delete it. You need to start education again from scratch. Try and listen this time round.
Because really it does seem fast for due process.. Like, really. Like, Japanese Conviction Rate fast...
Shh.
This will get appealed and tossed out, but in the mean time, it might just be handy to keep people guessing before they go rioting.
"hey, let's have a riot!"
"no, we will get a billion years in prison just facebooking about it."
"ok lets go find some birds to shag"
Something to keep the tossers off balance.
Take the Red Pill.
Prime Minister David Cameron said:
Mr Cameron is no stranger to appalling behaviour, being a former member of the Bullingdon Club, "notorious for its members' wealth and destructive binges". The club song apparently goes: "Buller, Buller, Buller! Buller, Buller, Buller! We are the famous Bullingdon Club, and we don't give a fuck!"
Cameron's 'Buller' escapades include running from the police through the streets of Oxford after a heavy flowerpot was thrown through a restaurant window.
Where is the limit with political speech ? Is that forbidden to state the opinion that violent action is the only way to bring change in a corrupt system ? Not that I defend this opinion, but the fact that is is censored disturbs me deeply.
Airing that opinion in itself is not a crime (or censored). It becomes a crime when you actually encourage others to do it. If you suggest a particular object, place and/or time for example.
THIS is about consequences. No one can shut you when you have to say something - but expect some punishment if something you want to say includes breaking the law in senseless way like looting and destroying others property without sensible cause. And yes, even you see your aim just, law just doesn't care. Judge might, but still you will receive penalty for initiating uncontrolled mobs and riots. If you want start a revolution, sorry kid, with all good intends it takes much more organizing than that. Otherwise mob is just a mob and in it responsibility and morality of individual goes down the drain.
4 years sounds harsh, but I don't know lot of details. I would go for 2 years, which are enough for thinking this trough.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
This has GOT to be the stupidest thing I've read in days. So you're saying they're somehow responsible for deaths separated by both time and geography? Or are you just thinking out loud with your glands?
That's a lot of people just out to have fun. When you have massive riots in multiple cities, I'd be hard pressed to consider it just reckless lawlessness as entertainment. Look at Syria. How has those in charge characterized the rebellions? Lawless hooligans out to just cause trouble. No one believes it. But then you have riots at home and our precious security feels endangered.. doesn't sound so far-fetched anymore. How exactly would civil unrest against a perceived corrupt political system manifest? When anyone that shows any attempt at leadership is arrested, you wouldn't expect any type of organized demonstrations. You'd get a chaotic mess of angry people lashing out.
Did you have a particular manslaughter case in mind? Typically manslaughter would not be less than 4 years. It might be on occasion, but it would no doubt be because of mitigating circumstances.
You Know It's True.
Didn't anyone ever tell the UK goverments that 1984 was supposed to be a work of FICTION and an example of what NOT to do...
Actually, with Tony Blair goading George Bush into invading Iraq and all, I think it still is...
Oh come on.
With a political message and marches in the streets, not blatant theft of consumer goods. To illustrate:
This is a political riot.
This is people stealing things because they want to.
The guys in this article started facebook pages called "Smash dwn in Northwich Town" (sic) and "The Warrington Riots". There is nothing political about what went on in the UK.
Welcome to British youth culture.
"A week in the lab saves an hour in the library"
atleast that's what the system wants everyone to think.... when there are this many people hitting the streets there are bound to be a few idiots that can't behave themselves. Government who are the targets of these demonstrations like to fokus on these idiots because it makes them look less bad... Anyways, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya who's next? Syria or UK?
The country is morally corrupt. When lords are send to jail by the bus load but still only a fraction of the ones who made a complete mess of things can you expect the people on the bottom not to feel they can do some leeching of society as well?
Human society doesn't work because we are social or because we are good but because more or less the majority doesn't want to much fuzz so they get along. Just see how on footpads people tend to go left-right despite their not being any law for it. Because going against the stream is a nuisance.
But there are some people who love going against the stream and that is okay, society needs a few to shake it up and then. A few. Not the entire bloody lot. One shady lord just makes for some good headlines and a feeling that they are the same as us after all. Hundreds of corrupt lords makes people feel they are being told to be behave by criminals.
In England so far the elections are not so much about electing the most popular party but the party that is considered the least sleaziest. The tories got kicked out because there sleaze just got so big nobody could ignore it anymore, then labour sleezed it up and now the tories are back with their sleaze. It is almost amusing until you realize that in many ways england is as bankrupt as greece. Worse even if you realize that greece isn't supposed to be rich, any loss in wealth is fictional wealth. England was a rich nation and now it isn't. When you got to sell of your carriers and lay of thousands of police, you are not doing well. But no brit can admit it.
If you visited England over the last few decades you have seen a country sliding into poverty. No income, no plan, hoodlums at the controls.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I agree with you, except Syria hardly violent revolution, it was peaceful demonstrations with emotional crowds for sure, but Assad didn't wait for them to turn violent - he just crushed them to show that dissident won't be allowed at any measure. Fact that he tries to do some cynical PR in same time just speaks volumes what he exactly thinks about his nation.
Those people on the top in Syria aren't that afraid from revolution than the fact that they will have to answer about their crimes.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
At the bottom of the page of the ZDNet article, under the heading "See also":
"Egyptian activist charged with inciting violence via Facebook"
Apples and Oranges?
You've been successfully trolled.
I would post "man, someone's really begging to get his site DDoSed", but I guess I would face 4 years of jail time if I did.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I've just filed a complaint against this company at http://www.la.bbb.org/business-reviews/Computer-Software-Services/CyberDefender-in-Los-Angeles-CA-13196224
Anyone else want to do the same?
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
If you incite violence you are responsible for those violent acts as much as those that commited them.
In this particular case, it wasn't a call to fix or change the system, but that doesn't negate the point: it's important to clarify what limits we are willing to place on free speech and to understand the consequences of those limits. I agree that this instance seems reasonable, but I think it's important to have guidelines so that we don't have to consider everything on a case by case basis. A call to riot for the sake of destruction is a crime. A call to protest is not. But what about a call for civil disobedience, to ignore laws deemed unjust? You are still inciting people to break the law, but the character of the crime is much different. Of course, even in the US, where there is a codified right to free speech, there are definite limits. You aren't allowed to shout fire in a public building, and you aren't allowed to make credible threats against a person. But what makes a threat credible?
There are other examples which are even less clear. How should we handle the publishing a list of abortion doctors' addresses, with a vague call to arms? Is the call to arms just rhetoric, or is it a true incitement to violence? If we make the determination by the wording, people will just find euphemisms to use. With these facebook posts, not only was intent clear, but given the nature of current events, it was more likely that people would act (and a belief that someone will actually take your call to arms seriously seems like it should factor into things). However, it is a call to an even worse crime, and even though intent can't be proven, it is hard to believe that someone would publish such a list without hoping someone else would act.
Free speech is a great ideal, but we've never had completely free speech, and that's the way it should be. However, if we want to balance our idealism with practicality in a consistent and even handed way, it's important to understand exactly what society will and will not accept.
4 years in primary school would have been more appropriate.
I think perhaps you need to buy an irony detection device, as your current one seems to be malfunctioning
First of all, research has shown again and again that harsh penalties simply do not work as a deterrent to other offenders.
Secondly, does the judge expect that another riot is around the corner? Who is he trying to deter?
I expect the sentence to be reduced on appeal.
Free Manning, jail Obama.
"civil unrest against a perceived corrupt political system"
Nobody involved cared about that. Seriously - you had to be there, it really was people of various walks of life just grabbing everything out of shops then setting fire to them (then attacking firemen when they tried to rescue the families in the flats above), kicking people half to death, etc. - just going nutz to get stuff and get money and get away with settling scores against specific people or whatever community they disliked.
People being violently and/or sexually assaulted, robbed or even killed in the street. Not bankers, not politicians. Their own.
Not one bank or political institution was touched, only places with Cool Stuff in, and the cars/houses/persons of the working and/or poor people in their own communities.
"a chaotic mess of angry people lashing out"
A chaotic mess of rapturously smiling laughing people taking what they wanted and doing violence to people. Families having their homes torched and their lives endangered, swathes of jobs being ended by businesses being torched when nobody can afford insurance these days.
Killings of people who tried to help the victims, attacks against ambulances trying to treat the victims, attacks against firemen trying to put out fires.
Seriously, I don't know how to explain this convincingly enough without sounding emotive - this is in the place I've grown up in. Don't let people get away with saying it was a political demonstration - I mean you had to be there but seriously it REALLY. WASN'T., I would say what we all saw and endured had no protest component to it whatsoever past about 9pm on the first night - it was just open season for the cannibalistic predators of London to hurt/take from their own.
Where is the limit with political speech ? Is that forbidden to state the opinion that violent action is the only way to bring change in a corrupt system ? Not that I defend this opinion, but the fact that is is censored disturbs me deeply.
You really think these idiots were doing making a political statement or exercising free speech? They were both arranging riots and one even turned up for his riot.
As for the limits of free speech, the UK has plenty of it but it does not include inciting (encouraging) people to commit serious offences. Doing so will see you charged with a crime.
The US may have different boundaries and way of framing free speech. But free speech doesn't mean there are no limits. For example and just randomly, Connecticut has a law against inciting injuries against persons or property which likely would have applied to defendants writing similar remarks there. I expect most states would have statutes for incitement, criminal intent, threatening behaviour, conspiracy or a raft of other overlapping criminal acts that would have applied to these two.
OK pal, you must be snorting the cheap home made acid a bit too much, or you're simply speaking from the comfort of your mom's basement outsie of the UK. I can tell you that I am. Let me definitively tell you that these guys aren't political protestors. They are cheap hooligan thugs who enjoy a bit of the old smashy smashy and in and out.
Monday week ago I was caught between the looters and teh police in Lewisham while returning a car. I had rocks and bricks sailing past my head. Then on Tuesday, one of our neighbours decided to make a stand and stop these little pricks from taking his wheelie bin to transport their ill gotten goods by asking them politely not to do it. Their response? They stabbed him. He's in intensive care and may not live.
Last night, we had 3 thugs breaking in to the place next door to us. We called the police and they responded very quickly and arrested the 3 of them. This is the same kind of "protestor" that everyone is talking about. So you know what? NO. These ARE NOT protestors, they're opportunists. The BBC has given them ample opportunity to present a case, and none have been able to do so. The internet is not rife with reason, but rather rampant stupidity on the topic.
This is not society's fault, nor the fault of the police, or the government, but the fault of a generation of bottom feeding scum sucking opportunists that need a harsh lesson in reality dealt to them.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
The page on Inchoate offense doesn't say anything about "inciting others" being such an offense.
This wasn't "people hitting the streets". I am the first person to support direct action and protest, but you really need to go and examine what has gone on before you exhort this - it sounds like these people had a political purpose.
Go, examine the offenses and what happened. I promise you, it was not politicians or political institutions being protested against or smashed, it was not banks, it was not the government, hell it mostly wasn't even the police.
I can tell you how it was, I saw it. It was mostly just shopping with violence instead of cash, lots of poor/working people in their OWN COMMUNITIES getting hurt in a weird sort of hedonistic holiday for violent bastards, where the weak were being feasted upon all over the place.
The geeks on this site who like to rail against global capitalism and so on, and who support political protest/direct action are the sort of people who were getting robbed, assaulted and burned out of their homes in a heartbeat in that environment. Prey of a mob of people who have realised they can get away with whatever the hell they like. No politics necessary.
You'd get a chaotic mess of angry people lashing out.
From what I saw of the UK riots it was bunch of spoilt brats cheerfully participating in vandalism, looting, mugging, and arson.
How exactly would civil unrest against a perceived corrupt political system manifest?
An angry political protest in the UK looks like the coal miners strike, the anti-war protests, (or for really angry, the IRA attacks), they have prominent leaders, a clear political message, and their parents do not hand them over to the police.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
just planning a crime isn't a crime everywhere though.
And that's a good thing too. We don't really want to condemn murder mystery authors doing research for a book that they are writing.
Or fireman having an exercise of how to react to a bombing (Some amount of planning must have preceded the fake bombing to make it realistic enough for the exercise).
They are cheap hooligan thugs who enjoy a bit of the old smashy smashy and in and out.
Heh, nice tie to A Clockwork Orange – and yes, this really is exactly what it was... No political point being made, just a bunch of twats found an excuse for thieving, violence and arson.
4 years will equal 2 years in prison at a cost of £42,000 a year. 42000 x 2 x 2 = £168,000 in tax money. Joy. PS Thinking of deleting my Facebook because frankly I say dumb stuff I don't mean when drunk.
As a British Subject, I'd love to see actual examples of an ASBO being issued for criticism of the government...
Because it's something I've never heard of.
Almost. It is forbidden to state that violent action should be used to bring change with the expectation that that advice will be followed.
"Suspicion of intent to conspire"
Set your phasers on "funky"!
But the Facebook call to smash Norwich didn't result in violent acts. Norwich stayed calm. And so did Warrington.
The call could have been fit to incite violence, albeit it didn't.
This country once invented a "Speakers' Corner" where everybody could say whatever they want. Well, this doesn't seem to count for Facebook. What a step back.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speakers_corner
Personally I'd file a complaint against Slashdot. The amount of spam and trolling has really shot up recently. And the UI is still broken.
Yet the "Summer of Rage" campaign orchestrated by police in conjunction with the UK press remains unprosecuted.
Would four years be unreasonable if they were caught breaking into and looting a store? I believe that someone who instigates an illegal action should be punished as if they committed that action themselves.
It doesn't matter if their incitement brought about actual harm or not but whether it potentially could have. And it's no different in the US. If I pay an undercover cop to whack my wife, I can't claim at my trial that I should go free since he was a cop and therefore she was in no danger. I can't blog calling for the execution of particular judges, even pointing out where they live and claim innocence merely because none of my readers acted on my incitement. Simply put, if someone encourages someone to perform a crime with the reasonable expectation that it could happen then they are guilty regardless of the outcome.
Looks like British lads are using Facebook to do on a much larger scale what US schoolkids have been using MySpace for - whenever they want to shoot up their schools, kill school enemies or teachers and so on. If somebody created an anti-social network hosted in, say, Pakistan or Egypt, and had kids throughout the West plot on its site, they could easily create the next rival to Google+ or Facebook. They would have to be incorporated in those countries, though.
To be clear, these "drastic cuts" in deprived areas are not optional.
No-one has any money, least of all the people in the area.
Spending money you don't have and will have to pay back has made the cuts more extreme than they might have needed to be.
Some of the poor are poor because they waste what they have - like a bunch of hooligans did this time. On the other side sometimes the rich aren't rich, they just borrow high.
Riots don't bring money out of no where to make someone with no money pay for what you can't pay for yourself.
blog.sam.liddicott.com
I'm sorry to say that but for an outside European observer the UK is becoming more and more like a totalitarian country. There are cameras everywhere and face-recognition software is used to identify people on it, the law system is "by custom" or how it's called, internet and phone serveillance everywhere, and all big parties are decidedly right-wing. It might not come across like that to UK citizens, but outside the UK people are more and more frightened and alienated. (It didn't help that Tony Blair was George W. Bush's biggest pal for no apparent reason except perhaps that he was being blackmailed.)
In this case, the only response was a hard crackdown on rioters. But fact is that many of these rioters belong to a large group of socially outcast poor people that have been neglected and ignored by politicians for the past few decades and that it is still legal in the UK to beat up your children. It's a miracle that these protests are so limited, and violence will reoccur as long as the only way to deal with it is sending more police (or the military!) into London suburbs.
Good call
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
Having posted their intentions on Facebook, the guys then turned up at the specified time and place only to be arrested by waiting cops.
That for me shows they had real intent to riot, so the 4 year sentence is appropriate considering the lack of regard for they've shown for their local community and environment.
Reading their actions I can only say one thing: these men should be sent to some penal colony. Australia for instance. Apparently 'tis the time for punishing petty crimes with outrageous sentences.
I have to agree. Seriously WTF /. anti-spam software has been blocking this kind of lamer spam for years (Hint...multiple identical links? dead giveaway) so it is pretty obvious you have yet again broke the damned code. you telling me with as many uber programmers that hang out here you can't even get functional code? WTF?
As for TFA I'm torn, on the one hand that should have been busted just for being so damned stupid as to use their own FB accounts, on the other I truly believe the west is in for our own Arab Spring. Lets face it, the corps have been sending the jobs to Bangalore as fast as they can close the factories, there are no jobs to be had, and I don't know how it is in the UK but here in the USA the teabagger party has pretty much ensured that relief or well anything at all for the poor will not be forthcoming. it is a powderkeg and I bet what they are calling "flash mobs" is only the beginning.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
"Is that forbidden to state the opinion that violent action is the only way to bring change in a corrupt system ? Not that I defend this opinion, but the fact that is is censored disturbs me deeply."
That's not what happened though, is it?
They posted (in paraphrase) "Let's meet behind McDonalds at 2pm and go rioting", then they turned up behind McDonalds at 2pm.
This was not political speech, it was incitement and intent.
That's a lot of people just out to have fun
Actually, it's not. I have friends in some of the affected areas, and the majority of the population just stayed inside and locked their doors. If you read the news reports, you'll see that the mobs moved around very quickly, which made it hard for the police to do anything - by the time the police arrived at the scene, the rioting had moved somewhere else. So, when you see those photographs of big riots in lots of places, remember that a lot of them will be the same people rioting and looting in multiple places. When you consider that London has a population of 9 million, a few thousand rioters is a pretty small percentage.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The BBB site looks like a joke. Not only is that fuckhead of a "business" hawking rogue anti-virus actually "accredited" by the BBB, but they have over 700 complaints and nothing has been done. They have no rating for the "business" nor have they revoked their accreditation. Fuck, that seems pretty ineffectual to me.
I think it's time for Anonymous to start fucking with those turds, it seems like the only way to deal with this scum. Hey, and guess what, they posted a very nice MAP on the BBB site so you all know where to address those "packages" and firebombs.
When a "company" like that can fuck people over for 8 years running plus, under the direct noses of those who are supposed to "police" shitheels like that, it's time for direct action. This is going to become more and more prevalent, I think - people are getting fed up with getting fucked over again and again with absolutely no recourse, because our wonderful country and court system won't deal with "companies" like this who's "business" is fucking every one over. Time is growing short and so is patience, I think we need some real actions and/or revolutions to take care of these things. That was why the Mafia was popular with most people in the earlier days, they acted as the police for the common man when the police won't do anything for you or come when you call. If the authorities won't act, someone else will.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"Welcome to British youth culture."
I'm sure that the hundreds of thousands youths waiting for their A Level results will be more than happy
to be to be tarred with that brush
Sweeping generalisations, you got to love them.
Then shooting policemen. And steeling their helmets. Then going to the toilet in the helmets. Then sending them to the policemen's grieving widows. Then steeling them again.
This was not a revolution or a revolt. It was just revolting.
Because you can - or because you should?
I'm sorry to say that but for an outside European observer the UK is becoming more and more like a totalitarian country. There are cameras everywhere
Let me guess, an outside European perspective gained from reading The Daily Mail? The number of cameras in Britain is massively over exaggerated. The number that's usually thrown around was generated by taking a mile of one of the busiest streets in central London, counting the number of cameras (including speeding cameras and privately owned CCTV cameras inside shops on both sides) and then multiplying that number by the number of miles of roads in Britain.
The more realistic number includes motorway monitoring cameras, which are not recorded, have one person monitoring about 100 of them, and are used to notify radio stations and so on of large traffic jams and dispatch emergency services to accidents. The next highest number is automated speed / red light cameras. The government controlled ones in city centres are operated by the local councils and are mostly being shut down because they provide little benefit and the councils can't afford to operate them.
and face-recognition software is used to identify people on it
Not sure why this is a sign of totalitarianism. Is it less totalitarian if you have a human matching the faces to photographs? The face recognition that's been talked about in the media recently has been matching the faces of people from Facebook who said things like 'I got a new 42" TV in the riots!' to images from shops' CCTV. How evil...
internet and phone serveillance everywhere,
Unless you think The News of the World and Phorm are government agencies, I'm not sure where this comes from.
and all big parties are decidedly right-wing
Bullshit. One of the two parties in our coalition government is still slightly left of centre, and my MEP is from a decidedly left-wing party.
it is still legal in the UK to beat up your children
any UK news source, then you'd see examples of parents being imprisoned and having their children taken into care for this.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The info coming out of Syria from normal people isn't gelling with what is being reported in the international media - the Syrian 'protests' are well organised and armed, and most definitely not peaceful. But all you hear in the media is how the Syrian military is brutally putting these 'protests' down.
That's not what happened though, is it?
They posted (in paraphrase) "Let's meet behind McDonalds at 2pm and go rioting", then they turned up behind McDonalds at 2pm.
Well, except that they didn't. Not only did these two inciters not show up, but nobody else did either except for the police. Because it was meant as a joke, arguably in poor taste.
+1 correct.
Proof is in the afternoon tea.
There was one news report where all the stores were hit, except the book store.
The irony is, all they will have to do in prison is read.
and it turns out that this invasion was illegal under international law, should they be prosecuted as war criminals?
how about if someone says we should torture POWs? and we do torture POWs? are those people guilty now of war crimes?
how about if someone says we should kill all the lawyers? if some lawyer gets shot, should that person go to prison?
how about if some website is full of comments about how downloading movies and music in violation of copyright law is legitimate because the companies are evil? should those commenters all go to prison as copyright violators too?
There were some reports of disturbances in Cardiff.
And this kind of thing is perpetrated by kids in NI every single weekend during the summer.
The two convicted were not stating an opinion - they were saying "let's get together to have a riot" and at least one gave a particular location (behind McDonalds) where the rioters should assemble. Of course they claim it was all a joke.
it was OK for them to loot and steal money from the general taxpayer, should they be in prison for inciting white collar crime?
Pretty sure I read in the paper here in London that at least one was apprehended at the meeting point/time that he had proposed. Maybe I was wrong on that count.
And no, I don't believe this was meant as a joke, poor taste or otherwise. Evidently neither does anyone involved in the justice system. And the accused themselves plead guilty which tells me they knew what they were doing.
4 years may be a bit harsh. Personally I think the sentencing guidelines in most of the western world are insane, where growing weed can get you more time than rape or murder. But these guys deserve a little taste of the inside for inciting further violence in a time when the country was already suffering from riots.
And no, none of this was political.
is not deterrence, it is barbarism.
the rule of law is only meaningful if you punish the guilty.
that whole first amendment thing was such a bother.
now we hooligans have learned that we cant get away with 'everything', like, i dont know, quoting the declaration of independence
i mean, after all, doesnt that document insight violence?
to the 'mass riot' that occured in december 2010.
if by 'mass riot' you mean 'people gathering in a public square to protest a stolen, fraudulent election run by a dictator who has been in power for 15+ years'
In this case a blatant example of currency speak in a court of law, the difference between innocence and guilt being the size of the cheque book available to pay off lawyers, in this case zip, zero, nil.
First and foremost, no riot, no violence, not even a couple of drunks fighting. Second 750 million facebook users, bloody hell, one page amongst 750 million how many people were actually going to see it. Thirdly it is pull not push, people actually have to get it, it is not pushed out to them. Fourthly and most importantly the people who want to become involved, actually already have to have a desire to become involved the absence or presence of one page on the internet amongst billions in meaningless, is is just the communications medium. Fifth what was claimed as the level of interaction by the court, how many accessed the page (excluding idiots in police uniforms ramping it up for the sake of easy arrests and promotions), how many replied and how many added to it.
This is nothing more that abusive autocrats seizing an opportunity to demonstrate their power by destroying peoples lives, clearly innocent people who were selected virtually at random, there was absolutely no intent of justice.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
if incitement is illegal then basically every opinionated political speaker in the country would be in prison.
Unless you think The News of the World and Phorm are government agencies, I'm not sure where this comes from.
From what I've seen, NOTW was -very- cozy with the government/police.
I have also seen the police on the street hassling the youths, so I can understand where some of their anger comes from.
None of this excuses the riots, it was straight-up crime, not protest.
However, the British government (especially the police) is looking more and more like it is rotten to the core, and that has not-so-bright implications for the future.
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
It's fair to say this definitely wasn't a politicial protest - there was plenty of "let's stick it to the man" talk between the rioters but little in the way of cogent political goals or an agenda for change. However, it's probably fair to say that the mood that made this happen was political - we've had 25 years of crass consumerism, people being told they're nothing unless they have the latest gadgets or designer clothes, meanwhile we've seen increasing division between the haves and have nots, an economic crisis that the public are paying for while the bankers carry on as normal and a government that's talking about cutting services. All it took is an event (like yet another instance of the police going in mob-handed) that showed people the mood was right for mass violence on the streets and this was bound to happen. The people behind it had no political point to make but a series of political decisions instilled the conditions necessary for what we've just seen.
Do yourself a favour - grow up and get a fscking clue.
The only consequences from these people's actions are that they got arrested and prosecuted. They didn't actually incite anyone to riot, noone responded to their posts by turning up and rioting. No riots occurred in the places they suggested in their posts. The only people who responded to the posts were the police, who are now butthurt that they turned up to defend shopping centres on the strength of a stupid facebook post. They should be prosecuted for wasting police time, if anything. They are being punished for intent to cause consequences, not for actually causing consequences.
Korma: Good
There will be a day when inciting riots is the correct response to tyranny.
This isn't it. This is rioting because you want to jump on the bandwagon and slide in to get some free shit.
It hasn't happened everywhere in England either. How specific do you want to get?
How's that whole using-your-real-name-on-Facebook working for ya?
Perhaps if you were mindful of the Nym Wars going on you might not have been caught up in the dumb war going on in the streets of London.
Only because it was raining in Scotland.
Absit Invidia
There are cameras everywhere and face-recognition software is used to identify people on it, the law system is "by custom" or how it's called, internet and phone serveillance everywhere, and all big parties are decidedly right-wing.
Labour - the party which describes itself as a "democratic socialist" party and is a member of Socialist International and the equivalent European groups? They may not be as left wing as they were in the 1980s, but they're certainly not right wing.
I'm not sure why people outside the UK should be frightened and alienated because of our internal politics though. It's not as if we're going to start invading the rest of Europe.
He never said anything about most, a majority, or percentages.
That's just pedantic.
It doesn't matter if 1, 5, or 100 of them had political motivations. It is evident from the aftermath and the images and videos captured during the event that most did not. The riots weren't remotely close to some idealistic movement, some political free speech, not as whole. Probably not even in part, because honestly, who would be stupid enough to tie their political movement to rioting and theft? (Other than the neo-anarchists, of course).
I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
Slap != beat up. And perhaps if faggots like the Belgians and the French got a spanking once in a while they wouldn't grow up to be such inconsiderate, self-centered arrogant assholes.
There are always some reports of disturbances in Cardiff
Really makes you want to throttle people through the internet doesn't it?
All the same as the LA riots. There's no logical progression from "I'm upset at a perceived injustice to someone else!" directly to "BURN FUCKING EVERYTHING"..
and they only ever shit in their own aquarium. good job LA riots, you guys were set off because rodney king's beaters walked? i have the perfect solution. go flip cars and destroy businesses within your minority community. shoot your neighbor, take his TV, you're fighting the power now dog.
protesters want change, not trouble. they'll cause trouble for change, but trouble is not their goal or desire.
rioters want your TV. they don't want change, they only want trouble.
You know, the awful part is if my understanding of english law is correct, you folks aren't legally allowed to just fucking bash someone for trespassing can you? and then there's the gun thing. stay safe, your government only cares about you collectively and with a margin of error :(
Why the quotes? Are you implying that the Syrians do not have political goals and are just nicking TVs and trainers like the rabble in London?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
In English law, mere planning isn't illegal; it becomes illegal as soon as you take steps to implement the plan, however small the steps. Like, say, setting up a FaceBook page...
And your bomb exercise is irrelevant; that's planning an exercise, not a bombing. It's not the action that matters, but the intent.
it should only be a crime to act on them
So why isn't this happening in more places?
I was thinking that this sort of open breakdown into lawlessness provides a nice check and balance to the whole power structure. The government and those generally in positions of power may do many things, but they always have the fundamental responsibility to make sure that enough people don't come to disdain their social order to such an extent that they stop respecting it entirely and erupt into riots... possibly ending with the elimination of those who were in positions of power, possibly not.
This sort of massive disrespect of social order, even if the surface appears to be sparked by entertainment, requires a bed of fuel to be burning on.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
and "Let's Have A Riot In Latchford" - are these about to become the new "I am going to blow Robin Hood airport sky high?"
Even the names of the towns sound cutesy and British and definitely not the sort of place actual bad-ass rioters would live.
This is not society's fault, nor the fault of the police, or the government, but the fault of a generation of bottom feeding scum sucking opportunists that need a harsh lesson in reality dealt to them.
And what produced "a generation of bottom feeding scum sucking opportunists"? Your society. A serial killer isn't society's fault, 20,000 thugs rioting in the streets? It's hard to see a way that it could be anything other than society at fault.
This is the expected result of creating an underclass with no hope and no future.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Think through what your asking. You want to know if the government will protect you in your 'right' to cause violent crime against the government in order to force change. It's like asking your neighbor to tie his own hands so you can punch him in the face better. When you cross the line to violent or criminal behavior in order to cause change you forfeit any protection from the state and simply make it a matter of your strength versus the states. The American Colonial Revolutionaries knew and understood this when they signed the Deceleration of Independence, that they would all hang if they didn't succeed. They didn't publish rhetoric calling their brothers to throw off tyranny and fight and then ask that same British government to protect them.
Of course it's rotten to the core, Rupert Murdoch has been selecting winning candidates for decades. When Rupert Murdoch decides who win elections, government policy will be designed to benefit Rupert Murdoch.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Lets not confuse this situation. This isn't lower class rebellion. This is rioting driven by mob mentality using the revolutionary actions of other motivated nations as vindication for their crime and violence. These people deserve far more than a slap on the wrists.
If any real political drive exists behind these riots then there is no way a hand full of bobbies and some angry judiciaries trying to make an example of some loud mouthed kids will stop it. There will be more if there is any kind of movement.
Or maybe these fires were all stoked by people in the employee of the British parliament! Or even the US congress! Intending to draw the public eye to the "dangers of social networking" and justify both US and British government's new found desires to be able to block access to social networking services in times of "social duress."
Heh.
Because I see a difference between an actual protest, designed to change the current governments way of doing things, and an assembly designed to remove the current government through whatever means possible.
The media are portraying the Syrian events as the former, while friends (non-political) I have in Syria are saying its largely the latter - gatherings of armed supporters organised by Syrian political activists with the intent to provoke a response, and the only thing being reported in the western media is the response.
Yes, but the point you missed is that you can't charge someone with murder if they only attempted it. And the punishment for attempted murder should, in any reasonable society, be equal to or less than the punishment for murder. From the article it appears that these guys got drunk, posted idiocy to Facebook, and will now spend 4 years in prison for being drunken idiots who didn't actually cause any real harm.
The point one of the parent posters made was that people have actually received lesser sentences for actual rioting and actual murder.
They pled guilty and they are still being made examples of. Mostly likely they pled guilty because they don't have lawyers and were assured that they would get lenient sentences. A telling point, the prosecutor asked for a more lenient sentence than the one they received. This is the legal system running amok.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
These ARE NOT protestors, they're opportunists.
I agree. The question you have to ask is why are there so many opportunists? Why did they decide this was their opportunity? Is it not societies fault for not making better opportunities available?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I guarantee you the cop who killed the guy at the start of these protest/riots doesn't even get jail time. I'd safely bet he doesn't even lose his job.
The cop who killed Tomlinson in the last big disturbance didn't get any jail time either - despite him illegally removing his ID numbers before joining the fray.
Then there's the cops who pinned down Jean Charles de Menezes and shot him in the head several times - didn't even get disciplinary charges against them.
I'll grant you that the first one listed (the most recent) has very cloudy surrounding circumstances - there's no one straight story yet. But Tomlinson was certainly manslaughter by definition of the acts, although the case was never brought - he was an innocent man, walking home from his job, who was pushed over and attacked by a police officer and subsequently died of heart problems. It has been captured on film and you will be able to find it - but nothing has ever come of it.
The last one (De Menezes) was straight out murder. Even if you accept the reasons for their case of mistaken identity, it comes down to manslaughter - yet we will never see justice done for it.
If however, you are looking for a better reason as to why these sentences are unreasonable: you only need look as far as the sentences for the looting itself - 6-18 month on average. Yet talking about it nets 4 years?! Of course stealing thousands from the public in the form of illegitimate expense claims only gets you 4 months, and you only have to serve a 1/4 of the sentence (Devine was out after 1 month :S).
If 'society is broken' it's only because the structures that it depends upon have become warped and disjointed.
A disconnected generation at perpetual war with the Police, raised in a society where they are told the only way to success is to do things they don't understand, in places they don't want to be, for people that don't even want to know they exist.... it may not be an idealism in your mind - it may not be a cause you see as 'moral' or even as a cause - but to deny that there weren't ideological reasons behind it at all is completely ignorant.
A whole lot of folk saw an opportunity to gain something they would never get normally (when playing by 'the rules') - and they took it. This may be a good reason to lock them up - and probably is. The only problem of course is that the current financial situation is actually putting more and more people into this category and making them compete against each other for the scraps of a rapidly diminishing welfare state.
Whatever your reason for condemning them - it's at your own folly. This will happen again, and it will be worse. If you don't understand even some of the reasons and causes then you're relying on your luck alone to keep you out of it - and I wish you none of mine as long you remain willfully ignorant.
Could the riots not be symptomatic of a disconnect among certain groups in society with their communities? Just because the majority of the rioters were not expressing political motivations does not mean that there is not an underlying socio-economic cause to their actions. I work in a shop in south east london (we survived, but are boarded up except for the doors) and the general mood seems to be that the rioters were idiots, yes, but there is none of the bile and bitterness expressed by the government, more a feeling that something like this was inevitable.
just planning a crime isn't a crime everywhere though.
If two people plan one, it is conspiracy.
If one person invites others, it is definitely a crime.
They are cheap hooligan thugs who enjoy a bit of the old smashy smashy and in and out.
Ah, so if they were well dressed and important thugs, you wouldn't have any problems with it right? Where were all the cries for justice after bankers crashed the world economy in 2008? Why were the courts not packed then? You can give 4 years to a guy for an offhand posting on twitter, you can't find ANYTHING to pin on the guys at RBS? WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Where, exactly, does growing weed get you more time than rape or murder?
Actually, you are referring to a case where disproportinate force was used by a farmer against a 16 year old burglar. The force was him firing a shotgun into the kid, and the disproportion was that he shot him in the back when he was running away for his life, screaming don't shoot me.
This has been widely misinterpreted in the UK that you can't do anything when someone breaks into your house and threatens your life. According to the westminster system, you have the right to use proportionate force against an intruder. Proportionate being the grey zone. Thankfully, a recent case where a family was help up by knifepoint cleared the waters somewhat, as when the father killed the guys with a knife, he eventually got off on self defence because he had an honest and reasonable fear for the safety of his family. David Cameron, our PM, intervened and said that an investigation of clear disproportionate force should be able to be used against an intruder to remove all doubt, although it has been argued that this would simply cause a spiral of violence. However, the judiciary and the legislate have made it quite clear. If your robber is running away, you can't do anything, but if he's entered your home and you have a genuine fear for your life, smash him in the face with a brick.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
Keep on beating that drum mate. You know what? I had recently had a bit of a chat with one of these kids. He was complaining that society is blocking him from doing anything with his life, and that there's no point in pursuing a career because we now have to pay for university. Blah blah blah. Both my wife and I did our hard graft, got loans, got loads of hard and crap work, paid our dues, and got to our position. All I hear from kids like this is WWAAAAAAAHHHHH!!! I don't wanna do anything that's remotely hard. WAAAAAAHHHHH!!!! I want life handed to me on a silver platter. WWAAAAAAAHHHH!!!! I don't want to work, but I want lots of nice stuff, so I'm going to take yours.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
It is not up to society to make your opportunities, it is up to YOU.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
What you're saying, in effect, is that political demonstrations are only possible in a group of people with a minimum level of morality.
Perhaps it's slightly different : political advocates exist anywhere, but peaceful change is only possible with a peaceful people. Which brings up the question of Syria again ...
I initially read the headline as "UK Men Get 4 Years For Trying to Incite Robots Via Facebook". In that case 4 years is not nearly enough.
May your blade chip and shatter.
Comparing the riots in England against what is happening in Syria is just another sign of moral relativism run amok with a good amount of idiocy added to the mix for good measure. "But then you have riots at home and our precious security feels endangered". So we should just throw out any attempt aimed at maintaining a level of security that doesn't involve sending troops and tanks into the city to kill anyone actually making a fuss or looking like they might? Chaotic masses of angry people have other options besides wide spread indiscriminate violence against their own citizens because they are angry? If people really want change they need to do more than just protest AGAINST something they need to protest FOR something.
Actually, I frankly agree with you. The crooks in Wall St and the Wharf I think should be stripped of assets and thrown in jail if reckless endangerment of the economy can be proven. Unfair? Then don't take a position of great responsibility like controlling billions in assets. Why do you think the remunerations for those positions SHOULD be so high? The trouble is not the ability to earn stacks of money for doing the right thing by the economy, but the ability for severe consequences to be directly applied to those that do recklessly deal.
You were in the pilot position at Goldman Sachs? Right. You'd better hand your assets over to the last dime and get your prison jump suit on.
The only flaw here is that to get to that sort of position of power, you have to be smart. It's part of being a sociopath. Thus, these people generally find ways to outsmart the law. Perhaps you can suggest a good set of laws to prevent this happening again? I'm certainly the people of the world will be most grateful to you.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
Ah the old "it's the TV". Perhaps it's video games ?
And what exactly where they rioting for ? More free money ? Will you give it to them ?
(and if you actually do, chances are they'll stab you for your trouble)
If society doesn't make opportunities available, people will take the opportunities they see. Such as we see happening in the UK. Give these people something to lose.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Really ? How is this different from, say, a gaia demonstration ? Except for the fact that these people want TV's and those gaia demonstrations want to get attention to themselves. There's nothing fundamentally different between these 2 protests. Rebels without a cause, nothing more.
I'd say there were more than just a few idiots. If they had an IQ above room temperature that would have at least taken out the CCTV cameras before they started their smash and grab.
Sure. How about more traditional things for criminals? Like their freedom, or their life?
My point is that people who DO go out and make their own productive opportunites are getting robbed, stabbed and killed at the hands of those who are taking counterproductive opportunities. Read up on game theory. Sometimes you need to punish a theif to make it unproductive for them to try in the first place.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
There is a difference between demonstrating people who want political change in a non-democratic country, and people who go on a looting rampage in one of the richest democracies in the world.
I do not think that the rioters were trying to achieve change. I have yet to see anything other than people taking stuff and destroying things because they thought they could. Why it seemed like a good idea is something to look into.
It's not even a basic level of morality that's required, a political protest requires at the very least some sort of aim (other than acquisition), wouldn't you say?
-actually partecipate in riots, brake down things and such, and you get community service.
-be drunk enough to post a (really stupid) page, take it down by yourself, get 4 years in jail
so...ehm...
wtf?
I'm honestly not sure of your intention with this post, whether in support or in sarcastic opposition to the parent post.
Still, the First Amendment would not apply here (even if this happened in the U.S.). The First Amendment restricts Congress from enacting laws that would prevent people from PEACEABLY ASSEMBLING and petitioning the government to address various greivances. A riot is, by definition, not peaceful.
The "I Have A Dream" speech given by M.L. King Jr. in Washington D.C. is an example of a peaceable assembly to address such greivances.
I do not think that the rioters were trying to achieve change.
How about "they certainly wanted change in their personal situation, they just didn't care about politics and the real world at all, so they took what they wanted".
But what can you do against protests like this except meet them with greater violence ? And how would you yourself even have a peaceful demonstration ? In a crowd of a thousand people a few hundred rioters are not really noticed, yet they will cause justified counterattacks against the whole.
I mean these rioters are 100x more dangerous to freedom than even Syria's governments or all those other islamic hellholes. If they aren't stopped, it won't be just that they're not free, you will lose big parts of your freedom.
The UK.
Trafficking class B substances (cannabis) carries a sentence of up to 14 years.
Rape (single offence, victim not a child) carries a sentence in the range of 4-8 years.
I'm sure you heard exactly what you expected to hear and nothing else.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Many Slashdotters are frustrated and DESPERATELY want (someone else) to fight the powah while they cheer them on from Mums basement.
They hold an idealized view of the lower classes (easy to do for people who don't interact with the hardcore trash variety) which is why there are so many responsese treating these riots like they were some fucking Prague Spring.
That merits ridicule and utter contempt.
I'd like to see the expressions on their faces as noble "looters" gave them a "Reginald Denny"-style beatdown just for being in the wrong place at an opportune time.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
As a British Subject, I'd love to see actual examples of an ASBO being issued for criticism of the government...
Because it's something I've never heard of.
You think the press would be allowed to report on it if it did happen? Super injunctions? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injunction#UK_superinjunctions
Anyone knowing anything about such an ASBO would be under threat of being 'disappeared' if it ever came to light.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
A just sentence would be to ban them from using the internet for 4 years.
It's simple. If they cared about a cause, and had a point to make, they wouldn't want their cause associated with mindless looting and violence, because that would do nothing but harm their cause.
Hence, no one there seriously had a cause that they cared about.
Most states have a minimum person count for "inciting a riot". In VA where I am, its 3. Is this not true over there, or did they get him under some blanket law or "terrorism"
Sure, I can't really disagree with that. People stealing sports shoes and televisions clearly have a lot less than those in the same society who can afford to buy whatever they want. Media perception that 'everyone' has all this great new stuff probably doesn't help matters either.
It's still not a 'protest' by any definition I know of though.
I don't think these rioters are a danger to freedom, there were not enough of them for that. I agree that not stopping them was not an option, as they were violent and dangerous, but I really don't think the numbers were there to make it a real possibility that they couldn't be stopped. The only threat to freedom here comes from politicians using this to gain ground, much like 9/11 was used in the US. This is not nearly on the same scale as that but the closet (and not so closet) authoritarians will still try their best to use it.
One kid with that attitude, it's his problem or his parents' problem.
A whole generation of kids with that attitude, and it's society's problem.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
THERE WERE NO.. REPEAT NO RIOTS IN SCOTLAND..NONE, ZILCH..NADA,ZERO...NOTHING
this "UK" riots nonsense truly grips my shit to be frank.
They were an English situation and the only Scottish connection was we sent down 300 odd police officer to help and that was it.
UK RIOTS MY FUCKING ACHING ASS
don't tar us with the same brush.. Scotland had absolutely fuck all involvement
I agree, but at some point you put away the carrot and pull out the stick.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
Funny thing is that when we were his age, we heard exactly the same thing, but we did it anyway.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
Only because it was raining in Scotland.
no it was because we were watching the news wondering why people were fucking up the place where they live and some work.
everyone i know here was thinking "what the fuck are those fucking idiots doing ?"
the last time i remember ANYTHING even remotely resembling this in Scotland was the Poll Tax Riots.. and even at that they were just protests that got.. animated shall we say.. no shit was wrecked or looted in those riots.. people just kicked off against the police
This is not society's fault, nor the fault of the police, or the government, but the fault of a generation of bottom feeding scum sucking opportunists that need a harsh lesson in reality dealt to them.
Governments do a lot of things to destroy jobs and employment opportunities. Off the top of my head there is:
1. Minimum wage laws - like 'em or not - they reduce employment levels
2. Restrictions against firing people - if you can't fire "at will", why hire unless you need to? Outsource!
3. Regulations on opening a business - BS like needing a liquor license
4. Creation of black markets - gambling, prostitution, narcotics - these may be "jobs" but they are necessarily populated and run with a disrespect for the law and, arguably, society in general. These are 100% the fault of government
5. Welfare. Why work when you get free money? I'd argue, if you have to prevent the collapse of society from starvation or exposure, then it would be better to hand out food directly or open shelters. Giving out money makes the problem worse. Is there ANY private charity that just hands out cash to poor people? Not grants, not scholorships, not loans. I mean a Church that is handing out cash to an obvious bum, addict, thug, or malcontent. THEY DO NOT DO THIS! They identify a specific need, food, shelter, medical, and provide that specific need.
True. And, unfortunately, ineffective:
http://nathanieltapley.com/2011/08/10/an-open-letter-to-david-camerons-parents/
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
so it's not society's fault to educate the masses, provide sufficient opportunities for advancement and have a general understanding of civility for all citizens? No, it's much better off to just shove all the poor into separate sections of a city and just wait until they have any reason to strike out against the better off areas. That and your education system is failing big time. But don't worry, install more cameras, that'll solve every problem.
Mark! Super Hans is going to jail!
This means the end of the band!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
People on here (and in plenty of other venues) have been saying for years that America is too dumb, sedated by TV and a compliant news system, to get off their butts and do something about this or that problem. They said that about the west in general quite often too, and I'd point out that England certainly counts as "the West" in that context.
I'd submit that the biggest thing keeping riots and massive protests from happening here is neither fear or apathy. Rather, its been that the populace is half way rational, and any step as big as riots looks like excess until someone else proves it can actually change things for the better. As we move towards the same long, drawn out stagnation, lost decades and lost generations the British are well into, any change starts looking like one for the better. We're transitioning from people who would only riot in hope of it making a change to more and more people who would riot out of the sense they have nothing left to lose.
The Us is not just one, but several powderkegs. We have a right so out of touch that when they get 80 or 90% of what they ask for by non-violent means, they still talk about second amendments solutions. They talks exactly the way people who have never personally been on the receiving end of blow-back talk. (That's not just my assessment, by the way, it's the FBI's, which has both reported that the greatest terrorist threat is from right wing domestic organizations, and that those organizations have a surprisingly large number of members who have never been in the military but are getting their training as members of private militias, and appear to have unrealistic assessments of how effective violence is at accomplishing their goals. When the FBI refers to a lot of young militia members who couldn't qualify to join the US armed forces and are getting their primary training from inside the militias as "useful idiots", they are trying to convey the seriousness of this very point - the FBI is not in the habit of using Lenin as a reference unless it's the only way to make the point.
On the left, we see more eco-violence (burning SUVs on the lot), or 'animal advocacy' violence (releasing lab animals), where the most violent acts are directed largely or sometimes exclusively against property. That's probably because the classical political left is cautions about being used and infiltrated as they were in the Nixon or Reagen eras, not because they have somehow magically gone away. They're feeling desperate now. The US crossed a few lines over the last couple of years, and being on this side of them makes everything political. Right now, I'm betting if somebody committed violence against any group that doesn't fit the left-right dichotomy, say just for example, a Westboro Baptist Church protest, it would immediately get recast in a left vs. right mode and trigger other copycat violence against organized political groups.
Who is John Cabal?
I guess money has it's privileges, right?
and BTW, inciting violence is most definitely not protected speech. Use the google to look up "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater".
"Arab Spring"? please... The military's still in charge of all those places. Only the name on the marquee has changed.. And in the states, the tea party is given more media influence every day with one of the biggest government assassins, Rick Perry, having a real shot at the white house, which will be used by the democrats to scare people into reelecting Obama, who's done what, other than reinforce the system.. The only notable difference all around is the increase in the savagery on everybody's part. Fucking 'flash mobs'.. All they're doing is peeing in their own pool. I'll be a little more impressed when they go after the source of the problem.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
I want to pick a business at random and start spamming links to their website everywhere.
Then when all you whiners complain, that company will get a bad rep.
Move lulz for great justice.
Storm the Bastille!
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
See how these men got away with no punishment whatsoever? This is the exact reason why the government needs more power to choke free speech. After all, they are completely powerless to stop rioters who use Facebook, we need to give them the power to silence Facebook!
To many Merkins, UK == Britain == England. It's an uphill struggle to edumacate them, but one I attempt daily. My cow-orkers are learning.. slowly.
Generally, when you see lots of spam from a company, it is on behalf of that company. True, you can get people trying to give a business a bad rep, but it's exceedingly rare.
If you have a look at that company's website, I think you can judge the quality of their product and marketing for yourself and decide if someone is just out to give them a bad rep.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
The government isn't telling them they can't have a voice, the government is telling them they can't smash up poor shopkeeps' storefronts to make their point.
The government is doing both. It is saying they cannot smash up storefronts (by arresting the people who did that), and saying they cannot speak in such a way as might incite others to smash up storefronts (by arresting the two kids in this story). Maybe that is the right answer in this case -- I am not saying these kids are innocent. But these two did not smash up anything, nor did their actions result in anything getting smashed up. So it is not just the government saying people cannot smash things, nor even that their voice cannot be the proximate cause of things getting smashed -- these kids did not do either of those things.
That is precisely why this is a story worth discussing. What these kids did is, in my opinion, closer to shouting fire in a crowded theater than it is to discussing politically motivated direct action. However, it is clearly not shouting fire in a crowded theater. Shouting fire is a more proximate cause of violence, and implies that a subsequent stampede occurs with a physical threat to safety -- no such physical threat occurred in this case.
Nobody listened in this case, so it is purely a question of whether what they said was illegal in itself. That is worth discussing, and it is worth discussing more soberly than your second paragraph suggests. The tenor of your second paragraph does not fit well in intelligent discussion of law at any time, and is far less appropriate now, with riots happening all over the world -- most of them more clearly political direct action than this case. Now is the time to be very careful and sober about our rights, not to piss them away with emotionalist bluster, presenting questions of gray area as if only a fool or maniac would disagree.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
A whole generation of kids with that attitude, and it's society's problem.
Not saying it's not society's problem. Four years in prison will help a little bit reducing the problem.
This is the UK we are talking about. they don't have a constitutional protection of free speech. Their protects come from law in which another law can take away, and court rulings which do not mean a whole lot when the accused pleads guilty without raising the issue.
Mostly agree with this except that my understanding is that you can try to apprehend someone while they are running away. However if you do significant damage while apprehending them the self-defence will be much harder to plead.
What you can't do is deliberately injure or kill someone who is not a threat to you (even if they have committed a crime).
IANAL - although I think its the law of England and Wales rather than the Westminster system.
I'm sorry to say that but for an outside European observer the UK is becoming more and more like a totalitarian country.
Being an "outside European" living in the UK, I'll say you don't have a clue what you are talking about. The government that turned into something badly right wing and sinister without even realizing is gone. (Goodbye, Jacqui Smith, go and watch porn with your husband instead of watching what people are doing).
This makes you think. When the West supports protestors in Libya, Syria, Egypt, how can be one be sure that most of these people are not opportunists just waiting for breakdown of law and order to go on raping and pillaging rampage?
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
Well, when California or Texas does something stupid, which they are want to do, please don't lump all the US in with them.
Your countries are the size of our states so it's somewhat natural for us to put them all in the UK bucket while you likewise put all the states in the US bucket.
In the US, the test is whether your speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." However, the only courts likely to enforce this are SCOTUS itself and maybe the Federal appeals court if you're in a friendly circuit, and if you don't just plead guilty you'll likely be bankrupt and/or thoroughly abused in prison before the conviction is overturned. All the lower courts and state courts will use the reasoning of "ooh, he said 'violence'... guilty guilty guilty"
In the UK, just forget about it. 1984 came a long time ago there.
There were riots in the UK. Factually correct, and most times it is said, it is not intended to be misleading, and it is not generally understood in the wrong way. And I live in Edinburgh.
Translation: Africans have the right to protest. Europeans (including the British) should be glad for what they have.
Welcome to British 20% youth unemployment + benefit cuts. The UK government might not want to recognize it, but them's the facts.
I don't know. But if people are still protesting after being shot and having people beside them killed, then just maybe they are not just opportunists just trying to shop without money.
Let me guess, an outside European perspective gained from reading The Daily Mail?
You've guessed wrong, my sources are mainly the BBC and the New York Times.
The number of cameras in Britain is massively over exaggerated.
Trust me, in comparison to other European countries the number of cameras in the UK is INSANE.
and face-recognition software is used to identify people on it
Not sure why this is a sign of totalitarianism.
And you don't see any irony in this statement?
Is it less totalitarian if you have a human matching the faces to photographs?
No, just more expensive. Or, perhaps, it's a bit more totalitarian because you can face recognition can be applied automatically. It can also be extended to the recognition of gestures and behavioral patterns, which would lead straight down a slippery slope into an Orwellian nightmare state.
and all big parties are decidedly right-wing
Bullshit. One of the two parties in our coalition government is still slightly left of centre, and my MEP is from a decidedly left-wing party.
Well, I acknowledge that they don't appear right-wing to you, but they do appear so to me and others I've talked with.
it is still legal in the UK to beat up your children
any UK news source, then you'd see examples of parents being imprisoned and having their children taken into care for this.
That's not true, as opposed to most other countries in Europe, corporal punishment by parents is not illegal in the UK---as long as it leaves no traces on the body!
Wikipedia: "In the UK, spanking or smacking is legal, but it may not leave a mark on the body and in Scotland since October 2003 it has been illegal to use any implements when disciplining a child."
That in combination with a poor underclass with low job opportunities are basically a warrant for youth violence.
Look, I wasn't intending to say that the UK actually is more totalitarian than other European countries (it could well be, but I don't know), it just looks like that from the outside. Sorry if this displeases some British people, perhaps it's just a PR problem.
Personally, as long as I don't have to move to the UK for some reason I don't give a fuck.
I'm sorry to say that but for an outside European observer the UK is becoming more and more like a totalitarian country.
Huh? "Totalitarian" usually refers to a government that's rather brutal and oppressive in how it deals with its citizens. As an American, everything I hear about the UK (esp. England) is that it's completely limp-wristed. Kids in school are disruptive, and teachers are utterly powerless to do anything about it, other than to give them "a cross" on their paper. Kids commit crimes, and the police do little except make them write letters of apology. And now, when thousands of hooligans start rioting and burning down buildings and assaulting people, the English police are utterly powerless to stop them for days on end. Over here in the US, riots like that would have been dealt with using water cannons, beanbags, tasers, etc., but not in the UK, there the cops just stand around outnumbered and unarmed and let rioters burn and pillage.
That's not what I'd call a "totalitarian" system at all.
There are cameras everywhere and face-recognition software is used to identify people on it
So what? You have no expectation of privacy when you're in a public place. It's like that here in the US too, except that we just don't bother with cameras as much.
the law system is "by custom" or how it's called
What, are you complaining about Common Law vs. Civil Law? Common Law has been around for centuries, it's not perfect, but it doesn't mean the law is "by custom", it just means that prior court decisions are a large factor in the absence of specific legislation addressing a particular instance. Regardless, it certainly doesn't have anything to do with totalitarianism (Germany and the Soviet Union never had Common Law), and it predates totalitarianism by about 800 years.
and all big parties are decidedly right-wing
As an American, I can only laugh at this one. Either you're a troll or a total leftist.
In this case, the only response was a hard crackdown on rioters.
[laughs some more] You're kidding, right? I'd hate to see what you think is a "soft crackdown on rioters".
It's not as if we're going to start invading the rest of Europe.
Yep, these riots pretty much proved that England is so limp-wristed with its police that there's no chance they could pull off an invasion of anything.
Don't get me wrong; I'm glad the UK has stopped being such an imperialist like they were 100 years ago, and I wish my own country would cut out the imperialist crap too, but the UK has gone too far in the other direction and can't even maintain order with a few hooligans.
But Tomlinson was certainly manslaughter by definition of the acts, although the case was never brought
It was eventually. After the coroner's jury ruled it was unlawful killing, the prosecutors reopened the case and brought a manslaughter charge.
Trust me, in comparison to other European countries the number of cameras in the UK is INSANE.
Last study I read showed that, if you just count the government-operated ones, it's lower than France or Germany, but higher than the rest of the EU.
And you don't see any irony in this statement?
Enforcing a law is totalitarian? No, not really. And we're not talking about laws like 'don't criticise the glorious leader', we're talking about laws like 'don't set fire to your neighbour's house'. If using technology to assist in enforcing laws like that is totalitarian in your mind, then you have a very strange view.
No, just more expensive. Or, perhaps, it's a bit more totalitarian because you can face recognition can be applied automatically. It can also be extended to the recognition of gestures and behavioral patterns, which would lead straight down a slippery slope into an Orwellian nightmare state.
Oh, I see, it's not totalitarian, but if it were something different then it would be, so it is.
Well, I acknowledge that they don't appear right-wing to you, but they do appear so to me and others I've talked with.
Given that my MEP is a member of the Greens-European Free Alliance, which is regarded as left of centre by most of Europe, I'd say that my view is shared.
Wikipedia: "In the UK, spanking or smacking is legal, but it may not leave a mark on the body and in Scotland since October 2003 it has been illegal to use any implements when disciplining a child."
Which is not the same as 'beating up' by any reasonable definition of the word.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Yeah, except for two major problems (in my opinion):
"The four year sentence is the longest that has been issued in relation to last week’s riots and as such has sparked much controversy since the men had no previous convictions, did not participate in any violence themselves, and the riots they tried to incite never actually broke out."
"The idea has started out as a misguided joke between the two men, according to the BBC."
Between this whole thing in the UK and San Fransisco subway shutting down the internet... Come on, is the western world really going to throw in with China so easily?
In general free expression / free speech has limits. You can't, in the classic example, yell "Fire" in a crowded movie theater and expect to evade prosecution on free speech grounds. I think that's the general basis for prosecution of these guys: in general you can't incite a crowd to become violent and expect free speech protections. That's different from planning to incite a crowd to become violent which is probably protected..
England has over 80% of the population of the UK, Scotland about 8%. Not much surprise that non-Britons tend to treat England and the UK as the same thing, really, Scotland just isn't very significant.
Let me give you my own anarchistic POV. Looting is possibly defensible (property is theft) but torching people's homes and workplaces is not. Violence against other members of the proletariat is not. Preventing aid to those that are injured or trapped in a burning building definitely fucking not. As an anarchist you want to stay far far away from any scene where this kind of indefensible shit is going on and you don't want to defend it after the fact. Sure there may have been some true believers in the mix but if so they are the kind of idiots that do more harm then good so I'm not going to shed a tear if they end up in prison.
What you're describing isn't the fault of consumerism. It's the fault of a culture of entitlement. These individuals have repeatedly stated in interviews that they're taking things because they are owed. It has nothing to do with haves/have nots and everything to do with greed and the unwillingness to work for it. Although, I think you can rightfully blame politicians for this: They're the ones who drive a wedge along political lines to further divide the public.
I don't think so. The British police have demonstrated far greater restraint through all of this than any other force in the world. If you think shooting a thug is police brutality, I'm not sure what you would do if you came to the US--we have repeatedly demonstrated numerous instances of brutality, many of which go unreported or underreported, and you're suggesting that the British are "mob-handed," yet not a shot was fired that I am aware of to kill any of these looters.
He who has no
You're right: it's all a giant conspiracy.
P.S: Court records are public, Super Injunction or no Super Injunction. If you actually believe your own paranoid delusions, go find one single instance in the court records and report back to us. Go on, off you go.
Hmm, for some reason the Boston Tea Party comes to mind. A bunch of people destroying something that wasn't theirs; but in that case it was to protest the new tea tax. With modern media, it might have looked a bit like these riots. Although the history books don't mention anything about folks grabbing tea for themselves ... just dumping it in the harbor.
The upper class pulled the carrot away a long time ago. If your a part of the machine, like you and I probably are, then the carrot is close enough and big enough to keep us reasonably satisfied, but as a kid, looking at a world with huge unemployment, declining wages and benefits and an upper class that is deeply rooted in keeping things that way, its very easy to see why they would loose hope, give up and resort to violence. Especially if they don't happen to be in the top of their class... the type of people with the chance to not only get on the treadmill but actually work their way away from the edge of it.
If all you can hope for (or all you believe you can hope for) is a life where you are constant fear of loosing your job and ending up down in the shrinking safety net of society it must become a lot easier to be disillusioned.
The stick only solves the problem in the short run at best.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Canning Circus police station, Nottingham. Firebombing of a hard target.
Multiple attacks on police in riot gear.
Yes, but it was their fault, they hired the law firm "Steel and Shamash". Honest I'm not making this up they've not learned their lesson at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9vuhFME0BE
Except that some of them could have thought that looting and such would change things. You could say they're wrong, but that wouldn't change what they are thinking. Can you prove that none of them thought that?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
That's just pedantic.
I don't think it's minor. I prefer to interpret most things by reading exactly what they wrote and not trying to guess what they "really" meant.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Yup, you've just helped make your case alright, an unrelated legal construct (which has already been shown to be ineffective) and the "threat" of being "disappeared"...
Seriously, get out more.
A case for me and against you is the long, strung out legal battle the City of London had to remove protestors from a strip of grass outside Parliament - it took the city a decade of court battles to finally get rid of them, and return that small park to something resembling a grassed area.
Changes in the law, court hearings and lots of other things were used to try and remove Brian Haw from outside of Parliament, and yet he remained legitimately protesting there until he voluntarily left in late 2010 in order to have his cancer treated. No ASBO in sight...
You must be a riot at Metaphor Night.
Well, that's why I said "most things." If it's not an obvious joke or metaphor (or something).
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
The two convicted were not stating an opinion - they were saying "let's get together to have a riot" and at least one gave a particular location (behind McDonalds) where the rioters should assemble. Of course they claim it was all a joke.
Maybe it was a joke? Refer to the Guildford 4 (filmed as "In the Name of the Father"). The people charged with the crime started naming all sorts of people as also involved in the bombing just to demonstrate how ridiculous the charges were. People like 'My Auntie Vi' or some such. Rather than really investigate whether Auntie Vi was really involved, rather than at Bingo, the British police just banged everyone up for a decade or so.
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
Do you keep a running tally of each to actually know if it is the most?
Amended:
I want to pick a business with a sleazy-looking website at random and start spamming links to their website everywhere.
Then when all you whiners complain, that company will get a bad rep.
Move lulz for great justice.
Glenn Beck will be SOOOO proud!
No, but I'd expect that it would be. I can't prove that it is, though. Maybe not.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
UK != Just England.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_of_the_United_Kingdom
Its really an uphill struggle to educate people when people like yourself who don't have a clue what you're talking about are the ones trying to do the educating.
As Pax681 said, there were only riots in England, no other UK countries, but way to show your ignorance about the world.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Google "deindividuation" to see that once part of the mob, there were probably no "some of them" acting for any other reason than as part of the general violence and theft. I can't prove that there was an absence of people thinking that they could change things by their actions (however dumb that would make them), but then absences are notoriously difficult to prove - can you prove a presence of them?
There's been a lot written about these "riots", as if the authors were looking at individual rioters' motivations, but basic mob psychology suggests that becoming part of a mob relives the individual of individual motivations or at least the usual demotivators that affect their behaviour as shown in (or similar to) the Milgrim and Stanford Prison Experiments. My take on the thing is that there was some initial anger influenced by general and specific circumstances but then, when those involved saw that their actions weren't being clamped down on, they became a mob and lost some of their personal self control, which is when the hell started breaking loose.
Good luck sometimes arrives disguised as bad
If you got that from what I wrote then you've clearly brought your preconceptions to the table and rank them higher than what actually happened.
My wife is a vet. She's been out 3 years. She busted her ass to accomplish it and was at her peak almost 200k USD in debt. In undergrad (which she completed with almost $0 debt thanks to various grants and such) all the way up until she started her second year, EVERYONE told her she was going to make a fortune when she got out.
One of her 4th year 'classes' was about business management ... where the VERY FIRST THING they did was say, and I quote:
"You should plan on moving back in with your parents or having someone else support you for the next 10 years while you pay off your debt unless you want to be in debt the rest of your life."
I stopped at high school graduation. I make a few thousand per year less than she does, and thats only because I'm too lazy to move and take advantage of any job offers at my feet, I could easily double my salary by moving.
My wife and I have decided there is no way in hell we'll be pushing our kids to go to secondary education full time, its no longer worth it. You're better off taking a low end job out of high school in the field they want to be in, doing enough community college in your spare time to get some sort of BS (bullshit, not B.S.) degree to shut the HR department up when applying for jobs, and work your way through the ranks. By the time you've got the experience of 8 years in the field you want to be in, the degree is a joke. Of course, for people like my wife, you have to have the degree even though most of her classmates clearly had no right what so ever practicing medicine, they now perform murders of animals on a daily basis because they start crying when something goes wrong.
While I agree with you, kids now days (and young adults especially) are spoiled brats. However, every single institution of secondary education in America is a fraud. All of them in the business of perpetuating themselves, NOT EDUCATING. At this point in time, its rather retarded to give your money to these institutions.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
So you shouldn't be saying "most things" without "I think and I may be incorrect" if you can't handle "nobody" like *everyone* else on the planet.
Are you implying that the Syrians do not have political goals and are just nicking TVs and trainers like the rabble in London?
I am. Though probably not TVs and such, they're probably stealing far more useful things. Lets be realistic, part of the motivation in Syria by some of the people is to steal shit and cause chaos, though in their world, with it actually being SHITTY, you can damn sure bet the ratio of people actually effecting change in Syria is far higher than that in England, even if Syria only has one man with pure intentions.
Riots are not indicators of people wanting change. They are immoral acts committed by men who are generally trying to claim its something else.
When you're trying to change your political situation, you use surgical strikes against your enemy. YOU DO NOT BURN DOWN YOUR OWN GOD DAMN NEIGHBORHOODS.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
between the declaration of independence and the first amendment.
both were supported heavily by the same guy.
Yeah. My mistake. But whether or not I should do that would remain up to me (since I could hold everyone else to that standard and not bother with myself).
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
And how do you know everyone else on the planet accepts the word "nobody" being used in a way that is technically "incorrect"?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
can you prove a presence of them?
No, but where did I say that I could? I was just commenting on his use of the word "nobody." I thought that it was technically incorrect.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
don't tar us with the same brush
Don't get your kilt in a knot, just because England is in the UK and I said 'UK riots' rather than 'English riots' does not mean I think Scotland experienced riots. That's your own faulty logic, not mine.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Yeah of course you're right. I'm just a bit afraid of this :
I agree that not stopping them was not an option, as they were violent and dangerous, but I really don't think the numbers were there to make it a real possibility that they couldn't be stopped.
The argument was not that they would topple the state. As plenty of revolutions have shown, no matter how unrealistic and moronic the revolutionaries, there's always a state coming out of it. See Iran, for example, for a bunch of morons demonstrating only to get terrorized into an islamic state by perhaps 5% of the revolutionaries because they didn't have any stomach for a real fight, and the progressives showed they couldn't organize their way out of a bomb belt. If you don't build the state, someone else will. You won't like the new meaning of getting stoned.
But this London demonstrations is making a free western democracy consider suppressing the right to demonstrations, social media, free exchange of ideas and so on. And that's for one little event. I wonder what will happen when this has occurred five times. And when it happens 50 times.
You believe in Santa claus and the Easter bunny don't you?
Because, I mean, no one's proven to you they don't exist yet.
You believe in Santa claus and the Easter bunny don't you?
No. I don't believe in them. Why would I? There's no evidence where evidence should be present.
Not only that, but you misinterpreted me. I didn't say that I believed that any of them thought that. I said that it was a possibility. I also have no reason that I see to believe that any of them thought anything. I don't know what they were thinking, and I doubt anyone else does either.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
That's just because you (and your friends) are reasonably rational people... I live near London, and I was watching the news wondering why people were fucking up the place where they live and some work.
everyone i know here was thinking "what the fuck are those fucking idiots doing ?"
can't say i blame you bud, and i do seriously mean that....
"No. I don't believe in them. Why would I? There's no evidence where evidence should be present."
Ah right, but it's okay that there's no evidence that people were rioting for a specific cause?
Look, you're trying to use logic to pedantically prove someone is wrong. I'm making the point to you that so pedantically abusing logic to try and make out you have a point is meaningless.
The fact is, there was no justification to the riots, it was mindless violence, and greed driven theft. If someone wants to pretend there was some kind of cause behind it that's fine, but it's also bollocks. There is no cause in wrecking your own community for a bit of fun and greed, which is what it really came down to.
As others have said it doesn't really matter if there were one or two deluded individuals amongst the thousands of rioters who genuinely felt they were changing something in their own minds. The fact is they weren't, they were wrong, and they were no better than those doing it for kicks and free shit. What they did simply cannot be justified by any false cause they may wish to proclaim.
Take another look at what I wrote there, sunshine.
Way to show your ignorance about reading comprehension.
Ah right, but it's okay that there's no evidence that people were rioting for a specific cause?
Well, yes, I believe that it is okay to choose what you believe in. It's just a belief, after all. And, as I said, I said nothing about beliefs. That was you.
And if you're asking me if there's a possibility that something exists, then yes. Unless it has been proven wrong with 100% accuracy, I believe that there is (even if I don't believe in it).
I'm making the point to you that so pedantically abusing logic to try and make out you have a point is meaningless.
"Abusing logic"? What? I'd prefer whatever that is over making generalizations that you likely can't even know.
And stop "abusing logic" to try to make yourself seem as if you have a point. It's factually meaningless because I said so.
The fact is, there was no justification to the riots
That's your opinion. Some may disagree.
If someone wants to pretend there was some kind of cause behind it that's fine, but it's also bollocks
Can you prove that?
There is no cause in wrecking your own community for a bit of fun and greed, which is what it really came down to.
Fun and the belief the you are going to change something are two possible causes. I'm sure more exist that are unknown to me.
As others have said it doesn't really matter if there were one or two deluded individuals amongst the thousands of rioters who genuinely felt they were changing something in their own minds.
It matters to me. Otherwise, use of the word "nobody" was misplaced, I think. He didn't even state that in the form of an opinion.
they were wrong
"Wrong" about what?
What they did simply cannot be justified by any false cause they may wish to proclaim.
I believe that whether or not it can be justified depends on who you ask (since, in my opinion, that's just an opinion).
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
and im talking about thomas jefferson
It is not the motive of the rioters wannabe that worry me, it is the motive under which they are indicted. This was clearly free speech. "Let's kill Obama" has been recognized as free speech, "Let's burn Cheschire" as stupid as it sound, should not be illegal.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.