Slashdot Mirror


UK Introduces Warrantless Detention

An anonymous reader writes with news that the UK is introducing new laws tightening security around military bases, quoting the article "The Ministry of Defense is set to introduce "draconian" new powers to tighten security and limit access to US airbases in Britain implicated in mass surveillance and drone strikes, The Independent can reveal. ... Among the 20 activities to be banned within the controlled area are camping 'in tents, caravans, trees or otherwise,' digging, engaging in 'any trade or business' or grazing any animal. Also among the offenses, which can result in an individual being 'taken into custody without warrant,' is a failure to pick up dog waste or causing damage to 'any crops, turfs, plants, roots or trees'"

153 comments

  1. Time for a new name by russotto · · Score: 4, Funny

    Let's just call the place Airstrip One and be done with it.

    1. Re:Time for a new name by noh8rz10 · · Score: 3, Funny

      TFS: Also among the offenses, which can result in an individual being 'taken into custody without warrant,' is a failure to pick up dog waste

      finally! an appropriate punishment for not cleaning up after your dog! Hopefully this migrates stateside.

    2. Re:Time for a new name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I proposed this a a solution to the "british Isles" name debate at Wikipedia, and somehow it didnt seem to catch on. PS the ministry of war is now the ministry of peace, and they have always allowed for citizens to voluntarily commit to a rehabilitation center without having to give a reason for doing so. isnt that nice of them? all prais

    3. Re:Time for a new name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I'd make them eat it.

    4. Re:Time for a new name by 7-Vodka · · Score: 1
      Why stop there?

      We should also shoot dead any animal, wild or otherwise, that shits and doesn't pick it up. Foxes, deer, coyotes, bears, sheep, cows, babies, chickens etc.

      I mean shit, if we're all for the initiation of force, I'm in guys.

      Also, I'd like to lobby for the right for you to kill yourselves. ASAP.

      Just reach in the drawer, take out your guns and put it in your mouths. It can't be wrong if you're doing it to yourself and lots of people would like you to do it.

      --

      Liberty.

    5. Re:Time for a new name by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      Mocking security measures, names of security-related installations, the Ministry of Defense, or otherwise, is now a prohibited activity. We know where you are. Please report for detention immediately. Bring all of your electronic devices.

    6. Re:Time for a new name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We should also shoot dead any animal, wild or otherwise, that shits and doesn't pick it up. Foxes, deer, coyotes, bears, sheep, cows, babies, chickens etc.

      Baby whats? Chickens? Cows? Sheep? All of the above?

    7. Re:Time for a new name by bkcallahan · · Score: 1

      Put a wedding ring in it...

    8. Re:Time for a new name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> TFS: Also among the offenses, which can result in an individual being 'taken into custody without warrant,' is a failure to pick up dog waste

      > finally! an appropriate punishment for not cleaning up after your dog! Hopefully this migrates stateside.

      In Slovakia, anyone caught failing to pick up their own dog's poop is taken into custody and forced to eat it.

  2. Tiiiight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tiiiight

  3. Vendetta by holophrastic · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Guy Fawkes

  4. Article needs fixing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    s/introduce/impose/g

    1. Re:Article needs fixing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      s/Ministry of Defense/Ministry of Truth/g

    2. Re:Article needs fixing by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      Headlines also considered: "UK [offers | rolls out | unveils | is pleased to announce] Warrantless Detention"

    3. Re:Article needs fixing by metamarmoset · · Score: 1

      Or minipax.

  5. FUCK YOU SLASHDOT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    THIS NEW DESIGN IS DOG SHIT

    1. Re:FUCK YOU SLASHDOT by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yep.. it is dog shit, it's really bad. I wanted to mod your comment up but apparently I don't have any now :(

    2. Re:FUCK YOU SLASHDOT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah like how mobygames fucked themselves up with a shitty new redesign and there's an exodus of people because of it.

    3. Re:FUCK YOU SLASHDOT by vyvepe · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is a piece of junk.

    4. Re:FUCK YOU SLASHDOT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Totally agree. So much that I "earthed" beta.slashdot.org to 127.0.0.1 in my /etc/hosts. The "unconfigured" page of my lighty is much nicer.

    5. Re:FUCK YOU SLASHDOT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but the 'designers' know best, and we can't hurt their delicate sensibilities by telling them they are talentless, gullible, bandwagon following idiots, can we!
      Just look at all the virtually invisible grey text on white backgrounds we see all over the internet now - for no other reason than the 'designers' like to copy each other, even going out of their way to make the text as light as possible, so that it's virtually impossible to see! How original! How cutting edge!

      Most 'designers' are arrogant cretins who can't think for themselves, and who copy off OTHER 'designers', hence the ridiculous design of the new Slashdot site, etc.

      Such is the arrogance of the cretins who actually employ these 'designers', that they would rather their entire business goes under, than admit they're wrong! Just look at Microsoft and 'The Ribbon' and 'Metro'.

      Google Jensen Harris... derp, derp, derp...

    6. Re:FUCK YOU SLASHDOT by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      Don't worry...DICE's focus groups tell them that all the teenagers find it kicks ass, and flows nicely. The only thing missing is automatic twitter and facebook integration...

      Ugh...

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    7. Re:FUCK YOU SLASHDOT by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      To not be behind the times, Slashdot introduced warrantless design.

    8. Re:FUCK YOU SLASHDOT by Laxori666 · · Score: 1

      I have mod points, I'll mod it for you - wait shit.

    9. Re:FUCK YOU SLASHDOT by antdude · · Score: 1

      I agree. I remember it had an option to go back to classic.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  6. Failure to pick up dog waste by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Funny

    I can understand the part about penalizing failure to pick up dog waste. No sense arming the inevitable protesters gratuitously.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    1. Re:Failure to pick up dog waste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can understand the part about penalizing failure to pick up dog waste. No sense arming the inevitable protesters gratuitously.

      Ain't this some shit?

    2. Re:Failure to pick up dog waste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are not giving enough attention to dogs and other animals pissing anywhere they like. They continuously scent up anything that happens to be sticking from the ground, and they continuously fight over ownership of these random outdoor objects. For the government to keep smells under control, they need to better specify what can piss and where it is appropriate, to make sense of this problem known as "The yellow shower".

    3. Re:Failure to pick up dog waste by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't be a bad idea actually. A worthy successor of the Tumult of Bologna http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tumult_of_Bologna

    4. Re:Failure to pick up dog waste by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      So when's someone gonna pick up the new Slashdot design then? :-D

    5. Re:Failure to pick up dog waste by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      So when's someone gonna pick up the new Slashdot design then? :-D

      No fair, dog shit is less toxic.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  7. confusion? by snakeplissken · · Score: 5, Interesting

    yes this is draconian but i don't think that 'taken into custody without warrant' means what i think the slashdot article implies it does. to me it means that these are now arrestable offences, obviously police can already arrest people without 'a warrant' otherwise no one could ever be arrested or detained on the street for any crime without a judge first being involved.

    officer: i saw you hit that woman
    scrote: fuck you
    officer: right sonny, just you wait here while i get a warrant so i can make you stay here,
    hey come back, i haven't got the warrant yet!...

    the problem here is that they shouldn't be arrestable offences not that police have the already existing power to arrest people

    snake

    1. Re:confusion? by holostarr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But why make not picking up after your dog an arrestable offence anyway? To me it would be reasonable if the penalty was a fine rather than a criminal record!

    2. Re:confusion? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      That close to a base, and digging and other things prohibited, who's to say someone didn't make something nefarious that looked like poo? Though, for consistency's sake, all littering, including failure to pick up poo, should be treated in a similar manner.

    3. Re:confusion? by AHuxley · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Up until this point you had the option to go to the fence and protest any new war, weapons system, double tap drone strikes, vast domestic surveillance operations...
      This would make an images, footage or interviews from the protest event very powerful.
      Think back to the UK and EU around the Pershing 2 nuclear missile. The optics of the protests was great for the press.
      A collection of people from a cross section of society at a base, next to the fence with surveillance hardware or weapons systems in the same frame.
      The new controlled area might allow for interviews with lanes, wooded areas, hills, roads or other nondescript buildings in the background.
      The protected area laws will basically herd protesters into vast "free speech zones" well away from the desired visual political statement.
      The court challenges will also be interesting. It is not base land, so the UK will have to allow people to walk dogs, protest on land near the base or fully restrict all use.
      The UK gov will have to expand warning signs, fences - an expensive land grab to widen the legal areas under direct 'base' control.
      If not the UK laws become legally arbitrary - if you look local or are known to be local you can walk a dog? If you don't look local or are known to be a protester your freedom of movement is gone?
      Why not just buy the land and move out the fences? Very legal and very simple.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:confusion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      officer: i saw your dog shit on that lawn
      scrote: fuck you
      officer: right sonny, just you wait here while i get a warrant so i can make you stay here,
      hey come back, i haven't got the warrant yet!... And now I have dog shit on my boots.

      It's a problem alright.

    5. Re:confusion? by KinkyClown · · Score: 1

      Does that mean that I can digg a hole somewhere in the streets of London (not near a base) and the police can not arrest me?

    6. Re: confusion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Given that 'scrote' is British slang, and not American, I can definitely tell that you are an honest expert with an opinion that reflects reality, and definitely not a troll spewing whatever fits your bias.

    7. Re:confusion? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Since they don't normally carry around guns, they can only taz you multiple times.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    8. Re:confusion? by myowntrueself · · Score: 4, Informative

      But why make not picking up after your dog an arrestable offence anyway? To me it would be reasonable if the penalty was a fine rather than a criminal record!

      In the UK being arrested doesn't automatically get you a criminal record and employers don't check if you've ever been arrested before hiring you. Its not, yet, part of the USA.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    9. Re: confusion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Come on scro', don't be a pussy!"
      - Dwayne Elizondo Camacho Five-time Ultimate Smackdown champion Porn superstar And president of the United States, ..... bitch.

      Next you'll claim that "retard" is also British slang, ...... 'tard.

    10. Re:confusion? by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It may be a shock to some that the purpose of military bases are not simply to provide optics for protesters. They have an actual function that the protesters often desire to interfere with.

      As to the Pershing 2 issue, that is a splendid example of the bankruptcy of the so called "peace movement." Where were the protests over the Soviet SS-20s that the Pershing missiles were brought in to counter? It was hardly proportionate.

      A short history of NATO - The Cold War revived

      The 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Soviet deployment of SS-20 Saber ballistic missiles in Europe led to the suspension of détente. To counter the Soviet deployment, Allies made the “dual track” decision to deploy nuclear-capable Pershing II and ground-launched cruise missiles in Western Europe while continuing negotiations with the Soviets. The deployment was not scheduled to begin until 1983. In the meantime, the Allies hoped to achieve an arms control agreement that would eliminate the need for the weapons.

      Lacking the hoped-for agreement with the Soviets, NATO members suffered internal discord when deployment began in 1983. Following the ascent of Mikhail Gorbachev as Soviet Premier in 1985, the United States and the Soviet Union signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in 1987, eliminating all nuclear and ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with intermediate ranges. This is now regarded as an initial indication that the Cold War was coming to an end.

      Soviet influence on the peace movement

      Russian GRU defector Stanislav Lunev said in his autobiography that "the GRU and the KGB helped to fund just about every antiwar movement and organization in America and abroad," and that during the Vietnam War the USSR gave $1 billion to American anti-war movements, more than it gave to the VietCong.[19] Lunev described this as a "hugely successful campaign and well worth the cost".[19] According to Time magazine, a US State Department official estimated that the KGB may have spent $600 million on the peace offensive up to 1983, channeling funds through national Communist parties or the World Peace Council "to a host of new antiwar organizations that would, in many cases, reject the financial help if they knew the source."[13] Richard Felix Staar in his book Foreign Policies of the Soviet Union says that non-communist peace movements without overt ties to the USSR were "virtually controlled" by it. Lord Chalfont claimed that the Soviet Union was giving the European peace movement £100 million a year. The Federation of Conservative Students (FCS) alleged Soviet funding of CND.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    11. Re:confusion? by TitusGroan8856 · · Score: 1

      actually, the police have a warrant that permits them to arrest for arrestable offences. the police seldom don't know what is and isn't an arrestable offence though as I can attest. I was once "arrested" until I explained to the officer that my "crime" wasn't actually an arrestable offence and they could only arrest me during the commision of the crime or if it was likely to recur (which it wasn't), so they would need a proper warrant to arrest me. the matter was dropped.

    12. Re:confusion? by AHuxley · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Protesting on public land outside a fence is very legal freedom of expression Cold. To "interfere" you have to move beyond the fence.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    13. Re:confusion? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Protesters have moved beyond the fence on more than one occasion at various bases.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    14. Re:confusion? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Yes Titus thats the fun part thats going to be raised by the random nature of laws like this without the legal equality a fence provides.
      In front of the fence you have the full protection UK law and can hold up a sign, walk or have a peace badge on a and conduct an interview without fear of police arrest.
      To be randomly chosen for much stricter enforcement will provide interesting UK/EU test cases.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    15. Re:confusion? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The new laws are for areas outside the bases cold. The laws covering UK and US/UK joint bases/sites are well established.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    16. Re:confusion? by fatphil · · Score: 2

      I doubt it, it's probably blocking a public thoroughfare, and quite likely a breach of the peace. "Public" doesn't mean "anyone can do anything here".

      However, it's time for someone to resurrect Mark Thomas. The kinds of stunts he used to pull were always fun. (This included deliberately dressing up and loitering suspiciously (including obligatory newspapers with cut-out slivers to peek through), but always hanging around on groups of only 3, no more.)

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    17. Re: confusion? by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      My experience diving there says there are already so many holes in the roads no one would really notice (ghostbusters 2 paraphrased and my real experience there)

    18. Re:confusion? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Were. They seem to be changing. ;)

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    19. Re:confusion? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Yes much fun will result: good antiwar publicity, law reform and public test cases, more protests to test legality of the laws and amazing HD video footage of police trying to enforce 'laws' on one person in public. More fun occurs if police arrest a lawyer, member of the press, a politician or wealthy protester who can afford a good legal team :)

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    20. Re:confusion? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      I suspect this is needed to allow the military to detain suspected offenders. Often there's a jurisdictional issue here. You don't want to give the civilian police unrestricted access to a secure military facility, and a soldier is quite capable of restraining and bringing in a trespasser.

    21. Re:confusion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. Breach of the peace or behaviour likely to provoke one. That covers anything.

    22. Re:confusion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, it's time for someone to resurrect Mark Thomas.

      I didn't know he had died.

    23. Re:confusion? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Ah, spreading your bullshit again.

      You conviniently left out the fact that USSR had officially pledged "no first use" of nuclear weaponry, while NATO in fact still insists on a preemptive first strike option.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    24. Re:confusion? by mrbester · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you missed the bit where Tony Blair decreed that all offences are arrestable. Any arrest gets you a criminal record (as does a caution, Section 27 dispersal notice, etc.) but there is still discretion as to whether you do get arrested for something minor due to the paperwork involved...

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    25. Re:confusion? by zAPPzAPP · · Score: 2

      'That close'?
      I skimmed the article and nowhere does it say how big this area would be.
      If it is supposed to counter listening in with spy antennas and drones, then it must be quite big.

    26. Re:confusion? by mrbester · · Score: 1

      Was that a while ago? I only ask as *all* offences are arrestable nowadays.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    27. Re:confusion? by C0R1D4N · · Score: 2

      I think this is a great opportunity for some civil disobedience. All you brits should gather your dogs and head to the controlled zone.

    28. Re:confusion? by pr100 · · Score: 5, Informative

      There might be a record of your arrest, but that's not what is normally understood by a criminal record, which is a list of the offences of which you've been convicted or accepted a caution in respect of.

    29. Re:confusion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In the UK being arrested doesn't automatically get you a criminal record..

      Though it does get your DNA and fingerprints into the system, and whilst your arrest may not appear in one set of results, rest assured, the fact that you've been arrested will be in their intelligence files forever.

      Fun fact#45223, the DNA database had 5 million records in 2009, that was for a population of 62 million people or so, so 8% of the (then) UK populace was directly 'on-file'.

      ..and employers don't check if you've ever been arrested before hiring you.

      Ah, I take it then you've not spotted the increase in employers 'gaming' the system by putting people through unjustified DBS checks (down South) and Enhanced Disclosure (Scotland)?
      Admittedly, from what I've seen, this is usually based on both ignorance on the scope of the law on the part of the employer and their understandable confusion when faced with the mess of legislation, and the usual archaic-weasel-lawyerspeak it is written in, but hey, personnel departments being personnel departments...

      The thing here, as you might know, the Police in the UK run multiple databases, and, as the disclosure guidelines state
      '.. Enhanced disclosure may also reveal local police information (e.g. details of allegations, arrests, not guilty verdicts etc.) that is felt to be relevant to the job..'

      Not just convictions, but arrests and allegations are available to a prospective employer under this scheme and, note the emboldened bit above, felt by who?, relevant how?

      Another fun fact, there are currently 1705 'umbrella bodies' who are authorised to do these checks 'in bulk' (as the government can't be arsed dealing with small numbers of checks being made, they've farmed it out), there is one interesting thing about using these bodies to do your checks, as one guide puts it
      '..If you are intending to use an umbrella body, you need to contact them to make an agreement about how they will make the applications on your behalf, how much they will charge for this, and what information they will share with you once they receive it.'

      Note: what has now happened is that a fourth party (neither the employee, employer or government) now has a copy of whatever information the police have 'disclosed' and can make arbitrary decisions as to what then to do with it.

      Fun, eh?

    30. Re:confusion? by Shimbo · · Score: 2

      But why make not picking up after your dog an arrestable offence anyway?

      The concept no longer exists in English law, all offences are arrestable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrestable_offence

    31. Re:confusion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be randomly chosen for much stricter enforcement will provide interesting UK/EU test cases.

      As if this sort of targeting is anything new in the UK, though I'd question the 'randomly chosen' bit.

      In the 80's, I used to take photos for a small aviation magazine. Now, I have long hair (though less up front, nowadays), a beard and used to wear the de rigueur green army jacket, and I spent a hell of a lot of time lurking around the perimeters of RAF bases and not once was I ever stopped or questioned by any of the RAF, MOD or any other plods.
      Admittedly, I knew that there was a certain part of England where my presence within several miles of a non-existent airfield would have me 'disappeared' for a while (and my camera equipment confiscated). I always assumed that I'd been 'clocked' and found to be 'mostly harmless'.

    32. Re:confusion? by TitusGroan8856 · · Score: 1

      breach of the peace is *NOT* and never has been an arrestable offence if it is neither on going or likely to recur. So you can stop yourself from being arrested if you shut up when the police arrive ;-)

    33. Re:confusion? by TitusGroan8856 · · Score: 1

      true, however breach of the peace isn't an arrestable offence if it is not ongoing nor likely to recur.

    34. Re:confusion? by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      I suspect this is needed to allow the military to detain suspected offenders. Often there's a jurisdictional issue here. You don't want to give the civilian police unrestricted access to a secure military facility, and a soldier is quite capable of restraining and bringing in a trespasser.

      "restraining and bringing in" is the literal definition of "arrest".

      Actually, most soldiers are trained with intent to kill and destroy, or at best herd using threat of deadly force. You need MPs if you want to simply and safely arrest un-cooperative people. They have not only the training, but the necessary equipment to do so.

    35. Re:confusion? by mrbester · · Score: 1

      The likelihood of recurrence is at the discretion of the police. Guess what they'll go for if you don't scarper when ordered even if you aren't doing anything wrong (and technically don't have to).

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    36. Re:confusion? by Ash+Vince · · Score: 2

      Any arrest gets you a criminal record (as does a caution, Section 27 dispersal notice, etc.) ....

      No, it does not. You simply have no idea what you are talking about.

      You only get a criminal record in the UK if you are found guilty of a criminal offence in court or if you accept (ie - admit guilt) a police caution. A simple arrest where you are released without charge or where you are given something like a dispersal notice or even where you are arrested, charged, but the charges are dropped before you go to court does not entail any sort of criminal record at all. Arrests such as these do not cause you to fail a CRB check.

      If you are arrested as part of something political then special branch might keep a record of this, but they probably keep a record of everyone who even attends any sort of political gathering anyway and they keep their records pretty private now, since they made such a balls up with the building workers blacklist a few years back.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_record#United_Kingdom

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    37. Re:confusion? by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      Ah, spreading your bullshit again.

      You conviniently left out the fact that USSR had officially pledged "no first use" of nuclear weaponry, while NATO in fact still insists on a preemptive first strike option.

      Russia simply had less need to use nuclear weapons in a first strike capability as for most of the cold war they had huge tank armadas that could roll over most of Europe. Faced with this the US pretty quickly decided that they should counter any conventional invasion of Europe by tanks with a nuclear strike on Moscow. This was pretty much their only option if they wanted a serious deterrent as they had no where near enough tanks in Europe to hope to stand up to the red army after the second world war.

      The US also had the problem that for the first few years of the cold war the US tanks were crap compared to the Russian T-34: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks_of_the_U.S._in_the_Cold_War

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    38. Re:confusion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes a_pledge_from_Russia. Worth about exactly as much as your post. And mine. But you get the point.

    39. Re:confusion? by Smauler · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid you're wrong. Police do keep records of arrests, and they can be revealed in enhanced CRB checks.

      From here : "the fact that a person has been arrested is very likely to be stored on the person's police record on the Police National Computer. [...] if this is an Enhanced [CRB] check, there is an option for the police to include any other relevant information about the person that is stored on the PNC and that is considered relevant for the application. So if the police believe that the reason for the arrest is in some way relevant to the purpose for the CRB application, they can disclose these details in the 'Additional Information' section."

      I'm quite a good example... I've been arrested once for ABH (I was attacked, tried to get away, eventually hit someone in self defence, charges dropped in a day), and once for GBH (wrong person, I was just walking past... released on bail next day, all my clothes went to forensics, no charges brought). These arrests will almost certainly be included by the police on any enhanced CRB check involving working with vulnerable people, so it's very unlikely I'd ever get a job in that sector. I'm completely innocent of these crimes, I'm just lucky I don't have any intention of working in that sector. Others are not so lucky.

    40. Re:confusion? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      I think we could agree that everybody would benefit by the arrest of a few 'posh' protesters, including the 'posh' protesters.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    41. Re:confusion? by OolimPhon · · Score: 1

      If it is supposed to counter listening in with spy antennas and drones, then it must be quite big.

      It is designed to prevent the establishement of camps by protesters, like the one which appeared at Greenham Common when the cruise missiles were based there. The camps can become distinctly unsanitary.

    42. Re:confusion? by shadowofwind · · Score: 1

      The distinction doesn't matter as much now in the age of internet and routine background investigations. I got arrested on a class one misdemeanor charge years ago. Since its not a felony, even had I been convicted I wouldn't have had to put it on job applications. I was completely innocent, and the charges were dropped. But it still turns up and I still have to explain it to employers when I try to change jobs. As far as I know it hasn't hurt me, but I still find it a bit worrisome that the whole "expunged from record" thing appears to have become a fiction.

      I think this is another reason the pre-screening thing that the TSA has been pushing is a terrible idea. The mechanisms are already in place that with tiny changes create a huge subclass of undesirables that has trouble traveling.

    43. Re:confusion? by pr100 · · Score: 1

      We were talking about England of course, where we don't have the distinction between "misdemeanors" and "felonies" that exists in some places.

      You would not have to report any arrests when applying for a job in the UK. An employer would not have any mechanism for discovering this (unless a google search turns up a newspaper report of your arrest or something).

      There are certain provisions for jobs involving children where a more thorough background check can be requested from the authorities. But this is aimed essentially at protecting children from paedophiles and only things that are relevant to that are at issue.

    44. Re:confusion? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Counter is one thing. Nuclear first strike - and this is exactly what I am talking about - is a whole different matter.

      T-34, even the newer T-34/85, was outdated even in the first years of the cold war. In fact, if the Soviet industry was not in such a sorry state, it would have been replaced by T-44 by 1944. M26 Pershing was a match for both, though. The crap tank you mention (M24 Chaffee) was a light tank, PT-76 would be comparable, not the almost twice as heavy T-34.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    45. Re:confusion? by fatphil · · Score: 1

      For someone whose work depends on him being in the public eye, not being in the public eye is the equivalent of no longer existing.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
  8. Criteria too complicated by DigiShaman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just post a sign that says "No Trespassing" and be done with it.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:Criteria too complicated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Complicated laws mean more criminals, if that's the kind of thing you want.

    2. Re:Criteria too complicated by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The US has about 5% of the world's population. We also have about 25% of the world's prisoners.

      Land of the incarcerated, home of the feeble. Britain is our staunchest ally. Perhaps they're looking to us for incarceration performance, eh?

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    3. Re:Criteria too complicated by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Yes that will allow what was police ~Forward Intelligence Teams (FITs) to seek out the most photogenic, charismatic, succinct protesters and remove them legally before the media can get close to a protest.
      No more standing at the fence during a long interview. Could the final UK vision be UK an East German style restricted zone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_German_border#1952.E2.80.9367:_the_.22Special_Regime.22 with special permit for locals to live or work inside?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:Criteria too complicated by whoever57 · · Score: 2

      Just post a sign that says "No Trespassing" and be done with it.

      Trespass is not genrally a criminal offense in the UK. I believe that there is an offense of "mass trespass" and there are bylaws that may make trespass a criminal offense in specific places (for example, military bases and railway lines).

      Or perhaps I just heard a "whooshing" sound?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    5. Re:Criteria too complicated by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      Well, that's a statistic you "never" see flogged on Slashdot.

      One notable difference between the US and some of the disreputable states used for comparison (Soviet Union, Communist China) is the differing nature of the offenses. People held in American prisons are there for recognizable criminal offenses, not political offenses. You may find it disagreeable that low level drug use in the US is criminalized, but that is certainly a different question than throwing someone into the gulag for making a fat joke about the president, which is something that doesn't happen in the US.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    6. Re:Criteria too complicated by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      I suppose we'll have to see what direction the UK goes. Certainly the destiny of the UK has been altered by design. The "wisdom" of that has yet to be shown.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    7. Re:Criteria too complicated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Some would argue those imprisoned, deserve to be imprisoned. The US system is the envy of many.

      And no, I'm not american.

    8. Re:Criteria too complicated by hawkinspeter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well that would seem to imply that the US must be one of the safest places in the world with such a tight grip on crime.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    9. Re:Criteria too complicated by mha · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do you have any numbers about "political" prisoners? It doesn't sounds like you actually *know* anything, except for some media headlines? Knowing Russia just a little (yes I also speak some Russian and have been there a few times, and in the Ukraine) I doubt there's any significant political movement behind bars. You have a WISISTI (What I See Is What There Is) perception - of course your news media don't report on "normal" cases in Russian, all they ever do (understandable and that's okay) is report a few very high profile (well, only that reporting makes them so) cases. Pussy? Khodorkovsky? Anyone else? Not to mention that Khodorkovsky never deserved all that attention.

      And don't think I want to defend Russia, it's a cold, hard country (in so more than just nature), but come up with intelligent criticism and not just some random opinion based on very little, no, more like no knowledge except a small number of headlines. Because it is such a f...-up tough country with severe poverty you can expect there to be crime, quite a bit of crime, with all those I-have-nothing-to-loose people. Better criticism would be the wealth distribution that contributes to crime. There isn't a big political movement to imprison ASAIK.

    10. Re:Criteria too complicated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm sure many right wing leaders get a half stiffy thinking about how many blacks are in american jails..

    11. Re:Criteria too complicated by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      While it's a pretty damning statistic in comparison to other first-world countries, it's worth remembering that a lot of other countries have lower incarceration rates because they flog or execute people for more minor crimes.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    12. Re:Criteria too complicated by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People held in American prisons are there for recognizable criminal offenses, not political offenses.

      "Criminal" offenses like smoking a joint. Most US prisoners are there for drugs. I'd call a drug arrest political.

    13. Re:Criteria too complicated by ElementOfDestruction · · Score: 1

      People who have actually been to Ukraine don't call it the Ukraine...

    14. Re:Criteria too complicated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      People who have actually been to Ukraine don't call it the Ukraine...

      Ah, but most of the audience here knows where he is talking about, and that's the point.

      I still know people who don't know Beijing is Peking, or that Bombay doesn't exist anymore (where the feck is Mumbai?)

    15. Re:Criteria too complicated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And some would argue that punishment shouldn't be about what people "deserve", it should be about what's in the best interests of society. People say they want the legal system to provide justice, but what they really want is vengeance. Mostly vengeance against people they don't know and will never meet.

    16. Re:Criteria too complicated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could the final UK vision be UK an East German style restricted zone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_German_border#1952.E2.80.9367:_the_.22Special_Regime.22 with special permit for locals to live or work inside?

      You try and purchase a house close to a 'sensitive' military installation in the UK, let me know how you get on
      (Clue: in getting a mortgage, your financial status will be the least of your worries..)

    17. Re:Criteria too complicated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I'm sure many right wing leaders get a half stiffy thinking about how many blacks are in american jails..

      Ohh yeah...and with the USian penchant for private prisons, they must surely dream of one day owning their own personal harems...

    18. Re:Criteria too complicated by RabidReindeer · · Score: 2

      People who have actually been to Ukraine don't call it the Ukraine...

      Well, it's kind of hard to when your language doesn't include a definite article.

    19. Re:Criteria too complicated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      People held in American prisons are there for recognizable criminal offenses, not political offenses.

      I can turn that argument upside down: This means that the US is ahead in the statistic even despite that other more oppressive countries cheat and inflate their numbers by locking up people for political reasons. This makes it more damning, not less.

      Now, you might be of the opinion that locking up criminals for longer time and due to smaller deeds than the rest of the world does is a good thing, but then you should just say so instead of diverting the discussion into comparision against regimes that are worse in entirely different aspects.

    20. Re:Criteria too complicated by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Just post a sign that says "No Trespassing" and be done with it.

      Trespass is not genrally a criminal offense in the UK. I believe that there is an offense of "mass trespass" and there are bylaws that may make trespass a criminal offense in specific places (for example, military bases and railway lines).

      Or perhaps I just heard a "whooshing" sound?

      Just be careful around the 100-Acre Wood. Old "Trespassers Will" is sensitive about such things. He may set Tigger on you.

      It's true, however, that the UK precepts that permit people to tramp across other people's property are completely alien to the hyper-possessive US concepts on such matters.

    21. Re:Criteria too complicated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the UK you have to remove the COMMON LAW of ACCESS such as used by Police, Post men/women, Ambulanace ment.

      Once you remove Common law right of access, then you can charge them with trespassing, but everybody has a common law right of access to properties, you have to remove that law from the people you want to charge for trespassing in the UK.

      This is one tactic used to get rid of TV license people and national population survey people. Remove their common law right of access.

    22. Re:Criteria too complicated by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      You may find it disagreeable that low level drug use in the US is criminalized

      I don't just find it disagreeable. I find it unjust, stupid and shortsighted. Having said that, it's exactly what I expect of our current government.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    23. Re:Criteria too complicated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Criminal" offenses like smoking a joint. Most US prisoners are there for drugs. I'd call a drug arrest political.

      It's not just a political arrest, it's an unconstitutional one. Smoking a joint in many circumstances (such as in the privacy of one's home) is clearly reasonable conduct, and thus protected by the 9th Amendment as a right retained by the people, and the 10th Amendment as a right reserved to the people. Government officials who hold people in prison for doing this, or even make arrests, are engaged in criminal conduct known as "kidnapping at gunpoint".

  9. MindFuck - They'll do it, believe me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there will be no revolt
    there will be no resistance
    they are moving us to a future where
    implanted chips will be the norm
    they will read and record our thoughts
    and perhaps they will physically move us, too
    and since they're working on removing memories
    we won't remember what happened when they 'moved' us.

    even the bible says there will come a time when people
    will seek death but won't be able to find it ...
    because THEY won't let you.

    It's all downhill, folks, they want your brain
    without enlisting in any force
    and they will take us by force
    yesterday the chip in the head people were crazies
    now we have the reality, they just have to introduce it

    they will seduce us into this electronic tattoo, pill swallow and monitor health, implantable chip and even stronger, more hideous technology in the name of many things, safety, health, entertainment, g00g1e gl4ss is the beginning. Soon they will say, "WHY AREN'T YOU WEARING ONE?" and you'll be forced to wear one like good old Wesley Crusher was.

    freedom - it was good while it lasted.

  10. UK introduces warrant less detention? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry no the police do not need a warrant to detain you in the uk.

    They need a warrant to kick your door down ( subject to caveats about imminent danger etc when they don't).

    He'll they don't even require a warrant to search your person or your car.

    So title is a complete misnomer.

    1. Re:UK introduces warrant less detention? by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      You are identified and the police remove you from the site.
      For how long can they remove you and where to? 10 mins? 10 h? 1 day? A few days over a protest?
      You are placed in police van and removed to a police station...
      You will be entered into a computer as having arrived, who arrested you and the nice legal part: 'why'.
      What will you be held under? A wait for an interview over 1h~10h-24h+++ just to keep you away?
      You ask for your lawyer, the interview starts and then what?
      Only "you" get charged with many others walking around the area freely all been recored in HD?
      Sooner or later you, your lawyer and the correct police paperwork has to go before an open court or you are free re join the protest :)
      If not your unique been held under some "controlled area" case moves up the UK and EU legal system.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:UK introduces warrant less detention? by no_go · · Score: 1

      By the way things are going, the "EU legal system" part may be unavailable some time in the future....

      The insistence on exceptionalism with regard to rules that apply to all the remaining member states is starting tho chaffe, and the constant "euro-ceptic" noises are starting to get a different reponse from people I know (It has change from "Why ?" to "Leave already").

      The UK public should be aware that some day their government will insist on another exception (threatening to leave if they don't get their way) and they will be told "Then leave".
      Europe as a political and economic entity will be weaker, the UK will be much much weaker (and it's citizens will loose access to a different legal safety net). The winners will be : China, Russia, etc ...

  11. The new layout... WHAT THE FUCK?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    :(

    1. Re:The new layout... WHAT THE FUCK?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have managed to "force" the classic slashdot page view by using this methodology:

      -- I'm on Windows XP I hate hate hate hate hate Vista, 7, 8, et al -- A Linux flavor which looks like Windows XP classic view WILL BE MY NEXT OS
      -- HOSTS file 0.0.0.0 beta.slashdot.org
      -- Firefox 3.6.28 I hate hate hate hate hate all other versions -- Not much of a fan of PaleMoon either; still too "modern" for my liking.
      -- Firefox Addon: Request Policy disallow all requests except for "fsdn.com"
      -- Firefox Addon: Redirector Include pattern=[http://beta.slashdot.org/], Redirect to=[http://slashdot.org/]
      -- Firefox Addon: SelectiveCookieDelete Slashdot cookie is deleted on every Firefox reboot

      Try opening the web address "http://slashdot.org" in Firefox; the classic Slashot page should load.
      Occasionally, you will get a looping effect where the page never loads (look at the address in the status bar) slashdot server scripts are trying to redirect you to the beta site but fail !! . . . . . restart Firefox; your cookie will be auto-deleted and the other FF addons and hosts file will take control back again.

    2. Re:The new layout... WHAT THE FUCK?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I got the beta version a while back. Was rather annoyed, as it is awful.
      Even entering the non-beta address "slashdot.org" was taking me to the beta.

      I just deleted cookies (Firefox) and went to slashdot.org and have been back on the normal version of the site for about a week now.

      Should last until they decide to ruin the site for good, at which point I will find another place to waste my time. Maybe in the real world.

    3. Re:The new layout... WHAT THE FUCK?! by HybridST · · Score: 1

      Opera on ios has kept my classic layout intact. Mostly...

      --
      Ever notice that Cobra Commander sounds an awful lot like Star scream?
    4. Re:The new layout... WHAT THE FUCK?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can a few of us contribute $1 each and have Matt Kruse make a Slashdot javascript that will format it to our liking? He did it for Facebook, and I'm sure Slashdot would be simpler. I'm in.

  12. This design is an aesthetic abortion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Whatever the actual intent, this redesign will do nothing other than accelerate the exodus to hacker news/reddit.

    1. Re:This design is an aesthetic abortion by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I get the point your making.. and if slashdot sticks with the the "beta" format I would rather spend my time on reddit. The reddit format is closer to my heart than what I'm seeing on the /. beta

    2. Re:This design is an aesthetic abortion by ElementOfDestruction · · Score: 5, Informative

      Feeble attempt to make the computer page look and feel the same as the mobile page. Stop. This madness has to stop.

    3. Re:This design is an aesthetic abortion by rvw · · Score: 1

      Whatever the actual intent, this redesign will do nothing other than accelerate the exodus to hacker news/reddit.

      Do you mean thehackernews.com? I don't see how that layout is any better than the new /. layout. I like whitespace, but here it is waste.

    4. Re:This design is an aesthetic abortion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, news.ycombinator.com (or hackerne.ws)

  13. NSA's ANT Division Catalog of Exploits for Nearly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NSA's ANT Division Catalog of Exploits for Nearly Every Major Software/Hardware/Firmware

    In ANT, Archive, Hacking, NSA, NSA Files, Surveillance, TAO, Technology on December 30, 2013 at 3:17 AM

    https://leaksource.wordpress.com/2013/12/30/nsas-ant-division-catalog-of-exploits-for-nearly-every-major-software-hardware-firmware/

  14. BEAM IT IN MY ASS, SCOTTY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    B===D l@@k at my monster truck, all tricked out with, vote for A or B and that gets me -- off like nothing other.

    i watch tv and the right says boo! to the left and vice versa it's all for show.

    humans weeping as the robots rise to consume us.

  15. 1984 post-redux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    George Orwell would have been just so proud (sic) of his nation's efforts to make his nightmare a reality! ;-(

    1. Re:1984 post-redux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on people now, smile on Big Brother, everybody get together and try to love one another, right now.

    2. Re:1984 post-redux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      George Orwell would have been just so proud (sic) of his nation's efforts to make his nightmare a reality! ;-(

      Ach,
      it was only doubleplus ungood when the communists were implementing it,
      when we're doing it, you'd better like it...or is that crimethink I'm detecting there citizen?

  16. but but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I get a groovy pop up box to post in! And I no longer have to read more than 20 lines of text at once so stupid people can read the site too! Great, we can communicate with idiots at last.

    Oh, and the redesign encourages anonymous posting....we all LOVE that dont we?

    Yeah, its a turkey.

    1. Re: but but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The mobile site has encouraged anon posts for months. All you had to do was try to navigate the comments logged-in once or twice before deciding "fuck it, it's AC from now on."

  17. Warrantless detention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the UK has introduced what has existed in every place on the earth since the invention of the legal system?

  18. cold_fjord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ahh... cold_fjord gives me again the warm fuzzies. Why, after skimming

    > It may be a shock to some that the purpose of military bases are not simply to provide optics for protesters. They have an actual function [...]

    I says to me: "gee, that *must* be cold_fjord. And cold_fjord it was!

    Well, cold_fjord: it may be a shock to you that some actually disagree with some of the purposes in said military bases. And that they have, in a Fucking Democracy the Fucking Right to express their disapproval. Even with (gasp!) public protests.

    Get used to that -- or choose another living place where those protests are more restricted. North Korea, perchance?

    Slashdot's captcha, as always, creepily sentient: "munition". Gaah.

    1. Re:cold_fjord by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Public protests are fine. Lawlessness generally isn't. Can you grasp the difference?

      I find it interesting that you demand the right to protest, the right to have different opinions, for everyone but me, apparently. Do you sense how conflicted you are? Are you quite sure that you truly support democracy and democratic values? It doesn't seem clear that you do.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  19. Or USians are the most criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess that interpretation is not going to sit well with merkins like cold fjord et al, though.

    1. Re:Or USians are the most criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess that interpretation is not going to sit well with merkins like cold fjord et al, though.

      Don't worry. The Cold Fjord Strategic Group has procedure manuals that can handle this sort of thing. They've already assembled reference tomes from which to provide suitable rebuttal quotes, as well as hyperlinks. Some of which may be salted with tracking mechanisms to ensure that potential dissidents are noted within the NSA database.

      When fat jokes about our leaders become arrestable offenses, all will be ready.

  20. Whilst you have the death penalty. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you're already executing people like these other "bad countries" so that one doesn't wash, dear.

    I don't think you can call out "they flog people" either, since you still have a 5x the average incarceration rate and these other unnamed and numberless countries' stats aren't showing 5x the number of floggings as detentions, are they?

  21. It's all just a little bit of history repeating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the past warrantless detention lead to emigration to the new world

    So the question is: where is the new world of today? Space, maybe? Underwater? In the sky?

  22. Think about what this actually means. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Police have the powers to arrest for any offence. Although legally symbolic - i.e. the police don't legally need to be carrying one to carry out their duties - force procedure represents this power by constables in the UK being required to carry and show their warrant card.

    The meaning here of creating "warrantless offences" is that people without a warrant card, i.e. SOLDIERS, are given the power to arrest CIVILIANS on public land close to a military base.

    Is that clear enough for you? A soldier bored with watching you protest can just put you in a headlock and call the police.

    1. Re:Think about what this actually means. by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Thank you for actually explaining it, since the article didn't care to.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:Think about what this actually means. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't thank the GP, that's total bollocks, it just means the police don't need to get a warrant in advance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest_without_warrant

      I don't know what powers the soldiers protecting the base have, but "warrantless offence" is just a normal category of offence.

    3. Re:Think about what this actually means. by purpledinoz · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be surprised if this "controlled area" gets expanded by 10 miles, then 50 miles, then 100 miles, then the whole country.

    4. Re:Think about what this actually means. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? Where do you make this stuff up?

      Firstly, police officers carry a warrant card and will produce it if asked, or if they are not wearing a uniform. That is not the same as "force procedures blah blah blah". I work for a UK police force and can state with authority that you are talking shit.

      Secondly, this is not conferring any powers on soldiers. MOD bases are patrolled either by private security such as G4S (and this won't give their staff any powers), or MOD police which are a bona-fide police force of police officers much like Royal Parks Constabulary, Port of Dover Police, Civil Nuclear Constabulary.

      Warrantless means without a warrant - whilst police officers can arrest someone "ON SUSPICION" of committing an offence, there needs to be specific wording in the Act of Parliament that creates an arrestable offence either with or without a warrant (and the type of warrant required, eg magistrate/JP, circuit judge, High Court judge etc)

  23. Dog poop by zakeria · · Score: 0

    if it takes care of the dog crap; then we welcome any law including the death penalty!

  24. next time... by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 0

    ...Brazil and Argentina will keep the Malvinas. UK is moving to 2nd and 3rd world status at warp speed and could not repeat the performance of the 80s. Glad I am not a Falklander, they are just SOL.

    1. Re:next time... by no_go · · Score: 1

      Brazil ?!?!
      I believe Brazil hasn't any claim over the Falklands/Malvinas (although they support Argentina's claim)

    2. Re:next time... by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

      That's right, Brazil will be an enabler with an expanding submarine force. They'll likely be part of the coalition next time. Argentina, "claims", Brazil, major hardware, no telling who else will add what. South America may gang up on UK post pax Americana

  25. Time for the badgers to strike back... by CaptainOfSpray · · Score: 1

    After the recent persecution/attempted then failed cull, stealth badgers equipped with low-light video systems in their backpacks will be infiltrating the controlled areas to report on suspicious police activity. They are quietly confident, being as how they can't be arrested for shitting in the controlled area, since they aren't dogs.

    --
    "Cock Up Your Beaver" does not mean what you think. This sig is intended to clog filters and annoy do-gooders
  26. Agreed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I go to slashdot and see the new design on the front page, I now stop and close it before it even finishes loading.

  27. Freedom's free ride is over by mlwmohawk · · Score: 1

    We hear all the time that freedom is not free it must be paid for periodically. Well, I think the western tradition of freedom is under attack and it is time that the citizens of the USA and the UK band agains their governments becoming like the repressive governments of Hitler and Stallen that they supposidly weren't. My only hope is that we have not built up so much "freedom debt" that we must pay for it with violen revolution.

    Does anyone have a viable plan to stop this wholesale nonsense?

  28. Draco would be proud by R3d+Jack · · Score: 1

    From the article:

    "The MoD insisted it is merely bringing up to date a disparate set of by-laws which were first introduced in 1892, and seeking to bring about a “layered” set of legislation which will increase public access to some military land."

    Draconian? LOL! I can't believe they let people in there at all. Furthermore, most of the rules seem to come from the groundskeepers, not spies.

    In the U.S. they put up fences and shoot people who go inside.

  29. Afraid of protestors or terrorists? by spacepimp · · Score: 1

    I think they are more afraid of public protests tarnishing the image of America over seas. (like that is what would cause it) more so than terrorists. What sort of terrorist attacks a military base? They aren't unprotected or civilian and becomes a form of military attack.

  30. "The Ministry of Defense is set to introduce "draconian" new powers to tighten security and limit access to US airbases in Britain implicated in mass surveillance and drone strikes, The Independent can reveal. ...

    Also among the offenses, which can result in an individual being 'taken into custody without warrant,' is a failure to pick up dog waste

    I'm not really sure where people are supposed to go when it's time to leave these countries.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  31. But what if Fido poops near a plant? by davidwr · · Score: 1

    is a failure to pick up dog waste or causing damage to 'any crops, turfs, plants, roots or trees'"

    What if I can't pick up after Fido without damaging a crop, turf, plant, root, or tree?

    I guess I'm screwed.

    Thanks a lot, Fido. No Scooby-Snacks for you!

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  32. Type 45 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    READ "Type 45 destroyer"
    Falklands is the UK .....tard!

  33. Drone Strikes? by Optali · · Score: 1

    So, that's how it all begun... Drones going on strike.

    And we all know how it well end, right?

    The Matrix, taht's it.

    --
    -- 29A the number of the Beast