More runs with 0% chance of success still equals 0% success. Don't forget that you're posting on/.
I may be posting on/., but we are talking about the events in science faculties, private R&D etc. And believe it or not, but mating has known to have occured in such places.;)
Seriously though, despite your personal experience, it is far from true that 0% of/. posters are able to find a partner of the opposite/same (depending of preference) sex/gender (depending on preference). Trust me on this.
Gender quotas are the way to improve our position as the 25th ranked nation in science.
Well maybe it works like this. More women in science, more chance for male geeks to score. More geeks (male and female) scoring, happier geeks. Happier geeks, better science!
If you discount evidence for other historical figures in the same manner you are that of Jesus, then there is no credible evidence for the existence of Julius Ceasar or Nero...
Look I happen to believe that on the balance of probabilities there existed an historical person 'Jesus' upon whom the stories told in the Gospels were based. BUT to put Christ's historical existence at anywhere the same level of proof as that of Julius Ceasar or Nero is patently absurd. Being absurd does your position no favours (you'll have to rely on members of the choir modding you up for that).
... amongst a host of others.
HINT: Use Socrates as an example, and you've got an argument that will fly.
... was, in power, as socialistic as the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea is democratic. The original principles of the NSDAP could perhaps fit your description, but after Hitler took over the party any socialist trends were suppressed (you've heard of the Night of the Long Knives?). To quote my Grandmother (my translation) "THEY, stole our revolution." 'They' being BigBusiness(TM) and the Hitler (as opposed to Roehm) faction of the NSDAP.
So when the government controls business, i.e. "nationalizes" or "socializes" it, that is fascism. At least in the original definition.
This did not happen either in Fascist Italy, nor in Nazi Germany. In Italy Mussolini was basically a prisoner of large Industrial and Agrarian Interests. In Germany, of course, Hitler wasn't so easily manipulated, however Big Busisness was perhaps the only institution of German society that wasn't subjected to Gleichsschaltung.
As far as an original definition, it depends on whose original definition. The Italian Fascists originally definied themselves as a pro-war (ie. vs Germany in WWI) breakaway of the Italian Socialist Party amalgamated with left-Nationalist and Futurist elements. But they were swiftly coopted by two forces. 1) Funding from pro-war Industrialists, 2) the rapid and massive expansion of a membership base which joined the party for the sole reason of fighting the Socialsts. When Mussolini wanted to call off the war with the PSI he was even forced for a time to resign from the Party. As it became clear the Facsists were to be a puppet for business interests many of the orginal founders (including the Futurist Marinetti, the original instigator of violent attacks on Socialist party members) left. Mussolini, seduced by power, stayed on, the ulimate puppet dictator.
Because of this "fascism" is often used by educated people to indicate a kind of government which is seen to govern in the interest of (esp. large) business, but lacking the politcal freedoms usually associated with a market based economy (ie. the "liberal-democratic state" 'Liberal' here referring to free-markets, 'democratic' to representative government). Slightly less educated people focus purely on the authoritarian nature and draw up bogus lists like "10 indicators of a fascist state" and the like. Importantly there was also the 'Totalitarianism' Cold-War propaganda meme, which tried to paint fascism as the flip side of the coin to communism.
For myself (being more than merely 'educated':P ) I prefer a stricter historical definition, which sees 'fascism' as an inter-bellum political phenomenon spanning a limited number of European countries and which arose as a response to the perceived threat of imminent socialist takeover. I disagree with the characterisation of China as 'fascist' on this account.
I'm afraid your naive "original definition" of fascism, cannot be sustained by anyone with even a passing familiarity with the historical realities involved.
Funny thing, I thought Animal Farm was about democracy failing due to an uneducated public.
Animal Farm is a fairly obvious allegory of the betrayal of the hopes of the Russian Revolution. (HINT: The pig 'Napoleon' is Stalin and the horse 'Snowball' is Trotsky). In Orwell's mind that was "democracy failing," but that is perhaps not how you meant the phrase.
Bear in mind that Orwell was a revolutionary socialist, who fought for the Trotskyist POUM in the Spanish Civil War (SCW) and that the POUM was crushed, not so much by the Falangists, as by the Stalin controlled Communist Party. Stalin during the SCW, was actively supressing all worker-led collectivisation of industry and reinstalling the middle-class owners in the (vain as it proved) hope of convincing France and Britain to join him in opposing Germany and Italy (who were involved in the SCW on the Franco/Falangist side).
Well there is not state to be precise. Whether there is government (as in some form of self government), is slightly different question. But yes, OP needs to get a clue. And the "to each according to their need..." is the FOSS slogan, no?;)
... it could be argued that the human body has evolved to deal with natural toxins , but it doesn't have such a good defense against man made chemicals.
It might be more pursuasive to argue that the existence of natural toxins is not a particularly good reason to ingest artificial ones as well.
The orginal argument, that the fact that we are producing more and more articifial toxins is somehow offset by the fact that toxins exist in nature , doesn't seem a particularly good one to me. OK, my jaw is already broken, so I guess it won't hurt if you punch me again?!
I'm sorry I didn't honour your original reply with a counter, but I thought the AC did so much more succinctly than I could ever hope to. Since, however, you are apparently labouring under some historical misconceptions, allow me to dispel your ignorance.
My memory is very different 28 day detention, use of number-plate tracking, etc. was all justified by Islamic terrorism in recent years.
Your memory is very short.
As much as I regard the 28 day period as unconsciounable, the travesty of allowing detention without charge in relation to terrorist offences was already present in the 1989 Act.
Number plate tracking was extensively employed at least as early as the 1980s (that's when it became public knowledge). Photographs would be taken of the streets sometimes of entire towns (particularly in Nth Ireland, of course) and English intelligence would draw up social maps of who visted whom and when.
In choosing your examples you have argued my case with great effectiveness, thank you. I wasn't even saying that exactly the same methods were being employed against Islamic terror as was against Irish terror (your choice of examples was merely fortuitous). I was telling the astonished young American kiddie, that there are historical reasons and precedents, as well as real current threats (such as don't actually exist in the US IMO, because US culture is far more assimilationist) for the current reaction in the UK. This is how you beat the IRA and this is how your government thinks it can beat Islamic terrorists. As I told the poster below I'm not here to condone the actions, merely to help people understand the context in which they arise. There was also the implied "don't presume to lecture the British if you haven't been through what they've been trough."
I lived in London 10 years ago, which if my memory serves me correctly was prior to 9/11, and was astonished at the security measures in place (and yes the cameras). I was looking for a rubbish bin in some tube station only to be told by my English companion that they were all taken away because of the troubles. When I saw 'the City,' I simply aghast, what sort of town has its central business district walled off by security and requires permits to enter?! I can't think of another city anywhere either then or now... well actually I can, Baghdad. Oh yeah, and did I hear they done this to Wall Street in NY too, and that after a single, albeit spectacular, attack.
A friend who was living in Edinburgh (an academic at the university like me from Australia) had special branch police visit and interview him at his appartment for no other reason than that he had an Irish surname! I kid you not.
What has changed is that technology is both better and cheaper and emboldened by their 'successes' in the previous battle against terrorism, the legislature is even more excessive. And what has also changed apparently, is that whereas before, when England's moral position was perhaps more ambigious (though why the fuck you went into Iraq...), it was considered expedient to hush things up, whereas now it is seen as politically necessary to be seen to be doing something.
And believe me, if you are seeing more and more surveillance cameras, it's because They(tm) want them to be seen (especially if you consider the miniturisation technology of surveillance cameras). Look I hate to stoke your paranoia, but you sould be more afraid of the cameras you can't see, and trust me, they're there.
Perhaps there has been an acceleration of security measures in the UK, since 9/11, but the machinery was already put in place and the direction these measures would taken was laredy plotted out, but the struggle in the second half of C20th with the IRA.
That really is a classic piece of slashdot bullshit.
I'm relieved that it's "classic."
You're not a UK lawyer...
Freely admitted.
...but you use a lot of legal terminology
I do?
...to make it sound like you know what you're talking about.
I did make an explicit disclaimer, to the effect that I do not.
What makes you so sure the case is without legal merit, other than (like you) me you sympathize with the protestors and dislike Scientology and thus don't want it to have merit?
I wasn't sure, I was outraged!!! [HINT: when I'm sure I write like this:This will never get that far... IAAL so FU... this case is completely without merit.] In any case, I've had second thoughts.:)
Also what motivated me was not a dislike for Scientology (which I have), nor sympathy for the protestors (which I'm not too sure about), but the disgust any lawyer should feel when they see a provision of this nature applied in such triffling circumstances (though of course I wasn't present at the demo, perhaps it truly was alarming and distressing.)
The reason I thought the case "look[ed] like" it lacks merit was twofold. Firstly I couldn't see how the sign could cause "harrassment, alarm or distress," bearing in mind that this is a criminal matter and consequently the terms of statute ought to be read strictly and in a defendant's favour. 'Distress' cannot simply mean annoyance. It must mean serious distress that is more in the nature of 'alarm' or 'harrassment.' Are members of the CoS really likely to be distressed by seeing a sign telling them what they hear in the media every day? Pissed off yes, but distressed to the point where say, the needle on their E-meter starts thrashing about? A fortiori if I should be applying a reasonable person test.
Secondly I had made the mistake of reading not much more of the Act than you quote here. Consequently I was labouring under the misapprehension that the Crown would have to show his intent to cause "harassment, alarm or distress," -- when, of course it is clear that the accused was motivated by nothing but a desire to warn and protect the public of, what in his honest opinion, are the highly dangerous practices engaged in by the CoS... Ahem. I have since discovered that pursusant to s6(4) he need only "aware that [his words or behaviour, or the writing, sign or other visible representation] may be threatening, abusive or insulting" to satisfy the mental element, which alters the complexion of the case entirely and not in the accused's favour. Moreover, I've read a pertient case Norwood v DPP [2003] EWHC 1564 (Admin) which again will provide our friend with little comfort. In his favour there remains the reasonableness defence.
So I must concede that my calling for the horsewhipping of the arresting officer was a little premature. On the other hand you are wrong in assuming this will come before a jury, as this offence can be dealt with summarily.
If it gets that far. IANAUKL, but I would assume you have some sort of commital proceedings prior to a jury trial? Looking at the text of the legisation (though admittedly without any familiarity with relevant curial authority) this case looks so completely without merit that no prosecutor could ethically proceed and no magistrate would allow it to proceed. Methinks justice would best be served by publically horsewhipping (at least verbally) the arresting officer.
Utter rubbish. The idea that radical Islam is more of a threat than the IRA were at the height of their power...
... is not actually one I put in the post you are responding to.
... is easily refuted by comparing the effectiveness of their
attacks.
I must confess, I cannot recall when it was that the IRA managed to kill
in excess of 50 people in a single day in England. When did this happen?
Al Qeada are a far lesser threat, and would be even less threatening with some minor changes to foreign policy.
Don't go there! I can assure you that the international community would
not approve of the nuclear carpet bombing of Afghanistan!:P
Seriously though, I think we will need to wait several decades to assess
the relative threats posed by Irish vs Islamic terrorism in Britain. In any
case this comparision is quite irrelevant to the point I was making.
What I was pointing out was that the IRA posed a terrorist threat to the UK
going back several decades. (I think we can agree on that.) And that this
provides the historical context for the way the current threat (whether or not it is
more or less serious than perceived) is being handled. British
law enforcement organisations have a great deal of experience in dealing
with terrorists and a great deal of expertise at conducting extensive surveillance.
That they should choose to respond to the current 'threat' in a similar fashion is
understandible, that they should choose to apply the best available technology
to the problem is utterly unsurprising.
Please note that I did not express my approval for this strategy (if anything the
opposite). I did, however, want to point out that surveillance and
authoritarianism are not simple equivalents -- the tacit, and dare I say naive,
assumption upon which the GP post is founded. Implied in my argument is the
notion that since British democracy survived the struggle with the IRA, it is at
least conceivable that it will survive the threat posed by indigenous Islamic
terrorists. And I expressed my hope that it does so.
As much as I detest having surveillance cameras trained on me (and I do!), I
should be far more concerned about the passage of a Bill such as Legislative and
Regulatory Reform Bill, which the GP referred to, albeit in an
incomprehensible manner (thanks to a subsequent poster, I am much the wiser). For
in the final analysis, it is the robustness of one's system of laws (most
particularly in how effectively they limit authority), not the presence of absence
of technology on telegraph poles, which guarantees political liberty.
Ah now that's where you went wrong, you see, being closed minded and being well informed are mutually exclusive. And because you were not informed about the rest of my comment, your make a critique is somewhat lacking in relevance.
Let me fix that for you: "Now that Western imperialist wars on Islamic countries have triggered terrorist responses.."
Had you continued to read, you would have noticed that this was not about "Islamic countries" (which should in any case not exist)*, but about British Muslims, born, bred and living in the UK (which remains for now not an "Islamic country"). Yes they are living there as a result of past imperialism, but about the only imperialist transgression these individuals can complain of that the UK permitted their ancestors to escape the "Islamic countries" they lived in and settle in Britain.
Contrary to what you hear from adults around the playground "Who started it" is very important.
When some religionist fruitcake decides to kill him- or herself and to take out as many innocent bystanders because of his or her delusional adherence to some psychopathic intepretation of any particular "holy" book, (and without so much as the excuse that they are fighting off the invader), it really and truly doesn't matter "who started it." But I guess you would have to be an adult to appreciate that.
*instead there should be countries which, like Turkey, are simply countries which happen to have Islamic people living in them.
He's referring to the "Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill".
Thanks for that, I knew I must have missed something while I was away, because from OPs description "allow[ing] laws to be made and abolished by regulation (i.e. without a vote in parliament)" it sounded for all the world like he was talking about subordinate legislation... nothing special about that. But this isn't rule "by regulation" but rather rule by decree. I've only given it a cursory glance, but please tell me this is going to go down!
I can't see how this can fly (ie. a ministerial decree effectively overriding the decision of parliament see s3(a)), this goes to the very heart of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and raises all those classic jurisprudential quandries as to whether parliament can fetter itself or bind a future parliament... I guess this is what you get from having an unwritten "constitution."
But what on earth is going on in the UK? Security cameras literally everywhere, compulsory DNA databases, laws permitting detention without charge or trial for long periods of time...
I understand where you are coming from, and I hate being surveilled myself, but let's try to understand the context in which this is happening. Necessity is the mother of invention. For the better part of a half a century, the UK has been under constant terrorist threat and subject to numerous (often hightly deadly) attacks. They have a lot of experience dealing with this and these measures have developed over time (accompanied by some very poor curial decisions). This is not unqualifiedly good, but neither is it surprising.
Now that sections of Islam have declared war on Western civilisation, the UK faces a particularly nasty threat, namely a HUGE number of poorly socialised (into British culture) and radicalised Islamic youth living within their very borders. As we sit here from a safe distance, several hundred potential Islamic suicide bombers are devising way to kill the maximum number of Britons possible.
Perhaps the problem was that the British state (which after all is not separated from the Anglican church), has been too tolerant of religious diversity in the past.</irony>
... that insane proposal for a law to allow laws to be made and abolished by regulation (i.e. without a vote in parliament)
Sorry I'm not up to speed here. Delegated legislation is long established and is in use in virtually every common law country in the world. That's what a 'Regulation' (as opposed to an 'Act') is. Which particular insane proposal are you referring to that puts a new twist on this?
Britain stood virtually alone against fascism in World War Two, and was a bastion against the totalitarian Soviet bloc during the Cold War... Why did you even bother, only to willingly turn yourselves into a bureaucractic authoritarian state?
Here you are simply committing an error of logic. While it is true that a "bureaucractic authoritarian state" would benefit from a highly surveilled society, a highly surveilled society by no means implies a "bureaucractic authoritarian state!" (Neither is the absence of effective surveillance a guarantee against authoritarian rule). This really depends on how robust British democracy is, how safe the legal framework is regarding the proper use surveillance, presumptions of innocence vs. protection of the public, data protection, privacy etc. etc. I don't think you should write off British democracy just yet (I mean it's not like they use electronic voting machines!;)
Wake up, before it's too late.
I believe that's what they are doing! And one hopes that their basic liberal-democratic* values survive the challenge.
*I mean 'liberal-democratic' in the traditional sense of the term (ie. representative democracy through free elections balanced by respect for the rights of individuals, as embodied in the rule of law), not in the recent abusive misuse of the term to signify left-of-centre US Democrats, as employed by people who got their politcal education off the back of a Corn Flakes pack.
relax, it was a joke. The [humor mode="on"]and [/humor] tags ( was html, not BBcode ) got stripped out. Well there goes my karma
The fact that this need to be tagged "humor" and that you got modded down by some retrard only proves that we need to devise a tax to levy on the humourless retards! Oh and to do tags use <entities/>
I'm nowhere near as ambitious as you. I only want one that can make the people in the seats in front and behind me in the train shut up when I'm trying to get a bit of sleep in on the trip home.
To date the conviction rate for the so called 'human rights tribunal is 100%.
Bullshit detector goes into overdrive!
To quote from a recent decision:
Accordingly, I find that the complaint has not been substantiated and the complaint is hereby dismissed under s. 53(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. beachesboy@aol.com and CHRC and Fleming
Did any of the naifs who moderated this 'insightful' bother to check out the poster's obviously ludicrous claim? What am I saying...
I had to look at the 3 most recent cases till I found this, so using statistical analysis sufficiently rigorous to convince the average slahshdot mod, I can confidently state that at least 33% of all cases brought before the tribunal fail.
I have a.25" piece of tape which can defeat any malicious code anybody may have inserted.
Hey so do I! But I'm not worried about Apple, or any natural people spying on me. I don't like the iMac checking me out, how do I know she hasn't developed sentience? Maybe she gets jealous when I work on the nix box next to her? It's just not worth the risk.
The reason why apple got caught with their pants down in their lawsuit is because for decades professional graphic artists and photographers have used and relied on apple.
Despite being marked down as Troll, this is actually quite insightful. It also shows the depth of the mistake Apple has made. The real cost to Apple is not in settling the litigation, but in the trust that will be lost in the professional graphics market. Up till now you could buy a Mac and be confident that you were getting a machine that was suited for graphics work. While most professionals wouldn't settle for the 20", nor an iMac for that matter, this is the most negative publicity, in one of it's core markets, that Apple could have (not) hoped for.
The most likely culprits are either 1)some random asshole or 2)CoS. Of the two, who's ends are best served by this event?
Difficult to tell unless you know the random asshole in question.
In these days of never ending spin and propaganda, the *first* thing to do when analyzing an event like this is to look carefully at who's ends are served by the fallout
Agreed, not only in "these days" though... this is a valid historical technique. However the *second* thing has to be to find evidence that the said interest being served is actually responsible. Otherwise you end up with a conspiracy theory version of History. The mere fact that CoS interests are being served, though it raises the suspicion, is hardly conclusive of their involvement.
as we hurtle along at insane speed towards a socialist takeover of a medical system that is the envy of the world currently
Were you being ironic, or do you truly have no idea how other developed nations regard the US health system?
Now I'm not saying the international perception is true, or that you ought to "hurtle along at insane speed towards a socialist takeover," but you should be aware what the perception actually is. Namely and that despite having a few good hospitals accessible to the ultra-rich, the US is universally regarded as the examplar of worst possible practice in regard to the supply of health services. Now it is true that some countries (eg. France) realise that they have set up overly generous (read unsustainable) health systems, but you are simply fooling yourself if you think that even they are looking with envy at the US situation. Rather the debate centres around the question: "how can we reform our health systems to make them more affordable without degenerating into the the mess that the US is in with regard to health."
Slashdot Mirror
More runs with 0% chance of success still equals 0% success. Don't forget that you're posting on /.
I may be posting on /., but we are talking about the events in science faculties, private R&D etc. And believe it or not, but mating has known to have occured in such places. ;)
Seriously though, despite your personal experience, it is far from true that 0% of /. posters are able to find a partner of the opposite/same (depending of preference) sex/gender (depending on preference). Trust me on this.
Gender quotas are the way to improve our position as the 25th ranked nation in science.
Well maybe it works like this. More women in science, more chance for male geeks to score. More geeks (male and female) scoring, happier geeks. Happier geeks, better science!
So good luck changing the pronunciation of a language to match its orthography.
The Germans managed it fairly well.
If you discount evidence for other historical figures in the same manner you are that of Jesus, then there is no credible evidence for the existence of Julius Ceasar or Nero ...
Look I happen to believe that on the balance of probabilities there existed an historical person 'Jesus' upon whom the stories told in the Gospels were based. BUT to put Christ's historical existence at anywhere the same level of proof as that of Julius Ceasar or Nero is patently absurd. Being absurd does your position no favours (you'll have to rely on members of the choir modding you up for that).
HINT: Use Socrates as an example, and you've got an argument that will fly.
National Socialism
... was, in power, as socialistic as the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea is democratic. The original principles of the NSDAP could perhaps fit your description, but after Hitler took over the party any socialist trends were suppressed (you've heard of the Night of the Long Knives?). To quote my Grandmother (my translation) "THEY, stole our revolution." 'They' being BigBusiness(TM) and the Hitler (as opposed to Roehm) faction of the NSDAP.
So when the government controls business, i.e. "nationalizes" or "socializes" it, that is fascism. At least in the original definition.
This did not happen either in Fascist Italy, nor in Nazi Germany. In Italy Mussolini was basically a prisoner of large Industrial and Agrarian Interests. In Germany, of course, Hitler wasn't so easily manipulated, however Big Busisness was perhaps the only institution of German society that wasn't subjected to Gleichsschaltung.
As far as an original definition, it depends on whose original definition. The Italian Fascists originally definied themselves as a pro-war (ie. vs Germany in WWI) breakaway of the Italian Socialist Party amalgamated with left-Nationalist and Futurist elements. But they were swiftly coopted by two forces. 1) Funding from pro-war Industrialists, 2) the rapid and massive expansion of a membership base which joined the party for the sole reason of fighting the Socialsts. When Mussolini wanted to call off the war with the PSI he was even forced for a time to resign from the Party. As it became clear the Facsists were to be a puppet for business interests many of the orginal founders (including the Futurist Marinetti, the original instigator of violent attacks on Socialist party members) left. Mussolini, seduced by power, stayed on, the ulimate puppet dictator.
Because of this "fascism" is often used by educated people to indicate a kind of government which is seen to govern in the interest of (esp. large) business, but lacking the politcal freedoms usually associated with a market based economy (ie. the "liberal-democratic state" 'Liberal' here referring to free-markets, 'democratic' to representative government). Slightly less educated people focus purely on the authoritarian nature and draw up bogus lists like "10 indicators of a fascist state" and the like. Importantly there was also the 'Totalitarianism' Cold-War propaganda meme, which tried to paint fascism as the flip side of the coin to communism.
For myself (being more than merely 'educated' :P ) I prefer a stricter historical definition, which sees 'fascism' as an inter-bellum political phenomenon spanning a limited number of European countries and which arose as a response to the perceived threat of imminent socialist takeover. I disagree with the characterisation of China as 'fascist' on this account.
I'm afraid your naive "original definition" of fascism, cannot be sustained by anyone with even a passing familiarity with the historical realities involved.
Bzzzz wrong! Educate yourself.
Educate yourself!
I did a quick google search and didn't find much.
Try searching for the definition of 'WOOOOSH!'
I misremembered! Just looked it up and Snowball was a pig too! It has been a long time since I read it.
Funny thing, I thought Animal Farm was about democracy failing due to an uneducated public.
Animal Farm is a fairly obvious allegory of the betrayal of the hopes of the Russian Revolution. (HINT: The pig 'Napoleon' is Stalin and the horse 'Snowball' is Trotsky). In Orwell's mind that was "democracy failing," but that is perhaps not how you meant the phrase.
Bear in mind that Orwell was a revolutionary socialist, who fought for the Trotskyist POUM in the Spanish Civil War (SCW) and that the POUM was crushed, not so much by the Falangists, as by the Stalin controlled Communist Party. Stalin during the SCW, was actively supressing all worker-led collectivisation of industry and reinstalling the middle-class owners in the (vain as it proved) hope of convincing France and Britain to join him in opposing Germany and Italy (who were involved in the SCW on the Franco/Falangist side).
In a communist system, there is no government.
Well there is not state to be precise. Whether there is government (as in some form of self government), is slightly different question. But yes, OP needs to get a clue. And the "to each according to their need ..." is the FOSS slogan, no? ;)
And quite apart from that, though the initial effects are dramatic, Ice isn't likely to boost your cognitive function in the long run.
It might be more pursuasive to argue that the existence of natural toxins is not a particularly good reason to ingest artificial ones as well.
The orginal argument, that the fact that we are producing more and more articifial toxins is somehow offset by the fact that toxins exist in nature , doesn't seem a particularly good one to me. OK, my jaw is already broken, so I guess it won't hurt if you punch me again?!
I'm sorry I didn't honour your original reply with a counter, but I thought the AC did so much more succinctly than I could ever hope to. Since, however, you are apparently labouring under some historical misconceptions, allow me to dispel your ignorance.
My memory is very different 28 day detention, use of number-plate tracking, etc. was all justified by Islamic terrorism in recent years.
Your memory is very short.
As much as I regard the 28 day period as unconsciounable, the travesty of allowing detention without charge in relation to terrorist offences was already present in the 1989 Act.
Number plate tracking was extensively employed at least as early as the 1980s (that's when it became public knowledge). Photographs would be taken of the streets sometimes of entire towns (particularly in Nth Ireland, of course) and English intelligence would draw up social maps of who visted whom and when.
In choosing your examples you have argued my case with great effectiveness, thank you. I wasn't even saying that exactly the same methods were being employed against Islamic terror as was against Irish terror (your choice of examples was merely fortuitous). I was telling the astonished young American kiddie, that there are historical reasons and precedents, as well as real current threats (such as don't actually exist in the US IMO, because US culture is far more assimilationist) for the current reaction in the UK. This is how you beat the IRA and this is how your government thinks it can beat Islamic terrorists. As I told the poster below I'm not here to condone the actions, merely to help people understand the context in which they arise. There was also the implied "don't presume to lecture the British if you haven't been through what they've been trough."
I lived in London 10 years ago, which if my memory serves me correctly was prior to 9/11, and was astonished at the security measures in place (and yes the cameras). I was looking for a rubbish bin in some tube station only to be told by my English companion that they were all taken away because of the troubles. When I saw 'the City,' I simply aghast, what sort of town has its central business district walled off by security and requires permits to enter?! I can't think of another city anywhere either then or now ... well actually I can, Baghdad. Oh yeah, and did I hear they done this to Wall Street in NY too, and that after a single, albeit spectacular, attack.
A friend who was living in Edinburgh (an academic at the university like me from Australia) had special branch police visit and interview him at his appartment for no other reason than that he had an Irish surname! I kid you not.
What has changed is that technology is both better and cheaper and emboldened by their 'successes' in the previous battle against terrorism, the legislature is even more excessive. And what has also changed apparently, is that whereas before, when England's moral position was perhaps more ambigious (though why the fuck you went into Iraq ...), it was considered expedient to hush things up, whereas now it is seen as politically necessary to be seen to be doing something.
And believe me, if you are seeing more and more surveillance cameras, it's because They(tm) want them to be seen (especially if you consider the miniturisation technology of surveillance cameras). Look I hate to stoke your paranoia, but you sould be more afraid of the cameras you can't see, and trust me, they're there.
Perhaps there has been an acceleration of security measures in the UK, since 9/11, but the machinery was already put in place and the direction these measures would taken was laredy plotted out, but the struggle in the second half of C20th with the IRA.
That really is a classic piece of slashdot bullshit.
I'm relieved that it's "classic."
You're not a UK lawyer ...
Freely admitted.
I do?
I did make an explicit disclaimer, to the effect that I do not.
What makes you so sure the case is without legal merit, other than (like you) me you sympathize with the protestors and dislike Scientology and thus don't want it to have merit?
I wasn't sure, I was outraged!!! [HINT: when I'm sure I write like this:This will never get that far ... IAAL so FU ... this case is completely without merit.] In any case, I've had second thoughts. :)
Also what motivated me was not a dislike for Scientology (which I have), nor sympathy for the protestors (which I'm not too sure about), but the disgust any lawyer should feel when they see a provision of this nature applied in such triffling circumstances (though of course I wasn't present at the demo, perhaps it truly was alarming and distressing.)
The reason I thought the case "look[ed] like" it lacks merit was twofold. Firstly I couldn't see how the sign could cause "harrassment, alarm or distress," bearing in mind that this is a criminal matter and consequently the terms of statute ought to be read strictly and in a defendant's favour. 'Distress' cannot simply mean annoyance. It must mean serious distress that is more in the nature of 'alarm' or 'harrassment.' Are members of the CoS really likely to be distressed by seeing a sign telling them what they hear in the media every day? Pissed off yes, but distressed to the point where say, the needle on their E-meter starts thrashing about? A fortiori if I should be applying a reasonable person test.
Secondly I had made the mistake of reading not much more of the Act than you quote here. Consequently I was labouring under the misapprehension that the Crown would have to show his intent to cause "harassment, alarm or distress," -- when, of course it is clear that the accused was motivated by nothing but a desire to warn and protect the public of, what in his honest opinion, are the highly dangerous practices engaged in by the CoS ... Ahem. I have since discovered that pursusant to s6(4) he need only "aware that [his words or behaviour, or the writing, sign or other visible representation] may be threatening, abusive or insulting" to satisfy the mental element, which alters the complexion of the case entirely and not in the accused's favour. Moreover, I've read a pertient case Norwood v DPP [2003] EWHC 1564 (Admin) which again will provide our friend with little comfort. In his favour there remains the reasonableness defence.
So I must concede that my calling for the horsewhipping of the arresting officer was a little premature. On the other hand you are wrong in assuming this will come before a jury, as this offence can be dealt with summarily.
However, this guy has to go in front of a jury.
If it gets that far. IANAUKL, but I would assume you have some sort of commital proceedings prior to a jury trial? Looking at the text of the legisation (though admittedly without any familiarity with relevant curial authority) this case looks so completely without merit that no prosecutor could ethically proceed and no magistrate would allow it to proceed. Methinks justice would best be served by publically horsewhipping (at least verbally) the arresting officer.
Utter rubbish. The idea that radical Islam is more of a threat than the IRA were at the height of their power ...
... is not actually one I put in the post you are responding to.
I must confess, I cannot recall when it was that the IRA managed to kill in excess of 50 people in a single day in England. When did this happen?
Al Qeada are a far lesser threat, and would be even less threatening with some minor changes to foreign policy.
Don't go there! I can assure you that the international community would not approve of the nuclear carpet bombing of Afghanistan! :P
Seriously though, I think we will need to wait several decades to assess the relative threats posed by Irish vs Islamic terrorism in Britain. In any case this comparision is quite irrelevant to the point I was making.
What I was pointing out was that the IRA posed a terrorist threat to the UK going back several decades. (I think we can agree on that.) And that this provides the historical context for the way the current threat (whether or not it is more or less serious than perceived) is being handled. British law enforcement organisations have a great deal of experience in dealing with terrorists and a great deal of expertise at conducting extensive surveillance. That they should choose to respond to the current 'threat' in a similar fashion is understandible, that they should choose to apply the best available technology to the problem is utterly unsurprising.
Please note that I did not express my approval for this strategy (if anything the opposite). I did, however, want to point out that surveillance and authoritarianism are not simple equivalents -- the tacit, and dare I say naive, assumption upon which the GP post is founded. Implied in my argument is the notion that since British democracy survived the struggle with the IRA, it is at least conceivable that it will survive the threat posed by indigenous Islamic terrorists. And I expressed my hope that it does so.
As much as I detest having surveillance cameras trained on me (and I do!), I should be far more concerned about the passage of a Bill such as Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, which the GP referred to, albeit in an incomprehensible manner (thanks to a subsequent poster, I am much the wiser). For in the final analysis, it is the robustness of one's system of laws (most particularly in how effectively they limit authority), not the presence of absence of technology on telegraph poles, which guarantees political liberty.
I stopped reading at ...
Ah now that's where you went wrong, you see, being closed minded and being well informed are mutually exclusive. And because you were not informed about the rest of my comment, your make a critique is somewhat lacking in relevance.
Let me fix that for you: "Now that Western imperialist wars on Islamic countries have triggered terrorist responses.."
Had you continued to read, you would have noticed that this was not about "Islamic countries" (which should in any case not exist)*, but about British Muslims, born, bred and living in the UK (which remains for now not an "Islamic country"). Yes they are living there as a result of past imperialism, but about the only imperialist transgression these individuals can complain of that the UK permitted their ancestors to escape the "Islamic countries" they lived in and settle in Britain.
Contrary to what you hear from adults around the playground "Who started it" is very important.
When some religionist fruitcake decides to kill him- or herself and to take out as many innocent bystanders because of his or her delusional adherence to some psychopathic intepretation of any particular "holy" book, (and without so much as the excuse that they are fighting off the invader), it really and truly doesn't matter "who started it." But I guess you would have to be an adult to appreciate that.
*instead there should be countries which, like Turkey, are simply countries which happen to have Islamic people living in them.
He's referring to the "Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill".
Thanks for that, I knew I must have missed something while I was away, because from OPs description "allow[ing] laws to be made and abolished by regulation (i.e. without a vote in parliament)" it sounded for all the world like he was talking about subordinate legislation ... nothing special about that. But this isn't rule "by regulation" but rather rule by decree. I've only given it a cursory glance, but please tell me this is going to go down!
I can't see how this can fly (ie. a ministerial decree effectively overriding the decision of parliament see s3(a)), this goes to the very heart of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and raises all those classic jurisprudential quandries as to whether parliament can fetter itself or bind a future parliament ... I guess this is what you get from having an unwritten "constitution."
But what on earth is going on in the UK? Security cameras literally everywhere, compulsory DNA databases, laws permitting detention without charge or trial for long periods of time ...
I understand where you are coming from, and I hate being surveilled myself, but let's try to understand the context in which this is happening. Necessity is the mother of invention. For the better part of a half a century, the UK has been under constant terrorist threat and subject to numerous (often hightly deadly) attacks. They have a lot of experience dealing with this and these measures have developed over time (accompanied by some very poor curial decisions). This is not unqualifiedly good, but neither is it surprising.
Now that sections of Islam have declared war on Western civilisation, the UK faces a particularly nasty threat, namely a HUGE number of poorly socialised (into British culture) and radicalised Islamic youth living within their very borders. As we sit here from a safe distance, several hundred potential Islamic suicide bombers are devising way to kill the maximum number of Britons possible.
Perhaps the problem was that the British state (which after all is not separated from the Anglican church), has been too tolerant of religious diversity in the past.</irony>
Sorry I'm not up to speed here. Delegated legislation is long established and is in use in virtually every common law country in the world. That's what a 'Regulation' (as opposed to an 'Act') is. Which particular insane proposal are you referring to that puts a new twist on this?
Britain stood virtually alone against fascism in World War Two, and was a bastion against the totalitarian Soviet bloc during the Cold War ... Why did you even bother, only to willingly turn yourselves into a bureaucractic authoritarian state?
Here you are simply committing an error of logic. While it is true that a "bureaucractic authoritarian state" would benefit from a highly surveilled society, a highly surveilled society by no means implies a "bureaucractic authoritarian state!" (Neither is the absence of effective surveillance a guarantee against authoritarian rule). This really depends on how robust British democracy is, how safe the legal framework is regarding the proper use surveillance, presumptions of innocence vs. protection of the public, data protection, privacy etc. etc. I don't think you should write off British democracy just yet (I mean it's not like they use electronic voting machines! ;)
Wake up, before it's too late.
I believe that's what they are doing! And one hopes that their basic liberal-democratic* values survive the challenge.
*I mean 'liberal-democratic' in the traditional sense of the term (ie. representative democracy through free elections balanced by respect for the rights of individuals, as embodied in the rule of law), not in the recent abusive misuse of the term to signify left-of-centre US Democrats, as employed by people who got their politcal education off the back of a Corn Flakes pack.
relax, it was a joke. The [humor mode="on"]and [/humor] tags ( was html, not BBcode ) got stripped out. Well there goes my karma
The fact that this need to be tagged "humor" and that you got modded down by some retrard only proves that we need to devise a tax to levy on the humourless retards! Oh and to do tags use <entities />
be able to make an entire continent shut up....
I'm nowhere near as ambitious as you. I only want one that can make the people in the seats in front and behind me in the train shut up when I'm trying to get a bit of sleep in on the trip home.
Bullshit detector goes into overdrive!
To quote from a recent decision:
Accordingly, I find that the complaint has not been substantiated and the complaint is hereby dismissed under s. 53(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
beachesboy@aol.com and CHRC and Fleming
Did any of the naifs who moderated this 'insightful' bother to check out the poster's obviously ludicrous claim? What am I saying ...
I had to look at the 3 most recent cases till I found this, so using statistical analysis sufficiently rigorous to convince the average slahshdot mod, I can confidently state that at least 33% of all cases brought before the tribunal fail.
I have a .25" piece of tape which can defeat any malicious code anybody may have inserted.
Hey so do I! But I'm not worried about Apple, or any natural people spying on me. I don't like the iMac checking me out, how do I know she hasn't developed sentience? Maybe she gets jealous when I work on the nix box next to her? It's just not worth the risk.
The reason why apple got caught with their pants down in their lawsuit is because for decades professional graphic artists and photographers have used and relied on apple.
Despite being marked down as Troll, this is actually quite insightful. It also shows the depth of the mistake Apple has made. The real cost to Apple is not in settling the litigation, but in the trust that will be lost in the professional graphics market. Up till now you could buy a Mac and be confident that you were getting a machine that was suited for graphics work. While most professionals wouldn't settle for the 20", nor an iMac for that matter, this is the most negative publicity, in one of it's core markets, that Apple could have (not) hoped for.
The most likely culprits are either 1)some random asshole or 2)CoS. Of the two, who's ends are best served by this event?
Difficult to tell unless you know the random asshole in question.
In these days of never ending spin and propaganda, the *first* thing to do when analyzing an event like this is to look carefully at who's ends are served by the fallout
Agreed, not only in "these days" though ... this is a valid historical technique. However the *second* thing has to be to find evidence that the said interest being served is actually responsible. Otherwise you end up with a conspiracy theory version of History. The mere fact that CoS interests are being served, though it raises the suspicion, is hardly conclusive of their involvement.
as we hurtle along at insane speed towards a socialist takeover of a medical system that is the envy of the world currently
Were you being ironic, or do you truly have no idea how other developed nations regard the US health system?
Now I'm not saying the international perception is true, or that you ought to "hurtle along at insane speed towards a socialist takeover," but you should be aware what the perception actually is. Namely and that despite having a few good hospitals accessible to the ultra-rich, the US is universally regarded as the examplar of worst possible practice in regard to the supply of health services. Now it is true that some countries (eg. France) realise that they have set up overly generous (read unsustainable) health systems, but you are simply fooling yourself if you think that even they are looking with envy at the US situation. Rather the debate centres around the question: "how can we reform our health systems to make them more affordable without degenerating into the the mess that the US is in with regard to health."