501–510 of 636 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's done been lost.
They are a failed people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a far bigger problem with adults having calls in public places with their phones on speaker... should they be "restrained" as well?
IMO it shouldn't even get that far, to questions of how much we should be allowed to ask of others in the name of basic decency; there's been a massive shift from people being self-regulating and trying to be considerate to others, to the conversation changing to something like, "how dare you even speak to me while I'm blasting tiktok loudly, I'm going to look up the letter of the law and see what the maximum disrupt…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Has society really become this dangerous that we must deploy these things? Over the last hundred years, violent crime has droped sharply worldwide. Over the last twenty years, it has fallen alot in developed countries such as Western Europe, North America, Japan and South Korea. In the United Kingdom, both violent and property crime have gone down in the past two decades. The main exception is fraud, scams and cyber…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Must be a truly dangerous place... I don't know if you're awaee, but the number of arrests for terrorism has skyrocketed in recent months, in the UK. Sounds terrifying, until you realise people were arrested as terrorists for holding placards. (That fact is of course terrifying, but in a chilling way).
You forgot to mention those people are holding placards in support of an illegal "terror" group whose objective is to protest the unnecessary human loss of life in Palestine by spray painting British military equipment. Obligatory legal notice that I obviously do not support said group, but historically terrorists would actually need to commit acts that instil a sense terror in people to further their political objec…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You forgot to mention those people are holding placards in support of an illegal "terror" group whose objective is to protest the unnecessary human loss of life in Palestine by spray painting British military equipment. Obligatory legal notice that I obviously do not support said group, but historically terrorists would actually need to commit acts that instil a sense terror in people to further their political objec…
Palestine Action broke into a British military base and sabotaged millions of pounds' worth of equipment. What did you expect the government to do exactly — shrug it off? What kind of message would that have sent? The Terrorism Act 2000 gives "serious damage to property" as one definition of terrorism so I find it hard to argue that the government was doing anything more than neutrally applying the law here. Those pr…
The UK has very broad terrorism legislation, but conventionally terrorism is something directed at civilians, and it's not something we usually tar, for example, resistance groups with.
I think you even have to be able to kill people in internal political conflict without being called a terrorist. There are many circumstances during which such things are necessary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I mean if the UK is covering up and not counting 1000's of underaged girls being raped (with some police literally participating in the rape) the statistics are bound to look better than they are in reality. Having said that, I don't think the surveillance state they're setting up even has the intent to change any of that.
I wouldn’t believe everything you read in the Daily Mail or that comes out of Farage or Yaxley-Lennon‘s mouth
How about instead of attacking credentials we attack the arguments, you know, with evidence? Or, if your best defence is saying "your ideas/evidence come from unsavoury sources (to me)" maybe your positions are more reflective of your own biases than reality.
The UK is quickly deploying surveillance state technology that people once decried China for. Whether or not this is ethical or useful, I wish the hypocrisy would be acknowledged. The OSA, the Apple encryption demands, LFR, …, it’s clearly a trend. Has society really become this dangerous that we must deploy these things?
No the world is actually much much safer especially in these first world countries. However our society is now flooded with Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt campaigns that foreigners, terrorists, criminals, are out to get you. This creates the dellusion that all these security companies are here to help and protect us. Really it's just politicians handing out tax money to private corporations (cronyism) for no improvement to…
Is that true, or first world just became older, not exactly safer?
Is there a public conversation in European countries about the value of liberty? I don't mean arguments about how liberty can lead to more economic prosperity, I mean how liberty is valuable on its own terms. Without this value, the state can continue to erect legislation in the name of "safety", or any other perceived inequity in society, until you can no longer move. How perverse that English law used to be a basti…
In the EU we have different liberties to the US. That doesn't necessarily make Europeans less free. For example, wlthe EU has free movement of goods, capital, services, and people across borders. None of which are present in the USA. Does that make Americans less free than Europeans? Some would argue so, but I don't see it. The UK however, maybe. Brexit was a real dumb idea.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was taking an intercity coach to Glasgow recently and a teenage kid was on his phone browsing social media without headphones. I made a comment that he should use headphones or turn the volume off. He got defensive and angry. I did not to escalate, and put my earplugs on. I do believe certain parcels of the society need to be restrained.
I have a far bigger problem with adults having calls in public places with their phones on speaker... should they be "restrained" as well?
The UK is quickly deploying surveillance state technology that people once decried China for. Whether or not this is ethical or useful, I wish the hypocrisy would be acknowledged. The OSA, the Apple encryption demands, LFR, …, it’s clearly a trend. Has society really become this dangerous that we must deploy these things?
>Has society really become this dangerous that we must deploy these things? Over the last hundred years, violent crime has droped sharply worldwide. Over the last twenty years, it has fallen alot in developed countries such as Western Europe, North America, Japan and South Korea. In the United Kingdom, both violent and property crime have gone down in the past two decades. The main exception is fraud, scams and cyber…
I don't think its fair for someone to say, "well, its all scare mongering by the Daily Mail". They certainly have an interest in making the world seem scary, but the perception of danger is very strong regardless of what a tabloid rag says.
"Broken windows" policing, as tried under Mike Bloomberg in New York, is unfashionable in the US and the UK, and has led to abuses, but there's a kernel of truth in there somewhere.