Earlier quoted context omitted.
By horse-charging and kettling peaceful protestors, the UK police have been doing their best to blur the distinction, trying to meet every protest as if it were a riot, and perhaps turn it into one.
That's a sweeping generalisation. I participated in the big march against cuts and the police were very respectful and only moved to contain those who were participating in violent behaviour (trashing shops, etc.). The vast majority of protesters were peaceful, treated well, and not kettled or horse-charged - a direct response to the previous condemnation of those sorts of tactics used against the students in the pre…
In wake of riots, British PM proposes social media ban
121–130 of 146 posts
Re: In wake of riots, British PM proposes social media ban
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
What hard evidence is there that the public spending cuts led to the riots?
The best evidence for the reasons I've seen, as gleaned from the rioters themselves, is "fuck the rich" and "fuck the police" respectively.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/08/11/london-r...
Re: In wake of riots, British PM proposes social media ban
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, that underclass. Thought you meant the looters: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8696977/London-... But yes, I agree with you.
You missed this part: "One of her co-accused, Alexander Elliot-Joahill, is from a deprived area of south-east London" Also, anecdotes aren't data.
Re: In wake of riots, British PM proposes social media ban
#124a) Listen to the actual statement [1] (or even better debate) - DO NOT take what CNN, Metro or anyone other news outlet says for granted. Journalists want to sell newspapers/adspace, parliamentary debate is often not the most glamorous thing in the world, so there is a certain need to spice things up. Reporting can be factually accurate while remaining bias or even misleading.
b) Do NOT draw unconditional comparison with incidents in Libya, Egypt or Norway. It's ignorant and more than anything belittles events in those countries.
c) Understand that the reporting of these riots by the international community, or more importantly the profiling of those involved, has been unreasonably flattering. The absolute majority of people in the UK have no sympathy for these people. This is not a class, race or age issue. Clearly, I cannot speak for all British citizens, but the only people I've seen with anything complementary regarding those involved in the riots (and I say riots, which are separate from the initial protests, which are a whole other kettle of fish) are ill informed and closed minded. This is not an uprising of the social underclass - it's rioting by a tiny fraction of people who have been systematically failed by elements of multiple governments' social, economic and education polices, but that does in no way give them to right to behave as they have. Many thousands more are in the same situation and did not participate, but rather displayed horror at the events.
This is not meant to be inflammatory - there are many problems which need to be addressed, both in terms of policy, as well as the more worrying collapse of morals and underlying social detritus which again is very much not a class, race or age factor. These riots are symptomatic of that.
However, in no way did David Cameron (who is not my favourite person in the world) propose an all out social media ban, and I feel that by omitting the ("... for rioters") in this title is somewhat misleading. The government will discuss the situation with the companies at hand (initially RIM/Twitter and Facebook), and if a workable solution presents itself, this will be debated in parliament. David Cameron is not an expert on social media, but would you expect him to be? That is the reason for these meetings. That is how democracy works.
This is not a knee-jerk and blanket reaction (as seen in Egypt/Libya) but one that will go through proper process. There is already an e-petition which has attracted enough supports to force governmental debate on the subject of removing benefits from rioters [2], a poorly thought out move in my opinion, but one that will nevertheless be debated by parliament. People are angry, and the government must respond to that without being too heavy handed. This is not straightforward, but equally a lack of review regarding social media's impact on the riots would be irresponsible.
d) (And not really relevant here at all, but it's been winding me right up) BlackBerry is a brand of phone. RIM is the company that makes that phone. Officials cannot talk to "BlackBerry", they talk to RIM - it's like saying officials will talk to "BigMac".
[1] - http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/pm-statement-on-disorder-in-... [2] http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/7337
Re: In wake of riots, British PM proposes social media ban
#125https://twitter.com/#!/LouiseMensch/status/10175449570018508...
"And really, stop w/ all the dramatics. Nobody is talking about "shutting down Twitter". It's about listening to police & a couple hours off." amongst other opinions.
Re: In wake of riots, British PM proposes social media ban
#126Indeed, it would seem that the spread of the rioting and looting can most easily be explained by people watching television and seeing others get away with such crimes.
Re: In wake of riots, British PM proposes social media ban
#127Not only is there no criticism coming from the political left in the UK, but their obsession with deploying intrusive computer systems during their previous period in office suggests a power like this would have been enacted far more quickly were they still in charge.
Re: In wake of riots, British PM proposes social media ban
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not that I agree with Cameron, but here are some differences. - Protesting is legal in the UK and happens regularly without undue interference by the police. - The riots in the UK mainly consisted of crimes committed against citizens so they were clearly a policing issue. - They're not proposing shutting of the internet, just the principal vectors used to organise riots. - The rioters were not subject to a violent re…
Use of rubber bullets was authorised after the police finally got their act together. I don't think it was a worthy desire to avoid escalation that prevented their use earlier on .. more lack of organisation. The main question is, how will our government discover whether a citizen is communicating about a forbidden subject? I suppose all communication will need to be explicitly monitored. This is another step closer…
I do not want to believe in conspiracy theories but seriously does it take 3 days to decide using baton round/rubber bullets.
Re: In wake of riots, British PM proposes social media ban
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lack of mental health is exacerbated by the cuts to social services. If mental health services were provided to the lower classes AT ALL we would not have these issues. As it is the majority of the underclass suffers from multiple mental disorders and they cannot get treatment. Mental health treatment is very expensive and is not covered by the government.
"Mental health treatment is very expensive and is not covered by the government." For people suffering from actual mental health problems I don't see why they can't get treatment from the NHS like everyone else - ability to pay not being a factor. However, if by "mental health" you mean the feeling that people "deserve" new trainers/DVD player/etc. without doing anything to earn them I don't see why that is anything…
Re: In wake of riots, British PM proposes social media ban
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
They seem like different issues. I don't think the Libyan protestors were looting, burning, attacking & robbing bystanders... In other words, in Libya they had protestors, in the UK they have rioters and mobs. I could have the wrong impression; I live in neither Libya nor the UK. There were also accusations that Libya shut off the internet to mask actions of their armed forces against the protestors. Once again, seem…
I think shutting down people and social media in places that are looting, stealing, and making the world a worse place... I agree with that. I disagree on taking down social media when it's an organized legal matter. It's hard to make the distinction and not allow the couple people that ruin it for everyone else.
More often than not, any laws that are put into place involve the acquisition of new technology that can be appropriated by those in power to censor more forms of 'illegal' communication, further down the line.
It's a slippery slope, potentially leading to a repression of the population and almost absolute state control.