Live data from Hacker News

The UK is shaping a future of precrime and dissent management (2025)

freedomnews.org.uk

141–150 of 327 posts

Re: The UK is shaping a future of precrime and dissent management (2025)

#141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone in London knows what happens if you try to report "minor" street crime. Obviously everyone saying the UK isn't a utopia is a Russian bot, and we should be censoring them.

Fine, but also how to explain the crazy claims flying around the internet that London is a warzone and a no-go area? I live here and... seriously, nothing has changed. I feel perfectly safe and always have. Yeah sure, there's some phone theft, it's not great. This phone theft wave is just a symptom of everyone carrying £500 devices around. Big cities have always had theft, pickpocket and snatching crimes. But it's no…

Because everyone that experiences the crime stops tolerating it and leaves. This is why the area around the greenbelt so closely resembles the inner cities of 20 years before. This isn't some new phenomenon - Lee Kuan Yew famously described the newspaper purchasing arrangement at Piccadilly Circus in the 1950s, which was incomprehensible by the 1980s.

I'm old enough to remember when they had posters telling people not to wear iPod white earphones because that will get you mugged (and it would) - pure blaming the victim nonsense.

If London defenders were half as enthusiastic about cleaning up their city as they are about attacking anyone pointing out the all too obvious problems they genuinely would be in utopia.

Re: The UK is shaping a future of precrime and dissent management (2025)

#142
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "doesn't work"? Doesn't work to prevent crime? Or doesn't work too suppress dissent?

It's been a while since I watched it, but doesn't it falsely imprison people because they disregarded some of the data that went contrary to other data?

There are 3 Precogs in the film, but in reality the female one is the most powerful and the twins seem to only function as amplifiers. It's revealed that there is sometimes/often a disagreement between their visions and that they do a 2/3 selection or something like that and discard the disagreeing vision (the 'minority report'). I believe this is what happened to the main character when he is framed, the stronger female's dissenting vision is ignored in favor of the two amplifiers. In the film it is ambiguous if he even commits the murder at all, the guy he kills was paid to die and more or less forces him to kill him in the struggle.

There's also the echos of visions that occur which is how the villain manages to get away with a murder, he uses his inside knowledge to copy cat another murder method which allows him to have it written off as an echo.

The wilder question in the movie is how the precogs are randomly created mutations in response to the mother taking a weird street drug during pregnancy. They'd have to dose pregnant women and hope they gave birth to more mutants if they ever want to replace the set they have, and I believe they're planning to roll it out nationwide. But given how crappy the precogs' lives seem to be maybe that is just a cost they consider worth paying.

Re: The UK is shaping a future of precrime and dissent management (2025)

#144

A lot of these attacks on the UK regarding free speech are coming from the American Right, an obsession which I can't quite understand the motive for. Notably, stories on HN about the very severe repression on civil liberties in the US (get shot in the face for protesting about ICE...) get flagged for closure, but putting the boot into the UK for much more wishy-washy issues like this seem to be fair game. I'm not sa…

100%. Unfortunately, rather than rebut the substance of your argument, people are voting you down (and the same for my own similar comment). It is convenient for certain parts of the US right (Fox and also Musk come to mind) to present a narrative about the UK which distracts from the actual hard realities of recent events in the US itself.

Re: The UK is shaping a future of precrime and dissent management (2025)

#145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's because he was elected with a historically low % of the vote. Few wanted him at the election, few want him now.

Most don't want any of the options presented to them. Almost all the parties don't really serve the electorate, so a large number of people are abstaining. I appreciate this in an anecdotal but I've spoken to quite a few people I know in my family, that saw it as their civil duty to vote and they told all told me some variation of "there is nobody worth voting for", "I don't think it matters who I vote for".

The UK is FPTP. Reform split the previously unified conservative vote so labour won with a historically low %.

Re: The UK is shaping a future of precrime and dissent management (2025)

#146
post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also Suchir Balaji. And if you’re willing to go back further, Michael Hastings and Gary Webb. But that’s all the US. For the UK you need Gareth Williams, the GHCQ analyst who was found dead inside a padlocked duffel bag.

Another suspicious death was David Kelly, who was involved in weapons inspections in Iraq and disputed the casus belli for the Iraq war.

think its important to leave some context here:

As far as it is known, Kelly walked a mile (1.6 km) from his house to Harrowdown Hill. It appears he ingested up to 29 tablets of co-proxamol, an analgesic drug; he also cut his left wrist with a pruning knife he had owned since his youth, severing his ulnar artery. Forensic analysis established that neither the knife nor the blister packs showed Kelly's fingerprints on their surfaces [0].

and a letter to the editor:

As specialist medical professionals, we do not consider the evidence given at the Hutton inquiry has demonstrated that Dr David Kelly committed suicide.

Dr Nicholas Hunt, the forensic pathologist at the Hutton inquiry, concluded that Dr Kelly bled to death from a self-inflicted wound to his left wrist. We view this as highly improbable. Arteries in the wrist are of matchstick thickness and severing them does not lead to life-threatening blood loss. Dr Hunt stated that the only artery that had been cut - the ulnar artery - had been completely transected. Complete transection causes the artery to quickly retract and close down, and this promotes clotting of the blood.

The ambulance team reported that the quantity of blood at the scene was minimal and surprisingly small. It is extremely difficult to lose significant amounts of blood at a pressure below 50-60 systolic in a subject who is compensating by vasoconstricting. To have died from haemorrhage, Dr Kelly would have had to lose about five pints of blood - it is unlikely that he would have lost more than a pint.

Alexander Allan, the forensic toxicologist at the inquiry, considered the amount ingested of Co-Proxamol insufficient to have caused death. Allan could not show that Dr Kelly had ingested the 29 tablets said to be missing from the packets found. Only a fifth of one tablet was found in his stomach. Although levels of Co-Proxamol in the blood were higher than therapeutic levels, Allan conceded that the blood level of each of the drug's two components was less than a third of what would normally be found in a fatal overdose.

We dispute that Dr Kelly could have died from haemorrhage or from Co-Proxamol ingestion or from both. The coroner, Nicholas Gardiner, has spoken recently of resuming the inquest into his death. If it re-opens, as in our opinion it should, a clear need exists to scrutinise more closely Dr Hunt's conclusions as to the cause of death.

David Halpin - Specialist in trauma and orthopaedic surgery C Stephen Frost - Specialist in diagnostic radiology Searle Sennett [1]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert)#D... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2004/jan/27/guardian...

Re: The UK is shaping a future of precrime and dissent management (2025)

#147
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So media control, regulation by enforcement, and institutional control becomes the focus of effort. You forgot gun control. That's the first thing they took away. Thereafter, freedom after freedom has been made optional by the government [1]. When government becomes overreaching, and you don't have the means to protect yourself and your rights, that's where it goes. [1] I said "government", but probably "regime" wo…

The guns in the US don't seem to be helping people avoid getting shot by ICE. (to the extent that armed revolution worked in the UK, the IRA were helped only slightly by US-backed supplies of Armalite rifles, and much more by a large supply of Libyan high explosives. Guns are a much less effective political weapon than the car or truck or hotel bomb)

>The guns in the US don't seem to be helping people avoid getting shot by ICE.

I don't see ICE prowling "the cops don't come serve a warrant here with anything less than a SWAT team" parts of New Orleans or St. Louis.

Stop thinking about this based on indoctrinated emotion and politics. Think about it in terms of an all out war and "how do I force my enemy to expend resources not toward his goals".

Personal ability to credibly threaten lethal violence (note: I did not say "firearms") acts much like an AGTM or MANPADS for an infantry squad. Making any potential target substantially more prickly to a potentially superior force and doing so for little cost is a huge boon for the little guy. A firearm is a force multiplier same as a bomb carrying drone or a cell phone that records things the government does not like or a media platform that puts those things in front of the eyes of the masses.

The idea that any cranky old man or mentally on the edge person might just snap and put a bullet in your favorite bespoke enforcer (i.e. not a cop but someone who hands out state backed fines all the same) puts a huge damper on your ability to deploy those people for example. The risk that your informants might get clapped increases the cost of your informants for like results, etc, etc. And when you game it out to it's ends what it comes down to is that the population doing the subjugating might simply not be rich enough or motivated enough to have or be willing to allocate the resources needed to do the job.

This is a large part of why drugs won the war on drugs. There were enough glawk fawtys wit da switch kicking around on the "wrong" side of the law that the cops needed to adopt militarized tactics, the public didn't wanna pay for that shit (monetarily or politically) over weed, and thus drugs won the war on drugs. If they could've rolled up on just about anyone "cheaply" with just a couple cops it would've gone on way longer.

>(to the extent that armed revolution worked in the UK, the IRA were helped only slightly by US-backed supplies of Armalite rifles, and much more by a large supply of Libyan high explosives. Guns are a much less effective political weapon than the car or truck or hotel bomb)

The semtex wouldn't have gotten anywhere useful if the Brits could just walk into wherever all willy nilly chasing down every lead in search of it. Bringing enough credible threat of violence to force their enemy to actually behave like a proper occupying force burning money and political credibility as a result limited the Brit's ability engage (at the right price) in the kind of police action they needed to catch the bombs.

If they could've just sent pairs of cops after every lead in an "oi you got a license for that meme" manner they'd have dredged up all the semtex and none of it would've made it to London.

Re: The UK is shaping a future of precrime and dissent management (2025)

#148
post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is most Brits, at least on HN, seem to deny what is happening and/or support it. People being arrested for holding up blank signs at Charles' coronation was ridiculous and nothing like it has happened in the US, but anytime that's brought up they pivot to mass shootings in the US or some other whataboutism.

Because it is massively exaggerated by those with an agenda to distract from the US. But go on, tell me about how “free speech zones” are meaningfully different to this. You won’t be arrested so long as you stay in your zone down the street and round the corner and out of sight. The UK has serious problems, but reading Americans catastrophising over this stuff as I have been for a couple of decades now is always incr…

> Because it is massively exaggerated by those with an agenda to distract from the US.

I don't think there has to be any negative motive. I'm not from the US or the UK but have lived in both countries, so feel I can be somewhat objective. What's going on in both countries is disturbing to me, but they have differences with what they are doing.

> But go on, tell me about how “free speech zones” are meaningfully different to this. You won’t be arrested so long as you stay in your zone down the street and round the corner and out of sight.

That hasn't been a thing for a long time. There have been nationwide protests the last few days not restricted to any kind of 'free speech zone'.

Consider what you are trying to defend: holding up a blank sign. Are you really OK with that? You really think that is reasonable?

> The UK has serious problems, but reading Americans catastrophising over this stuff

Pointing out a legitimate concern is not catastrophising anything.

> And stop believing lies about the streets of London being a war zone.

I never mentioned anything like that.

Re: The UK is shaping a future of precrime and dissent management (2025)

#149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem isn’t the balance, it’s the police state. I don’t want an authoritarian Left government any more than I want an authoritarian Right or Center government.

The problem is most Brits, at least on HN, seem to deny what is happening and/or support it. People being arrested for holding up blank signs at Charles' coronation was ridiculous and nothing like it has happened in the US, but anytime that's brought up they pivot to mass shootings in the US or some other whataboutism.

I am convinced that a good bit of this is paid astroturfing and another segment is people who work in government or government contracting. Brits generally seem more open to government intrusion, it’s true, but in my experience they don’t go out of their way to defend things like this. It’s more of a passive acceptance.

Re: The UK is shaping a future of precrime and dissent management (2025)

#150
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The man who says Rishi Sunak is not English [0] might be lying? Thats crazy. [0] https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/society/2025/02/of-cou...

I guess it depends on what you mean by English. England is a country, but you can't have an English passport, you can only get a UK passport. so, English is a kinda-sorta a non-nationality, but it is very much an ethnic group. I don't think anyone is claiming that Rishi Sunak isn't a UK citizen, but he certainly isn't a member of the English ethnic group, or any of the Celtic ethnic groups that also make up the UK's…

The usual meaning of English. Say, roughly the criteria that would make someone eligible to play for the England football team. Skin color has nothing to do with it, and I can assure you that very few English people either know or care whether they have any ‘Celtic’ ancestry.

No-one questions the Englishness of white men born in England to two non-English parents. People raising the absurd non-issue of Rishi Sunak’s Englishness are just concealing their rather obvious prejudices with a lot of bafflegab about ‘English ethnicity’ (a concept which not even they can really take at all seriously, if they at least have some acquaintance with English history).

Post reply on HN