Live data from Hacker News

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

freedomnews.org.uk

311–320 of 327 posts

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

#311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is simply no-incentive to. Generally there are many incentives to increase the number of laws, as they can be seen as doing something about a some recent issue. Many of the recent online safety laws (even before OSA) are good examples of this. Additionally Britain generally has a problem with politicians believing that the only solution to a problem is banning/regulating things, regardless what the root cause m…

40 RA, my mum used to drive a Vauxhall Carlton > Additionally Britain generally has a problem with politicians believing that the only solution to a problem is banning/regulating things, regardless what the root cause might be. Banning/regulating something requires new legal powers. So more laws. I mean it's true and it does work for the most part. The bans on knives, drain cleaner etc have reduced the number of thes…

> 40 RA, my mum used to drive a Vauxhall Carlton

They were/are nice cars. I did dream of buying a Lotus Carlton, but unless a few million falls into my lap it will remain a dream :D

> I mean it's true and it does work for the most part. The bans on knives, drain cleaner etc have reduced the number of these kinds of crimes especially in London. It's hard to argue against something when a lot of this kind of policymaking is effective

Does it? The stats seem to suggest the opposite.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/864736/knife-crime-in-lo...

> The increase in knife crime witnessed in London has occurred alongside a general increase in overall crime throughout England and Wales. In 2022/23, there were approximately 6.74 million crime offences across England and Wales, compared with just over four million ten years earlier. During a similar time period, the number of knife homicides also increased, and reached 282 in 2017/18, compared with 186 in 2014/15. Due to strict gun laws in the United Kingdom, firearms are rarely used to commit homicides, with knives or other sharp instruments being used in over 46 percent of homicides in 2023/24.

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

#312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What’s the point in expressing opinions if you’re going to refuse to put any weight behind them whatsoever? I did a long detailed response in this thread where I spent a lot of time detailing why I believed somebody's assessment of about about Dominic Cummings was incorrect (I actually listened to what he had to say). So I've already have put weight behind my opinions. Your reply on this topic is essentially leadin…

You don’t have to, but it would have taken less effort than your responses so far. If you’re not interested in someone’s question then you should probably just ignore it rather than write paragraphs about why you’re not interested in it, but you do you!

> You don’t have to, but it would have taken less effort than your responses so far.

Actually it wouldn't. There are many arguments from fringe figures to more mainstream with various rationales. Much has been written about it.

> If you’re not interested in someone’s question then you should probably just ignore it rather than write paragraphs about why you’re not interested in it, but you do you!

I answered your question. The way I answered while a bit sardonic is supposed to make you think a bit. Obviously you don't appreciate it, but it isn't in bad faith.

Not everything has to be some sort of logical back and forth debate to get the point across.

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

#313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've no idea what Dr. Who, murder-reporting, period dramas or stock photography choices have to do with the Labour party, but I'll pretend you're arguing in good faith and address what I believe to be the point in your copypasta. The most empirical and robust study regarding bias was performed by Cardiff University in 2013. Its major finding regarded the dominance of Conservative party political sources in BBC covera…

Cardiff University is extremely unlikely to be neutral, and a study done more than a decade ago tells us little about the state of the BBC today. The OP gave many examples but you only need to know one: the BBC broadcast fake footage of Trump created by splicing together different parts of a speech he gave. The parts were separated by more than 50 minutes and they hid the splice by cutting to the crowd. This manipula…

I literally cited the BBC Question Time editing out audience laughter at Prime Minister Boris Johnson's fumbling responses, and the incredible partisanship to protect him from Andrew Neill while then setting up the most controversial UK political interview of the 21st Century with Marr

https://www.theguardian.com/media/shortcuts/2019/dec/03/chun...

I have to also laugh at Channel 4 (decidedly not the BBC in the first instance) putting some small thumb on the scales of justice re: Nigel Farage and the Reform party generally - the biggest political and institutional frauds outside of the Reese-Moggs clan.

My favourite prominent example: footage originally taken from GB News was used by a local Reform Party to falsely claim a rival MP was abusive to Nigel Farage in Parliament

https://inews.co.uk/news/mp-falsely-accused-calling-farage-a...

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

#314
post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it happening in the UK though? Why does their government think that they need this?

It's not only happening in the UK. It's happening across the entire western world except for America. Australia, Canada and European countries have also been implementing retroactive speech laws, mass debanking, imprisonment for political speech and so on. The UK gets a lot of attention because it's historically been a fairly free country, and because it's English speaking.

Even in the U.S. there is constant pressure on the First Amendment. It's just that the 1A has been quite resilient because the courts have helped it, but that can stop at any time.

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

#315
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)

Guns only help somewhat nebulously against tyranny. You need societal consensus to get to society using guns against the government, and there is no such consensus regarding ICE, which is why you're not going to see guns used against ICE. Many many people who hate ICE are armed to the teeth, and they are not using those guns because they know that currently that would lose them thee battle and the war.

But in general the better armed states in the U.S. had less restrictive covid rules. So perhaps there is a link between how armed the population is and how well it resists restrictions it doesn't like.

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

#316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The guns in the US don't seem to be helping people avoid getting shot by ICE. The woman who was shot was a democrat without any guns, maybe if she'd had a gun she wouldn't have been shot.

Maybe if he didn't have a gun she wouldn't have been shot.

No gun control measure proposes to disarm the police.

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

#317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man, its like everyone is blind to the current state of things. Here is the truth: * Everyone with above sentiment always votes for anyone libertarian, which is necessarily conservative, and all conservatives are pretty much liars. * These same conservatives that champion against government overreach, for law and order, and for personal freedoms do the exact opposite once they get into office. Nor do they give a shit…

Totalitarianism has the same end state whether it comes from the left or the right. It always results in suppression of the truth, broken feedback loops that lead to poor decisions by government, economic failure, and finally either bloody repression, war, or revolution. It’s possible to move through this to a place of stability. After all, China only had to kill 15-55 million people in the Great Leap Forward and a c…

Both extreme leftism and extreme rightism are composed of the same people - more focused on ideology rather than truth, and authoritarian control rather than voice of reason.

In the middle, there is an acceptable range of compromise. Social media is the new town square. People shouldn't be able to post stuff on there without recourse for lying and spreading misinformation, just like they shouldn't be able to do this in public. History shows that this leads to bad outcomes. Also, history also shows that we can't just have personal freedoms unrestricted.

And just because that "freedom" is being taken away, doesn't mean that the leftists are in charge.

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

#318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a Brit, I find it very hard to believe that you're a Brit and that your method of drawing superficial conclusions about the other participants is sound. Perhaps we are both bots here. Instead of attacking the other participants for not being as enlightened as you may be and the source of the information, a more appreciated approach would've been to address the substance of the article. For example, what are some "…

Thanks for your considered reply, and I do appreciate my initial post was somewhat exaggerated and done in frustration. Your own evidence, however -- albeit expressed less polemically -- seems indeed to support my conclusion, namely that on a range of measures the UK is indeed more 'free' than the US. Moreover, it is somewhat a large sleight of hand for you to say 'Trump and his oligarchs aside' when Trump is the Pre…

You make some good points. And thanks for taking the time to provide some sources and more nuance. I believe that overall we agree on the main points.

Re: the source (your suspicion is warranted but only marginally) - I've read numerous articles on freedomnews.org.uk over the years that were well-written, well-argued, and supported by research, at least as much as it can be expected from a magazine. It's not a scientific journal, they don't don't have a strict set of editorial guidelines (the current one is rather informal albeit still informed and focused [0]), and the article was published under the Comment section as an opinion piece.

That said, the publication has some serious history behind it; it started in 1886 by volunteers [1][2], it's arguably the longest running left periodical in Britain [9], and it's run as a cooperative / controlled by its volunteers - no small feat. It's the oldest anarchist press in the UK (and the English speaking world) and still runs the largest anarchist bookshop (one of the few in the world). [3] During the WW2 the paper played a role in disseminating the real but dismissed opposition against the war which led to a major free-speech prosecution case [10][11]. Because of its longevity it has inevitably documented a good chunk of Britain's late history, albeit from a perspective that was deeply hated by the government, the monarchy, and the industrialists [12]. (I personally see this as a positive rather than a reason to mistrust it.) Their bookshop was destroyed in an air raid in 1941 along with (critically) the remaining back-catalogue of early Freedom Press pamphlets that had been preserved up to that point [2]; it has also survived a bombing by a British neo-fascist group in 1993 and an arson attack in 2013 [13][14]. They are an institution.

Although not exactly a standard-defining magazine - they couldn't be anyway considering the philosophy they sport, they're entirely transparent about the radical perspective they bring to the table, and they're an independent media organisation funded by readers. We have to consider that fact that the majority of mainstream media players claim impartiality but they often instruct their journalists not to cross various (journalistic and non-journalistic) lines, censor critical voices, or are simply not transparent about the fact that, as businesses, they can't afford to be completely impartial if that upsets their clients (advertisers) or their owners. Another view point is at the very least welcome, even if it's not along the same lines.

I'm not looking to convince you that you should read it but I believe that you may change your opinion of it as an entirely untrusted source once I lay out a few more things.

Societies change through all kinds of contributions and actions, most of which remain unseen or unknown. A good number of famous thinkers have contributed to the magazine during its long life, many of which that we quote today as clear-minded, coherent social critics or analysts. Whether we like them or not is less relevant, what matters is that they were influent and their actions and writings have directly influenced or contributed to the social reality of today. To put it differently, FN is one of those semi-obscure magazines that has influenced the influencers.

* Peter Kropotkin (he founded Freedom News) - later influenced Aldous Huxley, Murray Bookchin, Kirkpatrick Sale, Henry Mintzberg [4][8], Dorothy Day, Peter Maurin [5]. The idea of mutualism comes from him and it's one of the most important correctives to the "all competition" misunderstanding. [6][7]

* William Morris, Michael Tippett, T. S. Eliot, Benjamin Britten [1][2]

* George Bernard Shaw, Max Nettlau [8]

* Herbert Read, Alex Comfort, Colin Ward [9]

* Emma Goldman, George Orwell, Ethel Mannin [14]

A good number of specialists, thinkers, professors, and writers still contribute to the magazine: Dr Chrys Papaioannou, Antti Rautiainen, Carlos Taibo, Owen Clayton, Spencer Beswick, John P. Clark etc.

[0] https://libcom.org/article/news-report-writing-guide

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_(British_newspaper)

[2] https://freedomnews.org.uk/freedom-press-history/ & https://freedompress.org.uk/history/

[3] https://freedomnews.org.uk/about/

[4] https://ephemerajournal.org/contribution/peter-kropotkin%25E...

[5] https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/joe-peabody-peter-kr...

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(biology)

[7] https://daily.jstor.org/peter-kropotkin-the-prince-of-mutual...

[8] https://www.bishopsgate.org.uk/collections/freedom-press-arc...

[9] https://www.historyworkshop.org.uk/activism-solidarity/freed...

[10] https://libcom.org/article/anarchists-court-england-april-19...

[11] https://freedomnews.org.uk/2021/04/17/freedom-press-and-the-...

[12] https://freedomnews.org.uk/2017/05/25/towards-a-timeline-of-...

[13] https://freedomnews.org.uk/2013/02/01/freedom-firebombed/

[14] https://www.versobooks.com/en-gb/blogs/news/1229-london-anar...

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

#319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The BBC is institutionally biased in two major ways: * Pro the royal family since it is chartered by them. * Against Scottish independence since it would lose 10% of its funding.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the national media service being 'pro the nation' (counting the UK as the nation for arguments sake). That said however they can't make things up, or overtly bury critical stories...but putting a softer slant on them wouldn't be unreasonable.

It is a loyal state broadcaster. If it had been up to the BBC, then the Prince Andrew story would have been buried. They tried to bury it several times but the Americans don't take orders from Buckingham Palace.

Their coverage of the Scottish independence referendum was laughably biased and often clueless.

They do seem to have an odd attitude towards Nigel Farage (UKIP & Reform) though, and kept putting him on Questiontime and the radio. It seems unclear why they would promote him so much given much of their other content.

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

#320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for your considered reply, and I do appreciate my initial post was somewhat exaggerated and done in frustration. Your own evidence, however -- albeit expressed less polemically -- seems indeed to support my conclusion, namely that on a range of measures the UK is indeed more 'free' than the US. Moreover, it is somewhat a large sleight of hand for you to say 'Trump and his oligarchs aside' when Trump is the Pre…

You make some good points. And thanks for taking the time to provide some sources and more nuance. I believe that overall we agree on the main points. Re: the source (your suspicion is warranted but only marginally) - I've read numerous articles on freedomnews.org.uk over the years that were well-written, well-argued, and supported by research, at least as much as it can be expected from a magazine. It's not a scient…

Thanks too for the detailed reply. You've made a good case and persuaded me to take a closer look at their reporting in the future!
Post reply on HN