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 response by the authorities. It would have been straight forward to use rubber bullets against rioters but the police were not keen to escalate things.
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 towards distopia.
Somebody on bbc question hour was suggesting that police inaction was on purpose.They wanted this to escalate and use this violence as an excuse to make draconian laws.Cameron's action actually agrees with the prediction.
I do not want to believe in conspiracy theories but seriously does it take 3 days to decide using baton round/rubber bullets.
I totally agree with you but instead of giving Police better tools they want to monitor social media which is just absurd and can be used against their political enemies which does suggest malice.
I fail to understand how social media monitoring will prevent riots next time if Police chooses to be an spectator.
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.
Do you have a source for that? Everything I've read suggested the police were only considering rubber bullets or water cannons as a last resort.
...Godwin and his team came very close to issuing the order for firearms teams to use plastic bullets.
At that point the Met's officers were "stretched to an extent never seen before," deputy assistant commissioner Steven Kavanagh said. "We did absolutely consider it through the night," Kavanagh said. "But these were very fast moving mobile groups and by the time we got baton rounds there this groups would have moved away."
That's a difference of degree, and not even that relevant. Either you have freedom of speech, or you don't.
Let's take your arguments and rephrase them as coming from Libya (or any "less democratic" country):
- Protesting is legal in XXX and happens regularly. You only have to get a permit to insure the safety of the people involved (same as in UK, I'd guess)
- The protesters are clearly destroying public and private property. There have been multiple instances of protesters attacking public buildings, and a (very well filmed) instance of protesters attacking innocent bystanders.
- Of course the internet will not be completely shut down. Only specific vectors, as needed. The police will decide what they are and how many to shut down
- The police only protects public property, and will always use violence as a last resort, and only as a response to violence - and we have clearly documented cases of violence from protesters.
So what's the difference? When it comes to laws meant to limit the power of the government, you can't count on the government applying them "in spirit" or reporting things truthfully and completely. It kindof defeats the purpose, doesn't it? If the people currently in charge would be trustworthy, you wouldn't really need any such laws...
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, seems like a different beast.
But the fear is that given that power, the government will be able to make subjective calls on situations they deem important enough to intervene. There is definitely a line between justified Libyan protests and the violent riots here, but where does that line fall? Do you trust the government to make that call today and (once it's law) forever into the future?
It's a tough question, I know I don't know the answer.
There is a distinction to be made here. Libya had a large proportion of protestors in comparison to rioters. More importantly, the motivation was solidly political. There was a clear goal and demand for greater freedom.
In contrast, the UK rioters that spawned out of the initial protest was nothing more than an assortment of various criminal groups that used a political excuse to attack and rob ordinary citizens.
I don't know why you're being voted down. I'm in the UK and you're right. If the rioting was being spun as being somehow politically motivated in non British media, that's wrong. There were no political goals here. People wanted new trainers and TVs and a fun night out getting chased by the cops.
That's a resource distribution issue intimately related to the economy. If that isn't politics, nothing is. Almost all riots are related to resource distribution issues, especially when an impoverished underclass engages in looting.
Are you really claiming these riots aren't linked to the massive cuts to public services that happened during the last year?
My favorite new politically correct euphemism for the motivation for theft.
Are you really claiming these riots aren't linked to the massive cuts to public services that happened during the last year?
No. But it seems like a leap of reasoning. Was Anders Brevik's rampage "linked" to an influx of immigrants into Norway? Again, a bit of a leap. In both cases I'd be more inclined to believe that the people involved lack sufficient mental health.
But sure, perhaps the daughters of millionaires, school staff, graphic designers, Olympic ambassadors, and law students who have faced the courts already are suffering at the hands of cuts. That's for the sociologists and rehabilitation officers to figure out in the months to come.
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 to do with the government.
Mental health provision on the NHS is shockingly poor. Unless you end up hospitalised (which you really don't want to be), your choice is either pills or a six-month wait for six one-hour sessions of CBT. Community mental health services are massively underfunded and are struggling to keep up with even their highest-priority users - sufferers of schizophrenia and bipolar whose conditions could easily become fatal if mismanaged.
On the last paragraph, it isn't that people may feel they deserve certain things, but that they are willing to grossly violate the law and society's standards in order to fulfill them.
Public health care. Free state education (which is generally of a good standard, but a waste if you are not self-motivated). Council-provided housing, though supply is short due to failing to replenish the housing stock since right to buy in the 80s. A fairly comprehensive benefit system which scales with number of children. Healthy food is cheaper than junk.
The last one (self-respect) is mostly what determines whether you decide to take advantage of all the UK welfare state offers. Poor money management and general ignorance are the main reasons for the poor having big TV's, satellite service and gadgets, yet failing to pay their bills and their friends. Or getting into crippling credit card debt.
So really if you want to be accurate, its the rich doing their best to keep the poor stupid so they may keep the stupid poor. Sure, there are some really dumb things with welfare in e.g. the hoops you jump through to receive jobseekers allowance but its not as if the opportunities aren't there...
Edit: I see you were talking about mental medical care, which again is provisioned under the NHS. I personally know of NHS services in East London for this, some of which started due to this initiative: http://www.iapt.nhs.uk/ All free. That doesn't dispel stigmas attached to it, or course, but that's irrelevant to your assertion that such services don't exist.
Those are pretty common refrains. Honestly it means nothing to me that rioters may have said them.
Especially considering as a rioter the police are the guys who want to stop you from rioting & looting, when you want to continue with the rioting & looting.
No. The asian shops were targetted, just like in the LA riots. These are hardly rich, but the shopkeepers represented "model" citizens and what the ideal migrant looks like. The looters represent the reverse.
What do you mean 'no'? The reasons for a bunch of ignorant kids looting doesn't have to reflect their actions. If they could realise who they're hurting they wouldn't be ignorant kids now, would they?
I believe the police will have to do some soul searching here too.
In particular, the killing of the Jean Charles Menezes, and the way some members of the police force managed to get off scot free with the death of Ian Tomlinson means that the "me first" culture must stop with the police force as well.
There are rotten eggs in all sections of the society, and the arrest of people with stable jobs amongst the rioters proves this.
Of course this doesn't justify the rioting and looting which we have seen in London. Most of which smacks of opportunistic hooliganism.
However, I subscribe to the tenet that good example must come from the top, and it is this type of good example that has been found wanting leading up to the riots.
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.
The problem is you need to monitor traffic to be able to find out what's being communicated - and someone has to decide what constitutes illegal communication; which is a grey area in itself.
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.
Is this the same Cameron who criticized Libya when they shut off the Internet against what, in their view, were violent protesters?