Social England riots: Government mulls social media controls

Archean

TechSpot Paladin
I wouldn't either, and leave the right people to investigate the issue and come up with findings.
 

Leeky

TS Evangelist
....and he had a loaded gun on him, so it's not like this guy was innocent.

He was obviously a danger. Nobody can blame the police for what they do.

I certainly don't.
I think its very hard for any of us to understand the exact scenario really.

SO19 are well trained in firearms, and would only take a shot if they felt there life was in imminent danger. They are not known for randomly opening fire and every one of those SO19 officers know the repercussions of discharging a weapon.

With that in mind I find it very hard to believe they would have opened fire without just cause. There must have been an action by the guy to make them respond with deadly force.

For all we know that could have been brandishing the weapon, or actions suggesting he was about to release a firearm to discharge it. Its a very tough call for us to make, and an even tougher one for a firearm's officer to make.

You do have to strongly question how this man came to have a converted weapon (defined as a firearm under the Firearms Act) on his person, and the steps leading up the confrontation with SO19.

His race played absolutely no part, and to be honest I feel like I live in a country losing its national identity because we're now too afraid to be patriotic in case we offend those of other ethnic groups. I personally find that outrageous. I am British, and I am proud to be British. If non-British people don't like our ways, our culture, and our patriotism there are other countries they can reside in.

But instead our government feel they have to play the ethnic card every 5 mins and bend over backwards for every ethnic group except British. If you want to live in our country and benefit our economy and earn your living as an equal then fair play. But if you don't like the way we do things, our culture, and our way of life, leave, don't sit there and complain they were being racially insensitive for operating our country like we have for centuries.

On another note, I am not racist, and I do not discriminate. Under our skin we are all the same, and our skin is no different to the clothes we select to wear from day to day in mind. I am however fed up with people who's home is not our country, telling us as a country what is right and wrong. This whole discrimination thing is beyond a joke now.

If you and your parents are born of this country you have a right to an opinion. If you weren't, then who are you to tell us how we should run this country. If you don't like it, then leave and go somewhere better.

I'm not even going to get started on our frankly ridiculous immigration either; why can't we be like other countries and just not get involved!
 

Benny26

TechSpot Paladin
I think its very hard for any of us to understand the exact scenario really.

SO19 are well trained in firearms, and would only take a shot if they felt there life was in imminent danger. They are not known for randomly opening fire and every one of those SO19 officers know the repercussions of discharging a weapon.

With that in mind I find it very hard to believe they would have opened fire without just cause. There must have been an action by the guy to make them respond with deadly force.

For all we know that could have been brandishing the weapon, or actions suggesting he was about to release a firearm to discharge it. Its a very tough call for us to make, and an even tougher one for a firearm's officer to make.
+1

His race played absolutely no part, and to be honest I feel like I live in a country losing its national identity because we're now too afraid to be patriotic in case we offend those of other ethnic groups. I personally find that outrageous. I am British, and I am proud to be British. If non-British people don't like our ways, our culture, and our patriotism there are other countries they can reside in.

But instead our government feel they have to play the ethnic card every 5 mins and bend over backwards for every ethnic group except British. If you want to live in our country and benefit our economy and earn your living as an equal then fair play. But if you don't like the way we do things, our culture, and our way of life, leave, don't sit there and complain they were being racially insensitive for operating our country like we have for centuries.
This is one place where i find America to be doing the right thing, and i wish we could take a little notice of it. It seems that the only time we feel patriotic in this country is when the world cup is on the TV. Trying to make Britain a "Country for everyone" doesn't bode well in underlying moral terms. In the UK, people should be encouraged (and sometimes forced) into adapting the culture of the UK, not the opposite, like what's happening now.

There's always that feel good factor when the world cup is on, like we're all in sync.....then England get knocked out in the quarter-final and we all go back to "normal" :rolleyes:

I'm not even going to get started on our frankly ridiculous immigration either; why can't we be like other countries and just not get involved!
Just a side note from me: This is why i'm opposed to the EU; the "open boarders" strategy has been a disaster for the UK. Yeah, Poles might do good cheap labour...but they're alright because they're all crammed 15 to a flat with cheap rent, while the real Brits can't take these jobs because they have proper houses to maintain.

And now of course, all a pole or serbian couple who don't feel like working have to do is: Have some sex, walk into the UK, have the baby, then bingo! Free house with benefits right here (or in other words: The Jackpot.)...This will have happened so many times. It's sickening.
 

Archean

TechSpot Paladin
I think 'un-controlled/un-checked' immigration is one foolish policy to have. It not only creates problems in the local communities, but also, the cultural differences are usually hard to overcome IMO. Then there are issues of employment, and whether these newcomers do pay their due share of taxes etc. or what contribution they really make to the well being of the society.
 
I

Igneus the Bold

Sadly, it's in all of us. Look at some of the violent thoughts of retribution littered throughout this very thread. Sure, there is a difference between thinking something and acting on it, but violence starts with a simple thought that someone takes too far. We can't sit in judgment of those folks.


This is the problem with human society as a whole. We will never have enough, and, we will never stop. It's humiliating to be a part of a society that claims to be civilized, yet can act so ugly towards each other.
Kind of a slippery slope argument, don't you think? Anyway, that is why I typed this earlier:

Whilst I fantasize about the methods employed by Di Renjie, logically I maintain the more civic views of one Carl Sagan. I cannot help but want to hurt him after seeing him behave as he did on that video, though I aspire to the contrary.

If I were in charge of his remuneration he would be thoroughly taught to emulate something or someone much more dignified, nothing more. If he proved incapable he would be segregated from society by whatever means deemed fair, ethical, and practical. I would not punish for the sake of my own satisfaction, if I could provide the will to deny my temptation. The scales of justice are blind and foolish at best. I think practicality is more sane for an attempt at a functional society, no matter how difficult the impulse toward a retributive affair.
I think speaking about the way we feel is part of the therapy. We all think about bad things, and discussing it in the open in honesty is a step in the right direction as long as we are sure to remember our civic roots. I mean, obviously I am not going to really suggest hanging him by his balls and striking him with moist bamboo. Nay would I apply the vice grips to him in a court of the Tang Dynasty. Seriously, come on. We have a right to be upset over his ACTIONS, by expressing our frustration in WORDS.

I think 'un-controlled/un-checked' immigration is one foolish policy to have. It not only creates problems in the local communities, but also, the cultural differences are usually hard to overcome IMO. Then there are issues of employment, and whether these newcomers do pay their due share of taxes etc. or what contribution they really make to the well being of the society.
Have you seen the immigration laws employed by the U.S. and the U.K.? They are tough. I wonder how so many foreigners actually get into these countries to begin with. I know one may visit for six months but not gain employment legally, but then they have to leave for six months or so before returning for another VISIT without employment. Are they all illegally working? What gives?
 

Benny26

TechSpot Paladin
Igneus the Bold said:
Have you seen the immigration laws employed by the U.S. and the U.K.? They are tough. I wonder how so many foreigners actually get into these countries to begin with. I know one may visit for six months but not gain employment legally, but then they have to leave for six months or so before returning for another VISIT without employment. Are they all illegally working? What gives?
The UK laws on immigration might very well be tough outside the EU, but the only reason for that is because inside the EU the UK can't do anything. Any EU country like: The UK, France, Germany, Spain, Finland, Denmark, Poland, Bulgaria or Greece, don't have any right (under an EU treaty signed long ago) to refuse entry to any person from another EU country (that signed that treaty...which is almost all of them). Naturally, when the poorer countries came into this bracket (like Poland and Bulgaria), It gave their people the immediate right to seek work in any other EU country, and because the UK is one of the most generous (NHS, workers rights ect...) and highly paid countries in the EU, the UK got swamped basically.

The whole thing's been a farce for our pride and national identity. I'm surprised there haven't been any big riots in the past about it; mind, we're all scared of being branded "racists".
 

captaincranky

TechSpot Addict
The whole thing's been a farce for our pride and national identity. I'm surprised there haven't been any big riots in the past about it; mind, we're all scared of being branded "racists".
Trust me, me whole lot of people in the world ready to capitalize on that fear, and make it work on their behalf. It just seems to justify any sort of behaviour. "I pulled a gun on the cop, and he shot me, so that makes the cop a racist, because everybody knows my ethnic group has to carry guns to protect us from one another. And you won't give us guns because you're prejudiced. It's not the 5 felony convictions that are holding me back from owning a gun, you're a racist.

Over here advocacy groups can even read minds about it. "He said such and such, so that means he was thinking such and such, and that makes him a racist"! I've heard all this crap with my own ears.
 

Arris

TS Evangelist
Personally, I find the "black" thing absolute rubbish. It always comes up when a black or asian person comes in contact with the police in some way where people feel there was "special circumstances". According to the IPCC (independent police complaints commission), he had a loaded gun...which obviously isn't good if you're standing in front of armed police.
My personal bugbear is when Muslims in the UK complain of prejudiced Police behaviour after terrorist attacks committed by Muslims have occurred. Personally if Scottish people were committing terrorism in the UK I'd expect to be treated with suspicion and distrust by the law. Sure it wouldn't be something I would be part off and would be an unpleasant experience but I'd rather be stopped and searched/questioned by Police than have terrorism run free, unabated.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prejudice
prej·u·dice   [prej-uh-dis] Show IPA noun, verb, -diced, -dic·ing.
noun
an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
knowledge - The people committing the acts are of that skin colour/religion/ethnic group etc.
reason - helping prevent acts of terrorism being carried out.

unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
Don't think it's unreasonable. If I was constantly attacked by Seagulls I'd have reasonably negative attitudes regarding them.

Sorry for the slightly off topic mini rant.
As for the riots. Criminal elements taking opportunity to commit crime. I think a very small part of what went on was in protest to the original catalyst.
 

Archean

TechSpot Paladin
My personal bugbear is when Muslims in the UK complain of prejudiced Police behaviour after terrorist attacks committed by Muslims have occurred. Personally if Scottish people were committing terrorism in the UK I'd expect to be treated with suspicion and distrust by the law. Sure it wouldn't be something I would be part off and would be an unpleasant experience but I'd rather be stopped and searched/questioned by Police than have terrorism run free, unabated.
Logical, in fact much of it stems from what the US + Allies + many Muslim countries did in 1980s Afghanistan, they effectively hyped up a genie then let it out of the bottle (which in fact was non-existent before this whole fiasco). Then by using various groups (e.g. Talibans) at different times, and then ditching them we created a perfect recipe for this ****.

Also don't forget that it also blinds us from other dangers IMO (ref: Anders Behring Breivik who mindlessly killed 76 people) and christian radicals like him which are present in many countries.

Anyway, I think multiculturalism is a farce, you can't make people to adopt alien values (at best may be they will accept some but that is it).

Trust me, me whole lot of people in the world ready to capitalize on that fear, and make it work on their behalf. It just seems to justify any sort of behaviour. "I pulled a gun on the cop, and he shot me, so that makes the cop a racist, because everybody knows my ethnic group has to carry guns to protect us from one another. And you won't give us guns because you're prejudiced. It's not the 5 felony convictions that are holding me back from owning a gun, you're a racist.
Unless someone is 'actually' doing something which amounts to racism it is utter non-sense IMO.
 

Benny26

TechSpot Paladin
Well it seems everyone here has the right attitude. We all know what's been going on, and still is in fact.

Archean said:
Anyway, I think multiculturalism is a farce, you can't make people to adopt alien values (at best may be they will accept some but that is it).
Course. You can find evidence all over: San Francisco Chinatown, Little Italy, Bradford in the UK...ect. The very fact of how we talk about "Asian communities" or "Hispanic communities". People naturally always flock to their own kind. Some say that this sort of indirect racism exists deep down in all of us as a defensive mechanism to distrust outsiders, that comes way back from our early ancestors.

Arris said:
My personal bugbear is when Muslims in the UK complain of prejudiced Police behaviour after terrorist attacks committed by Muslims have occurred. Personally if Scottish people were committing terrorism in the UK I'd expect to be treated with suspicion and distrust by the law. Sure it wouldn't be something I would be part off and would be an unpleasant experience but I'd rather be stopped and searched/questioned by Police than have terrorism run free, unabated.
Same here. I think i'm right in saying that this "racial profiling" is used most in airport security; I'm all for it and i think it's right.
 

Archean

TechSpot Paladin
Same here. I think i'm right in saying that this "racial profiling" is used most in airport security; I'm all for it and i think it's right.
I think it is already being done in some SEA countries who profile Americans/UK/Frenchies and other nationals mostly because of distrust, and I frankly see no problem with it, because every country have to put in place laws/rules which suite/help them in implementing their security paradigm.
 

Benny26

TechSpot Paladin
Just watching the news and some info: Two young men (in their 20s) have been jailed for 4 years for putting an "Event" on Facebook titled "Smashdown in Norwich town". The meeting (and the possible riots that could have happened) didn't even take place, yet they still got jailed.

An MP was recently jailed for 3 months for stealing nearly £10,000 from the public purse. So somehow, 4 years for these lads seems rather unfair considering nothing actually happened...But whatever.
 

captaincranky

TechSpot Addict
Just watching the news and some info: Two young men (in their 20s) have been jailed for 4 years for putting an "Event" on Facebook titled "Smashdown in Norwich town". The meeting (and the possible riots that could have happened) didn't even take place, yet they still got jailed.

An MP was recently jailed for 3 months for stealing nearly £10,000 from the public purse. So somehow, 4 years for these lads seems rather unfair considering nothing actually happened...But whatever.
Ironic, but conspiracy sometimes carries a worst penalty than the instant offense. Courts like to tack that charge on.
 
I

Igneus the Bold

Laws are made to compensate for stupid Humans. I think it is wiser to invest more into educating Human beings than into the laws which attempt to guide them. And then there is technology, which can be used to literally prevent stupid people from harming themselves and one another. :D
 

Arris

TS Evangelist
Just watching the news and some info: Two young men (in their 20s) have been jailed for 4 years for putting an "Event" on Facebook titled "Smashdown in Norwich town". The meeting (and the possible riots that could have happened) didn't even take place, yet they still got jailed.

An MP was recently jailed for 3 months for stealing nearly £10,000 from the public purse. So somehow, 4 years for these lads seems rather unfair considering nothing actually happened...But whatever.
Years ago if you launched a website with the specific purpose of organising riots and unlawful group activity it would be shutdown and there probably would be arrests made. Using "Facebook" is no different, it's just a much simpler way of creating and advertising such information.
General non computer savvy folks still see the internet as a place of anonymity, an unreal world where they can do anything as it is their "online" persona and not really them. Even when they are organising unlawful activity within a social media site that focuses on building a social network around their real life and real life friends/family. :rolleyes:

I do think 4 years is over the top, probably to try and make an example out of them given the lack of action during the actual riots. I'd have said a reasonable length of community service, possibly cleaning up and helping sort out the mess made by the riots would have been more appropriate.
And the MPs jail sentence is laughable.
 

Benny26

TechSpot Paladin
I would have thought that the ultimate example would have been community service, seeing them clean up some of the mess they could have done with their act.

They're talking on the news about the lack of continuity country wide in sentencing: Like a boy in Birmingham getting 1 day in jail for theft of a t-shirt, while a boy in southampton is getting 6 months for theft of a £2.50 bottle of water. And it has emerged that another lad - just like the two who have already been sent to jail - put up something on Facebook regarding rioting, yet was released without charge.

All this discontinuity in sentencing is going to do is clog the courts up even more when all the appeals start coming through. It's like the courts are just making it harder for themselfs on this one.
 

Leeky

TS Evangelist
I think a few thousand hours of community service for those convicted might be a better idea. Being forced to do good, and clean mess in their own area, whilst being shamed due to being seen by the public doing it is a far greater punishment that avoids prisons being clogged up.
 

captaincranky

TechSpot Addict
Course. You can find evidence all over: San Francisco Chinatown, Little Italy, Bradford in the UK...ect. The very fact of how we talk about "Asian communities" or "Hispanic communities". People naturally always flock to their own kind. Some say that this sort of indirect racism exists deep down in all of us as a defensive mechanism to distrust outsiders, that comes way back from our early ancestors.
Look up, "Ethnocentrism", it allegedly is not the same as"racism".

I think it's a concept the sociologists pulled out of their a**es, so they didn't have to bandy the "R" word around. But what do I know.
 

Benny26

TechSpot Paladin
Look up, "Ethnocentrism", it allegedly is not the same as"racism".

I think it's a concept the sociologists pulled out of their a**es, so they didn't have to bandy the "R" word around. But what do I know.
It does seem very close, indeed.

It works the same for if i did it though. If i moved to a foreign country, I would much prefer company with white atheists rather than say, black muslims or even asian atheists. This isn't because i'm racist, It's more because of what i feel comfortable with.

Obviously the line has to be drawn somewhere though; if i had a business and only sought to employ white atheists inside it, the "comfortable" argument wouldn't fall on easy ears in any court of law :D
 

Atham

TS Enthusiast
If that " comfortable feeling" is racism, then all humans are racists. ;)

And I feel sorry for you guys in England. Lucky me, I am in Slovakia. During the Comunist's regime they didn't accept any foreigners, they were pretty damn good racists, not that I remember, I wasn't even born back then
 
I

Igneus the Bold

Look up, "Ethnocentrism", it allegedly is not the same as"racism".

I think it's a concept the sociologists pulled out of their a**es, so they didn't have to bandy the "R" word around. But what do I know.
Ethnocentrism is usually the foundation of ethnic cleansing. That is usually when sociologists begin calling it "racism". I love the way we "church-up" our verbiage in this species. I must admit however that the term ethnocentrism is more accurate than racism, considering the genetic similarities among Humans around the globe.


It does seem very close, indeed.

It works the same for if i did it though. If i moved to a foreign country, I would much prefer company with white atheists rather than say, black muslims or even asian atheists. This isn't because i'm racist, It's more because of what i feel comfortable with.

Obviously the line has to be drawn somewhere though; if i had a business and only sought to employ white atheists inside it, the "comfortable" argument wouldn't fall on easy ears in any court of law :D
A comfortable work environment is worth fighting for, isn't it? Balancing the concept of unity with the reality of diversity is surely proving more challenging than previously thought. Globalization may take longer than previously imagined.


If that " comfortable feeling" is racism, then all humans are racists. ;)

And I feel sorry for you guys in England. Lucky me, I am in Slovakia. During the Comunist's regime they didn't accept any foreigners, they were pretty damn good racists, not that I remember, I wasn't even born back then
We certainly are an ethnocentric species in general, but one day our tribal roots may be the sanctuary of the Human race.

I too am nostalgic of an era I wasn't even born in.