Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Government Politics

YouTube Bans Gun and Knife Videos In the UK 632

Posted by timothy
from the long-chain-of-abuses-and-usurpations dept.
PatPending writes with a depressing excerpt from the UK's Metro: "The Google-owned video-sharing site YouTube has decided to introduce the ban [on weapons-related videos] for the UK only amid widespread unease about the increase in knife crime in the country. 'We recognise that there has been particular concern over videos in the UK that involve showing weapons with the aim of intimidation, and this is one of the areas we are addressing,' a YouTube spokesperson said. 'I would like to see other internet service providers follow suit to reinforce our message that violence will not be tolerated either on the internet or in the real world,' she said."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

YouTube Bans Gun and Knife Videos In the UK

Comments Filter:
  • Working link (Score:5, Informative)

    by RockMFR (1022315) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @01:59AM (#25090645)
  • by h4rm0ny (722443) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @02:02AM (#25090649) Journal

    Knives are this month's hysteria in the UK. That's not to say there isn't a problem with knife use in the UK. And it isn't to say that videos on YouTube can't be used for intimidation of specific people and so should be removed in such cases. But one day, the media suddenly went into a feeding frenzy, police chiefs were trotting out their most ridiculous arrays or seized weapons (including a photo of a Star Trek replica weapon at one point) and Home Secretaries were trying to look all grave and serious talking about the knife epidemic sweeping our nation.

    It may be a serious issue. But it's definitely something that Labour are trying to use for political gain and as a fear stick.
  • by timmarhy (659436) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @02:04AM (#25090657)
    it's to stop idiots posting stuff showing them knifing people/things and rob them of their 15 minutes of fame. i totally agree with it. the internet is NOT a ticket to do as you please.
  • Really increased? (Score:5, Informative)

    by duck0 (1073338) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @02:08AM (#25090695)

    I remember hearing about this on BBC's radio4...

    A quick search later found this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7421534.stm [bbc.co.uk]

    According to the British Crime Survey (BCS), overall violent crime has decreased by 41% since a peak in 1995.
    Knives are used in about 8% of violent incidents, according to the BCS, a level that has largely remained the same during the past decade.

    However:

    But the BCS figures do not include under-16s, something which the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced this month would change.

  • Re:first post (Score:4, Informative)

    by BPPG (1181851) <bppg1986@gmail.com> on Sunday September 21, 2008 @02:16AM (#25090739)

    I must admit, these trollish little first posts do make good place holders.

    TFA should probably be http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7621013.stm [bbc.co.uk]. Interestingly enough, it makes use of the increasingly ubiquitous "vet" [word-detective.com].

  • Awesome idea! (Score:5, Informative)

    by uvajed_ekil (914487) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @02:21AM (#25090767)
    This will work great, until every kid in the UK finds that he can replace the "uk" in "uk.youtube.com" with "www" and see awesome, inspirational stuff like:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEoiu2Coxrc [youtube.com] or

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IHQqW8zOSk [youtube.com]

  • by dangitman (862676) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @02:39AM (#25090859)

    Ban guns, gun crime skyrockes. Ban knives, knife crime escalates.

    That actually never happened. Violent crime has been dropping in Britain.

    BTW, if you like the way that England is going with this, vote Obama, he's got the same thing in mind for America.

    Riiiiiiiggght. Got any evidence to back that up?

  • by paganizer (566360) <thegrove1&hotmail,com> on Sunday September 21, 2008 @02:47AM (#25090885) Homepage Journal

    Interesting reality you live in there.
    results of a really quick google search:
    http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html [reason.com] (england & gun control)
    the Obama thing is a little hard to pin down, as he has been pretty good at avoiding any straight answers. But you could start here: http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm [ontheissues.org]
    note: if you are pro-gun control, you obviously won't see anything wrong with this.

  • Re:Hmm (Score:2, Informative)

    by 91degrees (207121) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @02:48AM (#25090887) Journal
    They do provide a service on the internet.
  • by dangitman (862676) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @02:53AM (#25090917)

    Wait, what does his voting on gun issues have to do with knives again? And since when is voting on gun control the same as voting to outlaw guns?

    As for crime rates, there's a nice chart and some analysis here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6906554.stm [bbc.co.uk]

  • by atriusofbricia (686672) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @02:58AM (#25090949) Journal

    I'm not surprised you got modded "flamebait"; how DARE you criticize Obama! Besides, he is definitely NOT planning on the same thing as England, he just wants to ban all semi-automatic weapons; you could still have your double-barrel shotguns, bolt action rifles and single action revolvers as long as you live outside of an Urban area. I guess a person could be concerned that he hasn't defined what an Urban area is...but still, shut up! he Gives us hope!

    But, you can only possess those as long as you can find a gun store which would still be in operation. Under a 1999 Obama proposal [volokh.com], all gun stores within five miles of any school or park. Such a law, if actually proposed and passed, would kill off pretty much every gun store in the country which wasn't way in the boonies. Now, this admittedly wasn't proposed as a bill (as that would require him to have actually done something). This was proposed in a speech at an anti-rights rally. Yep, a real rights supporter he. ;)

  • by Karellen (104380) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @03:20AM (#25091029) Homepage

    Knife crime has not increased in the UK.

    Reporting of knife crime in the UK has increased dramatically. It just happens to be what the papers happen to be focusing on this year. Last year it was the McCann thing. A few years ago it was the great paedophile threat, which came about due to one or two high-profile cases featuring photogenic young girls. Before that it was ... thankfully I can't remember.

    Anyway, the papers finally decided they needed new "fear" stories to run and grab headlines with. Knife crime appears to be the one they're rallied around this time.

    You are still much, much more likely to die in a car accident than to be stabbed to death by a "teenage yob". Doesn't make good headlines though or instill the same level of fear though, does it?

  • Re:first post (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21, 2008 @03:24AM (#25091041)

    The BBC should use 'vet' because it's been in common usage in the UK for the last 100 years.

    This 'new' word is only new to the US.

  • by atriusofbricia (686672) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @03:38AM (#25091127) Journal

    Wait, what does his voting on gun issues have to do with knives again? And since when is voting on gun control the same as voting to outlaw guns?

    As for crime rates, there's a nice chart and some analysis here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6906554.stm [bbc.co.uk]

    Nothing, I believe the poster above was referring to Obama's documented [votesmart.org] desire to eliminate all semi-automatic guns, among others. One can only imagine that if he would be willing to do that, a total ban on any effective ownership wouldn't be out of the question. Whether Congress would pass such a law is admittedly doubtful in both cases, however it doesn't change his position. He's also on the record [icadp.org] as being opposed to concealed carry. He, of course, also would like to reimpose [suntimes.com] the failed assault weapon ban. He is also on the record as desiring a total ban on handguns, with only the lack of it being popular enough currently to do it. (See the last link) Obama is possibly the most anti-rights candidate ever.

  • Re:first post (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21, 2008 @04:59AM (#25091393)

    quick +5 funny ... karmic gold. )

    If I am not misinformed, funny mods does not count towards karma.

    This post should be modded informative, though.

  • by Stevecrox (962208) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @05:14AM (#25091437) Journal
    Media histeria says violence and crime have gone up, facts say the opposite. (I agree a 41% drop isn't note worthy.)

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7421534.stm [bbc.co.uk]
  • by cliffski (65094) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @05:23AM (#25091463) Homepage

    so tell me, how is easy access to handguns going in the US?

    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_ove_hom_rat_per_100_pop-rate-per-100-000-pop [nationmaster.com]

    gun homicides per 100,000 pop

    #1 South Africa: 125.965
    #9 Zimbabwe: 11.9841
    #14 United States: 9.1
    #28 Chile: 1.7237
    #29 Germany: 1.635

    the UK doesn't even make the list.

  • by Haeleth (414428) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @06:05AM (#25091663) Journal

    Of course there are more people shooting other people in NY than in, say, London. When people are helpless against the (gun owning) criminals, they have to do what they tell them, or die.

    What? Do please show me your statistics that show a rocketing rate of armed burglaries in London.

    (Hint: one reason why hardly anyone gets shot during burglaries in London is, in fact, that burglars in London generally don't have guns. There's a reason why even the police in Britain generally see no need to carry a lethal weapon.)

  • by OriginalArlen (726444) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @06:48AM (#25091799)
    Oh, give me a fucking break. I'm a member / supporter of a number of civil lib type orgs here in the UK, and we certainly do have our share of stupid, counter-productive, illiberal and potentially-authoritarian laws. But, really, I assure you that (apart from the insane law about protesting within a half-mile of Parliament, and similar special cases), free speech is really not a problem over here. "questioning the effectiveness of the UK police state"?! You've obviously never read the British tabloid press; take away their right to ridicule the police and they'd be out of business overnight.
  • by mikael (484) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @08:38AM (#25092203)

    The traditional solution to stopping people climbing over your back garden walls, breaking into your house and stealing your stuff was to cement broken glass onto the top of your walls. On a sunny day, it would look quite pretty, especially if you used different colored bottles. Alternatively there is the metal railing with the fake spear tips on the top. These can be seen around public parks, although they do spear the occasional delinquent who tries to climb a tree to escape from the police.

  • by Hubbell (850646) <brianhubbellii@li[ ]com ['ve.' in gap]> on Sunday September 21, 2008 @08:52AM (#25092293)
    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902 [worldnetdaily.com]
    That good old gun ban really did the trick now didn't it :)
  • The idiots on Youtube? Bust em. They shouldn't be allowed near a squirtgun.
    But a firearm in my hands is zero danger to you.

    Says who? Who decides who gets guns and who doesn't?

    Those who support gun ownership frequently make the, probably critical, mistake of promoting gun rights for some, but no for others. Rights don't work that way. Either everybody has them, or everybody doesn't. If you argue for your right to own a handgun, then you must admit that that right must be given to any 18 year old street hooligan who wants one to use it in a Youtube video.

    If you don't, then you're arguing for a privilege, not a right. And yes, this right should extend to convicted criminals who have served their time. You must understand that for this reason arguments about guns being restricted to "responsible" people will not hold much water with gun control advocates. A right is a right is a right, not a privilege.

    Personally, I think gun ownership as a privilege is an acceptable system, as it is in England. Even America, where guns are supposedly a right, effectively implements a privilege system anyway.

    Going back to the story, while gun ownership may be a right or a privilege, the right to speak about, and advocate, guns and their use is a very firm right and one which should not be denied to anyone. Of course there are those who argue that Youtube, as a private company, is free to host and remove whatever videos it pleases. These same people ignore that Youtube increasingly represents the privatization of public broadcasting, and the privatization of public censorship in the modern age. To paraphrase Agent Smith; What good is a soapbox, if you are unable to speak?

  • by adamofgreyskull (640712) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @10:52AM (#25093045)

    You got the evidence to back up your claims of crime in England dropping?[sic]

    He's actually right on this matter. "Does he got the evidence?" No, but the Home Office do. I've provided instructions for finding the dox below, as well as an executive summary. All incidents of violent crime are dropping, and the only category of crime which has shown an increase is "Drug offences" which showed an 18% increase between 06/07 and 07/08.

    1. Google British Crime Survey [wikipedia.org]
    2. Click on first result: rds british crime survey [homeoffice.gov.uk]
    3. Scroll down to "Key publications"
    4. Click first link: Crime in England and Wales 2007/08 [sitestat.com](PDF)
    5. Navigate document.

    Page 19, Comparison 2006/7 to 2007/8:

    • All BCS Crime down 10% to 10.1 million crimes
    • Police recorded crime down 9% to 5.0 million crimes
    • BCS Violent Crime down 12%
    • Police recorded "Violence against the person" down 8%
    • Police recorded "Most serious violence against the person" down 12%
    • Police recorded robbery down 16%
    • Police recorded Domestic burglary down 4%

    Page 20: Graphs showing number of incidents, as measured by the British Crime Survey, lowest they've ever been since the introduction of the BCS in 1981.
    Still on page 20, the percentage change in offences 1995-2007:

    • Vandalism: Down 20%
    • Domestic Burglary: Down 59%
    • Vehicle-related theft: Down 66%
    • Other household theft: Down 53%
    • Bicycle theft: Down 34%
    • Theft from the person: Down 15%
    • Other theft of personal property: Down 53%
    • All BCS violence: Down 48%
    • All BCS Crime: Down 48%

    Page 23:

    Weapons were used in a quarter (24%) of BCS violent crimes (this figure has been stable over the past decade); hitting implements were used in 7%, knives in 6%, glasses/bottles in 4% and firearms in 1% of incidents.

    As for Obama's voting record on gun-control issues, I have no interest in discussing it, but this appears to be a useful link for anyone who wants to know more: Senator Barack Hussein Obama Jr. (IL) [votesmart.org]'s track record.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21, 2008 @11:01AM (#25093121)

    I have never once in my life seen a knife that was designed to be a weapon.

    You have now [wikipedia.org]

  • by smoker2 (750216) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @03:37PM (#25095791) Homepage Journal
    Well let me respond, being a professional lorry driver.
    Here's a fact - it's just as bad in a right hand drive in the UK. And the only time it's dangerous, is when a car drives at the same speed while along side instead of overtaking properly. Add to this the normal car drivers habit of driving right up close to the back of the trailer before suddenly swinging out to overtake. One minute your mirrors are clear and you can see about 5 or six cars at varying distances behind you. You gauge the time is right, check your mirrors again and find a car level with the back of the cab about 2 feet away from your wheels and 5 feet below your head.
    WTF did they come from ? You have to make obvious moves when you drive any size vehicle, dithering just confuses people. If you're passing me, pull out a way back so I can see you, then GET ON WITH IT. I can see you, I'm catching a slower vehicle so I'll wait until you've gone before I move out. But you just glide by doing 2mph faster than me and I'm only doing 55mph !
    So next time you pass a truck, make sure you catch the drivers eye in his mirror before you go past, which means pulling out in plenty of time. And if you don't get it over with immediately, you may expect him to pull out, coz he ain't slowing down for you. You don't realise the grief you cause when you force a truck to brake on the motorway. It has a 0-55 time of about 1 minute fully loaded, and braking hard from 55 brings you down to 30 or 40, which is a bitch and maybe 4 gears to crawl up from.
    At the end of the day, I have 3 big mirrors each side of the cab and if I can't see you in them, you aren't there. Keep your car where the mirrors can see you.
    Quentin bloody Wilson did a shock horror story on TV about this very issue, and he was shitting himself driving the truck. Not exactly objective. These people don't realise how many lives are saved every day by NOT hitting dumb drivers. That sounds very grand, but the dumb drivers involved usually don't even realise they've just avoided death due to there being a decent driver in the truck they just cut up.
    I resent being seen as an obstruction, and then deliberately held up, by the same driver. Everybody want to be in front of everybody else even though the road's packed. When the rush hour starts it's like a load of rats suddenly infest the streets, filling every available space. You can't drive like that and just expect other vehicles to deal with it. Adding technology to the wrong vehicle won't improve manners on the road. Address the real issue - driving skills.
    </rant>
  • by Mr. Slippery (47854) <.ten.suomafni. .ta. .smt.> on Sunday September 21, 2008 @06:10PM (#25097213) Homepage

    It may however , decrease the chance of accidents happing with guns.

    The chances of a gun accident are already very, very low. You are more likely to die in a drowning accident than in a gun accident.

    In 2004, 649 people died from accidental shootings. 878 died from choking on food. 1,638 died from falls on stairs. 3,308 died from drowning. [nsc.org] While one death from a firearms accident is one too many, it's clear that gun accidents are a small threat.

    Some intellectually dishonest advocated of gun control like to conflate suicides by means of firearms, with firearm accidents. Don't be fooled.

  • by insllvn (994053) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @11:09PM (#25099395)

    Say you want to carry them because you want to be able to kill people who annoy or frighten you. .... You are mistaken about who they are meant to kill, or at least you have generalized to the point of absurdity.

    I wasn't talking about who they are MEANT to kill, but who they actually kill.

    Fair enough. When we look at who guns (in America) actually [go.com] kill, we find that just above half the time, they kill their owners. I believe suicide, or the choice to cease living, is a natural human right, and guns are a quick and painless (if messy) way to go, so no problems there. Do you believe in the right to die? I would argue that the other half of gun deaths fall into four categories as follows: premeditated, passion, accidental, self-defense.

    Premeditated: If you are going to take the time to plan it out, are you going to buy a gun from, a licensed dealer who will take your name, and keep records with serial numbers, ballistics info, and other data (only a fool thinks guns should be sold like other products), or will you seek someone out on the street? If a gun wasn't available (is it impossible or just difficult to get a gun in Britain?) could you come up with another way?

    Passion: If you are so enraged that you would kill another person, momentarily psychotic with anger, would the lack of a gun stop you, or just make it harder?

    Accidental: Shit happens. Incidentally, it happens with more frequency in cars [dot.gov].

    Self-defense: Is it acceptable to use lethal force in self-defense?

    It is the wet dream of every tyrant, strong man, and one party state to take from the people the power of armed resistance.

    This is a peculiar American fantasy. Lots of countries have instituted "strong man, one-party government", in countries awash with guns (often in post-war regimes with an AK-47 under every ex-soldier's bed). It makes it easier for the "strong man" to increase police powers, reduce civil rights, with the aim of protecting people from armed gangsters or insurgents.

    An informed and educated populous, with access to the free exchange of ideas, is of far greater importance for democracy than an AK-47. That being said, look at your own argument; First a would-be dictator comes to power, then he expands his powers using as evidence the large number of armed citizens that "the common man" needs protection from, and then he takes away their guns. Finally, he is able to oppress as he sees fit, having established a monopoly on armed force.

    Look how far your own government has come in that regard recently. You're not Zimbabwe yet, but you've certainly been going in that direction.

    My own government has used nationalism, terrorism, and a complacent and profit driven corporate media to seize expanded powers, not fear of a gun toting mob, so I am not sure how your comparison to Zimbabwe is relevant.

    As a brief aside, I hope you are enjoying this debate as much as I am. I would hope it goes without saying, but it doesn't always so: I respect and appreciate your opinion.

  • by kklein (900361) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @11:45PM (#25099631)

    Say you want to carry them because you want to be able to kill people who annoy or frighten you. Don't claim they are no more dangerous than "pointy sticks".

    --Except that:

    1) He didn't claim anything.

    2) He didn't even imply that they were equal. He pointed out a "slippery slope" problem, moving from the most obviously dangerous, to the ludicrously least dangerous--his point being that if we try to eliminate dangerous items from society, it gets pretty silly pretty quickly.

    Please make sure you understand the rhetorical structure of the post you're replying to before you jump down someone's throat.

  • by HTH NE1 (675604) on Monday September 22, 2008 @02:46PM (#25108537)

    Well, I'm glad he's got something to make him feel better, but I'm not sure that even a .45 is going to slow down a bear much. As for the RV door, I don't think that'd necessarily slow down something like a grizzly much

    You shoot the door's window and dive in, removing the question of whether or not is locked.

Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself. -- A.H. Weiler

Working...