UK Police Arrest 12 Over Facebook Use Inciting Riots 369
An anonymous reader writes "Scotland Yard vowed to track down and arrest protesters who posted 'really inflammatory, inaccurate' messages on Facebook, but it didn't stop at just two people. While two teenagers were arrested earlier this week in connection with messages posted on Facebook allegedly encouraging people to start rioting, 10 more have now joined them."
LOL, "really inflammatory, inaccurate" messages? (Score:5, Informative)
If you're going to bust everyone who posts THOSE on Facebook, you're going to need a helluva lot more cops.
But, then, I never realized that posting inaccurate information was a jailable offense in the UK. But then, I guess if you piss off the powerful people in any given country, just about anything is a jailable offense, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. But what exactly did they post, unfortunately TFA doesn't tell that. I'd like to see that kind of speech one should not engage in if he wants to remain free. Did they post instructions for "proper" rioting and how to cause as much damage as possible, maybe organizing and assembling people? Or was it more along the lines of "fuck the pigs, they deserve it, go nuts!"?
Personally, I see a big difference between the two.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly what I was thinking of when I read this article. That said, the UK does not have 'Free Speech' (neither do we in Canada) so even that example isn't necessary to press criminal charges in cases like this.
As someone above pointed out though, posting "inflammatory, inaccurate messages" is a pretty weak basis for arresting anyone. Presumably said messages need to lead to some kind of crime. I imagine it will require proving the link between the post & the crime, and then proving intent. If that's a
Re: (Score:2)
The fact is, if anything anyone can say online can cause someone to kill themselves, that person had serious problems to begin with.
I blame the parents and the school system f
Re: (Score:2)
That said, the UK does not have 'Free Speech' (neither do we in Canada)
Canadians enjoy a freedom of expression, as explained in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms [justice.gc.ca]
Fundamental freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
Re: (Score:3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's a crime under the concept that your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose. Shouting fire in a crowded theater and inciting violent riots put other people at serious risk of injury or death, and thus it is a natural and rational point at which to state a limit on free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because any reasonable person should expect injuries and fatalities as a result of the ensuing panic. Note that it's NOT a crime if there really is a fire.
In the case at hand, reasonable considerations would include just how much influence these facebook postings could be expected to have. Do we actually believe all would be quiet had they not posted? Do we really believe any of the posters actually expected to have a significant individual effect on the magnitude of the riots?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think this is being questioned because no one could understand the result. I think the result itself and why it is so certain is what is legitimately questionable.
Let's say I am in a theater. Someone beside me yells "FIRE!". My sense of smell is not impaired and I don't smell smoke. My vision is not impaired and I don't see flames. My hea
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
these days periodic fire tests (i.e. falsely raising the alarm...) are generally considered a good thing and presumably not dangerous but to be fair I suppose that's partly because it's probably illegal to let public places get as crowded without adequate means of escape as may have been allowed back then.
Also fire drills and false alarms are pretty routine so everyone just files out quietly and doesn't panic.
Though i'd expect shouting fire to have a rather more panic inducing effect than a mere fire alarm.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All this is going to do is jail some armchair revolutionaries. The police should be out on the street beating and arresting the scum who are torching houses and looting businesses, of course that might be dangerous so they'd better not. Pathetic.
Re: (Score:3)
Armchair revolutionary? What you mean is... a ned who was trying to start the looting and torching in Glasgow too so that he got get himself some free stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:LOL, "really inflammatory, inaccurate" messages (Score:4, Insightful)
Check the footage on the news websites, the social media websites on youtube.. The looters are multi-racial.
No white people being hunted by the police at all, sure:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/uknews/8690951/London-riots-CCTV-pictures-of-suspects-are-released-by-the-Metropolitan-Police.html [telegraph.co.uk]
Keep your racist bullshit off here please.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Fudd's First Law of Opposition (Score:2)
"If you push something hard enough, it will fall over." [everything2.com]
Re: (Score:2)
On top of that, I'm concerned that delegating responsibility solely to the inciters lets the people who did the actual violent acts off the hook.
People have to know that lots of others spout shit, but they should be responsible for their own acts and not just the next scapegoat.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
On top of that, I'm concerned that delegating responsibility solely to the inciters lets the people who did the actual violent acts off the hook.
1600+ rioters arrested, 12 for Facebook postings.
Mass Arrest (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Mass Arrest (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're talking about the Police, who treated the rioters with kid gloves then you got it hopelessly wrong.
Re:LOL, "really inflammatory, inaccurate" messages (Score:5, Insightful)
At the moment, it isn't the rich and powerful, it's middle class shopkeepers who have seen their livelihoods go up in flames as gangs of hooligans loot, pillage and destroy. If the police can gain of evidence of incitement from their Facebook pages, all the power to them. Freedom, online or off, does not mean you get to organize riots and I hope they throw the book at these vile anti-social bastards.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's the "divide and conquer" strategy that the "rich and powerful" use.
Pit one economically disadvantaged group against another. It's being done here in the States and in many European countries. It's something that the political elite in Africa and parts of Asia have done for centuries. It's not new at all.
How do you think the Te
Re: (Score:3)
You fail to appreciate that most of what keeps humans as well-behaved as most are is FEAR of punishment.
Act out in ape society and you can get bitten. Humans are no different. If you want to keep apes in line, have sharp teeth and the willingness to use them.
Those yobs are like jock-worshipping, prosperous "sports rioters" in the US who destroy and loot because their team of cattle won or lost a silly game. The way to deal with brutes is to break them, so break them and do not stop until the enemy either su
Re:LOL, "really inflammatory, inaccurate" messages (Score:4, Insightful)
And we have allowed the people in power, both corporate and government, to no longer have a FEAR of punishment.
Bankers loot a country. They make horrible business decisions and then demand that the government bail them out by cutting social programs. So welfare for those that are "too big to fail" but none for people.
You know where there are no riots? Iceland. They told those bankers, "sorry, but you got yourself into this all on your own, so fuck off". And you know what? The sun still rose the next day, or at least I think it did, depending on which season it is up in Iceland. But either way, people got up, ate breakfast, and life went on. Bankers holding their dicks instead of money from peoples' pockets.
You're goddamn right there's anger. Even unfocused anger. Uninformed anger. But sometimes you have to work with the anger you've got. I'm sure there was a lot of pearl-clutching and tsk-tsk-ing among the powerful and rich during the French Revolution, too. What is it that the tea party likes to say? That line about watering the tree of freedom with the blood of tyrants? Well, in 2011, the notion that people, from the middle class on down, just have it too damn good so they need a little misery. A little less health care. A little less education. A little more work. A little less retirement. We've bought this because there's a huge marketing campaign to sell these ridiculous notions. Governments print money to take care of the rich and powerful, to save "markets" but if a 65 year old thinks it's time to retire, well they've just got it too damn good. Fuck that.-
Re:LOL, "really inflammatory, inaccurate" messages (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless you own a bank and you loot a nation.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd support execution for economic crimes because of the immense damage they do. Any fraud or theft over a million bucks should carry a public death sentence, Chinese style. It's "economic treason", which unlike crimes of passion, capital punishment would deter.
Bernie Madoff wouldn't be so smug if he and his cohorts were marched into a stadium and shot. I'd volunteer for the firing squad lottery.
Re: (Score:3)
Looting shops and setting fire to them is unethical, regardless of morality.
Morals.. Relative.. Ethics.. Not so much.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Of course, what has prevented the damage from being greater is those same shopkeepers and other citizens waving whatever improvised weapons they could still (semi) legally own and telling the rioters to go home. A few more cops on the beat in London telling rioters to go home would be more useful than detectives in Glasgow arresting Facebook posters.
Such actions don't stroke any egos or put money into the coffers of the rich and powerful, so it was left to the individual citizens while the police "investiga
Re: (Score:2)
it's middle class shopkeepers who have seen their livelihoods go up in flames
Are you sure it wasn't their insurance companies?
Re: (Score:3)
Oh well, that makes it okay then.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure it wasn't their insurance companies?
The taxpayer foots the bill for riots in the UK.
Re: (Score:3)
It hurts everyone.
The richest get irritated, the poorest get screwed.
Re: (Score:3)
Considering the coverage due to Riot/Civil Unrest is an optional (and expensive) extra, most don't have it. So it's all shouldered by the shop keepers.
This will definitely put many out of business, lowering jobs available in the area and making life harder for the poorest.
Re:LOL, "really inflammatory, inaccurate" messages (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know what they posted, but inciting a riot is a crime in the US too. Whether that's an infraction on Freedom of Speech or not is another debate. This is different because instead of doing it in person, they're doing it "over the Internet" and because there could be doubt over whether they actually intended to incite a riot or whether they actually had any influence over the riot starting (doubtful). Although if encouraging violence over the Internet is going to be punished, then a lot of people are in big trouble - And please go set fire to anyone who disagrees with that statement.
Of course... It's not hard to find people in the US that have been jailed for encouraging violence on-line, but it's typically very specific violence toward a very specific target, with confidence that it will be carried out.
Yes it seems like they're overstepping here, but complete freedom to say whatever you want isn't something we're in danger of losing - It's something that we've already given up.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If there is one thing we have learned from history, the rich and powerful never give up any of what they have without a fight, usually involving a lot of bloodshed and regular folk being locked up.
Conversely, they wouldn't be rich and powerful if we would learn to live without them. Stop buying their products and learn to be less of a consumer. Consumerism was a mistake, it was their idea for you, not your idea for them. Stop asking them to solve your problems for you and learn to be more self-reliant, learn to embrace smaller more local solutions instead of these national and international one-size-fits-all programs. Stop being scared of every little "crisis" that was carefully engineered (yes t
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:LOL, "really inflammatory, inaccurate" messages (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
"nonviolent"?
Fecking troll.
He was talking about "posting inaccurate information". See, it's right there in the post that was quoted before it was replied to.
Last I checked, posting inaccurate information is not an act of violence. How did two ACs in a row manage to miss this? Reading comprehension just isn't this hard.
To clarify what is apparently a point of great confusion, those actually rioting and smashing things and hurting people, they are doing violence. People who write about it on Facebook and say inappropriate thi
Re: (Score:2)
> Everyone prosecuted for ANY involvement should have a permanent blot on their record.
Not even everyone convicted, but everyone prosecuted ? Wow, you have a lot of faith in the authorities.
Re:LOL, "really inflammatory, inaccurate" messages (Score:4, Informative)
Youthful indescretion? What fucking planet are you on? They were trying to incite a riot for fucks sake. Everyone prosecuted for ANY involvement should have a permanent blot on their record. You break the law you live with the consequences.
I don't know about you, but I live in the planet where inciting a riot is a non-violent activity, as opposed to participating in a riot.
I can post, "EVERYONE GO RIOT NOW" all day long without hurting a soul. If you look at those words and you decide to be an idiot about it, that's YOU being an idiot about it.
Re:LOL, "really inflammatory, inaccurate" messages (Score:5, Insightful)
I can post, "EVERYONE GO RIOT NOW" all day long without hurting a soul.
Absolutely, and I can shout "get him Rover, kill kill!" without causing any damage at all or I can spend all day saying "I will give you $100,000 if you kill my wife" without any consequence but if I do either of those things as a way of actually getting someone killed as opposed to, for example, rehearsing my lines in a play then I should be locked up. Get it?
Re: (Score:3)
Absolutely, and I can shout "get him Rover, kill kill!" without causing any damage at all
And if dogs were capable of the same reasoning a human being is, instead of being tools just like a firearm that can be trained to perform the work you require of it, then I'd concede the point.
I can spend all day saying "I will give you $100,000 if you kill my wife" without any consequence
I am fully in favor of prosecuting only the hired killer, and not the guy who hired him. I know that's not how it works, but I believe it should be. If you couldn't find someone to do the crime, your wife wouldn't be harmed. Unless you did the deed yourself, in which case you're performing the harmful action.
Re: (Score:3)
The way law generally works, more than one person can be fully responsible for a single crime. We can hold everyone culpable in a bank robbery guilty of murder for one elderly security guard who has a heart attack, including the guy who was 'just' driving the getaway car, for just one example. There are usually particular reasons and limitations on how the law works for such cases of multiple blame.* I'm not clear just where you are advocating redrawing those lines. For example, if several people fired fire
Re: (Score:3)
Your world has no consequences for anyone who can find others to do their dirty work, because you're not willing to hold BOTH parties responsible for their part in it.
They're punished for the action they committed not for what someone else did but for hiring an assassin. In your world if you're rich or powerful and immoral and can find someone who feels they have nothing to lose and is immoral then you can do pretty much anything - have your wife or your mistress or a complete stranger killed - and then openly say so because hey, all you did was promise the guy a million dollars to do it. Where's the harm in that?
In my world there's a difference between saying you'll pay a million dollars for a guy to kill someone and actually paying him. Money exchanges hands, that's fulfillment of a contract, not just speech. That's like my boss paying me to code. He pays me for a service, I give him something for his money. In this world people would soon catch on to the fact that they'll never be paid for the deed, unless the powerful rich guy is willing to risk getting caught. This is functionally no different then your wo
Re: (Score:3)
I think you best look up incitement. The context is important. If you go into a volatile situation like, say, an angry crowd, and shout "Let's kill those fuckers!", that's incitement and yes, in just about every jurisdiction on the planet you have just committed a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you best look up incitement. The context is important. If you go into a volatile situation like, say, an angry crowd, and shout "Let's kill those fuckers!", that's incitement and yes, in just about every jurisdiction on the planet you have just committed a crime.
I'm aware they're breaking the law. There's a difference between the law and what is morally right. A good example of the balance between that are the hate speech laws that exist in Europe, but not it the US, where ever hate speech is protected.
And yes, I'm aware that inciting violence is a crime in the US as well. I believe it shouldn't be. I sure as hell am not going to commit violence because someone else is telling me to go do it, and if I can behave responsibly despite the incitement of others I d
Re: (Score:2)
It's morally wrong to encourage people to do violence. I can't see how you would defend it. This is apart from the reality of how mobs, stewing in emotion and adrenaline, can be triggered by hostile inciting speeches. It's been demonstrated enough times over the history of our species to indicate that there's a sound reason for making incitement unlawful.
Re: (Score:2)
It's morally wrong to encourage people to do violence.
I think it is, yes. The problem is that I don't believe in universal morals. Some people think that some of what happens in people's bedrooms is immoral. You and I may have an opinion about that, but neither of us should be allowed to do anything about it until it physically involves us. Some dude saying that I should be lynched may scare the crap out of me, but it's not until somebody actually attacks me that they crossed the line into breaking my rights. Sticks and stones and all that...
I can't see how you would defend it.
I don't defen
Re: (Score:2)
Inciting violence in a situation where it is likely to be carried out is exactly like pulling the trigger on a gun. You set events in motion with the intent of causing harm, with the reasonable expectation of causing harm, and those events do cause harm, and so you have committed evil. It really is that simple.
Re: (Score:2)
Inciting violence in a situation where it is likely to be carried out is exactly like pulling the trigger on a gun. You set events in motion with the intent of causing harm, with the reasonable expectation of causing harm, and those events do cause harm, and so you have committed evil. It really is that simple.
There's one fundamental difference. A gun isn't sentient. It can't reason and make a decision as to whether or not to fire after I incite it by pulling the trigger. People listening to my speech have an option to either act or not, so the responsibility lies solely with them.
RAID THE MAIN SQUARE! (Score:2)
*sound of being arrested for riot-inducing comment on slashdot*
"Over" Facebook (Score:2)
Before reading the articles (sorry), I thought that meant the police didn't know the actual location of the Facebook users, and they just posted "You are under arrest. You have the right to refrain from posting any more nonsense on your wall. Anything you say on teh internets can and will be used against you in meatspace. --Met Police"
arrest 12 over Facebook (Score:2)
Looting criminals (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see the relationship between the summary and what you said about it. Taco didn't write it, and timothy (who posted it) only copied in what the submitter wrote. You are implying that slashdot is defending the looters. I just don't see it.
Inciting violence isn't just a bad idea, it's illegal. Those people could probably be nailed for conspiracy to commit violence as well, since they were communicating and coordinating how/when to do it. There was nothing in the summary that supported the looters or ri
weak (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, how dare anyone try and punish people for rioting and incitement to riot? Clearly this is RACISM!
Idiot.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, but probably useless.
I mean, think about it. You have no outlook in life, you have no hope for progress, no hope to better your lot, and the "threat" you're facing is jail time? Compared to having what you else never will have?
You think that's a deterrent? Think again. Punishment as a deterrent works only if people care about it. For me, even waggling a finger or the threat of being possibly, maybe jailed is enough to keep me from rioting. Why? Because I need a flawless record for my job, and my job's p
Re: (Score:3)
I mean, think about it. You have no outlook in life, you have no hope for progress, no hope to better your lot, and the "threat" you're facing is jail time?
From what I've seen, most of these 'revolutionaries' look to be just thieving chavs who've been given tons of free stuff on welfare all their lives and are basically unemployable due to their attitude and Britain's hopeless school system.
Re: (Score:3)
I mean, think about it. You have no outlook in life, you have no hope for progress, no hope to better your lot, and the "threat" you're facing is jail time? Compared to having what you else never will have?
Agreed.
"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to loose"
Re:Reality check (Score:5, Informative)
They shot and killed an armed drug dealer. It may not have been justified, but he was not "innocent".
The riots weren't about protesting that even. They were just an excuse to destroy and steal.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, the police shot and killed a person the police say was an armed drug dealer. Whether true or not, public reaction will have a lot to do with the reputation of the police among the public.
Re: (Score:2)
A fair number of the rioters appear to be middle class youths. This idea that it's a class war is a bunch of bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
How quaint.
Re: (Score:2)
A recent radio phone in had people saying "I own my own house, and run my own business, but I am working class like my dad!"
Working class used to be a euphamism for illiterate. Upper class used to mean you had an income without actually working. Even the Queen works about 300 days a year in the UK.
Re: (Score:3)
A fair number of the rioters appear to be working class youths. This idea that it's a class war is a bunch of bullshit.
FTFY. No such animal as the middle class right now. There's working class that don't, and those that do, and then the rich. Nothing in the middle.
Re: (Score:3)
I hate to break it to you but there is no justification for arson, robbery and murder.
Re:Reality check (Score:4, Insightful)
It is unclear at this moment whether the man was innocent or not, but even if he was, that doesn't really give anyone license to smash shop windows and steal LCD TVs or to use a car to mow down three young men trying to protect their property. This is pure lawlessness.
What they need to do is bring back the Riot Act, and have a police officer with a bull horn announcing:
"Our Sovereign Lady the Queen chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the act made in the first year of King George, for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God Save the Queen!"
Anyone still rioting an hour after that is read, well, they get what the deserve.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the riot act had no consequences at all, such as indemnity to anybody that injures or kills a rioter that failed to disperse.
Ironic indeed that people were rioting and looting the very street that next week will remember the anniversary of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_Massacre [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless of what "they" did (and "they" have been very open in the media about what happened - yes, they thought they were being shot at, yes they returned fire, yes they got it wrong. No, he shouldn't have been killed, but yes he was the right suspect and yes they were still going to arrest him), rioting and looting isn't the right behaviour and cannot be justified in any way.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there must be a limit on the number of mindless drones even the hooligans can drench out of their sewers...
Re:Time for Vendetta (Score:5, Insightful)
Taking down people for organizing some store-burning though, no. Many of the rioters seem to be cowards who were only smashing and stealing because they assumed they could get away with it, or they were going with the crowd. I suspect a few arrests will send most of the rioters to cover.
If they forcibly break up peaceful marches and demonstrations, then sure. There are of course real issues and legitimate anger there, and the government would be wise to avoid taking a hard line with protesters who know they are doing nothing wrong. Taking a hard line against people just looking to steal TVs though will be effective. If there are similar riots here in the US with similar people involved in it, part of me hopes the police bring out the rubber bullets.
Re: (Score:3)
Should be noted that often these types of (politically) pointless vandalisms occur as a by-product of genuine civic unrest (peaceful or otherwise)
Should also be noted that vandalisms give police an excuse to use force on the entire group (peaceful protesters plus vandals). Such was the case in the Toronto G20, for example. If I were an unethical power hungry cop who just wanted to bash some skulls in, I'd be considering inciting vandalism myself.
Re: (Score:2)
Should be noted that often these types of (politically) pointless vandalisms occur as a by-product of genuine civic unrest (peaceful or otherwise)
Should also be noted that vandalisms give police an excuse to use force on the entire group (peaceful protesters plus vandals). Such was the case in the Toronto G20, for example. If I were an unethical power hungry cop who just wanted to bash some skulls in, I'd be considering inciting vandalism myself.
That may be true up to the point where people start burning random cars and stealing big-screen TVs. Then the rioters aren't "revolutionaries' or "protesters". At that point they're human-shaped garbage.
There may or may not have been a few genuine protesters. But if you're a looter, you're meat. Even here in California, looters during riots can legally be shot and killed by citizens defending their businesses. This is because multiple assailants, even unarmed, is considered 'deadly force' and thus you are
Re: (Score:2)
Taking a hard line against people just looking to steal TVs though will be effective. If there are similar riots here in the US with similar people involved in it, part of me hopes the police bring out the rubber bullets.
Even the smallest occasion is an opportunity to brutally assert "authority". Collateral damage [wikimedia.org] is of no concern.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Time for Vendetta (Score:5, Informative)
V for Vendetta had a point - and that point wasn't mindless looting and rioting, which is what is going on at the moment.
There is nothing politically orientated about the UK riots, its literally just idiots doing whatever they think they can get away with. So yeah, take these ten, and the ten after that, and the next ten - until they get the message that this kind of behaviour in the UK is not acceptable. We are already a democracy, we already have a say in our governance - think rioting is going to improve anything...?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm kind of tired of hearing these riots being compared to Vendetta. The shit going on in England has about as much to do with Vendetta as the War on Iraq had to do with WMDs. In this case we have gangs targeting shops for personal gain, probably because they are being incited to do so by organized crime or worse, clandestine government officials from other countries. Bottom line, if you're a kid and you think it's smart to post your riot exploits on Facebook, or encourage others to riot -- you are stupid a
Re:Arab Spring (Score:4, Insightful)
Not too long ago I remember some other governments going after protesters that organized on facebook. How is this any different?
This wasn't a protest. It was a riot. There was no purpose for any of it beyond breaking, burning and stealing.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, that's just what the governments in the Middle East said. Not protesters, just thugs and looters (and many of them were engaged in violence and looting).
Re: (Score:2)
How many eyewitnesses and "rioters themselves" have you interviewed?
"Interviewed": None. Spoken to: Loads. I have plenty of friends and family living in London.
Finally, simply taking stuff may be a form of protest. If you think the system works for you and you're happy in your environment then you don't destroy it. If you think the system is biased in favour of the already rich, a corrupt upper class who leech more from the country than a single looter with a new TV ever will, then going some tiny way to address the imbalance is one way of getting across your message. If you later make £50 selling the TV, well... that's the purpose in protesting: to improve your lot. For the long term, you may unintentionally spark social change. But at the time it may be that you simply were exhausted and wanted somewhere comfortable to sit on the bus.
What? These aren't people forgotten or abused by society, they're people directly subsidised by it. I don't know if you're British and just on your high horse about the poor starving masses or if you genuinely don't know about/understand that we have a social welfare system here but the idea that this is the only way these people have to improve thei
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. It's just a few criminals and malcontents. My people all love me!
NOTE, it may well be that this is just a pack of criminals and malcontents. After all, the UK isn't Libya. However, the parallels between what you and Qaddafi said were too strong to ignore.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying rioters should be left to loot, burn and murder, because they happened to use the same technology that the Tahrir protesters were using, that the police should not be withheld from stopping mass riotous unrest because some of the looters are using Facebook to incite?
Incitement is pretty much illegal in every country in the world, even in the United States. You can certainly organize protests against police violence or the price of tea or that the Hamburgler is no longer one of McDonalds' m
Re: (Score:2)
Ask the parents of the three young men mowed down if they feel this was a protest. Ask the shopkeepers who have their livelihoods because their shops have been emptied if this was just a protest.
Martin Luther King and Gandhi lead protests. These antisocial bastards are just violent looters.
Re:Arab Spring (Score:5, Insightful)
One man's protest is another man's riot. I'm pretty sure, Gaddafi called his protesters rioters too.
Actually no, that's not true. I don't think anyone at all who knows anything about this believes it was a protest. Including the rioters. Let's be clear on this because it seems a lot of (non-British?) commenters seem to think that there was some political motivation behind the riots. There was none. None. There was a protest regarding the shooting of Mark Duggan by the police. Following on from that was a riot that lasted until morning by people not involved in the protest. The next night there was another riot. The next night there were riots in a few other cities on top of London. The first used the protest as an excuse to riot but had no connection to it, the subsequent riots had no pretence whatsoever.
TLDR:
Nobody was saying "Let's go out and show what we can do unless our voices are heard!". They were saying "Lots of people on the street, let's destroy some shit and loot what we can while the police are occupied".
Re:What did the posts actually say? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's pretty much what I wanted to ask: What exactly did they post? What was the message they sent? How did that "incite" others, and to what?
Be careful what you wish for. Until we know for sure, the message could just have been the expression of discontent with the way the UK police handled the situation, something that should be protected as free speech and expression of opinion. Else we could easily soon face laws that make exactly that illegal, under the guise of "keeping civil peace".
In other words, were they trying to incite riots, or were they expressing their dissatisfaction? What was the message?
Re:Smells Like Desperation (Score:5, Interesting)
They've basically had magistrates working graveyard shifts to process arrested rioters. The government is already doing a lot. The initial failure, at least in London, was the Met basically taking the kindly modern-day tactic of letting the rioters do whatever they want within a contained area. Of course, at some point the people who lived in the Tottenham district kind of lost patience with this containment tactic, as did Britons in general, and after the riots spread and similar police tactics were used elsewhere, basically the public wants the government to untie the hands of the police so they can do a proper job of saving property and lives.
The Facebook arrests appear to be over incitement, an illegal activity. If these stupid assholes were just bullshitting on the Internet, well, I suppose they might be able to convince a judge, but I suspect the courts, who will see it as their duty to make sure that any kind of incitement, even by big-mouthed fucktards, gets duly punished, will do thusly to them.
Here's a hint. When there are riots going on, buildings burned, people being killed, you have to a special kind of idiot to post messages of incitement on Facebook. I say throw the book at 'em.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that I'm going to be defending MPs or Murdoch's minions, what they did was bad, but what they did didn't lead to beatings, to three dead young men and to an enormous amount of direct damage to property.
There are different degrees of criminality. As bad as a thieving MP is, I'd rather be standing on the street with him then some looter with a handful of bricks.
Re: (Score:2)
Without actually knowing anything about the event in question...
Just because he didn't fire it doesn't mean he didn't pull it on the police; generally if you're up against firearms officers in the UK it's because they've got serious reason to believe you're armed and dangerous in the first place, so if you point a gun at them there's a good chance they'll shoot you.
Re:Shouldnt scotland yard get its own shit in orde (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem is, following De Menezes, following Tomlinson, following uncensured non-lethal police brutality attached to every protest of the past decade, people instinctively don't believe police reports.
The police do lie, do protect their own and don't apply the law equally to themselves. The IPCC's going to have to produce some pretty serious evidence that the police acted correctly in shooting Mark Duggan if they want to defuse those tensions.
Re:The pot & the kettle (Score:4, Insightful)
It was fine when the protesters were in Egypt and other countries. Notice how the story has changed when free speech is exercised in a "free" country?
In Egypt people organized peaceful demonstrations and demanded basic human rights. In England people broke into electronic stores and stole Playstation 3s before burning the place down.