“Cameron’s suggestion to block social networking websites smashes basic concepts of freedom of speech in the West, which always takes the moral high ground in criticizing the reluctant development of Internet freedom in developing countries…

..open discussion of containment of the Internet in Britain has given rise to a new opportunity for the whole world. Media in the US and Britain used to criticize developing countries for curbing freedom of speech. Britain’s new attitude will help appease the quarrels between East and West over the future management of the Internet.

As for China, advocates of an unlimited development of the Internet should think twice about their original ideas.

..all governments will have no other choice but to close down these websites and arrest those agitators.

— ”Riots lead to rethink of Internet freedom”, Global Times (Chinese state-backed news)

You know you are heading down the wrong path when the Chinese government approve of your policy towards civil liberty and freedom of speech!

How can we criticise them for censorship and locking up people for thought crimes if we do exactly the same thing?

I take it you were not aware that “they” already have the power to turn off the mobile phone network, and the landline network, and that every BT line in the country has a priority level, meaning they can turn phones off over a whole area at the flick of a switch/press of a button?

I suppose we should all be afraid, and put our tin foil hats on… I men, they’ve been able to do this for fifty years, but yes, what if they decided to do it tomorrow 🙄

what if they decided to do it tomorrow

people would have to talk 😯 I mean face to face 😉
I mean it’s just, like, really amazing that the Jarrow Marches ever happened, you know.

How can we criticise them for censorship and locking up people for thought crimes if we do exactly the same thing?

Welcome to the hypocrisy that is western morality

True, but next time there’s a protest about tuition fees/fox hunting/public service cuts, all they’d have to do is declare it a riot and criminalise everyone who was supourting it, or planning to attend it on facebook/twitter/etc

Riot has a specific definition, it involves violence. If you are on a peaceful protest then you’ll be left alone, if you’re causing violent disorder you deserve to be shut down quickly. We have methods of getting people out of power at reasonable intervals, there’s no need for civil disorder.

We have methods of getting people out of power at reasonable intervals, there’s no need for civil disorder.

But we are only aware of the actions of those with power through the media. And if the traditional media are on message and other forms of media and discussion can be closed down due to “inciting public disorder” then it has massive potential as a power to be abused.

Ah so not actually “stealing” at all then? More taking with express permission in exchange for money?

Not neccesarily depends on how the leadership is able to stay in place and a whole host of other complex situations. But yes there are **** in these countries also… imo the world isn’t really about nation states, it’s all about how the rich fleece the poor, that happens in many guises.

coffeeking

Riot has a specific definition, it involves violence. If you are on a peaceful protest then you’ll be left alone,

Really. 🙄

1) I have never heard that there is a definition of riot in UK law nowadays. What is it?
2) peaceful protests are not left alone Plenty of examples.

Really TJ?

Public order act, 1986 paragraph 1

1. Riot.

(1)Where 12 or more persons who are present together use or threaten unlawful violence for a common purpose and the conduct of them (taken together) is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety, each of the persons using unlawful violence for the common purpose is guilty of riot.
(2)It is immaterial whether or not the 12 or more use or threaten unlawful violence simultaneously.
(3)The common purpose may be inferred from conduct.
(4)No person of reasonable firmness need actually be, or be likely to be, present at the scene.
(5)Riot may be committed in private as well as in public places.
(6)A person guilty of riot is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or a fine or both.

Looks sort of like a definition to me 🙄

illegal war in Iraq that’s killed 100,000 people?

On this point, bit of an understatement really. When talking Iraq you really need to figure in the first gulf war and the blockade(which is an act of war btw) of it afterwards until what we class as gulf war 2. you can multiply that number by quite a factor.

Really.

1) I have never heard that there is a definition of riot in UK law nowadays. What is it?
2) peaceful protests are not left alone Plenty of examples.

1) You really need to search the laws for 30 seconds, as above thanks ZE.
2) Rarely, it’s normally due to some complete moron kicking off that things get nasty – much like football hooliganism, most are normal people (barely, they like football but that’s another argument) but there’s always a minority who want to kick off. I’ve been there, seen it.

Coffeeking – Football hooliganism is a really good example

I don’t recall seeing the lefties kicking up a fuss over the “brutal and repressive” treatment of innocent football fans, because of the behaviour of a violent minority.

Kettling, stop and search, mass detention, restrictive escorts from the train to the ground and back again, heavy handed policing, preventative arrests, FIT teams – been going on for years with barely a whimper…

Truth is, the majority of British people are too brainwashed, apathetic and in debt to be in a position to actively oppose the actions of the government anyway. Zulu-11 personifies such a sate of slavish adherence to a pattern of thought that has been carefully engendered in the populace for decades…

If you are on a peaceful protest then you’ll be left alone, if you’re causing violent disorder you deserve to be shut down quickly. We have methods of getting people out of power at reasonable intervals, there’s no need for civil disorder.

Agreed, but………

On the fringe of every protest there’s always an anti-capitalist, anarchist, trouble maker or yob out to smash windows. This power would give them the excuse/ability to shut down any social media reporting of events as soon as the first idiot shouts at a policeman or a troublemaker smashed up the MacDonalds windows.

Good link to that Chinese article GrahamS, theres a similar one I read from Iran about sending human rights inspectors into the UK as well!

We have methods of getting people out of power at reasonable intervals, there’s no need for civil disorder.

what exactly are these methods pray tell…?

a state of slavish adherence to a pattern of thought that has been carefully engendered in the populace for decades..

Truth is, the majority of British people are too brainwashed, apathetic and in debt to be in a position to actively oppose the actions of the government anyway. Zulu-11 personifies such a sate of slavish adherence to a pattern of thought that has been carefully engendered in the populace for decades…

Really Fred… in that case can you explain how I’ve successfully protested against government policy and law, have actively worked to undermine that law through breaching the spirit of the law (but not the letter) by continuing fox and hare hunting with hounds despite the ban?

Let alone my consistent unlawful (note, unlawful, not illegal, different things) trespass on footpaths with a bicycle, and my work to upgrade some of those routes through legal means and direct campaigning.

which really undermines your claim that I’ve slavishly adhered, or been unable to to actively oppose the actions of the government! Only thing is, that unlike your leftie mates I’ve been able to do so without breaking the law, and without damaging other peoples property

😆

(Skins up Cannabis joint. Lights up. Inhales deeply…)

Ooh, you little anarchist you, Zulu…

Only thing is, that unlike your leftie mates I’ve been able to do so without breaking the law, and without damaging other peoples property

There you go again with your pathetic ignorant assumptions, Labby. Can’t produce a decent argument, so resort to mud-slinging once again.

Some of my best mates vote Tory, btw…

X

I don’t recall seeing the lefties kicking up a fuss over the “brutal and repressive” treatment of innocent football fans

Whether or not you recall it, it happened. Charter 88, Liberty and Natl Council for Civil Liberties were all over it right from when things were ramped up after the CJA. Ditto leftie media like the New Statesman: http://www.urban75.org/football/cja_ns.html

Your assertion illustrates a perfect example of the process though: 1) demonise a group of people that don’t attract much sympathy 2) bring in new powers to “deal with them” 3) wait a couple of years and start using those powers against others.

Seems they’ve given up trying on this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8723309/Ministers-back-down-over-Facebook-blackout-for-trouble-makers.html

The climbdown was backed by Nick Clegg, the deputy Prime Minister, who ministers were not going to support “a Chinese or Iran-style black-out of social media”.

Don’t confuse political protest with rioting.

don’t confuse rioting with looting..

Don’t confuse looting with Luton.

Looting is fun.

Elfinsafety – Member
Don’t confuse looting with Luton.

Looting is fun.

Here’s someone enjoying your “fun”

Seems they’ve given up trying on this

I suspect what this means is the political point has been made and also, quite likely, they have struck a deal with the various social media companies that they won’t block them, on the proviso that they provide suitable GCHQ access.

(pass the tinfoil)

Here’s someone enjoying your “fun”

Oh sorry, did I forget to put a smiley in? 🙄

And I wasn’t in any way condoning the looting, but based on the images we’ve seen, I’d say the vast majority of those doing the damage seemed to be having fun. Just an observation, not a judgement.

Have you ever bin to a Harvester before?

Zulu-Eleven – Member
I take it you were not aware that “they” already have the power to turn off the mobile phone network, and the landline network, and that every BT line in the country has a priority level, meaning they can turn phones off over a whole area at the flick of a switch/press of a button?

Phone boxes are priority 1 😉