Vasquez on 12/8/2011 at 05:11
Quote Posted by Tocky
Also I was glad to hear Cameron articulate something I had been thinking- where the hell are the parents of these hooligans?
What? Are kids supposed to be their parents' responsibility?
What a novel perspective! :idea:
frozenman on 12/8/2011 at 10:47
It's a tragedy how many kids don't have parents these days.
scarykitties on 12/8/2011 at 12:13
Quote Posted by frozenman
It's a tragedy how many kids don't have parents these days.
This.
demagogue on 12/8/2011 at 13:49
(
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/12/world/europe/12iht-social12.html) Cameron Exploring Crackdown on Social Media After Riots
Quote:
Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain said Thursday that the government, seeking to prevent a repeat of riots and looting in London and other British cities this week, might bar suspected troublemakers from using social media and other digital communications tools.
"Suspected troublemakers" barred from digital communication tools? I understand them wanting to stay on top of online criminal organization. But a law that just lets them cut internet & phone access to people they don't like; I don't see any good coming of this.
Fingernail on 12/8/2011 at 14:17
Quote Posted by frozenman
It's a tragedy how many kids don't have parents these days.
Anyway how is your sex life?
scarykitties on 12/8/2011 at 14:38
Quote Posted by demagogue
(
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/12/world/europe/12iht-social12.html) Cameron Exploring Crackdown on Social Media After Riots
"Suspected troublemakers" barred from digital communication tools? I understand them wanting to stay on top of online criminal organization. But a law that just lets them cut internet & phone access to people they don't like; I don't see any good coming of this.
Agreed. It's just a convenient way for the government to take control of the people's power of free speech.
Quote Posted by Fingernail
Anyway how is your sex life?
What does that have to do with anything? Contraceptives are readily available and there is current work being done on male birth control pulls that temporarily impede sperm production. The options are only expanding.
demagogue on 12/8/2011 at 14:57
The sex life of TTLG's resident metrosexual elite is always relevant. :cool:
CCCToad on 13/8/2011 at 10:22
Quote:
"Suspected troublemakers" barred from digital communication tools? I understand them wanting to stay on top of online criminal organization. But a law that just lets them cut internet & phone access to people they don't like; I don't see any good coming of this.
No surprise, that's been a long time coming. There's been quite a bit of talk about implementing similar tools in this country. For example, one of the ideas floated around the "universal online identity" was to include a killswitch that would instantly cut that person off from any internet access.
SubJeff on 13/8/2011 at 13:37
That sounds like bs to me. Who has floated this idea? Where? And if it's some fringe nutjob republicans then who gives a crap?
I'm bored of hearing about "ideas" being "talked about" when in reality it's just the 12 members of some extreme tinfoil hat right ring inbred mentalists that no one cares about and who have no influence over anything meaningful.
demagogue on 13/8/2011 at 14:41
I'm not interested in the tinfoil hat scenarios either.
On the other hand, back in the real world, Cameron is on a roll.
(
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/13/world/europe/13britain.html) British Leader Seeks Public Housing Evictions for Rioters and Their Families
The surface reasoning has a logic. The housing is public; taxpayers are paying for it; why should they pay to support criminals? And evicting them would be good incentive for them to "get a job".
But I think this might have perverse consequences. I mean, first, if we're talking about real criminal behavior, arson & looting, then they can already arrest the person and incarcerate them. So this policy already seems to be talking about people they don't have a legal right to incarcerate, or only for a short period. Then there's the problem of evicting the family with them, which is on thinner ice since there's no good grounds to draw them into the punishment. But to the perverse part, putting these people on the streets I think would strain the local authorities in dealing with them; now they're still in the area doing what they have to to scrap by; and it may increase the crime rate because these kinds of moves often lead people to have a kind of fatalism. It would be a better idea if you could trust the surface logic actually works as intended. Definitely has a populist edge in any event though. The "cutting online access" policy might get push-back, but I could see this getting swept through on populist momentum alone.
