Brits to Be Fined Five Credits for Violations of Verbal Morality Statute

Britain's security cameras will be silent no more:

"Talking" CCTV cameras that tell off people dropping litter or committing anti-social behaviour are to be extended to 20 areas across England.

They are already used in Middlesbrough where people seen misbehaving can be told to stop via a loudspeaker, controlled by control centre staff.

Home Secretary John Reid told BBC News there would be some people, "in the minority who will be more concerned about what they claim are civil liberties intrusions".

"But the vast majority of people find that their life is more upset by people who make their life a misery in the inner cities because they can't go out and feel safe and secure in a healthy, clean environment because of a minority of people," he added.

Competitions would also be held at schools in many of the areas for children to become the voice of the cameras, Mr Reid said.

Whole thing here.

Comments

[Taco Bell Rulez!]

Yes, but will they explain how you use those shells?????

[Tom]

Britian is, alas, beyond hope.

[Pro Libertate]

Smith! 6079 Smith W.! Yes, you! Bend lower, please! You can do better than that. You're not trying. Lower, please! That's better, comrade. Now stand at ease, the whole squad, and watch me.

[ed]

Dear Britain,

For best results I humbly recommend that the scolding be done in a high-pitched German accent.

[ellipsis]

As they say, all in all it's just another brick in the wall.

[VM]

begins 33 seconds into clip

Ed: already something like that in GB.

hier

[Number 6]

So not only will people be scolded, they'll be scolded by toddlers?

Mein gott.

[SeeingI]

YOU! Yes, YOU, Laddie!

If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding! How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat!

[Tom Accuosti]

Smith! 6079 Smith W.! Yes, you! Bend lower, please!

Dang! You beat me to that one!

[GILMORE]

Ugh.

The implication in his statement is that the minority who objects to surveillance and big brother is probably also the minority who "makes life a misery" for the well-behaved masses. i.e. 'only the guilty have reason to fear'. The oldest excuse for government reaching into peoples lives.

I lived/worked in london off and on for a couple of years (was employed by british company who'd periodically send me over there for months at a time), and I was always taken aback by the Brits social reticence to 'be noticed' / stand out. Elenor Rigby type shit. I remember once I was taking the escalator up from the tube, and saw the rubber handrail flapping off. I went up and fixed it, and was grabbed by a bobby "right. You're nicked. Vandalism.'. An old woman behind me started protesting that I'd fixed the thing... and he argued "Madam, interfering with public property in ANY way is a crime''. When I spoke up and he realized I was a yank he let me off as he wasnt sure he wanted to do the paperwork.

[Mr. F. Le Mur]

Britian is, alas, beyond hope.

Definitely worth a read: Theodore Dalrymple, who left Britain for greener pastures.
http://www.city-journal.org/author_index.php?author=47
The best articles are from 2006 or so.

[Pro Libertate]

Catching and acting on the bleedingly obvious 1984 reference on Hit & Run takes lightning reflexes. Though the real test of manhood is whether you can be the first to catch a Hestonian reference, particularly of the 1970s Apocalyptic Trilogy variety.

[Hooked on Innuendo]

I guess if people of Britian think that civility is more important than freedom then this idea makes sense. Aside from basic human rights violations I don't see the point in complaining about the rules of a society that one doesn't live in.

[Warren]

Well just think of the endless hours of fun you can have with an amplifier and wireless microphone.

"Pull your frock out of your hose love"

[Ironchef]

Well then HOI there goes my past criticisms of all:

Nazis
Commies
Dictatorships

[Liberty or Death]

Hooked on Innuendo | April 19, 2007, 2:22pm | #
I guess if people of Britian think that civility is more important than freedom then this idea makes sense. Aside from basic human rights violations I don't see the point in complaining about the rules of a society that one doesn't live in.
_______________________

Yes. We should turn a blind eye towards erosions of liberty in all other western nations since we know those actions never set precedent in ours.

[Chucklehead]

It pains me to see a country I love to visit (been there 4 times) turn to shit.

[lunchstealer]

The tragedy of course being that they're a bit too late to get Sir Nigel Hawthorne to do the voicing for the cameras.

[God]

Kent! And from now on, stop playing with yourself.

[Jake Boone]

Hooked on Innuendo,

For the benefit of our newer commenters, would you mind terribly changing your name to something like "Trolly McTrollerson" from here on out? It'd save a lot of time and energy.

[lunchstealer]

Or just change your name back to Dan T.

[Hooked on Innuendo]

I'm sure the newer commenters have already noted the irony that a site that brags about the promotion of "free minds" demands total participation in libertarian GroupThink, lest ye be hit with the dreaded "troll" label.

Now drink.

[highnumber]

I want a set of these cameras for around my house. I have yet to yell at the kids to get off my lawn, but...
One rainy day, I was standing on my front porch smoking my morning cigarette. (I'm an inveterate smoker, I know, I know, I need to quit. I smoke only 10-12/day. Lay off me already.) A middle aged man comes walking past, umbrella in one hand, dog leash in the other. Rain's coming down pretty hard. The dog stops in my parkway and squeezes out a couple of rolls. The guy starts walking away when the dog has finished its business. So I yelled at him, "Hey, you're not leaving that there! You pick that up!" He stops, looks at me, shrugs, looks all sheepish, then mumbles, "Sorry, it's just that it's raining..." I almost leapt off the porch to rub his face in it. Anyway, If When I quit smoking I'll need one of those cameras.

(One time, I kind of played the role of one of those cameras. I was standing on the back porch of my friend's third floor apartment when I saw a guy come through the alley scavenging recyclables from the bins. He pulled a bunch of trash out of a dumpster, found some stuff he liked and loaded it into his cart, and started to walk away. I yelled down, "Pick that up!" He looked around, couldn't see anybody, and started walking off. I yelled again. "Don't walk away! Clean up your mess!" He looked around and still couldn't find me, but he cleaned up his mess. Good times.)

[Ironchef]

An even better response was here:

'Smith!' screamed the shrewish voice from the telescreen. '6079 Smith W.! Yes, you! Bend lower, please! You can do better than that. You're not trying. Lower, please! That's better, comrade. Now stand at ease, the whole squad, and watch me.'

A sudden hot sweat had broken out all over Winston's body. His face remained completely inscrutable. Never show dismay! Never show resentment! A single flicker of the eyes could give you away. He stood watching while the instructress raised her arms above her head and -- one could not say gracefully, but with remarkable neatness and efficiency -- bent over and tucked the first joint of her fingers under her toes.

[Hooked on Innuendo]

Yes. We should turn a blind eye towards erosions of liberty in all other western nations since we know those actions never set precedent in ours.

But all you see is the cost without giving any consideration to the benefit. Maybe Brits would rather have clean streets than preserve the right to litter. Can't blame them entirely.

[VM]

Highnumber -

OMG I thought that was you!

You're Mr. Wilson!!!!! (sorry about the trash in the alley. I thought I threw away my BATE-MASTER 69,000)

[ducks]

[R C Dean]

HOI, we by no means call all dissenters from the Libertarian Party Line trolls.

Dissenters who consistently push their authoritarian statist agenda in good faith are welcome in any thread.

Those who contribute little to the discussion, not so much.

[SugarFree]

Troll Logic:

If you complain about me shitting on your rug, then you must be against people going to the bathroom!

"If only we could turn trolls into tires, then we could get some use out of them."

[dhex #2]

yes hooked, its clearly groupthink at work here. but worry not! we'll convert you...in the village.

be seeing you

[Fluffy]

Frankly, public surveillance isn't that big an issue to me.

Unfortunately, the courts have ruled many times [quite rightly, as far as I can tell] that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy for actions committed on a public street.

If a policeman was physically standing right there to see you, would you think he was violating your privacy? Of course not. So what is the difference if the policeman is using a camera to look at you instead of his eyes, if we're talking about a public place?

I am much more concerned about police intrusion into private spaces, or the compulsory use of surveillance in private spaces [like many airports]. I am much, much more concerned about the set of things made illegal. If the police can't conduct surveillance of my activities on private property, and if the right set of things is legal and illegal, then I don't really have an issue with public surveillance.

[Hooked on Innuendo]

Dissenters who consistently push their authoritarian statist agenda in good faith are welcome in any thread.

Those who contribute little to the discussion, not so much.

What discussion? Without "trolls", this place is basically an echo chamber where you guys spend most of your efforts trying to top one another with witty allusions to pop culture.

[highnumber]

What discussion? Without "trolls", this place is basically an echo chamber where you guys spend most of your efforts trying to top one another with witty allusions to pop culture.

Hey! That's not fair...Aw, nuts!
You're a poopie head.

Stay off my lawn!

[Jake Boone]

I'm sure the newer commenters have already noted the irony that a site that brags about the promotion of "free minds" demands total participation in libertarian GroupThink, lest ye be hit with the dreaded "troll" label.

And only the newer commenters would think that, since all the older ones have seen you in action, Dan/Sam/HoI.

Seriously, you can't be as obtuse as your "persona" here would indicate. You're clearly capable of adding valid viewpoints to these discussions - you're not the extreme authoritarian dickwad you pretend to be. If you'd just abandon the trolling aspect, and stick with seriously considering topics and discussing them honestly with us (and I don't mean you need to toe the libertarian line, either), you could be absolutely welcomed here. For now, though, you're just noise, and while I have to guess you think you're adding to the conversation, you're just distracting us all from it.

I sense the good in you. Leave the dark side behind. Please.

[SugarFree]

Fluffy,

But that is like saying cops = cameras. Even if it would be OK to have a cop chide you for a minor infraction (and there are hundreds in a large and old city like London) there is something freedom-y about the cop having to be physically there to chide. If the cameras are cops, could you imagine the reverse, 5 cops for every non-cop citizen? No one (except a certain upthread troll) would think that didn't constitute a repressive police state.

And there's the old slippery slope argument... getting people used to increased or constant public surveillance will lead to expanded private intrusions.

[Sandy]

Kudos for the Demolition Man reference, Kerry. And to the few commenters who got it.

[poco]

It pains me to see a country I love to visit (been there 4 times) turn to shit.

Me too. Why they don't hire more cops if they want to tell people off, I don't understand. But to be fair, it sounds as if it's not going down well with the British public, aside from Daily Mail/Torygraph readers. See the comments here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2059417,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,2052957,00.html

Alarming factoid: "Meanwhile police are keen to run trials of a new generation of cameras used in Holland which can detect conversations 100 yards away." http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2050193,00.html

[R C Dean]

What discussion?

I dearly love to torment him, crypto-authoritarian goon that he is, but joe is no troll.

Same goes for others who are less than consistent in their suspicion/opposition to Our Masters in DC. Plenty of non-libertarians on this board who are not trolls.

[Half Brit]

But Innuendo, I would like to live there. I love it there, except for the overt nannyism that is morphing into totalitarianism.

Anyhow, the more important point is that other western nations do set precedents with regard to individual liberty. Given the British-American connection, esp. Britain supplying the foundation for our concept of human liberty (you know, the Magna Carta and all), it is generally very troubling to see the way things are evolving over there.

[Hooked on Innuendo]

Jake, I confess to being fond of throwing out arguments that I know most here will disagree with. But there are many sides to every issue and I enjoy pointing out some of those other sides, hoping that others will attempt to show me how they're wrong.

I'm used to being called a "troll" and it doesn't really bother me. But sometimes it comes across as a handy way to dismiss my points without actually having to think about them.

[smartass sob]

[Home Secretary John Reid told BBC News there would be some people, "in the minority who will be more concerned about what they claim are civil liberties intrusions". ]

Oh well...if it's only a minority, then fuck 'em. I mean...who gives a damn about a minority? Right? Sorry ass!

[Jake Boone]

If you want to play Devil's Advocate, that's perfectly fine, but why not put forward the ideas that you are really considering, instead of playing the walking straw man? If you want to get our reactions to a wacky idea that you don't actually hold, just ask! ("So what about the people who say [X]? How would you counter that argument?")

If you let us get to know you as a person, instead of a caricatured "enemy", your ideas and arguments will be given full consideration. But your current persona is simply prompting more and more people to ignore you; most folks don't like the feeling that they're being manipulated for someone else's enjoyment, and that's the vibe I think you're giving off with your current modus operandi. Getting dropped into filters is, I suspect, not the most effective way to spark discussion. It is, however, a good way to give folks a reason to "dismiss [your] points without actually having to think about them."

Please give the honest participation thing a shot. You may find that you enjoy it more than you think; if you don't, what have you lost?

[Jake Boone]

I should have pointed out that I was responding to "Hooked on Innuendo" in my last post, not "smartass sob" (on the off chance that anyone both a: was confused, and b: cared at all).

[Jorgen]

I'm used to being called a "troll" and it doesn't really bother me. But sometimes it comes across as a handy way to dismiss my points without actually having to think about them.

This would be more believable if you replied to those people who actually respond to what you have to say rather than those who call you a troll.

And I don't think that these cameras are any more a violation of liberty than those speed detectors placed on the road that flash your speed at you, but I also think that they're unlikely to do much good.

[Fluffy]

Sugarfree -

I think that if the presence of police makes you think it's a police state, it's probably because the list of crimes in your state is off.

For example, in another thread I came down against speed limit cameras. But that is not because I feel I have some right to not be observed in a public place - it's because I think the overwhelming majority of speed limits, particularly on non-highway roads, are set absurdly low, and the only thing that makes them tolerable is the fact that 99% of the time they aren't enforced. That's a case where there is "something freedom-y" about relying on physical police coverage - but it's because when the cop isn't right there, we all just ignore the speed limit. If the speed limits were set properly, it wouldn't make any difference if the cop was there or not. As a result, if the speed limits were set properly, I wouldn't care about speed limit cameras at all.

And I also wouldn't care about street corner cameras if the laws those cameras were helping to enforce were right-sized. It's only "freedom-y" to rely on beat cops and not cameras if the crimes being enforced are things like loitering, public intoxication in the absence of disorderly conduct, violating noise statutes [otherwise known as "talking to a group of people boisterously"], etc. The problem isn't the presence or absence of police or the application of techology - it's the laws themselves.

[creech]

Seems to me the Brits could have saved themselves a hell of a lot of trouble by just letting Operation Sea Lion succeed.

[Pro Libertate]

This is terrible. I just tried to pull up my "Maw-Wide" song on Google for reposting, and it's gone! There's been a Hit & Run purge. No more early Censor theorizing, no more Top 100 Things I'd Do if Elected Libertarian President, no nothing.

I feel violated. The historical record should be sacrosanct!

[Hooked on Innuendo]

Please give the honest participation thing a shot. You may find that you enjoy it more than you think; if you don't, what have you lost?

Okay, well in this case I'm simply pointing out that if the citizens of an autonomous nation feel that clean streets and public grounds is a benefit worthy of the costs of monitoring public spaces then what's the problem?

I admit that I'm something of a collectivist in the sense that, with the exception of certain human rights, I have no problem with people coming together and deciding the rules under which they wish to run their civilization. To me that's all that's going on here.

[GILMORE]

Maybe Brits would rather have clean streets than preserve the right to litter. Can't blame them entirely.

Which logical fallacy is this? The 'false dichotomy'? pretending that it's always an either-or situation?

Dude, one can have clean streets without draconian 24/7 technological nannying by a Panopticon government.

(in case you never heard = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon)

Pretending that Overlord Governments that scrutinize the entire public for minor infractions of 'public civility' is a fair trade for 'less littering' (where's it been shown that these things DO reduce litter, btw?), then youve got a broken cost-benefit meter in your brain. Maybe you think 200billion is also a fair price for our Wall Between Us and Mexico, which will achieve nothing at all for the cost.

[R C Dean]

HOI - what makes you think the "citizens" of Britain decided anything here?

And, to the degree the Total Surveillance State in fact represents the Will of the Majority, do you think there should be any limits on majority rule?

[Pro Libertate]

Wait! I spoke too soon. While Google has clearly conspired to make me an unperson, Ask.com--the web search page for free people--has not. Take that, Google!

Anyway, you're a troll if this song applies to you. You're not if it doesn't. Simple! A troll litmus song.

Trollin' Trollin' Trollin'

Keep postin', postin', postin',
Though they're disapprovin',
Keep them trollies postin' Maw-wide!
Don't try to understand 'em,
Just emote and blow at random,
Soon we'll be getting high and laid.
Enjoy my hearty ad hominem
My statements all be dictum, be waiting at the end of my tirade.

Move 'em on, head 'em up,
Head 'em up, move 'em out,
Move 'em on, head 'em out Maw-wide!
Set 'em out, post 'em in
Post 'em in, let 'em out,
Cut 'em out, post 'em in Maw-wide.

Trollin', Trollin', Trollin'
Trollin', Trollin', Trollin'
Trollin', Trollin', Trollin'
Trollin', Trollin', Trollin'
Maw-wide!

[SugarFree]

Fluffy,

I completely agree with everything you said and I was going to make that point as well, but it felt redundant here for some reason.

So yes, as I've often told the nice officer who I occasionally interact with at work, if the police and lawmakers only concerned themselves with personal and property crimes, I would be "Woo-hoo, police!" most of the time. (He's a nice enough guy, but he can't even imagine a world without rules for every little things. Although, he often has entertaining stories about breaking up bum sex in the public parks...)

[The Roving Reporter]

"Pro Libertate | April 19, 2007, 3:56pm | #
This is terrible. I just tried to pull up my "Maw-Wide" song on Google for reposting, and it's gone! There's been a Hit & Run purge. No more early Censor theorizing, no more Top 100 Things I'd Do if Elected Libertarian President, no nothing.

I feel violated. The historical record should be sacrosanct!"

Dateline: Walla Walla, WA
THIS JUST IN. BOB GELDOF AND BONO DECLARED THAT LIBERTY-MINDED ELEMENTS OF THE HISTORICAL RECORD SHALL BE EXPUNGED.

In Other News: Pro Libertate Has Been Reassigned to a Re-education Camp

This is the roving reporter, signing off.

[Nonook]

Am I the only one to think this is "The Prisoner" series from the 60s?

[Pro Libertate]

VM,

I was half right. Nothing earlier than 2006 is showing up. I was going to gather all of my Top 100 Things I'd Do if Elected Libertarian President for Ron Paul's campaign. I'm like the picture in Back to the Future--I haven't ceased to exist just yet, but I will soon.

I feel like Doc Daneeka after the plane crash.

Nonook,

No, of course not. Why did you resign, by the way?

[GILMORE]

I have no problem with people coming together and deciding the rules under which they wish to run their civilization. To me that's all that's going on here.

No knucklehead. These things arent the product of a public demanding 24/7 oversight by Big Sister, they are the product of a government taking ridiculously overwhelming system to address silly social issues that are THEMSELVES the product of bottom-up cultures.

You think people actually had a referendum to decide that they should submit their rights to be free from perpetual surveillance by government?

What you are really arguing in defense of is the Freedom of Government to impose any power they want over individuals in society so long as the people cant collectively find the spines to oppose it and force them to back off. If they even can under the few 'rights' they still have left.

Its a contemptable point of view. One unfortunately typical in the tradition of Liberal passivity in the face of creeping tyrrany.

e.g.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

[Hooked on Innuendo]

HOI - what makes you think the "citizens" of Britain decided anything here?

Somebody decided - who else would it be?

And, to the degree the Total Surveillance State in fact represents the Will of the Majority, do you think there should be any limits on majority rule?

Sure, those would be human rights. And I do think that generally minority groups should not be singled out for unfair treatment.

[Fluffy]

HOI -

That just moves the conversation to "What are the human rights that the majority can't violate?"

I think many people here would include "the right to conduct one's business without continuous state surveillance" as one of those. I don't, personally, when we're talking about public places - but I think the people you're arguing with would.

[Mr. Hilter]

Ve Germans--I mean Englanders--haf no objection to der coming together und deciding on ze rules for purging ze Reich by exterminating all uv ze Juden folk. Und reunifying vit France.

[Jake Boone]

HoI,

Others in the thread have already touched on the problems that I see with this initiative.

First, it really can't be said that the majority of Britons (is this the correct term?) really have "decided" to do this; this looks more like some small number of bureaucrats have decided to Do Something.

Second, as Fluffy said, cameras aren't nearly as disturbing if they're used in a society that only punishes "right-sized" crimes. I don't think Britain is one of those societies, unfortunately.

Third, I suspect you and I may have differing viewpoints on the proper scope and power of a democratic system; even if it were voted in by a majority of Britons, does that fact in itself make it okay? I'd say it doesn't, but I don't know that you'd agree.

It's not even just one of these factors, necessarily, that cause many of us here to cringe in distaste at the very idea of prerecorded scoldings from video cameras. It's a combination of all of them, along with other issues, that give us the sense that this development should be placed on the Bad Thing side of the ledger.

[Pro Libertate]

That's just like Mr. Hilter--always going Godwin in these threads.

[GILMORE]

And I do think that generally minority groups should not be singled out for unfair treatment.

And, again typical of naive liberal wrongheadedness, you actually mean, "ethnic/gender" minorities... but not POLITICAL minority groups who object to tyranny by the minority.

Your problem is not so much your bubbleheaded idealism, its just that you dont even really understand the arguments you think you are making. To describe "Someone decided!" as driven by the will of the demos is absolutely emptyheaded. Ever heard the one about where a road paved with Good Intentions leads?

[peachy]

A couple of points to consider in re: to any government decisions in the current UK;

a) Labour won the last election with 35.3% of the popular vote, hardly a strong popular mandate

b) the Blair government has increasingly marginalised Parliament, creating a 'presidential prime-ministership' with most critical decisions taken by a handful of ministers and senior deputies

Given these factors, it is misleading at best to suggest that any action taken by the government represents the 'will of the people' in any meaningful sense of the phrase.

[Hooked on Innuendo]

Jake, it's not so much that I would be in favor of "prerecorded scoldings from video cameras" myself. I'm kind of glad we don't have them here in the states.

But, I can't say that there is not a point where if littering and other public misbehavior got bad enough that perhaps I wouldn't change my mind. It's a cost/benefit analysis, and if Britian feels that the benefit is worth the cost then that's their decision to make.

That's really true of any prohibative law. For example, theft is illegal because we feel that the cost (restricting our freedom to take things from others if we can) is worth the benefit (our stuff is less likely to be taken).

[GILMORE]

But, I can't say that there is not a point where if littering and other public misbehavior got bad enough that perhaps I wouldn't change my mind.

Because you think having 24/7 government montitored cameras are a good solution to 'littering'?

Is there a good single word out there for 'hopelessly naive?'

It never occurrs to you that there might be cheaper, more effective solutions to minor problems? Like people taking responsibility for policing their own properties and people speaking out to defend the public commons without handing it over wholesale to the Overseer?

You SHOULD be a troll. Instead you are just a goof.

[VM]

ProL:

that's cuz it wasn't much fun in Stalingrad...

[crimethink]

While I admit that the idea of talking surveillance cameras gives me the creeps, so long as they are in public areas it doesn't seem they violate any civil rights, any more than having a cop watching a public area violates them.

Yes, I know that a cop isn't a camera, but the difference isn't really important in this case. TBH, I'd rather have a camera watching me than a cop, since a camera is an objective observer, and won't lie after the fact. I'm sure most of us here would rather have a camera filming us whenever we get pulled over, for instance, so that the cop wouldn't be able to fabricate crimes and consents to searches, etc.

Yes, I know that when police are in control of the cameras, strange technical difficulties tend to arise when a cop wants to lie or cover up his own misbehavior. That's a separate issue; one solution would be to have the camera video available to the public over the Internet so that the watched can watch the watchers, as it were.

[ChicagoTom]

Its a contemptable point of view. One unfortunately typical in the tradition of Liberal passivity in the face of creeping tyrrany.

Ahem,

It isn't just Liberals who are passive in the face of creeping tyranny. Conservatives are right up there as well. See: Terror, War On

[Pro Libertate]

Really, who isn't passive in the face of creeping tyranny? I'm sitting here at work, typing indignant comments. I should, at the very least, be running for president on the STOP THE CRAP ticket. But no, I sit here bemoaning the loss of my liberties, doing nothing.

[R C Dean]

Is there a good single word out there for 'hopelessly naive?'

I think "useful idiot" fits the bill, except for being two words.

[Jim Bob]

Is Reid saying people who would voice objection to 24-hour public CCTV monitoring are people who would act like assholes in public? What a handy way to attack critics.

[Jammer]

I suppose, at this late hour, noting that Winston Smith was in his own apartment, not some public space, when he got jobbed by the exercise lady telescreen is a bit moot.

I'm with crimethink on this one. The cameras creep me out, but I honestly can't think of a real violation.

[GILMORE]

ChiTown T-Dog sez

It isn't just Liberals who are passive in the face of creeping tyranny. Conservatives are right up there as well. See: Terror, War On

I hear you dog.

My point was that his particular rationale was the uniquely-liberal variety for the same. The Red version of creeping tyranny is 'putting these cheap scum in their place'. Same result, different avenues.

pax americana

[Your Boss]

I'm sitting here at work, typing indignant comments. I should, at the very least, be running for president on the STOP THE CRAP ticket

You should be working.

[3PR]

I feel compelled to reply being a Brit- although Brits are the most watched people in the world, it does not bother me, as Fluffy wrote, its like having a policeman watching me. If I lived in London I might feel different though, as there are not so many cameras where I have lived.

Recently there was an incident where 2 men were randomly stabbed at 2am (1 survived, the other died), a conviction being possible because it was all caught on camera.

The talking cameras are tbh, a bit of a joke. Surely there is a less embarrassing way to remind someone there is a camera watching? But think of the stabbing, if the camera could remind the murders they were being watched, maybe both could have survived.

[Cracker\'s Boy]

Coming late to this party, certainly but... I have to agree (sadly) with what I thought was Hooked's initial point...

It's none of our business.

Yes, unfortunately, we SHOULD turn a blind eye towards erosions in liberty in other western civilizations. If we don't, then where do we draw the line on interfering in the autonomy of other nations? (And who decides there that line is?)

It's none of our business.

(Not to say we can't point at it and laugh about how silly the Brits are for doing it, but just stay out of it. After all, at least they're British, and not... French, for God's sake).

CB

[George Orwell]

Some people seem to have missed the point.

"1984" was NOT meant to be an instruction manual.

[Pro Libertate]

Your Boss,

See?! We should be rebelling, but, instead, I'm leaving off to read another contract.

[VM]

ProL:

you should be off getting ready for the rehearsal...

[Isaac Bartram]

you should be off getting ready for the rehearsal...

Moose, old chap, if he doesn't know how to follow the commands of "she who must be obeyed" by now, it's a little too late to start practicing. 🙂

Oh...wait...you mean a wedding rehearsal.

Congrats Pro Lib. And Best Wishes to you both.