Riots in north London

[semysane]

Remember, the best way to create new jobs is to burn down places where you could conceivably work. FOOLPROOF PLAN!

[Lyinginbedmon]

More importantly is that most police officers in the UK aren't armed with deadly weapons, it's only an elite group that do, the UK is tremendously anti-firearm. So we could video all of them, in which case we spend millions on recording people who are borderline incapable of doing the kind of harm we're looking for, or we could only record those capable and leave the incapable with a potential loophole through which corrupted officers could legitimately do ill.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here, Lying. Why would one want to surveil ALL officers? And how would surveillance of armed officers produce loopholes for corruption of unarmed ones?

~Alja~

Well consider for a moment, the armed police are under increased scrutiny, every action they take is literally on tape. They don't have any room to take any action that might be construed as excessive or illegal. The unarmed police on the other hand, have no such restriction, but the public, seeing the cameras, considers them to be still under them. As long as the police officer is unarmed, he is free from the video observation, so a corrupt officer looking to harm someone simply has to avoid picking up a weapon and go hand-to-hand, where police training ensures they are usually the victor.

This is why you'd want to record all police officers, but the logistics and economic scale of recording all of them regardless of armed/unarmed status means that it would be difficult to accomplish under police budgeting.

[Alja-Markir]

A couple problems with that thought, Lying.

1) Hand to hand combat is inherently much riskier for the officer involved. You pull a gun on someone, they really can't do anything. You attack someone in melee, a bunch of things could go wrong - they can escape; they can improvise weapons; they can wound or kill; they are much more likely to be able to find allies against you; et cetera.

2) Unarmed police officers are already free from video surveillance, and can already do exactly what you're arguing. In the States, at least, there is a long and sordid history of police beatings which prove this fact.

But while it is lamentable that one cannot reasonably surveil all of the police force to prevent every form of abuse, one could at least surveil those with the greatest destructive potential. After all, the survival rate of police beatings is a lot better than that of police shootings. And it's a heck of a lot harder to justify accidentally killing someone in melee than it is with a gun.

~Alja~

Addendum: I reread your post once more, are you saying the armed officers could simply resort to employing melee weapons instead of firearms? I was under the impression that these officers were special units, called in for planned strategic missions and raids. Naturally, any planned raid should be entirely recorded, even if a firearm is never drawn.

[Drinnik]

Well consider for a moment, the armed police are under increased scrutiny, every action they take is literally on tape. They don't have any room to take any action that might be construed as excessive or illegal. The unarmed police on the other hand, have no such restriction, but the public, seeing the cameras, considers them to be still under them. As long as the police officer is unarmed, he is free from the video observation, so a corrupt officer looking to harm someone simply has to avoid picking up a weapon and go hand-to-hand, where police training ensures they are usually the victor.

This is why you'd want to record all police officers, but the logistics and economic scale of recording all of them regardless of armed/unarmed status means that it would be difficult to accomplish under police budgeting.

Lying, this is coming from an honest place, FUCK YOU.

Seriously, fuck you.

Do you know how much danger officers are under? Do you know what they face on a daily basis, riots or no riots? It's not the Bill, it's not what you read in the Daily Mail, the Sun or any other tabloid rag. Being a police officer is hard work. They do the hardest fucking job in the country.

You are completely, completely out of line here. Firearms officers do not carry cameras to make sure they do their jobs properly. They carry them to protect themselves from accusations of misuse. One of the 43 forces in the country did a study and found that officers who carried cameras are far, far less likely to be accused of corruption or brutality than officers who didn't. And this wasn't because the officers were acting differently, it was because there was video evidence that would prove the accuser wrong, rather than it being the officer's word against the accuser.

There is so much red tape, bueracracy and shear bollocks an officer has to go through to prove they are doing their job safely, competently and honestly. It's a political minefiled. Why the hell do you think officers were reluctant to be more heavy handed during the riots? It was because then you'd get people accusing the police of brutality just like at the G20 riots.

It fucking sucks to be an police officer in this country. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't. Why? Because people make statements like yours which demonise the police and make it far, far harder for an officer to do their job.

[Lyinginbedmon]

@Alja My meaning was that unarmed officers simply need to avoid joining one of the armed groups to avoid the camera surveillance.

@Drinnik Yes, they carry them to protect against allegations of abuse or misuse of power. But for those actually involved in such abuses, the point is to surveil them. I'm not saying the police are crooks, but I'm also pointing out that they're not above the law and are capable, as all humans are, of corruption.

The same issue applies to my earlier statements of recording those that are involved, in that you record everyone who is unarmed and law-abiding (and armed and law-abiding) as well. The sheer volume of footage that serves no purpose as a consequence poses a significant problem with the financial logistics.

I'm not making any calls on the good/evil of police officers, I know that they are literally paid to uphold law and order. I'm just making statements regarding the whole video surveillance proposition.

[empath]

"I don’t condone what’s happening in England, but I sure as hell understand it. If you don’t give an entire generation a reason to care about their country — some ownership in it, and a voice in determining its (and their) future — it shouldn’t surprise you when that generation doesn’t give a fuck and burns it all down."

- Mr. Don't-Be-A-Dick

[gcninja]

that is all
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024727/UK-riots-Virals-David-Cameron-London-mayor-Boris-Johnson-lighthearted-view.html

[semysane]

[gcninja]

I was trying to lighten it up, IIRC that image i posted is one from hot fuzz

[empath]

I was trying to lighten it up,

Yeah, apparently so was the Daily Mail (and props to them for it)

My fave is actually an edited video

IIRC that image i posted is one from hot fuzz

Yeah, when DC Angel's doing the 'Hogan's Alley' scene near the end. It's quite a decently-done shoop; they seemed to get the same 'fuzziness' of the two sources.

[Geoff_B]

that is all
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024727/UK-riots-Virals-David-Cameron-London-mayor-Boris-Johnson-lighthearted-view.html

I know it's a fake but it's still awesome!

[Lyinginbedmon]

I'd probably reconsider how much Cameron should be ousted by Clegg if he actually did that as a publicity stunt.

[Geoff_B]

It should be pointed out (if it hasn't already) that Clegg was in charge of the country when the riots happened. I'll just leave that with you.

[Lyinginbedmon]

Yes, Clegg, and the entire cabinet.

Even then, they couldn't have outright prevented the riots from happening. The damage has been pretty minimal compared to what could easily have happened. I don't think this reflects on Clegg much if at all.

[JenSev]

So... weather in London, minor ash clouds and a light drizzle of soot?
But if you're cold, you can easily warm yourself on the burning police stations.

[PlasmaCow]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-14490167



Also,
http://keepaaroncutting.blogspot.com/
watch this video:
http://vimeo.com/27602708

[Keab42]

I am half expecting the Feed Dump on Grathleen's return to feature "Graham and Kathleen's Holiday Snaps" and it to largely consist of blatant shops of them looting and/or rioting.

[Geoff_B]

There may be other sources of news, but they don't have This Hat, which I looted from Selfridges...

[Lyinginbedmon]

"And now, some feuds."

[empath]

Y'know?

A conspiracy theorist might dwell on the fact that all this broke just as things were quieting down with Murdoch and the phone-hack scandal...not sayin' he instigated a series of inflammatory incidents to draw attention away from him as he bribes the investigators and makes his problem go away, maybe more likely that The Media™ got bored with Phone-Hack-gate and decided to engineer the Next Big Story™ to keep people's attention.

I'm glad we all aren't so paranoid to think that, right?

Right?

[Elomin Sha]

My fillings......they talk to me.

[empath]

Ah, do they receive Morse code from Japanese spies working in California during WWII? If so, you might be Lucille Ball!

[Elomin Sha]

No, that's silly. They just tell me to kill everyone else in the room before they kill me.

[Keab42]

I'd listen to them if I were you...

[Elomin Sha]

I wouldn't turn around if I were you.