UK Politics

3144 readers

15 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Wikipedia could shut down in UK after online safety law passes, Government told (www.independent.co.uk)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

28 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This bill needs to be killed. It's just more surveillance wrapped in saving the kids.

I've had people say to me "But what if you're partner was attacked, you would be glad that CCTV/message snooping was there" when debating these topics.

I'm not going to lie, that's hard to argue against, I would if it helped catch them, but I'd rather it didn't happen in the first place. I don't know where I'm going with this...

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The uk legaladvice subreddit was a great example of why CCTV is absolutely useless.

The police often just won't retrieve it. Either because they have a bunch of other cases they think are a higher priority, or there is too much footage to go through.

When they do eventually motivate themselves to go retrieve it, it has either been overwritten or doesn't show what you need.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Yes, absolutely.

Some friends and I were attacked at a taxi rank on a busy high street many years ago. 3 were stabbed/slashed with a bottle and we all had a night in A&E. One has permanent face scars from it.

CCTV showed them getting into a taxi, the taxi driver was found and said they dropped them off at a petrol station.

The police had all that info and got the CCTV from the petrol station, and still couldn't/didn't identify them.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I'm not sure that's broadly true, given the number of prosecutions where CCTV is given as evidence.

I've no doubt the examples you give are true, and that it happens far too often, but that's not the same as saying cctv is useless.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The original purpose of the police was crime prevention. They should be out on the beat, not sitting in the office staring at screens. Having police wandering around deters crime.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Really? That sounds like the sort of claim that could do with some evidence to back it up.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

First principle: "To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles