Not that I agree with Cameron, but here are some differences.
- Protesting is legal in the UK and happens regularly without undue interference by the police.
- The riots in the UK mainly consisted of crimes committed against citizens so they were clearly a policing issue.
- They're not proposing shutting of the internet, just the principal vectors used to organise riots.
- The rioters were not subject to a violent response by the authorities. It would have been straight forward to use rubber bullets against rioters but the police were not keen to escalate things.
Use of rubber bullets was authorised after the police finally got their act together. I don't think it was a worthy desire to avoid escalation that prevented their use earlier on .. more lack of organisation.
The main question is, how will our government discover whether a citizen is communicating about a forbidden subject? I suppose all communication will need to be explicitly monitored. This is another step closer towards distopia.
Somebody on bbc question hour was suggesting that police inaction was on purpose.They wanted this to escalate and use this violence as an excuse to make draconian laws.Cameron's action actually agrees with the prediction.
I do not want to believe in conspiracy theories but seriously does it take 3 days to decide using baton round/rubber bullets.
I totally agree with you but instead of giving Police better tools they want to monitor social media which is just absurd and can be used against their political enemies which does suggest malice.
I fail to understand how social media monitoring will prevent riots next time if Police chooses to be an spectator.
Use of rubber bullets was authorised after the police finally got their act together. I don't think it was a worthy desire to avoid escalation that prevented their use earlier on .. more lack of organisation.
Do you have a source for that? Everything I've read suggested the police were only considering rubber bullets or water cannons as a last resort.
...Godwin and his team came very close to issuing the order for firearms teams to use plastic bullets.
At that point the Met's officers were "stretched to an extent never seen before," deputy assistant commissioner Steven Kavanagh said. "We did absolutely consider it through the night," Kavanagh said. "But these were very fast moving mobile groups and by the time we got baton rounds there this groups would have moved away."
That's a difference of degree, and not even that relevant. Either you have freedom of speech, or you don't.
Let's take your arguments and rephrase them as coming from Libya (or any "less democratic" country):
- Protesting is legal in XXX and happens regularly. You only have to get a permit to insure the safety of the people involved (same as in UK, I'd guess)
- The protesters are clearly destroying public and private property. There have been multiple instances of protesters attacking public buildings, and a (very well filmed) instance of protesters attacking innocent bystanders.
- Of course the internet will not be completely shut down. Only specific vectors, as needed. The police will decide what they are and how many to shut down
- The police only protects public property, and will always use violence as a last resort, and only as a response to violence - and we have clearly documented cases of violence from protesters.
So what's the difference? When it comes to laws meant to limit the power of the government, you can't count on the government applying them "in spirit" or reporting things truthfully and completely. It kindof defeats the purpose, doesn't it? If the people currently in charge would be trustworthy, you wouldn't really need any such laws...
- Protesting is legal in the UK and happens regularly without undue interference by the police.
- The riots in the UK mainly consisted of crimes committed against citizens so they were clearly a policing issue.
- They're not proposing shutting of the internet, just the principal vectors used to organise riots.
- The rioters were not subject to a violent response by the authorities. It would have been straight forward to use rubber bullets against rioters but the police were not keen to escalate things.