×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UK Introduces Warrantless Detention

Unknown Lamer posted about 4 months ago | from the cameras-are-for-hippies dept.

United Kingdom 153

An anonymous reader writes with news that the UK is introducing new laws tightening security around military bases, quoting the article "The Ministry of Defense is set to introduce "draconian" new powers to tighten security and limit access to US airbases in Britain implicated in mass surveillance and drone strikes, The Independent can reveal. ... Among the 20 activities to be banned within the controlled area are camping 'in tents, caravans, trees or otherwise,' digging, engaging in 'any trade or business' or grazing any animal. Also among the offenses, which can result in an individual being 'taken into custody without warrant,' is a failure to pick up dog waste or causing damage to 'any crops, turfs, plants, roots or trees'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

153 comments

Time for a new name (4, Funny)

russotto (537200) | about 4 months ago | (#45826133)

Let's just call the place Airstrip One and be done with it.

Re:Time for a new name (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45826241)

Slashdot.org banned Ethanol-fueled from posting after many years and excellent karma because they are controlled by Mossad.

Killl the Saudi-Mossad alliance and let the superpowers nuke them BOTH.

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:Time for a new name (3, Funny)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 4 months ago | (#45826417)

TFS: Also among the offenses, which can result in an individual being 'taken into custody without warrant,' is a failure to pick up dog waste

finally! an appropriate punishment for not cleaning up after your dog! Hopefully this migrates stateside.

Re:Time for a new name (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45826829)

Actually, I'd make them eat it.

Re:Time for a new name (1)

7-Vodka (195504) | about 4 months ago | (#45827333)

Why stop there?

We should also shoot dead any animal, wild or otherwise, that shits and doesn't pick it up. Foxes, deer, coyotes, bears, sheep, cows, babies, chickens etc.

I mean shit, if we're all for the initiation of force, I'm in guys.

Also, I'd like to lobby for the right for you to kill yourselves. ASAP.

Just reach in the drawer, take out your guns and put it in your mouths. It can't be wrong if you're doing it to yourself and lots of people would like you to do it.

Re:Time for a new name (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45826585)

I proposed this a a solution to the "british Isles" name debate at Wikipedia, and somehow it didnt seem to catch on. PS the ministry of war is now the ministry of peace, and they have always allowed for citizens to voluntarily commit to a rehabilitation center without having to give a reason for doing so. isnt that nice of them? all prais

next time... (0)

harvey the nerd (582806) | about 4 months ago | (#45827617)

...Brazil and Argentina will keep the Malvinas. UK is moving to 2nd and 3rd world status at warp speed and could not repeat the performance of the 80s. Glad I am not a Falklander, they are just SOL.

Article needs fixing (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45826153)

s/introduce/impose/g

Re:Article needs fixing (1)

Trepidity (597) | about 4 months ago | (#45826645)

Headlines also considered: "UK [offers | rolls out | unveils | is pleased to announce] Warrantless Detention"

FUCK YOU SLASHDOT (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45826187)

THIS NEW DESIGN IS DOG SHIT

This design is an aesthetic abortion (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45826467)

Whatever the actual intent, this redesign will do nothing other than accelerate the exodus to hacker news/reddit.

Re:This design is an aesthetic abortion (3, Insightful)

Adult film producer (866485) | about 4 months ago | (#45826519)

I get the point your making.. and if slashdot sticks with the the "beta" format I would rather spend my time on reddit. The reddit format is closer to my heart than what I'm seeing on the /. beta

Re:This design is an aesthetic abortion (5, Informative)

ElementOfDestruction (2024308) | about 4 months ago | (#45827543)

Feeble attempt to make the computer page look and feel the same as the mobile page. Stop. This madness has to stop.

Re:FUCK YOU SLASHDOT (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45826705)

mod parent up

they're doing this all over the web, fucking things up, many sites now suddenly requiring javascript to use them.

i like how reddit's comments flow and ycombinator's comments section.

mod parent up

Re:FUCK YOU SLASHDOT (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45826711)

yeah like how mobygames fucked themselves up with a shitty new redesign and there's an exodus of people because of it.

but but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45826859)

I get a groovy pop up box to post in! And I no longer have to read more than 20 lines of text at once so stupid people can read the site too! Great, we can communicate with idiots at last.

Oh, and the redesign encourages anonymous posting....we all LOVE that dont we?

Yeah, its a turkey.

Re:FUCK YOU SLASHDOT (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45827317)

Yes, but the 'designers' know best, and we can't hurt their delicate sensibilities by telling them they are talentless, gullible, bandwagon following idiots, can we!
Just look at all the virtually invisible grey text on white backgrounds we see all over the internet now - for no other reason than the 'designers' like to copy each other, even going out of their way to make the text as light as possible, so that it's virtually impossible to see! How original! How cutting edge!

Most 'designers' are arrogant cretins who can't think for themselves, and who copy off OTHER 'designers', hence the ridiculous design of the new Slashdot site, etc.

Such is the arrogance of the cretins who actually employ these 'designers', that they would rather their entire business goes under, than admit they're wrong! Just look at Microsoft and 'The Ribbon' and 'Metro'.

Google Jensen Harris... derp, derp, derp...

Re:FUCK YOU SLASHDOT (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45827171)

Totally agree. So much that I "earthed" beta.slashdot.org to 127.0.0.1 in my /etc/hosts. The "unconfigured" page of my lighty is much nicer.

Re:FUCK YOU SLASHDOT (2)

Mashiki (184564) | about 4 months ago | (#45827433)

Don't worry...DICE's focus groups tell them that all the teenagers find it kicks ass, and flows nicely. The only thing missing is automatic twitter and facebook integration...

Ugh...

Failure to pick up dog waste (4, Funny)

cold fjord (826450) | about 4 months ago | (#45826219)

I can understand the part about penalizing failure to pick up dog waste. No sense arming the inevitable protesters gratuitously.

Re:Failure to pick up dog waste (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45826255)

I can understand the part about penalizing failure to pick up dog waste. No sense arming the inevitable protesters gratuitously.

Ain't this some shit?

Re:Failure to pick up dog waste (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45826455)

I agree, I hate the new look all these websites are using luckily with stylish you can edit it to your heats desire. I would love the find the person/s that made the first one and beat their ass/s half to death with a wiffle ball bat.

South Park Style

Re:Failure to pick up dog waste (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45826641)

They are not giving enough attention to dogs and other animals pissing anywhere they like. They continuously scent up anything that happens to be sticking from the ground, and they continuously fight over ownership of these random outdoor objects. For the government to keep smells under control, they need to better specify what can piss and where it is appropriate, to make sense of this problem known as "The yellow shower".

confusion? (5, Interesting)

snakeplissken (559127) | about 4 months ago | (#45826259)

yes this is draconian but i don't think that 'taken into custody without warrant' means what i think the slashdot article implies it does. to me it means that these are now arrestable offences, obviously police can already arrest people without 'a warrant' otherwise no one could ever be arrested or detained on the street for any crime without a judge first being involved.

officer: i saw you hit that woman
scrote: fuck you
officer: right sonny, just you wait here while i get a warrant so i can make you stay here,
hey come back, i haven't got the warrant yet!...

the problem here is that they shouldn't be arrestable offences not that police have the already existing power to arrest people

snake

Re:confusion? (3, Insightful)

holostarr (2709675) | about 4 months ago | (#45826327)

But why make not picking up after your dog an arrestable offence anyway? To me it would be reasonable if the penalty was a fine rather than a criminal record!

Re:confusion? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45826365)

Because we're talking about the UK. Have you seen some of the things the Tories have been up to lately?

Re:confusion? (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 4 months ago | (#45826461)

That close to a base, and digging and other things prohibited, who's to say someone didn't make something nefarious that looked like poo? Though, for consistency's sake, all littering, including failure to pick up poo, should be treated in a similar manner.

Re:confusion? (1)

KinkyClown (574788) | about 4 months ago | (#45826533)

Does that mean that I can digg a hole somewhere in the streets of London (not near a base) and the police can not arrest me?

Re: confusion? (1)

gordo3000 (785698) | about 4 months ago | (#45826911)

My experience diving there says there are already so many holes in the roads no one would really notice (ghostbusters 2 paraphrased and my real experience there)

Re:confusion? (2)

zAPPzAPP (1207370) | about 4 months ago | (#45827267)

'That close'?
I skimmed the article and nowhere does it say how big this area would be.
If it is supposed to counter listening in with spy antennas and drones, then it must be quite big.

Re:confusion? (4, Informative)

myowntrueself (607117) | about 4 months ago | (#45826675)

But why make not picking up after your dog an arrestable offence anyway? To me it would be reasonable if the penalty was a fine rather than a criminal record!

In the UK being arrested doesn't automatically get you a criminal record and employers don't check if you've ever been arrested before hiring you. Its not, yet, part of the USA.

Re:confusion? (1)

mrbester (200927) | about 4 months ago | (#45827263)

Perhaps you missed the bit where Tony Blair decreed that all offences are arrestable. Any arrest gets you a criminal record (as does a caution, Section 27 dispersal notice, etc.) but there is still discretion as to whether you do get arrested for something minor due to the paperwork involved...

Re:confusion? (5, Informative)

pr100 (653298) | about 4 months ago | (#45827325)

There might be a record of your arrest, but that's not what is normally understood by a criminal record, which is a list of the offences of which you've been convicted or accepted a caution in respect of.

Re:confusion? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45827387)

In the UK being arrested doesn't automatically get you a criminal record..

Though it does get your DNA and fingerprints into the system, and whilst your arrest may not appear in one set of results, rest assured, the fact that you've been arrested will be in their intelligence files forever.

Fun fact#45223, the DNA database had 5 million records in 2009, that was for a population of 62 million people or so, so 8% of the (then) UK populace was directly 'on-file'.

..and employers don't check if you've ever been arrested before hiring you.

Ah, I take it then you've not spotted the increase in employers 'gaming' the system by putting people through unjustified DBS checks (down South) and Enhanced Disclosure (Scotland)?
Admittedly, from what I've seen, this is usually based on both ignorance on the scope of the law on the part of the employer and their understandable confusion when faced with the mess of legislation, and the usual archaic-weasel-lawyerspeak it is written in, but hey, personnel departments being personnel departments...

The thing here, as you might know, the Police in the UK run multiple databases, and, as the disclosure guidelines state
'.. Enhanced disclosure may also reveal local police information (e.g. details of allegations, arrests, not guilty verdicts etc.) that is felt to be relevant to the job..'

Not just convictions, but arrests and allegations are available to a prospective employer under this scheme and, note the emboldened bit above, felt by who?, relevant how?

Another fun fact, there are currently 1705 'umbrella bodies' who are authorised to do these checks 'in bulk' (as the government can't be arsed dealing with small numbers of checks being made, they've farmed it out), there is one interesting thing about using these bodies to do your checks, as one guide puts it
'..If you are intending to use an umbrella body, you need to contact them to make an agreement about how they will make the applications on your behalf, how much they will charge for this, and what information they will share with you once they receive it.'

Note: what has now happened is that a fourth party (neither the employee, employer or government) now has a copy of whatever information the police have 'disclosed' and can make arbitrary decisions as to what then to do with it.

Fun, eh?

Re:confusion? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45826397)

In America, it works like this.

officer: hey you! let's see your walking permit.
guy: no
officer: whaddya mean no ya scrote! i am the police!! you wanna go to prison today?!!
guy: are we done here? i have someplace to be
officer: that's it ya fucking fuck, get yer fucking face on the fucking ground now!!!!!!!!!

Re: confusion? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45826635)

Given that 'scrote' is British slang, and not American, I can definitely tell that you are an honest expert with an opinion that reflects reality, and definitely not a troll spewing whatever fits your bias.

Re: confusion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45826691)

"Come on scro', don't be a pussy!"
- Dwayne Elizondo Camacho Five-time Ultimate Smackdown champion Porn superstar And president of the United States, ..... bitch.

Next you'll claim that "retard" is also British slang, ...... 'tard.

Re:confusion? (4, Insightful)

AHuxley (892839) | about 4 months ago | (#45826483)

Up until this point you had the option to go to the fence and protest any new war, weapons system, double tap drone strikes, vast domestic surveillance operations...
This would make an images, footage or interviews from the protest event very powerful.
Think back to the UK and EU around the Pershing 2 nuclear missile. The optics of the protests was great for the press.
A collection of people from a cross section of society at a base, next to the fence with surveillance hardware or weapons systems in the same frame.
The new controlled area might allow for interviews with lanes, wooded areas, hills, roads or other nondescript buildings in the background.
The protected area laws will basically herd protesters into vast "free speech zones" well away from the desired visual political statement.
The court challenges will also be interesting. It is not base land, so the UK will have to allow people to walk dogs, protest on land near the base or fully restrict all use.
The UK gov will have to expand warning signs, fences - an expensive land grab to widen the legal areas under direct 'base' control.
If not the UK laws become legally arbitrary - if you look local or are known to be local you can walk a dog? If you don't look local or are known to be a protester your freedom of movement is gone?
Why not just buy the land and move out the fences? Very legal and very simple.

Re:confusion? (4, Interesting)

cold fjord (826450) | about 4 months ago | (#45826749)

It may be a shock to some that the purpose of military bases are not simply to provide optics for protesters. They have an actual function that the protesters often desire to interfere with.

As to the Pershing 2 issue, that is a splendid example of the bankruptcy of the so called "peace movement." Where were the protests over the Soviet SS-20s that the Pershing missiles were brought in to counter? It was hardly proportionate.

A short history of NATO - The Cold War revived [nato.int]

The 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Soviet deployment of SS-20 Saber ballistic missiles in Europe led to the suspension of détente. To counter the Soviet deployment, Allies made the “dual track” decision to deploy nuclear-capable Pershing II and ground-launched cruise missiles in Western Europe while continuing negotiations with the Soviets. The deployment was not scheduled to begin until 1983. In the meantime, the Allies hoped to achieve an arms control agreement that would eliminate the need for the weapons.

Lacking the hoped-for agreement with the Soviets, NATO members suffered internal discord when deployment began in 1983. Following the ascent of Mikhail Gorbachev as Soviet Premier in 1985, the United States and the Soviet Union signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in 1987, eliminating all nuclear and ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with intermediate ranges. This is now regarded as an initial indication that the Cold War was coming to an end.

Soviet influence on the peace movement [wikipedia.org]

Russian GRU defector Stanislav Lunev said in his autobiography that "the GRU and the KGB helped to fund just about every antiwar movement and organization in America and abroad," and that during the Vietnam War the USSR gave $1 billion to American anti-war movements, more than it gave to the VietCong.[19] Lunev described this as a "hugely successful campaign and well worth the cost".[19] According to Time magazine, a US State Department official estimated that the KGB may have spent $600 million on the peace offensive up to 1983, channeling funds through national Communist parties or the World Peace Council "to a host of new antiwar organizations that would, in many cases, reject the financial help if they knew the source."[13] Richard Felix Staar in his book Foreign Policies of the Soviet Union says that non-communist peace movements without overt ties to the USSR were "virtually controlled" by it. Lord Chalfont claimed that the Soviet Union was giving the European peace movement £100 million a year. The Federation of Conservative Students (FCS) alleged Soviet funding of CND.

Re:confusion? (4, Insightful)

AHuxley (892839) | about 4 months ago | (#45826783)

Protesting on public land outside a fence is very legal freedom of expression Cold. To "interfere" you have to move beyond the fence.

Re:confusion? (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 4 months ago | (#45826821)

Protesters have moved beyond the fence on more than one occasion at various bases.

Re:confusion? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 4 months ago | (#45826857)

The new laws are for areas outside the bases cold. The laws covering UK and US/UK joint bases/sites are well established.

Re:confusion? (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 4 months ago | (#45826915)

Were. They seem to be changing. ;)

Re:confusion? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 4 months ago | (#45826961)

Yes much fun will result: good antiwar publicity, law reform and public test cases, more protests to test legality of the laws and amazing HD video footage of police trying to enforce 'laws' on one person in public. More fun occurs if police arrest a lawyer, member of the press, a politician or wealthy protester who can afford a good legal team :)

Re:confusion? (2)

fatphil (181876) | about 4 months ago | (#45826875)

I doubt it, it's probably blocking a public thoroughfare, and quite likely a breach of the peace. "Public" doesn't mean "anyone can do anything here".

However, it's time for someone to resurrect Mark Thomas. The kinds of stunts he used to pull were always fun. (This included deliberately dressing up and loitering suspiciously (including obligatory newspapers with cut-out slivers to peek through), but always hanging around on groups of only 3, no more.)

Re:confusion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45827203)

However, it's time for someone to resurrect Mark Thomas.

I didn't know he had died.

cold_fjord (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45827181)

Ahh... cold_fjord gives me again the warm fuzzies. Why, after skimming

> It may be a shock to some that the purpose of military bases are not simply to provide optics for protesters. They have an actual function [...]

I says to me: "gee, that *must* be cold_fjord. And cold_fjord it was!

Well, cold_fjord: it may be a shock to you that some actually disagree with some of the purposes in said military bases. And that they have, in a Fucking Democracy the Fucking Right to express their disapproval. Even with (gasp!) public protests.

Get used to that -- or choose another living place where those protests are more restricted. North Korea, perchance?

Slashdot's captcha, as always, creepily sentient: "munition". Gaah.

Re:confusion? (1)

dunkelfalke (91624) | about 4 months ago | (#45827213)

Ah, spreading your bullshit again.

You conviniently left out the fact that USSR had officially pledged "no first use" of nuclear weaponry, while NATO in fact still insists on a preemptive first strike option.

Re:confusion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45826499)

officer: i saw your dog shit on that lawn
scrote: fuck you
officer: right sonny, just you wait here while i get a warrant so i can make you stay here,
hey come back, i haven't got the warrant yet!... And now I have dog shit on my boots.

It's a problem alright.

Re:confusion? (1)

Titus Groan (2834723) | about 4 months ago | (#45826769)

actually, the police have a warrant that permits them to arrest for arrestable offences. the police seldom don't know what is and isn't an arrestable offence though as I can attest. I was once "arrested" until I explained to the officer that my "crime" wasn't actually an arrestable offence and they could only arrest me during the commision of the crime or if it was likely to recur (which it wasn't), so they would need a proper warrant to arrest me. the matter was dropped.

Re:confusion? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 4 months ago | (#45826833)

Yes Titus thats the fun part thats going to be raised by the random nature of laws like this without the legal equality a fence provides.
In front of the fence you have the full protection UK law and can hold up a sign, walk or have a peace badge on a and conduct an interview without fear of police arrest.
To be randomly chosen for much stricter enforcement will provide interesting UK/EU test cases.

Re:confusion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45827521)

To be randomly chosen for much stricter enforcement will provide interesting UK/EU test cases.

As if this sort of targeting is anything new in the UK, though I'd question the 'randomly chosen' bit.

In the 80's, I used to take photos for a small aviation magazine. Now, I have long hair (though less up front, nowadays), a beard and used to wear the de rigueur green army jacket, and I spent a hell of a lot of time lurking around the perimeters of RAF bases and not once was I ever stopped or questioned by any of the RAF, MOD or any other plods.
Admittedly, I knew that there was a certain part of England where my presence within several miles of a non-existent airfield would have me 'disappeared' for a while (and my camera equipment confiscated). I always assumed that I'd been 'clocked' and found to be 'mostly harmless'.

Re:confusion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45827191)

Bullshit. Breach of the peace or behaviour likely to provoke one. That covers anything.

Re:confusion? (1)

mrbester (200927) | about 4 months ago | (#45827287)

Was that a while ago? I only ask as *all* offences are arrestable nowadays.

Re:confusion? (1)

Titus Groan (2834723) | about 4 months ago | (#45827561)

breach of the peace is *NOT* and never has been an arrestable offence if it is neither on going or likely to recur. So you can stop yourself from being arrested if you shut up when the police arrive ;-)

Re:confusion? (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 4 months ago | (#45827025)

I suspect this is needed to allow the military to detain suspected offenders. Often there's a jurisdictional issue here. You don't want to give the civilian police unrestricted access to a secure military facility, and a soldier is quite capable of restraining and bringing in a trespasser.

Re:confusion? (2)

C0R1D4N (970153) | about 4 months ago | (#45827311)

I think this is a great opportunity for some civil disobedience. All you brits should gather your dogs and head to the controlled zone.

Criteria too complicated (3, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 4 months ago | (#45826313)

Just post a sign that says "No Trespassing" and be done with it.

Re:Criteria too complicated (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45826371)

Complicated laws mean more criminals, if that's the kind of thing you want.

Re:Criteria too complicated (5, Interesting)

fyngyrz (762201) | about 4 months ago | (#45826511)

The US has about 5% of the world's population. We also have about 25% of the world's prisoners. [wikipedia.org]

Land of the incarcerated, home of the feeble. Britain is our staunchest ally. Perhaps they're looking to us for incarceration performance, eh?

Re:Criteria too complicated (2)

cold fjord (826450) | about 4 months ago | (#45826763)

Well, that's a statistic you "never" see flogged on Slashdot.

One notable difference between the US and some of the disreputable states used for comparison (Soviet Union, Communist China) is the differing nature of the offenses. People held in American prisons are there for recognizable criminal offenses, not political offenses. You may find it disagreeable that low level drug use in the US is criminalized, but that is certainly a different question than throwing someone into the gulag for making a fat joke about the president, which is something that doesn't happen in the US.

Re:Criteria too complicated (3, Insightful)

mha (1305) | about 4 months ago | (#45827037)

Do you have any numbers about "political" prisoners? It doesn't sounds like you actually *know* anything, except for some media headlines? Knowing Russia just a little (yes I also speak some Russian and have been there a few times, and in the Ukraine) I doubt there's any significant political movement behind bars. You have a WISISTI (What I See Is What There Is) perception - of course your news media don't report on "normal" cases in Russian, all they ever do (understandable and that's okay) is report a few very high profile (well, only that reporting makes them so) cases. Pussy? Khodorkovsky? Anyone else? Not to mention that Khodorkovsky never deserved all that attention.

And don't think I want to defend Russia, it's a cold, hard country (in so more than just nature), but come up with intelligent criticism and not just some random opinion based on very little, no, more like no knowledge except a small number of headlines. Because it is such a f...-up tough country with severe poverty you can expect there to be crime, quite a bit of crime, with all those I-have-nothing-to-loose people. Better criticism would be the wealth distribution that contributes to crime. There isn't a big political movement to imprison ASAIK.

Re:Criteria too complicated (1)

ElementOfDestruction (2024308) | about 4 months ago | (#45827549)

People who have actually been to Ukraine don't call it the Ukraine...

Re:Criteria too complicated (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45827601)

People who have actually been to Ukraine don't call it the Ukraine...

Ah, but most of the audience here knows where he is talking about, and that's the point.

I still know people who don't know Beijing is Peking, or that Bombay doesn't exist anymore (where the feck is Mumbai?)

Re:Criteria too complicated (3, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | about 4 months ago | (#45827509)

People held in American prisons are there for recognizable criminal offenses, not political offenses.

"Criminal" offenses like smoking a joint. Most US prisoners are there for drugs. I'd call a drug arrest political.

Re:Criteria too complicated (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45826785)

Some would argue those imprisoned, deserve to be imprisoned. The US system is the envy of many.

And no, I'm not american.

Re:Criteria too complicated (3, Insightful)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about 4 months ago | (#45826925)

Well that would seem to imply that the US must be one of the safest places in the world with such a tight grip on crime.

Or USians are the most criminal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45827269)

I guess that interpretation is not going to sit well with merkins like cold fjord et al, though.

Re:Criteria too complicated (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45827115)

Yeah, I'm sure many right wing leaders get a half stiffy thinking about how many blacks are in american jails..

Re:Criteria too complicated (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45827603)

And some would argue that punishment shouldn't be about what people "deserve", it should be about what's in the best interests of society. People say they want the legal system to provide justice, but what they really want is vengeance. Mostly vengeance against people they don't know and will never meet.

Re:Criteria too complicated (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 4 months ago | (#45827121)

While it's a pretty damning statistic in comparison to other first-world countries, it's worth remembering that a lot of other countries have lower incarceration rates because they flog or execute people for more minor crimes.

Whilst you have the death penalty. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45827277)

So you're already executing people like these other "bad countries" so that one doesn't wash, dear.

I don't think you can call out "they flog people" either, since you still have a 5x the average incarceration rate and these other unnamed and numberless countries' stats aren't showing 5x the number of floggings as detentions, are they?

Re:Criteria too complicated (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 4 months ago | (#45826531)

Yes that will allow what was police ~Forward Intelligence Teams (FITs) to seek out the most photogenic, charismatic, succinct protesters and remove them legally before the media can get close to a protest.
No more standing at the fence during a long interview. Could the final UK vision be UK an East German style restricted zone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_German_border#1952.E2.80.9367:_the_.22Special_Regime.22 [wikipedia.org] with special permit for locals to live or work inside?

Re:Criteria too complicated (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 4 months ago | (#45826771)

I suppose we'll have to see what direction the UK goes. Certainly the destiny of the UK has been altered by design [telegraph.co.uk]. The "wisdom" of that has yet to be shown.

Re:Criteria too complicated (2)

whoever57 (658626) | about 4 months ago | (#45826631)

Just post a sign that says "No Trespassing" and be done with it.

Trespass is not genrally a criminal offense in the UK. I believe that there is an offense of "mass trespass" and there are bylaws that may make trespass a criminal offense in specific places (for example, military bases and railway lines).

Or perhaps I just heard a "whooshing" sound?

MindFuck - They'll do it, believe me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45826379)

there will be no revolt
there will be no resistance
they are moving us to a future where
implanted chips will be the norm
they will read and record our thoughts
and perhaps they will physically move us, too
and since they're working on removing memories
we won't remember what happened when they 'moved' us.

even the bible says there will come a time when people
will seek death but won't be able to find it ...
because THEY won't let you.

It's all downhill, folks, they want your brain
without enlisting in any force
and they will take us by force
yesterday the chip in the head people were crazies
now we have the reality, they just have to introduce it

they will seduce us into this electronic tattoo, pill swallow and monitor health, implantable chip and even stronger, more hideous technology in the name of many things, safety, health, entertainment, g00g1e gl4ss is the beginning. Soon they will say, "WHY AREN'T YOU WEARING ONE?" and you'll be forced to wear one like good old Wesley Crusher was.

freedom - it was good while it lasted.

UK introduces warrant less detention? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45826395)

Sorry no the police do not need a warrant to detain you in the uk.

They need a warrant to kick your door down ( subject to caveats about imminent danger etc when they don't).

He'll they don't even require a warrant to search your person or your car.

So title is a complete misnomer.

Re:UK introduces warrant less detention? (2)

AHuxley (892839) | about 4 months ago | (#45826659)

You are identified and the police remove you from the site.
For how long can they remove you and where to? 10 mins? 10 h? 1 day? A few days over a protest?
You are placed in police van and removed to a police station...
You will be entered into a computer as having arrived, who arrested you and the nice legal part: 'why'.
What will you be held under? A wait for an interview over 1h~10h-24h+++ just to keep you away?
You ask for your lawyer, the interview starts and then what?
Only "you" get charged with many others walking around the area freely all been recored in HD?
Sooner or later you, your lawyer and the correct police paperwork has to go before an open court or you are free re join the protest :)
If not your unique been held under some "controlled area" case moves up the UK and EU legal system.

The new layout... WHAT THE FUCK?! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45826439)

:(

Re:The new layout... WHAT THE FUCK?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45827005)

I have managed to "force" the classic slashdot page view by using this methodology:

-- I'm on Windows XP I hate hate hate hate hate Vista, 7, 8, et al -- A Linux flavor which looks like Windows XP classic view WILL BE MY NEXT OS
-- HOSTS file 0.0.0.0 beta.slashdot.org
-- Firefox 3.6.28 I hate hate hate hate hate all other versions -- Not much of a fan of PaleMoon either; still too "modern" for my liking.
-- Firefox Addon: Request Policy disallow all requests except for "fsdn.com"
-- Firefox Addon: Redirector Include pattern=[http://beta.slashdot.org/], Redirect to=[http://slashdot.org/]
-- Firefox Addon: SelectiveCookieDelete Slashdot cookie is deleted on every Firefox reboot

Try opening the web address "http://slashdot.org" in Firefox; the classic Slashot page should load.
Occasionally, you will get a looping effect where the page never loads (look at the address in the status bar) slashdot server scripts are trying to redirect you to the beta site but fail !! . . . . . restart Firefox; your cookie will be auto-deleted and the other FF addons and hosts file will take control back again.

Re:The new layout... WHAT THE FUCK?! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45827487)

I got the beta version a while back. Was rather annoyed, as it is awful.
Even entering the non-beta address "slashdot.org" was taking me to the beta.

I just deleted cookies (Firefox) and went to slashdot.org and have been back on the normal version of the site for about a week now.

Should last until they decide to ruin the site for good, at which point I will find another place to waste my time. Maybe in the real world.

BEAM IT IN MY ASS, SCOTTY! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45826605)

B===D l@@k at my monster truck, all tricked out with, vote for A or B and that gets me -- off like nothing other.

i watch tv and the right says boo! to the left and vice versa it's all for show.

humans weeping as the robots rise to consume us.

1984 post-redux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45826621)

George Orwell would have been just so proud (sic) of his nation's efforts to make his nightmare a reality! ;-(

Re:1984 post-redux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45826713)

Come on people now, smile on Big Brother, everybody get together and try to love one another, right now.

Warrantless detention (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45827039)

So the UK has introduced what has existed in every place on the earth since the invention of the legal system?

It's all just a little bit of history repeating (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45827503)

In the past warrantless detention lead to emigration to the new world

So the question is: where is the new world of today? Space, maybe? Underwater? In the sky?

Think about what this actually means. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45827515)

Police have the powers to arrest for any offence. Although legally symbolic - i.e. the police don't legally need to be carrying one to carry out their duties - force procedure represents this power by constables in the UK being required to carry and show their warrant card.

The meaning here of creating "warrantless offences" is that people without a warrant card, i.e. SOLDIERS, are given the power to arrest CIVILIANS on public land close to a military base.

Is that clear enough for you? A soldier bored with watching you protest can just put you in a headlock and call the police.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...