4 ms·

This comment is just the silly kind of bile that gets spewed on Fox News to convince Americans that countries like the UK and Canada as Dystopian Hellscapes. If

by bb123 7y ago

This comment is just the silly kind of bile that gets spewed on Fox News to convince Americans that countries like the UK and Canada as Dystopian Hellscapes. If you had any cultural context around the history of violent football hooliganism in the UK you might understand why those measures were considered necessary and a re supported by a large part of the public. Also there have been very significant anti-brexit, anti-austerity and anti-trump protests in recent years so I'm really sure what you're talking about there. I can only only assume this is some sort of hand wave to the idea that people in the UK aren't able to protest or express themselves like they are in The Land of The Free (TM).

pjc50 7y ago
I'm aware of the violent hooliganism, and they probably deserve to be on the blunt end of some illiberal treatment. That doesn't change the fact that it is illiberal, and involves all sorts of "pre-crime" measures justified by the argument that someone might commit a crime, rather than being imposed as penalties for a crime actually committed. Really that's the core liberal/conservative policing distinction: the conservative argument is that some people are really bad and that justifies measures taken against them, and the liberal argument is that actions of the police should be judged as acceptable or unacceptable regardless of who those actions are against. Protest has also changed from the anti-"G8" anti-globalisation days. > anti-brexit, anti-austerity and anti-trump protests All those things appear to still be happening despite the protests. I should have said "effective".
- mattmanser 7y ago
  The anti-war demonstrations in the UK were the biggest ever seen, and yet we went into Iraq. What protests are ever "effective"? They're a warning to those in power more than anything else. Usually the repercussions for politicians are felt years afterwards, for example Labour losing elections and Tony Blair being unable to participate effectively in UK politics any more.
- bb123 7y ago
  Again, not true. It was nothing to do with "pre-crimes". The people who were banned from travelling to Russia had previously been convicted of football violence related crimes. Also regarding the protests - it really depends on your definition of effective. I don't think anyone thought they were going to topple the Trump presidency by protesting when he visited. They were just expressing that they believed he was not welcome here. And given the media coverage and the comments from the man himself I'd say they were quite effective.
close04 7y ago
> If you had any cultural context around the history of violent football hooliganism in the UK If this was a good justification for this kind of measure (abuse) can you imagine what Germany should do given their history? Yet they'd rather go for less divisive solutions. What if there are better ways to prevent repeating the mistakes of the past that don't involve making even bigger mistakes? But those ways give more power to all people instead of just some people so I can understand why mass surveillance was the go to instead. > those measures were considered necessary and a re supported by a large part of the public All slippery slopes start somewhere high and this is all people are shown at first. But it's the bottom you should worry about instead.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Except there's a core of truth in what they say, though I might differ on the point about protests. Football hooliganism was well on the way to being solved by the early 90s. The international ban ended in 1990. It was the seventies and eighties that most would have been hesitant to take the kids along to a match, and the big clubs had scary reputations. Most of the measures since have not been necessary, and most of the fixing of the problem wasn't down to cameras. Police tactics, ground changes, putting responsibility more on to the clubs, and a good degree of managing the groups of supporters. Companies would once finish early if there was a Wednesday match and their office was even vaguely on a route to the ground. By the nineties and noughties, normality was far more expected. Far more has been for security theatre and red top media campaigns that the "government must DO something!!!!". So government does do something. Like rings of steel around London. Tanks at airports (huh?) and all the rest. Despite this a man in a van can still perform a terrorist outrage on a bridge, or take a bomb to a teen pop concert. We're far more likely to hear some days after that some perpetrator was known to police or security services, than all the security theatre prevented some atrocity, or the perpetrator was arrested en route.
- bengillies 7y ago
  > Football hooliganism was well on the way to being solved by the early 90s I'm not old enough to remember football hooliganism in the 80s and before, but abroad at least, it was very far from solved by the 90s - which is why passports are taken away. > than all the security theatre prevented some atrocity Without commenting on how effective any of this is, you won't hear about prevention because it isn't news.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    It was probably an order or two of magnitude worse in the seventies and eighties, and somewhat tied in with deprivation and NF racism of those decades. Dutch and British supporters were notorious for it. My father and uncles wouldn't take me to matches as a young 'un. Had they been interested and old enough, I'd have pretty comfortable taking my kids in the nineties. By the nineties there was just a dwindling hard core minority of hooligans, that were starting to become removed from the clubs. Same for the international element, it had become some thugs being thugs, and mostly separated from grounds, matches and the general support. They tagged along with the footie event, for a good punch up in a city bar or city square. From a point of view of "everyone well behaved" it remained a problem. From a point of view of hundreds or thousands of opposing supporters kicking off, it was mostly solved. Prevention isn't news, but arresting someone preparing a bomb, or caught on a bus with a machete on their way to wherever is. Yet for all the additional surveillance...
cjrp 7y ago
> If you had any cultural context around the history of violent football hooliganism in the UK you might understand why those measures were considered necessary See also, The Troubles

by bb123 7y ago

pjc50 7y ago

I'm aware of the violent hooliganism, and they probably deserve to be on the blunt end of some illiberal treatment. That doesn't change the fact that it is illiberal, and involves all sorts of "pre-crime" measures justified by the argument that someone might commit a crime, rather than being imposed as penalties for a crime actually committed. Really that's the core liberal/conservative policing distinction: the conservative argument is that some people are really bad and that justifies measures taken against them, and the liberal argument is that actions of the police should be judged as acceptable or unacceptable regardless of who those actions are against. Protest has also changed from the anti-"G8" anti-globalisation days. > anti-brexit, anti-austerity and anti-trump protests All those things appear to still be happening despite the protests. I should have said "effective".

mattmanser 7y ago
The anti-war demonstrations in the UK were the biggest ever seen, and yet we went into Iraq. What protests are ever "effective"? They're a warning to those in power more than anything else. Usually the repercussions for politicians are felt years afterwards, for example Labour losing elections and Tony Blair being unable to participate effectively in UK politics any more.
bb123 7y ago
Again, not true. It was nothing to do with "pre-crimes". The people who were banned from travelling to Russia had previously been convicted of football violence related crimes. Also regarding the protests - it really depends on your definition of effective. I don't think anyone thought they were going to topple the Trump presidency by protesting when he visited. They were just expressing that they believed he was not welcome here. And given the media coverage and the comments from the man himself I'd say they were quite effective.

close04 7y ago

> If you had any cultural context around the history of violent football hooliganism in the UK If this was a good justification for this kind of measure (abuse) can you imagine what Germany should do given their history? Yet they'd rather go for less divisive solutions. What if there are better ways to prevent repeating the mistakes of the past that don't involve making even bigger mistakes? But those ways give more power to all people instead of just some people so I can understand why mass surveillance was the go to instead. > those measures were considered necessary and a re supported by a large part of the public All slippery slopes start somewhere high and this is all people are shown at first. But it's the bottom you should worry about instead.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

Except there's a core of truth in what they say, though I might differ on the point about protests. Football hooliganism was well on the way to being solved by the early 90s. The international ban ended in 1990. It was the seventies and eighties that most would have been hesitant to take the kids along to a match, and the big clubs had scary reputations. Most of the measures since have not been necessary, and most of the fixing of the problem wasn't down to cameras. Police tactics, ground changes, putting responsibility more on to the clubs, and a good degree of managing the groups of supporters. Companies would once finish early if there was a Wednesday match and their office was even vaguely on a route to the ground. By the nineties and noughties, normality was far more expected. Far more has been for security theatre and red top media campaigns that the "government must DO something!!!!". So government does do something. Like rings of steel around London. Tanks at airports (huh?) and all the rest. Despite this a man in a van can still perform a terrorist outrage on a bridge, or take a bomb to a teen pop concert. We're far more likely to hear some days after that some perpetrator was known to police or security services, than all the security theatre prevented some atrocity, or the perpetrator was arrested en route.

bengillies 7y ago
> Football hooliganism was well on the way to being solved by the early 90s I'm not old enough to remember football hooliganism in the 80s and before, but abroad at least, it was very far from solved by the 90s - which is why passports are taken away. > than all the security theatre prevented some atrocity Without commenting on how effective any of this is, you won't hear about prevention because it isn't news.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  It was probably an order or two of magnitude worse in the seventies and eighties, and somewhat tied in with deprivation and NF racism of those decades. Dutch and British supporters were notorious for it. My father and uncles wouldn't take me to matches as a young 'un. Had they been interested and old enough, I'd have pretty comfortable taking my kids in the nineties. By the nineties there was just a dwindling hard core minority of hooligans, that were starting to become removed from the clubs. Same for the international element, it had become some thugs being thugs, and mostly separated from grounds, matches and the general support. They tagged along with the footie event, for a good punch up in a city bar or city square. From a point of view of "everyone well behaved" it remained a problem. From a point of view of hundreds or thousands of opposing supporters kicking off, it was mostly solved. Prevention isn't news, but arresting someone preparing a bomb, or caught on a bus with a machete on their way to wherever is. Yet for all the additional surveillance...

cjrp 7y ago

> If you had any cultural context around the history of violent football hooliganism in the UK you might understand why those measures were considered necessary See also, The Troubles