As a resident of the UK from the very moment of birth right up until the present moment in time I have to take issue with you there.....I really don't think that the British people as a whole are all that civic minded. My step father is a City Councillor back home in Edinburgh and he is often moaning about apathy and lack of concern for local issues generallly among the residents of his particular ward - until issues arise which directly affect them..Aside from that the majority of residents couldn't give a tinker's cuss what happens - again, so long as it doesn't actually impinge on their lives.

Nationwide, taking in the UK as a whole, turnout at local elections is always very low....sometimes as low as 15 to 20% of the electorate, and even in General Elections the average turnout across the board is just around 60% to 65% and in each succeeding General Election the turnout is down a wee bit more. In European elections it is very much lower.

The UK has a massive problem with litter and in spite of there being a profusion of litter bins and waste disposal units at strategic positions all over public areas too many people either do not see them for want of looking, or see them but think they are something other than litter bins, such as convenient places on which to perch themselves while they scoff their takeaways or fish and chips and subsequently decorate the entire surrounds with what remains once the nosh has been consumed....the poly containers and paper wrappings and empty cans of Stella or bottles of Sprite or even voddy. Hardly civic minded - it's all very much related to the attitude displayed by all the scumbags causing all the mayhem in many of England's* urban and metro areas.

*Specifically England. Scotland has not really been affected, and in Wales only a few pissheads/copycat scumbags caused minor problems, in spite of the fact that this city his home to large numbers of immigrants and ethnic people. It's veen very much an English "party cum rampage" on those three nights...and days.

The chickens have now come home to roost good and proper on the streets of urban Britannia......it is now harvest time in Britain.....the seeds sown by Governments (predominantly that from 1997 to 2010 and all of its insane policies and the limitless supply of welfare benefits to the feral and the feckless and the over fecund of both genders plus the craziness of political correctness and the sharp decline of social values, family values, educational standards, basic respect and codes of behaviour) have now all come to fruition in all their savage glory........and the ******* BB(B)C - British (Biased) Broadcasting Corporation - refuses to acknowledge that the present Government is now left to pick up the pieces and to heal the wounds of a chronically sick and expanding section of society in this country.....according to many journalists and current affairs presenters at the bloody Beeb it's all the new Government's fault! :curse:

I agree, previous governments have been way too soft when it comes to dealing with the yobs and they've basically encouraged their behaviour, making excuses for them instead of sorting the problems out. A big part of the reason these idiots went on this rampage seems to be largely because they could - the yobs have been getting away with things for so long that they think they can do whatever they please, and of course the world owes them something (ha!). Unfortunately it seems they were pretty much right, because they were able to continue with their crap for far too long.

Well I'm not sure about figures for either, but those are very good and valid points. You should however note the marked increase of the UK voluntary sector (aka The "Big Society"), as well as the huge amount of charitable donations made in the UK every year.

Modifying the right to remain silent can be seen as a necessary evolution, rather than something revolutionary. It was widely believed that criminals were abusing the right to remain silent both when being questioned by police, and at their subsequent trials. Just because something has been in place "since the early middle ages" does not mean that it remains relevant today. In fact, it is the sign of a mature and democratic society that these things are reviewed and amended as necessary. Contrast that with the USA and it's reliance on a 200-odd year old written "constitution" which, it could be argued, is now outdated and no longer serves the best interests of "the people".

Retention of arrestees DNA by the police was challenged successfully in the ECHR. I think this shows that British people aren't at all flippant about surrending freedoms. They will fight for principles that are deemed to be unfair. In this regard, also note the widespread opposition to ID cards (coupled with a pervasive national database) and the embarrassing backtrack by the last Labour administration.

Security cameras are regulated by law, and they've played their part in the reduction of crime, as well as the speedier identification and apprehension of offenders. In fact, those very same CCTV systems are proving invaluable right now, as the police forces of England struggle to arrest the hundreds of people responsible for the large scale outbreaks of violence we've seen recently. The only people who should be worried about CCTV are wrongdoers.

A thought provoking piece Lothianlad. But apart from telling us what you think is wrong with Britain, oops sorry I mean ENGLAND, how does all of that compare to my earlier point that Britain is a less individualistic society than the USA?

If you ever said that to many if not most British people here in the UK then the most likely response you would get would be something on the lines of: "Well, no of course you never will - the rioters would not actually have the chance to cause a similar amount of damage for the simple reason that in the USA the National Guard would probably be called out and along with the local cops the lead will be flying and in no time at all there would be bodies lying all over the place."

Whether or not that's what really would happen in America I don't know for sure myself but I'd probably think it could well be the case over there, and that's certainly what most British people would say to you. I think they'd prefer to have to clear up smashed up debris rather than dead bodies.

That's not what "they're" saying in TIO.

It's an important safeguard against police and state coercion of suspects, especially during interrogation. For me, that far outweighs the "disbenefit" that you state. And that was what was unfortunate about the debate in parliament on this - too little emphasis on the protections it afforded ordinary citizens and just why it had survived the test of time as part of common law.

In the case of the right to remain silent, I'd say it is still very relevant today.

The US constitution can be amended and has been twenty something different times. It's convoluted process though, and that's the way it should be for amendments to basic rights.

But they did surrender that freedom through parliament. The fact that that was later corrected by the ECHR really doesn't change that: the parliamentary process, which has few checks and balances, allowed something as fundamentally wrong as this to get put into law.

... which isn't very reassuring!

Have they? I've seen studies that suggest they simply move crime to areas less infested with cameras. And as I pointed out, they've led to a distancing between police and the public, with fewer cops out there on a regular beat.

Yes, those cameras will let police catch a small percentage of the rioters, but they most certainly didn't do much to stop the rioting in the first place. Interesting that in parliament today, Cameron (?) said the UK is now going to look at how police in Boston and LA deal with with this kind of trouble, two places that have rather less security cameras than your average small English town.

You forgot to mention the feckless Lib Dems this time. What's up with that?

Perhaps the cops should just shoot yobs when they're in the back of a cab? That'd solve it, surely!

Um, yeah...

Maybe actually having proper punishment fitting the crime would go a long way to preventing this kind of thing. Also not just standing by for 4 days watching while people trash the place and terrorize people.

It doesn't work as a deterrent though, thus needing to find something that will.

Sticking a young yob in prison is just teaching him how to become a career criminal, which is much worse than a softer sentence and community work.

The soft sentence works as a deterrent against most normal folks who would be horrified at the thought, but some folks just aren't wired the same...just like the death penalty fails completely as a deterrent.

We have no further to look than the place we live......to see that clearly doesn't work.

Standing by is a common strategy for authorities in shock. When referring to terrorism, are you talking about the bobbies or the citizenry here?

I'm referring to the lowlifes who went around chasing down ordinary people, beating them up, stealing the clothes off their backs, setting fire to peoples' businesses and homes... and all the rest of it.

Well thank gawd for us highlifes, eh?