Reply #22: Lets try this again

[Spentastic]

Just for clarification, I happen to live happily in the U.K.

"Where's the resistance about the surveillance cameras placed
at every street corner and public gathering spot all in the
name of "curbing crime"?"

Every street corner? Really, every corner? To think, I live here and I failed to spot all those cameras bearing down on my freedom. Perhaps it was the info police and MI5 hassling me all the time that stopped me noticing. What with that and the Queen demanding that I bow and scrape to her all day I hardly ever get to look up anyway. In a recent study at lunchtime I visited at least 10 street corners and none of them appeared to be covered by CCTV. That renders your statement how you say, inaccurate. Some might even say that saying things that are patently untrue makes a person a liar. Not me guv, we're not allowed to utter that word.

As well as being factually challenged on your first point you seem to be unclear as to how camera placing policy is formulated.. Some places with high crime rates are surveilled by CCTV. Guess what? It gives people the freedom to leave their cars without the fear of returning to an empty space. It stops women being attacked it allows the police to turn up before brawls get out of hand. It can prove who was actually committing a crime avoiding the need for mass search and arrest operations. Several CCTV towers contain no cameras. It's that free rider argument that the gun bunnys seem so keen on. If you believe in a nefarious government scheme to track each individual you'd be better off worrying about having a credit card.

"Your citizens have willingly accepted compliance based on the
above reasons. What makes you think a DNA database
would be any different? They already disarmed the public and
they were willing to accept it."

Accept it? Don't be daft man our communities actually demand reasonable measures. It seems that a civilised society realises that there is in fact a balance between personal freedom / privacy and societal good. Just as there are in the U.S. You get caught being a criminal you go to prison. That's a restriction on freedom. However, the U.S happily just incarcerates some of it's own civilians in Gitmo without due process. I suppose that's not a problem?

As for the "subject" jibe. Once again, what exactly is your point, if you have one. I'm no fan of the monarchy but I'll tell you something for free. There is more chance of George Bush restricting your freedoms that there is of the monarch restricting mine.

"England is a country of sheeple willing to accept whatever
the government tells them is in their best interest."

Yeah and blacks are better dancers, women are objects, Americans are fat lazy and stupid and gun owners are murderous psychos. See the problem with your statement?