- 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.

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.

I do not want to believe in conspiracy theories but seriously does it take 3 days to decide using baton round/rubber bullets.

I fail to understand how social media monitoring will prevent riots next time if Police chooses to be an spectator.

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."

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...

There were also accusations that Libya shut off the internet to mask actions of their armed forces against the protestors. Once again, seems like a different beast.

It's a tough question, I know I don't know the answer.

In Libya, they also had rioters and mobs, and in the UK, they also have protestors.

In contrast, the UK rioters that spawned out of the initial protest was nothing more than an assortment of various criminal groups that used a political excuse to attack and rob ordinary citizens.

That's a resource distribution issue intimately related to the economy. If that isn't politics, nothing is. Almost all riots are related to resource distribution issues, especially when an impoverished underclass engages in looting.

Are you really claiming these riots aren't linked to the massive cuts to public services that happened during the last year?

My favorite new politically correct euphemism for the motivation for theft.

Are you really claiming these riots aren't linked to the massive cuts to public services that happened during the last year?

No. But it seems like a leap of reasoning. Was Anders Brevik's rampage "linked" to an influx of immigrants into Norway? Again, a bit of a leap. In both cases I'd be more inclined to believe that the people involved lack sufficient mental health.

But sure, perhaps the daughters of millionaires, school staff, graphic designers, Olympic ambassadors, and law students who have faced the courts already are suffering at the hands of cuts. That's for the sociologists and rehabilitation officers to figure out in the months to come.

If mental health services were provided to the lower classes AT ALL we would not have these issues.

As it is the majority of the underclass suffers from multiple mental disorders and they cannot get treatment. Mental health treatment is very expensive and is not covered by the government.

For people suffering from actual mental health problems I don't see why they can't get treatment from the NHS like everyone else - ability to pay not being a factor.

However, if by "mental health" you mean the feeling that people "deserve" new trainers/DVD player/etc. without doing anything to earn them I don't see why that is anything to do with the government.

Are you really claiming this?

Phones are not equivalent to:

- medical care

- education

- housing

- sufficient wealth to have children

- healthy food

- self-respect

Public health care. Free state education (which is generally of a good standard, but a waste if you are not self-motivated). Council-provided housing, though supply is short due to failing to replenish the housing stock since right to buy in the 80s. A fairly comprehensive benefit system which scales with number of children. Healthy food is cheaper than junk.

The last one (self-respect) is mostly what determines whether you decide to take advantage of all the UK welfare state offers. Poor money management and general ignorance are the main reasons for the poor having big TV's, satellite service and gadgets, yet failing to pay their bills and their friends. Or getting into crippling credit card debt.

So really if you want to be accurate, its the rich doing their best to keep the poor stupid so they may keep the stupid poor. Sure, there are some really dumb things with welfare in e.g. the hoops you jump through to receive jobseekers allowance but its not as if the opportunities aren't there...

Edit: I see you were talking about mental medical care, which again is provisioned under the NHS. I personally know of NHS services in East London for this, some of which started due to this initiative: http://www.iapt.nhs.uk/ All free. That doesn't dispel stigmas attached to it, or course, but that's irrelevant to your assertion that such services don't exist.

Since when does (relative) lack of wealth in the UK stop people having kids?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/08/11/london-r...

Especially considering as a rioter the police are the guys who want to stop you from rioting & looting, when you want to continue with the rioting & looting.

I believe the police will have to do some soul searching here too.

In particular, the killing of the Jean Charles Menezes, and the way some members of the police force managed to get off scot free with the death of Ian Tomlinson means that the "me first" culture must stop with the police force as well.

There are rotten eggs in all sections of the society, and the arrest of people with stable jobs amongst the rioters proves this.

Of course this doesn't justify the rioting and looting which we have seen in London. Most of which smacks of opportunistic hooliganism.

However, I subscribe to the tenet that good example must come from the top, and it is this type of good example that has been found wanting leading up to the riots.

More often than not, any laws that are put into place involve the acquisition of new technology that can be appropriated by those in power to censor more forms of 'illegal' communication, further down the line.

It's a slippery slope, potentially leading to a repression of the population and almost absolute state control.