In the UK during the blitz looting was not uncommon:
One of the most shocking crimes committed during wartime was the looting from bombed houses. In the first eight weeks of the London Blitz a total of 390 cases of looting was reported to the police. On 9th November, 1940, the first people tried for looting took place at the Old Bailey. Of these twenty cases, ten involved members of the Auxiliary Fire Service.
The Lord Mayor of London suggested that notices should be posted throughout the city, reminding the population that looting was punishable by hanging or shooting. However, the courts continued to treat this crime leniently. When a gang of army deserters were convicted of looting in Kent the judge handed down sentences ranging from five years’ penal servitude to eight years’ hard labour.
I doubt that any of today’s looters will face eight years’ hard labour (most are unacquainted with labour of any sort), although public opinion is certainly becoming opposed to leniency:
– In common with Conservative MEP Roger Helmer, 33 per cent of the public believe the police should be allowed to shoot the rioters with live ammunition.
– 78 per cent support the use of tear gas.
– 72 per cent support the use of tasers.
– 82 per cent want curfews imposed.
– 90 per cent support the use of water cannon.
– 65 per cent support the use of plastic bullets.
The UK government should block the internet for a few days – then the rioters won’t be able to communicate with each other.
That might not be by their own choice. How many of them come from the same sort of place as Ray Smith, I wonder? (Yes throw the book at the rioters – but then find a way to restore hope to the communities they come from)
I have no doubt that many of the looters come from dreadful families. I do have a great deal of doubt that the government is able to fix that.
Kate, would you take issue with this opinion piece? Or this one?
I personally think that “shutting down the Internet”, even for a relatively short period of time, would have a lot of unintended consequences. Kind of like shutting off all phone service would have had three or four decades ago.
In a not completely irrelevent vein, I’ve just come from my monthly visit to our local youth prison; Ray, the Anglican deacon whose testimony I posted earlier, gave it again to the motley, crew assembled before us. Like him, they have been unloved, used, abused and discarded.
Like him – and us – the only way out of their predicament is Jesus, his love and his atoning sacrifice.
Yes Warren, I think both articles exaggerate the case against a temporary shutdown of parts of the internet. There is a world of difference between shutting down Facebook and Twitter for a few hours, and the kind of monitoring of the population and censorship that China and many governments in the Arab world do. The internet is not the only method of communication that we have, (telephone, anyone?)and it is most certainly not a civil right.
Kate, you did say “block the internet”. You are ascribing amazing power to governments in terms of their ability to surgically shut down specific services at will – without affecting the world wide web as a whole. And there is also the question of the need for service providers to comply with government direction and dictates. Militaries are increasinly talking about the “cyber domain” of warfare, and what you have suggested is akin to implementing the war measures act. Enormous sums of money could be lost by interrupting online services (by both providers and users), which then raises the question of whether a democratic government would be immune from lawsuits. These are interesting questions and I certainly don’t claim to have all the answers. If it was straight forward, I suspect the British Government and law enforcement agencies would have acted.
I did, but what I meant was block social networking sites.