this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2026
866 points (99.1% liked)
Technology
89409 readers
4286 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
False accusation isn't a crime over there?
What a shitty place!
False accusation is one of the more difficult things to write laws for, because it's very difficult to prove. IE the problem is defining honest reasonable suspicions from blatent attacks... and differentiating cannot prove it from proven innocent. Perhaps in shoplifting I don't care, but in other aspects of life, say rape or violence that I actually do care about. We don't want someone to not report serious crimes because if they can't prove beyond reasonable doubt the person is guilty, they open themselves up to the law swinging the other way. So it can't directly be provably guilty that makes the line, which then goes to intent. Is the accuser making a reasonable claim that merits opening an investigation, or maliciously getting it wrong on purpose, which is almost impossible to prove one way or the other beyond them being dumb enough to brag about it on social media.
In case of shoplifting is extremely easy: you accuse me of stealing an item, you check me and I have not the item, you accused me falsely, I can sue if I want (but more probablu I will just stop to shop at your place) and you handle the accusation badly.
Not rocket science.
No, but if a private corporation accuses me of shoplifting, bisrmirching my good name, you better believe I'm going to sue for libel.
You're thinking of libel. Liable means legally responsible. If you win your libel case, the defendant will be liable for the damages.
https://static.klipy.com/ii/a15b48460c436e1e92c85ffc680932cc/5d/20/moIAGYC8.gif
Sorry to do this to you twice, but you can embed the gif directly in the comments using markdown like this: 
Which then renders like this
Good to know, always wondered how people did it. I'll never remember, but thanks 😂
I bet you are forbidden from doing so. Because fuck you (and me, and us all,) that's why. They have nothing but contempt for working people in politics and corporate american leadership. And the courts, and lawyers, to say nothing of all the prosecuting attorneys, that wouldn't piss on one of us if we were on fire.
Nah, we still have some rights in the UK.
No face sitting porn though, RIP
Says the guy that doesn't get a jury trial anymore if facing a year in prison, and soon 3 years, decided by a magistrate? That just made a masterbaitorbase to record every web page you ever considered whacking off to? That instituted age control and is now recording every single thing you have said or done?
You guys are worse off than here in the US, bro. You just have a mealy mouthed controlled opposition in power rather than a blowhard troll king so you must not notice it.
But no, by the way, on the cameras, what I said is correct, the entire city of london has been covered by cctv cameras for over 20 years. The entire thing, and it's getting worse you can be sure. That was in the NYTimes, back before I left them over Israel.
Jury changes scrapped
https://www.barcouncil.org.uk/resource/justice-prevails-bar-council-hails-government-decision-to-scrap-jury-trial-plans.html
Internet access changes deserve all the scorn you can throw at it but it's not how you're representing it - it's supposedly forced proof of ID - the current implementation is utterly failing though as the govt has admitted (and I can assure you I have not given my ID to anyone yet)
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/oct/23/uk-children-just-as-likely-to-have-suffered-harm-on-social-media-despite-crackdown-ofcom-online-safety-act
Your last point however is correct - London is covered in cameras, the only real difference is unlike the flock and etc shenanigans it is not YET hooked up to AI (edit and face /number plate recognition)- but they most certainly are working on it (edit they trialled facial recognition cameras on the tube and it was an utter failure)
It's not worse than the US, not even close, but it is awful in different ways
The tories scrapped the jury trials for up to one year in prison in 2020, so that part isn't scrapped presumably. The birthplace of modern liberty, cancelling it without a goddamned fight.
Also, they basically cancelled the right to protest, if disfavoured by the politcians. Plus falsley proscribing groups as terrorists based on politicians' say so. Plus a bunch of other stuff.
I appreciate the links, especially about the scrapping of these jury trial changes from 1 year to 3 years in prison soley decided by the UK's famously haughty and aristocratic cuntish old boys club that is it's legal system.
But I must disagree, the UK is further into fascism than the US. You blokes just don't realize it, for aforementioned reasons. Although reasonable people could disagree on a which is worse off.
I think the US will surpass the UK in getting worse in most ways soon-ish, and we already are worse in many ways, healthcare, business running amok, drug prices, less protections and regulations all around to protect us and more faithess enforcements. Still though.
Incorrect.
Jury trials were suspended for 3 months in 2020 due to covid - March through June 2020 and reinstated when safety measures had been put in place.
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/the-jurys-out-covid-19-impact-on-jury-trials/
That is entirely different and separate to the proposal to bin jury trials by Labour several years later which has (fortunately) been canned by Burnham (links in previous reply)
Cancelled the right to protest is also literally incorrect, but accepting that as a rhetorical position I agree that ridiculous and inappropriate restrictions have been placed on protest. Having said that, it's entirely consistent with the last 250 years of the establishment trying to muzzle protest. There has always been a push and pull in this space, I wish the English were more like the French in that regard but the key difference is cultural - the French are taught in school that protest is their human right, the English are (culturally) taught to not complain and soldier on.
No they didn't, I've seen you saying this before and it's still wrong. In 2020 they increased amount of time a magistrate could sentence someone to from 6 months to 1 year, but the accused could still freely choose to have a jury trial.
That's not quite what I read in the guardian and elsewhere, there was stuff about electing for jury trials and denying it in more cases.
That was the (abandoned) legislation from Labour, the previous act under the Tories raised the limit on sentences by magistrates from 6 to 12 months for a year trial and then let it drop back down to 6 months. Then in 2024 it was raised permanently to 12 months by statute as the 2020 law allowed. None of that had any impact on trial by jury.
None of which means I can't sue home bargains in small claims court for libel.
This is actually trivial. Corporations and authorities have massive resources expertise and time. Private individuals have none of these things so you favor the small fry in every interaction.
You only punish false reports by individuals which are obviously proven malicious and knowingly false while you screw companies and authorities to the wall for the slightest lack of due diligence.
Should have known that the person who you put through the wringer was innocent because they live in a different state and only vaguely look like the person in bad cctv but ai told you it was them 5 million from both company and gov and principals on both sides get fired and on the government side bannied from any gov job.
You can trivially treat both classes differently and get the desired result
But you make it unnecessarily difficult by mixing up the definition itself and the questions of proof.
False accusation is a crime. But part of their contracts will absolve them of that liability, and of civil liability if possible, you can be sure. Not that they would enforce it if not.