That's the wrong conclusion. There's something else about those places that causes low crime and consequently low incarceration. It might well be a more robust approach to law enforcement, or something different about the culture which discourages crime.

For instance, the UK prison population was pretty low until the latter half of the 20th century. This is because there wasn't much crime. That was because the culture was very different and the approach to policing was also very different.

Is that really what you meant? Cultural background? We already have a parliament, indeed a Cabinet, like that. I wonder how much more diverse, and in what way, it would need to be in order to meet with your approval. Are we talking quotas here?

But of course, no matter how culturally diverse the MPs may be, there still has to be a single culture of government and establishment. Otherwise power could not be exercised, and a government that cannot use power is no government at all.

What government would not involve the power dominance of a single culture?

There's a correlation between high crime rates and high incarceration rates? Well, in that case, it's obvious that prison causes crime. There is no other possible explanation.

I don't think I'd hold up any modern Western nation as an example of how to achieve a low-crime society, since they all have the same laissez-faire approach.

Are you really telling us that a rioter, smashing up a shop, is completely indistinguishable from the shop's owner?

Or, worse, are you telling us that such a distinction can be made, but should not be, lest someone be discriminated against?

The fact is that you can make a distinction between deserving and undeserving, it isn't even difficult, and doing so is absolutely necessary for law enforcement. By refusing to admit that such a distinction may be worthwhile, you betray your responsibility to side with the civilised working class against the yobbos and the scum. It is our duty to discriminate in favour of the civilised. And if you don't want that duty, maybe you don't deserve civilisation. Somalia's just over there.

It cannot have escaped the attention of Britain's criminal underclass that our government has a policy of trying to avoid sending anyone to prison if at all possible. Those who do go to prison serve pathetically small sentences. And our "conservative" Justice Minister is intent on further cuts to sentences and greater use of "community punishments", known amongst criminals as "a joke" or a "walkout".

"we have not moved on from the power dominance of a single culture in Britain."

Well, obviously. It's called government. Now, just what would you suggest we replace it with?

You can wish for situations like this to be resolved without violence, but your wish won't be granted. Would you prefer to have the small chance that some innocent person will be wrongly attacked by the police? Or the very real certainty that innocent people will be attacked in their homes and businesses by rioters and looters? That fireman and ambulances will be attacked? That people will be robbed and assaulted in the streets by thugs?

That is the reality here. You either trust the police, or you let the gangs run amok.

But the traditional approach is not being tried. As I explained.

Of course there is fuel. That's your civilisation they're burning.

I really have to challenge you on this point.

If nothing else, conservative government is surely characterised by its approach to law and order.

And yet, right now, we see a huge amount of both crime and disorder which the authorities appear to be unable to control. This suggests that they may not actually be conservative at all

This becomes even clearer if we look deeper, because when we ask why the police are not engaging the rioters, we find that they are afraid to do so, knowing that if someone is hurt, they will be blamed for it and hung out to dry by their superiors. They seek a guarantee from the top that officers will not be blamed if someone is injured. Example.

It seems to me that if the government is truly conservative, then it would provide that guarantee in a heartbeat. But perhaps you can provide some other explanation as to why it has not and will not.

By the way, you are right when you say that these people have not been governed well. You are simply mistaken about the way in which they have been misgoverned.

Pure nonsense? Really, you embarrass yourself.

There isn't the slightest chance that smoking something might increase your risk of cancer? Welcome to the 1950s. Would you like a job at Marlboro? I hear they're looking for doctors like you, to reassure the public about all this "smoking causes cancer" nonsense that so-called "scientists" have been spreading around.

But actually cancer is probably the least of your worries if you are regularly smoking weed. Here is some medical evidence that you do not want to see.

In that particular conflict, neither side was especially likable. Both revolutionary and radical, not particularly civilised, and both with their own "Anonymous" army.

The best approach would have been to avoid involvement if at all possible. And if that was not possible (for example, if I were Spanish and living in a conflict zone) then my "side" would have been chosen for me.

Anonymous are worse than the WBC.

On the one hand we have this fairly hateful little cult that goes around upsetting people, apparently for religious reasons. On the other hand, we have another hateful little cult which also goes around upsetting people, apparently for fun. Sorry, "lulz".

The difference? We know who WBC are. We know where they are and who their leader is. This makes them better than Anonymous, because they operate in the open. If the WBC commits a crime, then they can (and will) be arrested. And if you have a reason to sue the WBC, then you can.

Hell, even the Church of Scientology is better than Anonymous. Same reasons. CoS may be a creepy cult, but again, it's all out in the open. The key thing is that CoS and WBC can be forced to take responsibility for bad things they might do. It is the same for all normal, civilised people.

With Anonymous, there's nothing to applaud. They are not activists or protesters, any more than the KKK were. They are bullies, operating under the cover of anonymity which frees them from responsibility for their actions. They are an exclusively destructive force: there is no positive achievement of Anonymous.

Anyone siding with them here should carefully consider their position. Association with Anonymous, even defending them here, will turn out to be to their disadvantage in the future. The organisation will not only be thoroughly discredited, but also shown to be thoroughly evil in nature: capable only of destruction. The mass media will not need to invent anything to do this, just as it was not necessary to invent anything about Nazism to discredit the Nazis. Pure presentation of the facts will be enough. Everyone would be well advised to have nothing whatsoever to do with Anonymous, because such involvement will certainly be regretted in the future.