I think you're deluding yourself if you think that hundreds of people get shot by police in Europe and it's just not reported. That's simply not the case and I defy you to show me any evidence that the press ignore police shootings.

I personally think it's wrong to kill people over mere property and I don't believe that the average person is a good judge of when to use "deadly force". Higher rates of killing is definitely wrong no matter what excuses are presented, but then there's such a huge cultural difference between the U.S. and Europe that we think that capital punishment is barbaric.

I agree. My replies about "police state" were in reply to the post stating "The EU is a police state, far more than the US."

If you get a chance to view any of the articles (there's plenty more to be found, by the way) then you'll see that the difference is large enough to make your distinctions moot. I'm not saying that the statistics can't be distorted (as almost all stats are) but when you're 70x more likely to be shot by the police in the U.S. than any of the "1st world" countries, then it devalues accusations of Europe being a police state when it comes from a U.S. citizen (assuming you are).

I don't have easy access to the raw stats, so here's some relevant news stories that do quote some stats. I doubt that the stats are cherry-picked as there's such a clear difference between the US and the rest of the world:

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/police-kill-citizens-70-times-rate-first-world-nations/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/08/armed-police/
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-do-us-police-kill-so-many-people-2014-8/
http://mic.com/articles/105036/here-s-the-shocking-tally-of-how-many-americans-die-from-police-shootings/

The right to anonymity is an essential part of freedom/free speech. Deciding whether to sign in or not should not have any bearing on the validity of any arguments espoused. Just because you feel safe enough to post comments under a username does not mean that everyone has that same luxury.

Maybe, but there's a lot less gunning down of civilians by the police in Europe compared to the U.S. (I don't know whether that's down to less racism or less guns or some other socio-political difference).

Yes, music typically does have a political slant, but it's very unlikely that you could blackmail someone for their taste in music. e.g. Someone running for political office and you try to bring them down by pointing out that they're fans of Chumbawamba or Billy Bragg? I can't see that it would be that effective.

I've seen reports of them filming demonstrations etc, but I think the facial recognition is relatively new to them. Reminds me, where did I leave my Scramble Suit?

In my experience of music festivals in the UK, the police tend to have relatively low profile and are there to stop any major problems rather than hassling the people who are just there to enjoy themselves. They've even been known to turn a blind eye to the occasional illegal intoxicant (but you'd better not rub it in their faces).

I'd prefer to have cops at music festivals as otherwise the criminal element get a bit gung-ho with stealing tents and stabbing rival drug gangs etc.

I'd be more concerned about facial recognition used at a political rally rather than an innocent music festival as there's not much blackmail material therein.

We generally refer to them as 'wankers'.

There's also the Coventry Blitz conspiracy.

Better yet, hack the fingers that type the keystrokes (i.e. rubber-hose cryptanalysis).

So, you're happy to believe that Russia/China can decrypt our strongest encryption (unless you think Snowden just ROT-13ed the files) and have chosen to go after Snowden's files (despite the fact that they could just use rubber-hose cryptanalysis instead) rather than infiltrate live systems?

If a foreign country can decrypt anything we've got then you'd expect them to be able to keep it reasonably secret and they'd especially try to keep it secret when Gov'ts are hunting round for reasons to snoop on everything.

It's far more likely to be a political ruse that's completely made up just for the purpose of rail-roading the public.

It amazes me that most places don't have organ donation as the default option when you die. That way, it increases the number of available donors as a lot of people don't particularly care about what happens after they're dead and haven't bothered to register/carry a donor card. It would mean that people who have strong feelings about it could register/carry a card to ensure that their body remains intact.

I'm not sure I agree with compensating families for donated organs as it equates their grief to a cash payout which strikes me as insulting. Maybe some kind of donation given for the funeral of the deceased would be more appropriate as a thankyou, but ideally the family would welcome a way for their loved one to live on in some fashion.