We're going further down the rabbit hole on this one, but then again, it's Slashdot commentary after all. I'm not sure why suggesting that a public service that is clearly needed and shouldn't have been removed causes such a strong response, including getting personal. Try taking a family with 3 children into central London for a day as an example, rather than the flamboyant example of a drunk staggering home. If incorrect decisions made by the local councils are rewarded by the ability to use the average citizen as an ATM, then this obviously makes complete sense. Otherwise... no not really.

In London, the local councils, in their great wisdom, removed practically all public toilets. They were the flabbergasted when they had a problem with people urinating and decided that the solution was to punish people (£50 on-the-spot fine) rather than admitting removing all those public toilets was a huge mistake.

When you drum up support for surveillance and harder punishments, you seem to completely forget that our tax money should be used for public services, not for new ways to monitor and punish people for 'crimes' that were created by the local councils themselves.

This deranged urge to hang people out without any due diligence is baffling. Why is the standard process associated with our justice system is always shunned when moral panic ensues?

I just spotted an earlier post about this. It strangely enough didn't turn up in any of my searches...