In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff

We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.

Try Advanced Search

  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...

Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette

Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Joanne Jacobs
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes

Redwood Dragon
The Invisible Hand
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz


Our Last 50 Referrers

« Them and Me | Main | Contrarianism Is Creative? »

November 28, 2006

Conundrums of the Web Age

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

On her blog, Jackie Danicki writes that she was assaulted while in the London Tube. At the top of the posting, she includes a photo she managed to shoot of her assailant.

Was she right to publish this photograph? Some of her commenters think she wasn't. Mindy McAdams is more alarmed by Danicki posting the photo than by the fact that Danicki was assaulted. Samizdata's Perry de Havilland, on the other hand, cheers Danicki's action.

My own hunches / feelings run along these lines: "I can certainly see the potential for vigilante-justice-style abuse. But, really, screw the worrywarts. If someone attacked me or someone I care about and I managed to snap a photo of him, I'd certainly put it on the web too. What's really worrying is the state of crime and policing in London." Also, of course: "What a funny new era we live in."

What are your own hunches and feelings about the Jackie Danicki affair?



posted by Michael at November 28, 2006


Hell yeah she can publish photos of her assailant. Police publish bad drawings of supposed criminals. I don't think we need to worry about someone's rights in that case.

However, if it makes it inadmissible as evidence, that would be a problem.

Posted by: yahmdallah on November 28, 2006 2:01 PM

State of police protection: Jackie is not from ny, so she's surprised that it's illegal to carry mace in London. Guess what: same here, in NY. What's more, if you'd buy it (legally) in other state and try to bring it in your luggage home, you will be arrested.

If you're going to use mace on your assailant you're the one who's going to be arrested when the police comes, not the policemen who don't even try to protect you, and not the thug who assaults you; in the best possible scenario (if the thug is apprehanded) you could pay for a copy of your complaint sent to you, w/o the name of your assailant. And the text will say something like "complains of verbal dispute with a grocer." Grocer? What grocer? Is that all they got out of your descriptions and explanations, after they have asked you same questions 6 times each?

Posted by: Tat on November 28, 2006 2:40 PM

I for one am VERY happy that Jackie posted the picture. The more publicity it gets, the better, and with any luck someone will identify the schmuck.

Tat: Legalities aside, the usefulness of mace/pepper spray is often way overstated. More often than not, victims are unable to hit the attackers with a workable stream. Attackers sometimes wrestle the stuff away from the victims and turn it on the victims themselves. Finally, there are certain people - angel dust users, schizophrenics, and some drunks - who are immune to its effects.

Posted by: Peter on November 28, 2006 4:07 PM

It's my understanding that there are support organizations working to encourage women to photo ID their attackers. Those who object are a little like the guys who suddenly have big confidentiality issues when asked for DNA samples.

I agree with Peter about Mace. The same applies to guns and tazers. There are no magic weapons.

But photos can be very powerful, as many police departments are finding out.

Prairie Mary

Posted by: Mary Scriver on November 28, 2006 5:16 PM

It's sad to see the fall of a once civilized nation like Britain. Even in Disraeli's day, you could walk almost anywhere in London in perfect safety. That's all over now because of their post WW2 immigration policies. And I'm afraid all this depressing incivility and barbarism over there is going to get a LOT worse before (if) it gets any better.

Posted by: Bob Grier on November 28, 2006 7:09 PM

I agree with Peter about Mace. The same applies to guns and tazers. There are no magic weapons.

Guns work pretty well. Photo ID is nice but it's better to defeat your assailant. For a woman or small man, or an older person, or anybody against a group of attackers, firearms are the only tools that provide a reasonable chance to prevail, and also to prevail without being seriously hurt. And if some people shoot or scare off assailants it discourages other potential attackers, so everyone is better off.

Posted by: Jonathan on November 28, 2006 9:48 PM

"That's all over now because of their post WW2 immigration policies."

Crap. Everything is not the fault of immigrants, though you'd think otherwise around here lately.

(1) Britain had swarms of dirt poor Irish in the 19th C. They dealt with crime by very tough policing and criminal punishments. Hangings were common for capital offences. The cops had a lot of discretion. Prisons were unpleasant.

(2) Britain had an intense religious revival in the early and mid 19th C. Methodism was the start, and this in turn led to revivals among the Anglicans and the Catholics (mostly Irish immigrants). Poor people prayed, went to church, struggled for respectability, and insisted on good behavior from themselves and especially their young men. The explosion of good behavior was founded on an ethic of personal responsibility, that was religious in inspiration.

Self-policing within coupled with confident and hardnosed policing without. No mystery why a woman could walk safely across London at night 100 years ago.

In response to the initial question, it is a very good thing that we are now in a situation where criminals will be subject to this kind of publicity. I hope this criminal is caught and punished. But the odds are that he will get very little from the now-pathetic British law enforcement system. If the criminal is subject to vigilantism, I feel no pity for the criminal. If the police won't secure the safety of women travelling in London, then some informal dishing out of harm to this criminal would be rough justice, but still justice. The harsher the better. I would only hope any such vigilante is not caugth. I think of this lady no differently than I would of my wife, my mother, my sister or my daughters who might run into someone like him. This criminal should be removed from society permanently so that no one else's wife, mother, sister or daughter has to deal with him.

Posted by: Lexington Green on November 28, 2006 11:45 PM


In order for the immigration statement to be "crap", you would have to show us a comparison between the crime rates of the native white population and the non-native non-white populations, and how they are the same or less for the non-native and non-whites.

I don't think you will, though. It might make your argument look like "crap" instead.

Posted by: BIOH on November 29, 2006 12:28 AM

The best thing about London's crime wave is that Myspace ska-babe Lily Allen has been writing some cool tunes about it.

Posted by: Brian on November 29, 2006 2:29 AM

It was interesting in the woman's comments section she states that it was not racism. How she determined this is questionable. In some caases, you can't take their liberalism till you pry it from their cold dead fingers.
There is a huge anti-white sentiment being cultivated out there by entertainment mediums, mosques, street culture, the universities, schools and more.

Today, I came across a debate between a Pakistani rap fan and a Chicano rap fan on a popular music Web site. The Chicano fan was dissing on a Pakistani rapper for trying to be Chicano, while the Pakistani argued that they were all legitimate brown brothers unified in their hatred of the gringos. Wonderful.
If you think this is isolated, I can bury you in anecdotes and statistics.
One can see the commenters at the victim's site dance around the racial aspects. Such thoughts as a white man intervening would be brought up on racial charges. Others give their horror stories with key hints that indentify race, but even the victim does not see it. She is as blind as those sitting in the train who did not "see" her being attacked.
She may want to do some research on Muslims raping women in Australia, France and more European countries. She could google the French riot where the punks were going around beating up white kids and actually saying that the whites would not fight back. Of course, this sort of information does not often appear in most mainstream media outlets.
I am not auditioning for Web nutcase or the junior KKK. I just simply want to make the point that there is a huge hatred that is being cultivated out there against white people. And that hatred is being fed to people who either have tribal allegiances or are told that they should have tribal allegiances. Add that to their resentments and their failure to move up in society and as the warning on the fireworks says "light fuse and get away fast."
The fuse has been lit. Time to shop for your gated community? Maybe take a cab instead of the train? Maybe just bury your head in the sand. But as our victim found out that still leaves a lot of your parts exposed to danger.

Posted by: steve a on November 29, 2006 3:39 AM

She could google the French riot where the punks were going around beating up white kids and actually saying that the whites would not fight back.

Did you know that about a third of the people arrested in the French riots were native (i.e. white) French?

Posted by: Peter on November 29, 2006 9:36 AM

BIOH completely misses Lex's point, which is that the breakdown in order results from a breakdown in institutions and comes from the top, and that with the right societal institutions and institutional attitude even people from very rough backgrounds can be trained to behave well. Some of today's immigrant thugs would look positively refined next to the Irish hooligans (where do you think that word comes from?) of the 19th Century, in both England and the USA, yet the Irish were successfully integrated by institutions that instilled and insisted on good behavior. The same ought to be done today. The problem is that British elites no longer believe in themselves or in their civilization, and their institutions have stopped insisting on good behavior from immigrants or from the general population.

Posted by: Jonathan on November 29, 2006 10:33 AM

Peter, I was refering to the big riot that took place before the car burning riots. Perhaps, they could number them for us. However, if you would like to argue that the rioters that you are refering to harbor no racial animosity have at it. Of course, it is now reported that even the police can't go into these neighborhoods except in force. I am open to questioning my own conclusions, but you'll have to put some effort into it. And by the way "native French" hardly means "white."

Posted by: steve a on November 29, 2006 12:49 PM


Baloney. All these attackers know what the law is. They just choose not to follow it. The British don't believe in their culture or civilization! Ha! Make sure you put all the blame on the law-abiding and law-makers, instead of all the lawbreakers! Make excuses for them! There are no differences between peoples! Everyone is the same! Er, except when everybody is unique! Sorry buddy, the numbers say otherwise. I'll take the cold facts over your theory any day of the week. Expect it to get worse. Start prepping those excuses now--why wait for the rush?

Posted by: BIOH on November 29, 2006 5:56 PM


Take a course in reading comprehension. Then report back to us.

NEXT. . .

Posted by: Jonathan on November 29, 2006 7:27 PM


Why do you think I'm the one that's stupid, when you are the one backing away from my argument, because you obviously don't have one and you know I'm right? Answer my challenge to Lexington. You won't because you know I'm right.

BTW, our jails are full of violent thugs who have resisted every single attempt to teach them reformed behavior and cultural assimilation. I'm shocked that an adult can be so naive about human nature. You must bee too busy trying lamely to be funny.

Posted by: BIOH on November 29, 2006 8:41 PM

Public space, public face.

Posted by: Alan Kellogg on December 1, 2006 1:05 PM

Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?