I'd argue that they actually learned it well, that's why we see anti-privacy stuff like this and Chat Control.
I just went through airport security. It’s been coming a long time. 2001 made a lot of people in the US, at least, normalize big brother.
Humans learned a lot. They learned some ways that don't work. That's why Germany learned to be more subtle, UK learned it needs more surveillance, France learned to ban face coverings, not Muslims, and USA learned how to properly stack the courts.
i'm pretty sure the majority learned plenty well. But that's not whose in charge is it. Even in democracy, especially in America, it's the billionaires and puritans making these choices.
Puritans?
They are likely referring to religious fundamentalists, mostly evangelical Christians. Puritans is a reference to an older christian fundamentalist group in the US that now have a connotation as extreme in their views.
Right idea, wrong sect I guess
Worse, the children of the hippies have become reactionary bigots.
More like a good bunch of the hippies were in it just to have a good time. And then happily built the system we know.
it's the hand-wringing do-gooders that implemented all of the authoritarian practices in the uk.
This time is different, they say.
This is the country that can´t stop dingy boats...this despite journalists always being able to be there on time to take pictures for the Daily Mail...
All right, mate, let's hear your plan for securing the UK's south-eastern coastline.
Sharks and tornados, and imagine if we can combine them!
Bad news, budget cuts mean we can afford a flounder with a paper fan. His name's Steven and he lives about twenty yards east of Lulworth Cover, but we reckon he's okay to commute to work.
If Daily Mail journalist can be there on time to photograph the boats, the authorities could spend less time in the pub, and make some arrests...
Take people back to France? Feels pretty damn obvious to me. I believe they even agreed something like that fairly recently.
Believe it or not, they actually already do this.
Most (non-western) countries do pretty well by making it clear that those who enter illegally will be arrested, charged, imprisoned, and then deported (at their own cost) rather than given free benefits.
Believe it or not, the UK already does this to people for whom there is no plausible asylum claim. The problem, if you want to think about it as such, is that the UK currently believes in treating potential asylum claimants as such rather than automatically labeling them as criminals.
This may be technically correct but only because the definition of "potentional asylum claimants" has been expanded to include pretty much everyone.