Not just with rubber bullets (they're for children). As economies turn down democracies always get tough: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... mends.html

Not just with rubber bullets (they're for children). As economies turn down democracies always get tough: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... mends.html

DAILY MAIL ATTEMPTS TO CAUSE OUTRAGE WITH SPECULATIVE/ FABRICATED STORY.

Stop the presses!

I haven't even got a gun.

Quote: Matt23 "DAILY MAIL ATTEMPTS TO CAUSE OUTRAGE WITH SPECULATIVE/ FABRICATED STORY. Stop the presses!'" They're all at it: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... finds.html

Quote: Matt23 "DAILY MAIL ATTEMPTS TO CAUSE OUTRAGE WITH SPECULATIVE/ FABRICATED STORY. Stop the presses!'" They're all at it: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... finds.html

Have you got a gun Dally?

Bet you have.

Armed police in "in certain circumstances, we may actually fire " shock.

Edited

A few newspapers have run with this, they are obviously trying to get attention from people who will think it is a recommendation that police will open fire on peaceful protestors.

The recommendation here is that when people are burning down businesses that have a residential property attached to them (eg a newsagents/corner shop where the family live above) then due to the likelihood of this trapping people in the property above and having to either jump out of a window or burn to death then the police reserve the right to use lethal force.

Sounds reasonable to me, it's hardly a restraint on human rights to take away peoples rights to set fire to someone's house.

I would imagine the police already have the authority and the right to do such a thing anyway.
The problem with it is, as with the idiots suggesting water cannon and rubber bullets would have stopped the riots earlier this year, that a police presence is necessary where these crimes are taking place.

The problem with the police response to the riots wasn't a lack of equipment or wrong tactics. It was a lack of police on the streets.

Agreed. But do people feel this is a good or bad thing? Is it a change from years of being soft with criminals and treating them as victims of circumstance?

There is no special "riot law" relating to armed police. Police use of force, including lethal force, is governed by common law and various statutes. These laws apply to all circumstances. Armed police officers in the MPS are always reminded of their legal responsibilities before deploying.
I agree with HIM that it was the numbers that were a major factor. The MPS call out plan used to be able to put thousands of officers on the streets over set periods of hours. The call out plan fell into disuse as officers were deployed on safer neighbourhood teams and "ring fenced" from performing public order duties. I suspect the the new Commisioner will change that.

I saw the title and was looking forward to a thread about shooting civil servants.

Nowt new. They've murdered quite a few kids with them in the past with apparent impunity.

[iOn 29 August 1975 10-year-old Stephen Geddis became the first and the youngest person to die after being hit by a plastic bullet in Belfast.
While soldiers said they had fired at stone-throwing children in a nationalist area, the government eventually paid compensation to the family.
It was not to be the last time that baton rounds, in use for almost 30 years, would claim a life.
Fourteen people have died after being hit by the PVC tube-shaped rounds.
Seven of the dead were children, including a 12-year-old girl. The last to die was 15-year-old Seamus Duffy in 1989. Three other people died between 1972 and 1973 after being hit by the plastic baton round's predecessor, the rubber bullet.
According to the findings of many inquiries, inquests and court proceedings, only four of those killed had been found to be involved in disorder.
Some £1m in compensation has been paid out but no member of the security forces has been convicted of offences linked to the deaths.
[/i

They might 'start'? Oh Mark Duggan didn't happen then, phew.