As you don't cope well with long posts, and are also visibly becoming more confused and agitated by the minute, I'll keep it short.

1. The report was not, at all, about any individual officer's "need for additional training", and your suggestion that no looters got shot because the police were unaware they could shoot them is as barking as anything you've come up with yet.

2. Hang on, the level of barking has gone up a couple of notches. The police did not cause the riots, and they said no such thing.

As you are just making up rubbish, there is no point in responding to any more of your drivel.

As you seem to struggle with basic English, and seemingly jump in with what I assume you think are witty attempts at patronising ill try and keep it simple for you I haven’t suggested that the police were unaware they could use lethal force, its kind of why I mentioned the fact they had used lethal force and how odd that contradiction would be. I simply suggested that that if an individual police officer didn’t know they could use lethal force it was because they were mistaken, not because we need new rules of engagement, new laws, or new weapons. Simply properly trained police officers.
Though considering the what the police have actually said Its more likely that the police didn’t use force not because they weren’t aware they were allowed, not because they were scared to, but far more likely that they just didn’t think they were valid tactics in that specific situation.


As you are just making up rubbish, there is no point in responding to any more of your drivel.'"

Only one taker to this one

There's a bit of a confused logic there though isn't there ?

You believe that the consequences of the police shooting a man are civil riot and yet would support the police shooting more people who are rioting, presumably leading to more people rioting because of those shootings ?

The nutter who answered got part of the reply correct, "Any force that is reasonable under the given circumstances" is probably the correct answer which could include lethal force but not necessarily - ultimately it would depend on a judges opinion on whether or not you believed your life to be in imminent danger as to whether you could be justified in killing someone and its a pure guess on my part but I'd imagine that any means of escape would be taken into account in that judgement.

rl100 officers from GMP dispatched to London on 9th August.rl

Fairly common knowledge round here that GMP sent officers to London, only 100 but riot and disorder specialists apparently. Iirc they travelled down but were recalled once the situation in Manchester became clear. They spent much of their valuable time in a minibus when their skills were sorely needed.

Why am I a 'nutter'?!

Ah, I thought because they weren't deployed they didn't travel. In the end both forces did what they should have done on the first night and throw bodies at the problem, they didn't need to riot specialist to deal with the amateur rioters.

Diasgree with you there. I would say having riot specialists who understand riots and controlling them would make it easier to bring said riot under control, instead of just using ordinary plod.

Would you like to expain the difference between amateur and other type of rioters?

Have some gone to Uni to learn how to riot properly, was it amateur rioters that were committing arson and potential murder ?

That would be you - as you reply to this will, I predict, perfectly illustrate.


Responses to your drivel don't have to be boring. I can entertain, as well as demolishing you ever decreasing circular non-points. If you don’t like it, then try sensible posts.


You see, it’s just this goldfish-like retention of your own rambling that makes you seem stupid. Your words were
So, you report that the police “said… they didn’t think they could use lethal force”.

So, you SPECIFICALLY suggested that the police were unaware they could use lethal force. And now you have been caught out.


Having already demolished the wider point, I don’t need to do the same to this more restricted “individual police officer” point. However, I’d be interested to know what the difference in this individual’s case actually is, between “being unaware he could use lethal force” (which you say you haven’t suggested) and “didn’t know he could use lethal force”, which were, er, again YOUR words. Oops.



I consider the view that holding the police “responsible” for the riots, and/or claiming that the riots were a “consequence” of that incident, is arrant nonsense. I would bet a lot of money that 99% of the rioters couldn’t even tell you the deceased’s name, and that incident will have played not the slightest part whatsoever in the riots in other cities.

Obviously the initial spark of rioting in Tottenham followed the shooting, but even there I have seen no suggestion that anyone rioted [ibecause of that incident[/i or as some sort of protest at the death of that individual. Of course, there is a massive anti-police feeling in much of UK subculture, and I equally have no doubt that the opportunity to use this as an excuse to have a crack at the police was a major factor.

Do you understand the distinction? Anti-police rioting, of people claiming to be oppressed by the police, as opposed to people who had no issues with the police, but suddenly decided to go on the rampage just because this individual was shot?

The LSE/Guardian analysis of explanations from a large number of convicted rioters themselves. Of those interviewed85% cited anger at policing practices as a key factor
time and again the interviewees, regardless of where they lived, said they felt like they had been taking part in anti-police riots.

Many interviewees described the violence as a chance to get back at the police
"When we came across a police car it felt like we hit the jackpot," one rioter said. "We thought we'd just kind of violate just like they violate us."

85% said policing was an "important" or "very important" factor in why the riots happened.
It was second only to poverty, which saw 86% of rioters class it as one of the main causes. Eighty percent claimed that government policy was an "important" or "very important" factor, while 79% said the same of unemployment.

The interviewees repeatedly expressed frustrations about their daily interactions with the police, saying that they felt hassled, bullied and complaining that they were not treated as equals.
The focus of much resentment was police use of stop and search which was felt to be unfairly targeted and often undertaken in an aggressive and discourteous manner.
Seventy per cent of the rioters said they had been stopped and searched in the last year.
And time and again interviewees described the violence as a chance to get back at the police.
"It was war and for the first time we was in control, like we had the police scared, like there was no more us being scared of the police," one rioter said.
Half of those interviewed were black, but they did not consider the unrest to be "race riots".
Rioters identified a range of political grievances, but at the heart of their complaints was a pervasive sense of injustice.
For some this was economic - the lack of money, jobs or opportunity. For others it was more broadly social - how they felt they were treated compared with others.
Many mentioned the increase in student tuition fees and the scrapping of the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA).'"

If they were riots in the traditional sense you'd have a point, these were just petty criminals doing a bit of robbing, using the "rioting" as an excuse.

There was no particular target, no urge to confront police, in fact they actively avoided confrontation.

So these were ' retail rioters ' then? , well maybe these amateur retail rioters would have had second thoughts if they thought theyd get a baton round in the nuts for their trouble rather than just having the bobbies watching them commit crimes, destroy livelyhoods , burn peoples homes and potentially burn people to death ?

If that is what you want to call them, fine.



Or maybe putting people on the ground would (and did) do the job without resorting to shooting people.