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.

The disappointing part of the article on TV this evening was that they are training the Police to shoot the person below the chest. Sod that hit 'em where it hurts. Knock them over and follow up with a baton and a riot shield. Then a good roughing up in the cells.

They will be inclined to think twice about fire bombing party shops in Clapham if they knew what was round the corner

Why stop there? Why not summary execution?

'cause liberal people like you prefer to give chavs a second chance

Complete . Police are trained to "stop" targets and aim for the centre of the torso. The reason is that outside Clint Eastwood movies, no-one can shot at a moving target with a single shot weapon with any expectation of hitting a specific part of the body.

I speak from experience.

I think it was a combination of not enough feet on the street and poor tactics - and a poorly executed response. It was difficult for the police to react to a growing, fluid situation, though even when they were there in sufficient numbers, the 'stand off' approach was catastrophic.

As Peter Fahy says, if London had been in control within a few hours then copycat trouble would have been very unlikely. That would have meant the Met going in hard and fast and in great numbers. What actually happened was rioters knew they could do what they liked - often in full view of the line of police blockading one end of the high street - without immediate consequence.

British culture has been, for too long, one of a softly-softly approach. We complain when the police clamp down on disturbances and riots at protests, and the pathetic overreaction to 'kettling' was farcical. Then after we've we condemned and vilified the police for years we don't understand when they aren't willing or perhaps able to do what is necessary to stop violence on the streets. Generations of scrotes have grown up knowing they probably won't face much in the way of severe consequence for their actions and some of the behaviour displayed during the riots was, in part, an extension of that.

Frankly, I'm more surprised that we watch rioters engaging in rioting, arson and other violence and we AREN'T using measure such as plastic bullets or water cannon. And if getting sufficient numbers on the scene in time is an issue, then give them the tools to counter the balance.

Was it catastrophic?

There is a fairly good chance that had the police responded 'forcefully' then the riots would have escalated and there would have been more injuries and deaths. Would that then be classed as a success? Especially considering the original provocation or reasoning given for the earliest rioting and disturbances was the police 'going in hard and fast' and shooting an unarmed man, im not sure that showing the same attitude would have calmed rather than inflamed the situation.

It seems strange as well that your only ideas to stop violence on the streets is for the police to perpetrate the violence on the streets.

We have laws, one of the oldest is the right to due process and the right to the presumption of innocence, kettling (which is simply a propaganda name for detention without due process), the use of water cannon and rubber bullets are punishments for people not yet found guilty, and as such against the principles of due process and presumption of innocence, why would you expect people to respect the police and the law when the police dont respect the principles of law?

Some of these people don't respect police period, you could do ANYTHING from softly softly to Chinese police tactics and they'll always think the same.

And a lot of peoples experiences with the police are uniformly bad, it isnt surprising they dont respect them. Some police officers 'soft skills' are embarrassingly poor, the way they communicate is so bad its like they have actual social disorders.
Ill give you an example, I got a taxi from a friends house to my house last friday, i asked the taxi driver to stop at a cash machine so i could get some money to pay him, the taxi driver stopped, on a double yellow (something he obviously shouldnt have done) let me out, i went to the cash machine, as i was getting back in the taxi a police van pulled up next to the taxi, made the taxi driver wind the window down and bollock the taxi driver for parking on a double yellow line at 2am before ending his little tirade aggressively shouting at the taxi driver "you will move now!", the taxi driver drove off and dropped me at home.

Both I and the taxi driver couldnt understand what possible benefit the officer saw in acting so aggressively toward him? I had got back in the taxi, there was no need to demand he "move now" of course he was going to move immediately, i had a home to go to and he had other fares to pick up. I knew it wasnt worth a police officer messing around filling out all the necessary forms to fine a taxi driver for waiting on double yellow lines and the officer (and the van full of his colleagues which he was driving) were better utilised doing other things at 2am on a friday night in a city centre, the taxi driver knew it and the police officer knew it. So why act so aggressively? Had the officer said " you need to move mate, you cant park here, ill let you off this time" the taxi driver leaves thinking "fair enough, i got away with it this time, i wont do it again, that police man was alright, next time the police want my help ill be more inclined to do so" rather than what he actually thought which was " that police officer was a proper dickhe&d, I want nothing to do with them"

Its a simple attitude change, there is a strange almost paternal 'you will do it because i say so' attitude from a fair proportion (not all by any means) of the police force which is stupid because most people have grown up and matured beyond unquestioning obedience by the time they hit puberty, I have no idea why people expect it would work.