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.

Absolutely it was catastrophic. The wide perception was that the police had lost control; the streets were fair game - and that soon spread throughout the nation. As the independent Riots Communities and Victims Panel found, the disorder began to spread as soon as people saw the police had lost control in Tottenham. Indeed, almost every report finds that initial police tactics and numbers were ineffective and that had a knock-on effect as people jumped on the bandwagon.

Most reports also found that the disorder was ultimately stopped by "flooding the streets" with police. If that had been possible much earlier the nationwide perception would have been that the trouble had been contained and quashed, and others wouldn't have seen it as an opportunity to go out and have a little fun. There would have been no need for plastic bullets at all, as there wouldn't have been the escalation in violence. The police in Tottenham could have contained things quickly and firmly with sufficient numbers and even conventional tactics, but that wasn't the case and the rioters literally ran riot. Your assertion that hard action would have escalated things is patently wrong.

Your last paragraph is symptomatic of the attitude of the rioters and is utter nonsense. You would, I assume, prefer the police to stand back and watch in the hope they can catch up with the rioters at a later date? Christ, look how that worked out! When you have thousands of rioters smashing businesses, setting fire to property and attacking people, the police must respond accordingly and such massive levels of disturbance require increased levels of response. A lily-livered response is idiotic and leaves innocent businesses, homes and indeed lives defenceless.

And I don't care if rioters respect the police or not. What I want is them to be sufficiently frightened of the consequences that they think twice. And if they make the choice to involve themselves at whatever level, I want the police able to get them off the streets as quickly as possible. They must be made aware that their actions have consequences, and that might mean an almighty wallop in the groin from a plastic bullet.

I really think you should have a higher threshold for catastrophe

But escalated numbers and plastic bullets/bullets/water cannon/kettling are completely different things why are you trying to conflate them?
And how do you know it was patently wrong to state that the kind of 'firm' policing you seem to be advocating would escalate the situation when we know that it was the actual cause of situation? it seems counter-intuitive to state that repeating what caused the situation wouldnt exacerbate it, its like lighting some accelerant and trying to put the fire with more accelerant.

Well we can see how that worked out, the police did wait and punish the guilty, which seems infinitely more preferable to me than lumping everybody in the vicinity in as the same punishing them all equally. And frankly im not keen on anthropomorphising businesses and houses, I wouldnt really apply guilt or innocence to them, it doesnt really make sense. But neither would I equate damage to buildings or things as anywhere near as important as people, their liberty, the rule of law, the application of law, the presumption of innocence, and the right to due process. Compared to those principles buildings and houses are relatively unimportant.

Well I think you would fit in nicely in North Korea. I really cant believe you honestly believe that yourself, you are advocating the police breaking the law to send out a message and intimidate people into doing what they want. It is actually an abhorrent standpoint to have. It goes against every principle of freedom, democracy and just general good morals. If you honestly believe this I pity you because your view of the world must be awful.

Frankly i think anybody whose legitimacy is based on ruling by fear has no legitimacy in ruling at all and should it come down to a choice between the people nicking trainers and the people riding roughshod over human rights and established democratic law I know whose side I would be proud to be on.

If the police expect people to abide by the law, the very least the police need to be doing is abiding by the law themselves

It was pretty damn catastrophic for a lot of businesses and homes, and a few lives. Or don't they matter?


Are you drunk? Pretty much every report has found that insufficient policing helped escalate the trouble, and that massive policing stopped the trouble. But seeing as your agenda doesn't agree you choose to ignore the facts. And I'm advocating a hard and fast response in circumstances of riot, arson and widespread violence, not on the everyday street. If you actually read my reply you'll see I said "sufficient number and conventional tactics"; I'm not advocating plastic bullets unless things seriously deteriorate.

Firm policing was not the cause of the situation. A firearms incident was the spark and insufficient policing (in terms of numbers and response) allowed the trouble to spread. Try reading the findings.


Well you're an idiot. And a drunk idiot tonight, it seems, if you prefer your force of law to stand back and watch widespread rioting just in case an innocent (who just [ihappens [/ito be in vicinity of said rioting) is caught up in the response.

Yes, we can see exactly how things worked out. Massive destruction, loss of homes and businesses, hundreds of injuries and several deaths. Yet you know better and think the police should still stand back? Wow.


Oh seriously, go outside and have a cry.


Wind your neck in. We're talking about circumstances such as those seen in September, not as a standard rule of law. I'm fairly sure you understand that but choose, as ever, to cry your eyes out. Don't you feel just a little pathetic?

No-one's talking about the police breaking the law. If it is found that plastic bullets and water cannon are required then the rules of engagement will be changed. The Inspectorate of Constabulary are simply citing making recommendations based on the worst case scenario. The primary recommended focus is getting numbers on the ground, but they find it [imight [/ibe necessary to have additional tools on the ground in certain circumstances.

Tell you what, next time there's widespread rioting, arson and violence - I'll start twittering (anonymously of course) that they go round your gaff and burn it to the ground. Perhaps a few family members will have to jump from first floor windows but apparently that's acceptable. On your advice the police will stand back just in case a few "innocents" happen to be in the firing line (though why they would be is beyond me). I'm sure you'll be content when perhaps a couple of the rioters are tracked down.

Who has said they dont matter. As I said, you need a higher threshold for catastrophe

And as I said, a hard and fast response is what lit the fire. Why do you then expect it to put the same fire out. I have no issue with there being more police on the street, im just not sure why you want to pretend higher numbers is the same as 'firm' and 'hard and fast' and any other aggressive terminology you think makes you look strong.

Im not sure you need to be drunk to understand that fighting fire with fire guarantees something is going to burn.

And we have also seen what happens when the police go in 'hard and fast'. If you think that is preferable then there is something wrong with you.

Do you think that makes you sound tough? It doesnt, just pretty stupid. The rule of law is sacrosanct. There is no standard rule of law, there is rule of law, it applies all the time.

There is a lot that seems beyond you, This is why you look weak when you think you are being strong. Im not afraid of your ridiculous hypotheticals, I know that it is very unlikely to happen and I dont need some draconian protection allowing the principles of law to be suspended to protect me from it. I dont need it to assuage my fear of it happening, I have more faith in people. You are seeming terrified, so scared of this very rare scenario happening that you need to know you have a big bully on hand to protect you regardless of if innocent people get hurt.

Whilst I've no wish to be drawn into your personal spat, even you must surely understand that the entire discussion since the riots is precisely the total and comprehensive breakdown in the rule of law in a number of places?


He may or may not be. It isn't the point. The point is whether, if in future you have another scenario where police are stood watching rioters burning down buildings with people in them, there is or is not something they could or should be able to do differently.

If you were in the building with young children, would you want the police to actively do something to try to prevent your imminent immolation, or would you shout down "No, let it go mates, innocent people may die but hey, it's a rare event"? And "some of the people smashing down the doors and windows and carrying petrol and flaming torches may be innocent"?