And perhaps you need to ask someone who lost their home or business - or family member - how it affected them.


Are you daft? There was NO hard and fast response. That's precisely what let the crowds run riot in the first place, and precisely why copycat riots began to spring up. Every report has found this. I'm not sure which bit of this you don't understand.


You'd rather let the fire burn our of control, of course. Because that would be a better outcome.


Yes, they contained the disorder and dispersed the rioters. I'm not sure which bit of this you don't understand.


No I just don't suffer fools and your whining makes me cringe. Again, no-one is advocating acting above the law. There are laws in place to deal with public disorder and they were used, and will be used again. As is sensible, the events are being scrutinised and if changes are necessary they will be made.


I'm sure the people of Tottenham, Croydon, etc thought is was unlikely to happen. I'm sure hundreds of business never expected be ransacked and looted. I wonder, do you think they would have liked sufficient force on the scene to protect them?

It's very touching you're so concerned with 'innocents' being hurt. And very naive. Fortunately better people than you are willing to make grown-up decisions.

Fine, if you don't want protection, I assume you won't bother ringing the police if you hear burglars downstairs? Or see someone attacking a family member? You'll let things take their course because you have faith in the law to locate, arrest, try and convict the offender.

Frankly, it's the pathetic attitude of people like you that's helped breed these generations of scrotes. They know there will be no serious consequences for most of what they get up to, they know they can act the victim, and they think the world owes them everything. You "have faith in people"? Haha, seriously? I never had you down as naive or stupid. That's changed.

Why? Will they be as ridiculously over-emotional as you? Im sure it was a terrible experience for them. Im just pretty sure worse things happen, and if we class a couple of people losing a few things as a catastrophe what are we going to call it when something really bad happens?
Other than of course ‘firm’ policing and a ‘hard and fast response’ resulting in a the police killing someone they really shouldn’t have of course. We have to ignore that fact for you to reclaim even a little credibility. And of course the roughly 400 people who have died in police custody over the past 12 years. Also again, you are desperately trying to conflate increased numbers with ‘firm’ and ‘hard and fast’.
No I haven’t stated I would let anything burn out of control. You only feel the need to make up this nonsense because you know the failings of your argument but cant bring yourself to admit them.


And they killed someone, but we need to ignore that don’t we
.You were advocating breaking the law, you were advocating the police don’t respond with necessary force but enough force to ‘send out a message’ and not even enough force to ‘send out a message’ used on people who were committing a crime but indiscriminately on people who may or may not be involved, people guilty of only being in the vicinity. Though we seem to be seeing a significant retraction away from what you originally said, I assume its because you now see what nonsense it was.

They thought it was unlikely to happen because the are clearly more intelligent than you and because well, it was very unlikely to happen, and continues to be very unlikely to happen. I see no reason for us to base our response and our attitudes and the rules which govern police behaviour on things which are very very unlikely to happen.
Its sweet that you think you sound grown up.
there are rules which govern the police’s response and limit them to only using force which is necessary. Im more than comfortable with the police only using necessary force and not using any crime committed against me as an excuse to ‘send out a message’ or intimidate people.
Its not my fault these ‘scrotes’ are smarter than you and have matured beyond unquestioning obedience. There are a lot more people who do good things on a daily basis than do bad things, there is a much higher chance that someone will help me than attack me, everyday millions of people get up and do nice things, live good lives and are generally nice people. It’s only a small minority who do the opposite. Maybe you have lost sight of that, and that’s sad, because it seems a very dark and nasty world you inhabit. I would hate to join you in it, it sounds awful

Or actually you might find their lives, homes and businesses shattered, or burned to the ground. But of course "a couple of people losing a few things" is unimportant as long as no-one innocent is caught up in a police response. But for that sake of killing off your rubbish little argument over semantics, let's call them 'personal catastrophes'.


I'm "conflating" increased numbers and conventional tactics to apply a harder response than actually took place, if you care to read what I said. As in, increased numbers and pro-active action to contain and disperse the disorder, and hopefully take offenders into custody. Something that was painfully absent in the early stages of the riots. Every report finds pretty much the same conclusion.

I see you're using the old tactic of introducing emotive arguments to try and back up your ridiculous and failing stance.


No, that's not been ignored at all. It's been universally acknowledged as the spark that lit the riots and the IPCC investigation is ongoing. But we were discussing the police response to the riots, not the shooting so try and stay on track.


Was I? I think I clearly stated it has been found that the police response was insufficient and lead to trouble spreading. That is being looked into and if changes to the law need to be made, then they will be made, and police action will be within the law. For someone who allegedly believes that "the rule of law is sacrosanct", one would assume you'd approve. I certainly didn't advocate use of indiscriminate force at all - unless you can point it out?


It was so unlikely to happen that it did happen, across the country. And if our police force and their response had been sufficient, it would have been nipped in the bud much sooner, without trouble spreading nationwide. Yet that wouldn't be a good outcome, in your book?


And that force was not sufficient back in September. Increased force was clearly necessary but was not immediately available and police on the streets were instructed to stand back and 'contain'. That was a massive success, as we've all seen.


So you're saying that someone who doesn't obey the law is mature? You prefer civil disorder? But hang on, weren't you arguing that "The rule of law is sacrosanct...it applies all the time"? A bit confused, aren't you.


That brought a tear to my eye. But I'm not sure where it has come from. You seem to be making up random statements now. I've never said anything contrary to the above. But it reads very nicely and I hope it makes you feel warm inside.

This bizarre one-man crusade against firm police action in the case of riots, looting and arson in frankly, baffling.

Not wishing to get involved but from and observers point of view Smokey TA is romping to victory on this debate. Cronus, you have been comprehensively out debated in a rational and (ironically since you attempted to use the term in a demeaning context in your argument) mature fashion.

I would summerise the debate as Smokey addressing the issue with the view to representing and considering societies needs as a whole, while you seem to be advocating turning the police into the meanest gang on the streets, capable of "dishing it out" to those who step out of line.

It is not the police' role to punish those breaking the law.

Finally I would say that the length of civil disorder such as this is not generally governed by the response of the police but by the strength of feeling of those involved in the disorder. It may be there are lessons to be learned from Northern Ireland.

Let me make this clear.

The September riots escalated due to insufficient police numbers and the 'stand-off' tactic. Copycat riots and looting sprang up across London, and then the country as people saw the police as being unable and/or unwilling to contain or control the disorder. This is not simply my opinion, it's fact.

I am advocating a larger scale and more pro-active response in such cases of civil disorder in order to prevent disorder escalating further. Nowhere have I said the police should be 'punishing' anyone or dish anything out, though of course in order to control a situation involving hundreds of rioting people then yes, aggressive action is required and that requires tactics and equipment. You think rioters will disperse if asked nicely? No, they disperse if they see a line of police shields charging at them.

Smokey is advocating the police simply standing by and watching as buildings burn, businesses are looted and people are attacked, in the hope that the offenders can be caught and dealt with after the event, and in order to protect his inflexible ideology. Which is a bit odd, because on the one hand he's standing firmly behind the rule of law and on the other he's happy to allow people to break the law at will until presumably they are tired or bored and go home. Whatever, fine, let's go with it. The police stand off, but then what about the people and property that are left unprotected? You're happy to see widespread destruction? Injuries? Loss of life?

You say the length of disorder is governed by the strength of feeling. That's fine and dandy, but that doesn't mean we should stand by and let it run it's course - that's just insanity. The simple fact is that in September the disorder was allowed to go largely unchecked and far from dissipating it spread and grew on an unprecedented scale - again, not just my opinion, but fact.

Indeed, and there has been a movement in recent years towards capturing video and photographic evidence while criminal acts are being performed, and then relying on the quality of those images to unearth the culprits later, the Bradford riots may have been one of the first occasions where this tactic was used to a very successful conclusion.

In that case however the handing over of suspects was in many cases due to Asian community elders (not exclusively but certainly in significant numbers) insisting that young Asians captured on camera should face the law - the subsequent sentences in court were of a similar severity to those handed down in the August riots and possibly destroyed a lot of that good faith as the general feeling was that custodial sentences for throwing one brick or standing around watching was way over the top and there was, as is now, a feeling that political interference was made in the judicial process.

Should a police force stand back and allow criminal acts to take place as long as they are filming them in high definition, are they not relying on goodwill then to have the culprits handed back to them at a later date, and is such goodwill only given when the public feel that a fair result is given in court ?

If there is sympathy for the cause would the "dobbing in" goodwill be lost (tuition fees, unemployment marches etc), leaving the police high and dry with lots of nice video footage and just the BBC's Crimewatch to flog it to ?

More to the point, if you're trapped with your kids on the third floor of a building which rioters are trying to torch, would you prefer that the police actively tried to stop the rioters torching the building, or would you be happy if they just video'd it, so there was a possibility that some of the arsonists who fried you and your family would be later identified?

So the targets on the tele which the police were practicing on were mid torso to feet (No torso at all- very different to a figure 11 Army target) Therfore given your "experience" they were designed to be missed.

Got it

Cronus, you state: "The September riots escalated due to insufficient police numbers and the 'stand-off' tactic. Copycat riots and looting sprang up across London, and then the country as people saw the police as being unable and/or unwilling to contain or control the disorder. This is not simply my opinion, it's fact".

I suggest you amend the above to clarify that it is a fact that there were similar incidents of disorder in other UK cities. It is however conjecture that these incidents occurred as a result of the numbers of police addressing the London disturbances. Until those involved come out and state that they instigated riots solely due the fact that the police looked like they couldnt handle it, you and everyone else are proposing a theory. I have little doubt that those theories will reflect the political/social views of the individuals delivering them.

I would also state that you have a habit of interpreting others statements in a manner that suits your own argument. Not a habit that will endear you to the nuetrals. I never once stated that disorder should be left to run its course with no intervention, neither did Smokey TA.

Intervention needs to be proportionate, it must also be designed and implemented in a manner which will not escalate the situation in either scale or severity. Need I remind you that civil disorder of this kind is a symptom of larger and wider issues in society. And lets not forget that those you label "scrotes" are as much a part of our society as you.

I have very grave reservations about yours and others call for violent response from those charged with keeping the peace. I have already alluded to Northern Ireland, there are many similarexamples worldwide, where armed troops occupy the streets and still they will riot.

The debate should be about prevention, repairing lines of communication and trust between the police, community leaders and the population in general.

Should this very specific and highly unlikely situation ever arise, then there is already, provision in the law for the police and members of the public to react proportionally to the threat with the necessary force.

The two most important words in that are necessary and proportional. It means that you should only use the force necessary to protect the lives of those in the building, and only when necessary. it means that you can do what you need to do to protect life, but no more. It means you can, if you need to, use lethal force to protect people who are under attack, but what it doesn’t allow you to do is use violence and intimidation as tactics to preserve order. It doesn’t allow the police to give a scrote a kicking to send a message to his mates, it doesn’t allow the police to police through violence, aggression and bullying and it protects the public from people who are committing a crime but simply happen to be wearing a uniform.

Personal catastrophes like those which affected the families of Mark Duggan? Blair Peach? Ian Tomlinson? That kind of personal catastrophe? Or don’t they matter?
I know you are conflating them, I know why you are conflating them, its to make your ridiculous ‘send out a message’ ‘shoot a scrote in the groin’ ‘firm’ ‘hard and fast’ nonsense look more reasonable.
There is no reason why we couldn’t have had increased numbers without ‘sending out a message’ ‘shooting a scrote in the groin’ and being ‘hard, fast, and firm’ and any other of these homoerotic turns of phrase you want to use. In fact we did that, we didn’t see the police go out and give scrotes a kicking, we didn’t see water cannon and we didn’t see rubber bullets, we simply saw more police officers on the street, that’s what worked. And we can in the future simply put more police officers on the streets, we don’t need to give them bigger weapons (you have me doing it now, its like a carry on film)

Im not sure How much more dispassionately I could state that fact. It seems you just want to ignore it because it doesn’t help you. And I wouldn’t think you were on solid ground accusing others of using emotional arguments when you have spent the last couple of pages inventing scenarios where there are big gangs of people roaming the streets burning peoples families alive.
It seems what was a fairly simple point proved just beyond your reach. I will ask you again, considering the ‘spark’ which you accept caused the riots was the police responding ‘firmly’ and ‘hard and fast’ why do you think the police behaving the same way would have clamed rather than inflamed the situation?
Your continued reference to ‘innocents’ the fact you seem very comfortable with ‘innocents’ being caught in the collective punishment you are doling out to ‘send a message’ seems like indiscriminate to me.
Plenty of unlikely things happen. It doesn’t mean we need to base our decisions on the unlikeliest of outcomes.
Increased force and increased numbers aren’t the same thing, however desperately you wish they were.
Im saying people who can make their own moral judgements are more mature than those who are simply unquestioningly obedient or too terrified to live by their judgements. People who are able to make their own moral judgements are also able to live with the consequences of doing so. The consequences are written within our laws as is our right to due process and presumption of innocence. If you break the law you are punished through the judiciary as per the law, you are given due process and a fair trial. This is infinitely better than arbitrary and indiscriminate actions by the police, with no presumption of innocence, no due process, no fair trial just a Constable who has decided to ‘send a message’ to some ‘scrotes’
If you agree, then why are you so terrified of everyone? Why do you need protection from the biggest bully on the block?

That proves it, then.



Stop dissembling. The specific example is rioters about to set fire to properties which are likely to contain occupants, whose lives will be (obviously) gravely endangered if the place goes up in flames. Nobody is talking - and I certainly wasn't - about "violence and intimidation as tactics to preserve order" so why even go there? In this case, if the would-be arsonists had been shot as they attempted to burn down the building then I would consider that proportionate.

So the bit where I said "increased numbers and conventional tactics" has slipped you by yet again I see.


It took 16,000 police on the streets to finally create a presence significant enough to prevent further trouble. But the damage was done. The 3,000 and 6,000 on the streets on the first few days couldn't handle it and that was clear to everyone, hence why the trouble spread.

Please, stop banging on about giving people a kicking and similar emotive terms. You're embarrassing yourself. I'm talking about effective methods of dispersing rioters, nothing more.


I ignore it because it's not relevant to our discussion on the police response to the September riots and you choose only to introduce it because you're flailing badly.

Oh, you might want to check again, I've not mentioned gangs burning people, but the poster who did has a very good point.


You do realise he was armed, don't you? And a known criminal? You expect police officers to tackle armed criminals by asking nicely? Actually, in keeping with your mentality you probably do.


So tell me, how many innocents were caught in the police response? How many innocents were injured by the police? How many buildings did the police destroy? How many businesses? How many people did the police kill? You prefer innocents to be hurt and killed by rioters while the police stand by. How odd.


No, but they aren't mutually exclusive and often go hand in hand.


We're not going to agree. You would rather rioters attacked people and property, turned our towns and cities in war zones and destroyed businesses rather than seeing firm police intervention to disperse the trouble.

Those involved can STILL be caught and prosecuted at a later date but you've also prevented further trouble. That you don't prefer that outcome is entirely baffling.


I'm not and I don't. But there are plenty of people who are, and who do.

East Stander you are I think referring to police using baton rounds, which are generally (not always) non-lethal. These are crowd clearance weapons, and police and armed forces aim low so as to reduce the danger of injury. Beyond a few feet you haven't much chance of aiming at or hitting a specific individual.

I was referring to the use of what might be termed "conventional" firearms, i.e. those that fire bullets.

Apologies for not making that clear