There is also an intrinsic danger to baton rounds because of their very inaccuracy and unpredictability - aim low and if they hit the ground, or a kerb then they are going to fly anywhere, still at speed, and can become lethal.

So you may aim at the waist down into a crowd of rioters and suddenly find that your hard plastic slug has just bounced up off the road and struck a by-stander in the head 20 yards away from where you were aiming it - it happened often in NI and killed people too.

As always, there are no easy answers.

I agree. Please tell me who would disagree (waits for the thunder of feet).

Jenny Jones, of the Metropolitan Police Authority, said: ‘Endorsing the use of live ammunition is an approval of the tactics of war on London’s streets and implementing such recommendations would be madness.’

Now run along, or if you're staying, do at least try to keep up.

As I see it, if people want to go out burning, looting and terrorising other law abiding members of society, then fine - I accept that some people do these things for whatever reason. However they should be prepared for society to respond appropriately, not with cameras, tickings off and a couple of months in a comfortable, clean, warm and secure prison cell but with force.

As far as i'm concerned, the police are there to keep the peace and protect the public - if that means they have to occasionally resort to a bit of skullduggery, then that's fine by me - as long as they get the job done.

That's the thin end of a very long wedge that eventually leads to a police state. It's a pattern that's been repeated many, many times down through the years in various countries and the citizens always live to regret it.

Many people would have you believe the UK police are just a load of devious, violent, murderous, semi-criminal thugs operating beyond the law as it is.

The UK has some of the most lenient policing in the world - at times far too lenient, probably in fear of the typical press overreaction and witch hunt. We saw disturbances last year that would have seen rubber/plastic bullets, water cannon, tear gas - even new innovations like the 'Active Denial System', MEDUSA and the Reizstoffwerfer 99 deployed in many other countries without hesitation, and yet we're up in arms about rioters getting walloped occasionally and largely passive tactics such as 'kettling'.

I'm not in favour of acting beyond the law, but I'm in favour of getting tough when required.

Which kinda makes what you've written above totally unnecessary, unless your idea of "getting tough when required", means operating beyond the rule of law? The police are already allowed to get tough, they are simply bound by the entirely reasonable constraint of proportionality. Once they step beyond that, they shouldn't complain if they face investigation and possible prosecution. Saying that, I don't know of any other group who are allowed by law to consult with fellow officers when writing up their notebooks. Anyone else would be accused of collusion

There isn't a police force in the world that doesn't have at least [isome[/i element of the above. Police are human and have human failings. I don't see 'many' people suggesting that the UK Police[i in their entirety[/i are anything like as bad as you suggest.


The UK has 'lenient' Policing - although that's an emotive and subjective term probably best kept out of a sensible conversation on the topic - because the UK Police was founded on, and has always operated by, the principle of policing by consent. It's worked very well for many, many years and has resulted in a police force which - despite some problems - is still seen as less remote and threatening than many others.

I don't see many people 'up in arms' about the harshness of the tactics used during the riots - quite the opposite in fact. The issue is whether the Police had the powers necessary to handle the riots with [iappropriate[/i force and whether or not they chose the correct tactics. I'd rather that fundamental principles like this be discussed calmly and rationally with input from the officers who actually have to implement said tactics without the nonsense being put forward by the extremes on both sides of the debate.

Indeed, and I wouldn't disagree with any of that. Yet even with the legal scope to toughen up it was maddeningly frustrating to see the police standing and watching in September as shops were looted and streets trashed - even people attacked. I understand that in many cases they were outnumbered, but the 'stand back' order was pathetic and it was clear from early on that the police we unwilling (or unable) to take on the rioters. It was also clear that was a key reason for trouble escalating.

And when the police do step things up and a couple of skulls are cracked or a few people complain about 'kettling', the subsequent press overreaction and witch-hunt is ridiculous.

I completely agree, though it's apparent many people see the police as nothing more than uniformed thugs - that sort of expression has been used many time on this very forum. I have a friend who irrationally hates the police thanks to a couple of minor experiences and nothing will change that view.

Of course we probably all have friends or 'associates' who hate the police for 'career' reasons. 4.87109375:5