Jean Charles De Menezes didn't do anything wrong other than look like someone else.

Saying that if you're in the middle of a riot wearing a bandana.

I would be extremely "disgruntled" off but if they could provide sufficient explanation as to the logic behind why it happened then i'd accept it.

Do you mean most lenient or least violent? I've always thought it's a great testimony to our society that the police here are not forced to carry around huge batons or guns to instill a sense of fear. That's not what our policing is about and I'm very thankful that it isn't because that's not what we're about as a community either.

Outrages like the de Menezes case are beside the point, though. His death is no argument for making police whose job includes potentially risking their own lives to confront armed and extremely dangerous people do that job unarmed.

So nothing to say about the personal catastrophes of the families of Blair Peach, Mark Duggan or Ian Tomlinson then? Thats pretty telling. No, thats kind of what i was pointing out, you're need to conflate 'increased numbers and conventional tactics' with 'sending a message' 'intimidation' and the rest of your nonsense.


Yes, 16k police on the street. I havent once argued we didnt need, or shouldnt have had 16k police on the street. Im saying they dont need water cannons and guns, send a message or intimidate people. We know this to be the case because we put 16k police on the street, we didnt give them guns or water cannon, we didnt get them to send a message or intimidate people, we just got them out there.
no you arent, you are talking about
Policing by consent and policing by fear are mutually exclusive, there are many effective ways or of dispersing rioters, nobody has argued that we should focus on ineffective (though im sure you will confuse my finding standing and watching viewpoint rather than state sponsored violence as being in favor of only standing and watching rather than just finding it preferable to violence) means of dispersing rioters. The argument isnt between effective and ineffective its about what is reasonable and acceptable and proportional.
Other than it being the cause of the September riots it is of course irrelevant to September riots.

except when you were blabbering on here of course.

I dont expect them to shoot a man who was in a car, who they didnt know was armed and didnt show a clear danger. I dont expect them to shoot themselves then blame it on a man who possessed a gun which fired blanks.
Well none were, because as we discussed the police didnt go wading in. As we can know around 400 people in the last 12 years die in police custody, we can see the examples of complete innocents like Ian Tomlinson. Dont prefer innocents to be hurt and killed by rioters at all, i have never said anything like that at all you have, again, simply made it up. I have in fact said, quite clearly that if there is a clear and immediate danger posed by the actions of anybody, whether they be police, rioters, MP's, a group of priests or just general plain old criminals there is already scope within the law for proportional and necessary force to be applied, including, as a last resort lethal force and im comfortable with that.

But where there isnt a clear and immediate danger posed to someone, then the force which is necessary and proportional is much much lower, and there isnt much danger to innocents in someone nicking some trainers .

What a ridiculous thing to say, it makes no sense. Why do you think that having a higher number of police goes hand in hand with those police officers being more aggressive in their policing? You're talking absolute nonsense

No, you have made that up, I would wager you know you have made that up and that makes you a liar.


I do want that outcome. Its the route you want to take to get to that outcome which is completely disagree with.
Im not going to live my life beholden to other peoples baseless paranoia. They are wrong. It is that simple, their appreciation of risk is wrong. We should probably explain that to them before we start more aggressive policing.

erm yes.
Yes, and in that very specific and highly rare situation then as I said the necessary force could include lethal force. Though im not sure why you have brought up such a rare and specific example? are we going to go through all rare and specific examples where lethal force may be necessary or just this one?

F'ck me you're boring. And stupid. Stupid and boring. And stubborn. Stupid, boring and stubborn.

Your bizarre ideology is all nice and cushy in a textbook and sounds all warm and inspiring but frankly it's utter bllocks when it comes to handling actual large-scale disorder and engaging with rioters, looters and arsonists on the streets. As proven by the actual events.

That you're reeling out the 'Tomlinson', '400 deaths', and throwing the discussion all over the place says volumes. You got off on a terrible point and won't let it drop and are therefore introducing the usual tired arguments.

Now stop bothering me, I'm not piddling around with umpteen quotes anymore, I want to enjoy Christmas and will engage only with adults of reasonable demeanour and intelligent mind.

Is this a joke? Its pretty funny if it is

A bit funnier if it isnt.

Its fairly clear that in the de Menezes case lethal force shouldnt have been used, the police werent sure if he posed an immediate threat, they werent even sure who he was, that seems an awfully low threshold for the use of lethal force.

Surely his death is a pretty good argument for limiting the force allowed by the police and having very tight regulations and rules over when that force can be used.

I told you I don't suffer fools and therefore our conversation has run its course.

Good day to you.

I am of the opinion that nobody posting on this thread is likely to shift from their rather entrenched opinions on the matter so will leave it and agree to disagree.

Me included I suppose. I am firmly in the camp of messrs Strummer, Jones, Simonon and Headon on the matter. "Know your rights, all three of 'em"

Keep it civil please folks.

You have either lost the plot, or having lost this point, are deliberately obfuscating as a smokescreen. It won't work. This particular bit of the discussion was born from the discussion opened by the authorities on whether things could or should be done differently, including whether the use of non-lethal and lethal weapons could or should be applied.

It was never suggested that thare aren't already armed police. It was never suggested that the police don't already have a route whereby 'rubber bulets' could be fired. They do have arms and they do have facilities. We all know this. The question was rather whether, operationally, they ought to use direct and possibly lethal force in some exreme situations such as were seen in the riots.

Some widened this discussion by suggesting that the risk of 'innocent people' being injured or killed by police firearms was unacceptable and so suggesting that the passive approach was as good as it should get. I suggested that in extreme circumstances i would rather the police took an active approach, and if the choice was between (for example) shooting would-be arsonists on the one hand, and allowing tem to torch possibly ccupied residences on the other, I would have favoured the use of force, even lethal force. As my view is that the right to life of the innocent occupants far outweighs the right to life of the person intent on burning down their residence regardless of the likelihood that innocent residents will be seriously injured or die.

that is the context of the discussion. So I askedMore 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? '"

Are we any different from Syria if these actions take place?