With 24 hours notice the old bill were able to put enough bodies on the ground that they could contain and end the riots, the reason the riots spread was it seemed like they'd lost control, it wasn't because they didn't have water canon or baton rounds to hand.

Whereupon all the other cities and towns suffered because their coppers were saving London

If they had had wc and br to hand then they might not have lost control in the first place

Erm, no. No they didn't



If it had been a riot like the student riots earlier in the year then aye, you'd be right. I seriously doubt (as do many chief constables) that those tactics could have coped with small groups, coming together for 10-15 minutes of mayhem and vanishing again.

I'm sure it was reported on the local news that Police from surrounding counties had been brought into London.

edit

Yes, thought i hadn't imagined it
1.Thames Valley
2.Essex
3.Kent
4.Surrey
5.City of London.



re-edit

Apparently in later editions it went up to 12 outside police forces being drafted in to help

So the lack of officers in Manchester was nothing to do with the van loads that went down to the smoke on the second night?

Quite often it is the threat of what is available that prevents crimes being committed

Manchester police didn't go to London.

Not what i was told, but they might have been wrong, however it was the head of the GMP on the radio disscussing it the day after , I'll bow to your superior knowledge though

As you don't cope well with long posts, and are also visibly becoming more confused and agitated by the minute, I'll keep it short.

1. The report was not, at all, about any individual officer's "need for additional training", and your suggestion that no looters got shot because the police were unaware they could shoot them is as barking as anything you've come up with yet.

2. Hang on, the level of barking has gone up a couple of notches. The police did not cause the riots, and they said no such thing.

As you are just making up rubbish, there is no point in responding to any more of your drivel.

:3dp19hcxAs you seem to struggle with basic English, and seemingly jump in with what I assume you think are witty attempts at patronising ill try and keep it simple for you I haven’t suggested that the police were unaware they could use lethal force, its kind of why I mentioned the fact they had used lethal force and how odd that contradiction would be. I simply suggested that that if an individual police officer didn’t know they could use lethal force it was because they were mistaken, not because we need new rules of engagement, new laws, or new weapons. Simply properly trained police officers.
Though considering the what the police have actually said :3dp19hcx Its more likely that the police didn’t use force not because they weren’t aware they were allowed, not because they were scared to, but far more likely that they just didn’t think they were valid tactics in that specific situation.

The shooting of Mark Duggan was he spark which caused the riots, that’s pretty much universally accepted. If you want to believe that the police responsible for killing man aren’t responsible for the consequences of that, well then that is up to you.

Only one taker to this one

There's a bit of a confused logic there though isn't there ?

You believe that the consequences of the police shooting a man are civil riot and yet would support the police shooting more people who are rioting, presumably leading to more people rioting because of those shootings ?

The nutter who answered got part of the reply correct, "Any force that is reasonable under the given circumstances" is probably the correct answer which could include lethal force but not necessarily - ultimately it would depend on a judges opinion on whether or not you believed your life to be in imminent danger as to whether you could be justified in killing someone and its a pure guess on my part but I'd imagine that any means of escape would be taken into account in that judgement.