Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Wed Dec 21, 2011 5:29 pm  

Off! Number Seven wrote: 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. No, it's not a theory. Those are the findings of reports into the riots - including feedback from from those who participated. And frankly, to anyone who followed events, it's bleedin' obvious. Home Office: Lessons from the disturbances of August 2011 "There is also anecdotal evidence that some people became involved in the disorder because they saw the police standing by and not arresting anyone, or because there were no police present at all. This was the view of the young people we spoke to at Feltham Young Offenders Institution" "What ultimately worked in quelling the disorder was increasing the number of police officers on duty and flooding the streets with police. If numbers could have been increased more rapidly, it is possible that some of the disturbances could have been avoided." UK Riots Executive Summary (an independent body) "The vast majority of people we spoke to believed that the sole trigger for disturbances in their areas was the perception that the police could not contain the scale of rioting in Tottenham and then across London." "Rioters believed they would be able to loot and damage without being challenged by the police. In the hardest hit areas, they were correct" "Lack of confidence in the police response to the initial riots encouraged people to test reactions in other areas." "It seems clear that the spread of rioting was helped both by televised images of police watching people cause damage and looting at will" Off! Number Seven wrote: 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. But you don't want intervention? There isn't a middle ground in a riot, you either engage the rioters or stand back. Look what happened when the police stood back. Off! Number Seven wrote: 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. It needs to be proportionate, but it needs to be effective. The response in September was neither - it was weak and ineffective, and as the reports and many commentators found, it helped escalate the situation until 28 of 32 London boroughs saw trouble, and then many towns and cities across England. I'm not sure what's so difficult about accepting that nipping it in the bud early on would not have seen disorder spread in the manner it did. If that means a hard and firm response, so be it. The sensitivities of those who dislike 'violence' are rather less important than preventing further damage to property, businesses, homes, etc, and potentially further injuries and deaths. Off! Number Seven wrote: 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. Northern Ireland is not a good comparison. The causes are different, the historical circumstances are different, the relationship with the police is different. There exists a deeply embedded culture of civil disorder in NI probably unparalleled anywhere in the world. Off! Number Seven wrote: The debate should be about prevention, repairing lines of communication and trust between the police, community leaders and the population in general. That's fine and I applaud such progress. However, if someone chooses to go onto our streets and engage in wanton and wilful destruction of property, they must expect to be met by a capable and willing police force and face the consequences of their actions.

Off! Number Seven wrote: 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. No, it's not a theory. Those are the findings of reports into the riots - including feedback from from those who participated. And frankly, to anyone who followed events, it's bleedin' obvious. Home Office: Lessons from the disturbances of August 2011 "There is also anecdotal evidence that some people became involved in the disorder because they saw the police standing by and not arresting anyone, or because there were no police present at all. This was the view of the young people we spoke to at Feltham Young Offenders Institution" "What ultimately worked in quelling the disorder was increasing the number of police officers on duty and flooding the streets with police. If numbers could have been increased more rapidly, it is possible that some of the disturbances could have been avoided." UK Riots Executive Summary (an independent body) "The vast majority of people we spoke to believed that the sole trigger for disturbances in their areas was the perception that the police could not contain the scale of rioting in Tottenham and then across London." "Rioters believed they would be able to loot and damage without being challenged by the police. In the hardest hit areas, they were correct" "Lack of confidence in the police response to the initial riots encouraged people to test reactions in other areas." "It seems clear that the spread of rioting was helped both by televised images of police watching people cause damage and looting at will" Off! Number Seven wrote: 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. But you don't want intervention? There isn't a middle ground in a riot, you either engage the rioters or stand back. Look what happened when the police stood back. Off! Number Seven wrote: 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. It needs to be proportionate, but it needs to be effective. The response in September was neither - it was weak and ineffective, and as the reports and many commentators found, it helped escalate the situation until 28 of 32 London boroughs saw trouble, and then many towns and cities across England. I'm not sure what's so difficult about accepting that nipping it in the bud early on would not have seen disorder spread in the manner it did. If that means a hard and firm response, so be it. The sensitivities of those who dislike 'violence' are rather less important than preventing further damage to property, businesses, homes, etc, and potentially further injuries and deaths. Off! Number Seven wrote: 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. Northern Ireland is not a good comparison. The causes are different, the historical circumstances are different, the relationship with the police is different. There exists a deeply embedded culture of civil disorder in NI probably unparalleled anywhere in the world. Off! Number Seven wrote: The debate should be about prevention, repairing lines of communication and trust between the police, community leaders and the population in general. That's fine and I applaud such progress. However, if someone chooses to go onto our streets and engage in wanton and wilful destruction of property, they must expect to be met by a capable and willing police force and face the consequences of their actions.

Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Wed Dec 21, 2011 5:38 pm  

Cronus wrote:

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'.

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'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 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)

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

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

Plenty of unlikely things happen. It doesn’t mean we need to base our decisions on the unlikeliest of outcomes.

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.

Increased force and increased numbers aren’t the same thing, however desperately you wish they were.

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.

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’

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.

If you agree, then why are you so terrified of everyone? Why do you need protection from the biggest bully on the block?

Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Wed Dec 21, 2011 5:46 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

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.

That proves it, then.

SmokeyTA wrote:

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. ...

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.

Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Wed Dec 21, 2011 5:54 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

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.

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

SmokeyTA wrote:

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)

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.

SmokeyTA wrote:

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.

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.

SmokeyTA wrote:

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?

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.

SmokeyTA wrote:

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.

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.

SmokeyTA wrote:

Increased force and increased numbers aren’t the same thing, however desperately you wish they were.

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

SmokeyTA wrote:

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’

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.

SmokeyTA wrote:

If you agree, then why are you so terrified of everyone? Why do you need protection from the biggest bully on the block?

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

Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Wed Dec 21, 2011 7:22 pm  

east stander wrote:

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

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

Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Wed Dec 21, 2011 7:49 pm  

Hoofer wrote:

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.

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.

Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Wed Dec 21, 2011 7:59 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

That proves it, then.

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.

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

Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Wed Dec 21, 2011 10:47 pm  

billypop wrote:

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.

Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Thu Dec 22, 2011 2:58 am  

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.

[Kosh]

Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:16 am  

TrinityIHC wrote:

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.