So nothing to say about the personal catastrophes of the families of Blair Peach, Mark Duggan or Ian Tomlinson then? Thats pretty telling.
Cronus wrote:
So the bit where I said "increased numbers and conventional tactics" has slipped you by yet again I see.
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.
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.
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.
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.
no you arent, you are talking about
Cronus wrote:
And I don't care if rioters respect the police or not. What I want is them to be sufficiently frightened of the consequences that they think twice. .
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.
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.
Other than it being the cause of the September riots it is of course irrelevant to September riots.
Oh, you might want to check again, I've not mentioned gangs burning people, but the poster who did has a very good point.
except when you were blabbering on here
Cronus wrote:
Tell you what, next time there's widespread rioting, arson and violence - I'll start twittering (anonymously of course) that they go round your gaff and burn it to the ground. Perhaps a few family members will have to jump from first floor windows but apparently that's acceptable. On your advice the police will stand back just in case a few "innocents" happen to be in the firing line (though why they would be is beyond me). I'm sure you'll be content when perhaps a couple of the rioters are tracked down.
of course.
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.
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.
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.
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 .
No, but they aren't mutually exclusive and often go hand in hand.
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
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.
No, you have made that up, I would wager you know you have made that up and that makes you a liar.
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 do want that outcome. Its the route you want to take to get to that outcome which is completely disagree with.
I'm not and I don't. But there are plenty of people who are, and who do.
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.
