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.




No-one is up in arms about that harshness of police tactics during the riots simply because the police were largely ineffective, certainly in the early stages. They suffered primarily from lack of numbers and also from the fluid nature of events.

And it's been whispered in some quarters that one reason the police decided to adopt a stand off approach in September was as a result of the onslaught of damning criticism they received in the press following the disturbances and riots at various demonstrations earlier this year. Friends of mine serving in GMP have confirmed that is the feeling amongst many officers. Yet paradoxically public support for the police was overwhelming in September.

The police are damned if they do, damned if they don't. Generally they get the balance right.

The official explanation was that the officers in charge had designated the events as a "public order" situation, and not as simple criminality, and as such the main official tactics seem to be to contain, and watch.

In fact I'd go on to say that the UK police force does a great job on the whole, considering it's got one arm tied behind it's back half the time, and the other half it's being vilified by the members of the public that they are there to protect. Yes they make mistakes, but as someone has said - they are only human.

If you do nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about. Stay out of the way and you wont get shot. Loot and be prepared for a baton round to the Boll*cks-Seems fair to me

And if you ever become a case of summary justice via mistaken identity, you will stick to your view, yes?
Like hell you will.

This has been proven wrong time and time again. Why do people still bother to trot it out?

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.

Awww, I bet you think that's witty dont you?

Your little hissy fit has made me smile. A good day to you too, and dont be so afraid

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.

:sfhtcxox

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 asked:

:sfhtcxox

I think you must have been living in a sealed box during the riots since you oddly replied:

:sfhtcxox

The whole point, which your remark spectacularly missed, is that I was referring to specific cases which had actually arisen, before the world's media, even if they had passed you by.

I was not suggesting that there wasn't already "provision in law" for use of necessary force, nor was anyone else. The issue was why the police had not used it.

Accepting that you innocently knew nothing of people having actually had to jump from burning buildings, I offered you one of the images which you had somehow missed seeing or knowing of.

And so I'm baffled at your next response:
:sfhtcxox

I did not bring it up. The report by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary brought it up. I was simply adding my comments. The report called for clear rules of engagement to establish ‘an agreed envelope of available tactics and associated use of force, that are likely to maintain public support’. The specific issue I raised was people having [i:sfhtcxoxde facto[/i stood by and watched in some cases buildings being torched. Due amongst other things to their interpretation at the time of their current 'rules of engagement'.

If you don't now get this, after that, then I can't help you. I would suggest that you write to Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and point out that they are wasting their tiime and money as should such very specific and highly unlikely situations 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, and so there's nothing to discuss and the report was presumably in your view a waste of paper.

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