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.

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. It doesn’t allow the police to give a scrote a kicking to send a message to his mates, it doesn’t allow the police to police through violence, aggression and bullying and it protects the public from people who are committing a crime but simply happen to be wearing a uniform.

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.

[url=http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/home-affairs/HC%201456-I%20Final%20Report.pdfHome Office: Lessons from the disturbances of August 2011[/url
"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."

[url=http://www.5daysinaugust.co.uk/PDF/downloads/Executive-summary-UK-Riots.pdfUK Riots Executive Summary[/url (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"


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.


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.


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.


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.

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 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)

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.
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?
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.
Plenty of unlikely things happen. It doesn’t mean we need to base our decisions on the unlikeliest of outcomes.
Increased force and increased numbers aren’t the same thing, however desperately you wish they were.
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’
If you agree, then why are you so terrified of everyone? Why do you need protection from the biggest bully on the block?

That proves it, then.



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.

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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.