Him wrote:
I would imagine the police already have the authority and the right to do such a thing anyway.
The problem with it is, as with the idiots suggesting water cannon and rubber bullets would have stopped the riots earlier this year, that a police presence is necessary where these crimes are taking place.
The problem with the police response to the riots wasn't a lack of equipment or wrong tactics. It was a lack of police on the streets.
I think it was a combination of not enough feet on the street and poor tactics - and a poorly executed response. It was difficult for the police to react to a growing, fluid situation, though even when they were there in sufficient numbers, the 'stand off' approach was catastrophic.
As Peter Fahy says, if London had been in control within a few hours then copycat trouble would have been very unlikely. That would have meant the Met going in hard and fast and in great numbers. What actually happened was rioters knew they could do what they liked - often in full view of the line of police blockading one end of the high street - without immediate consequence.
British culture has been, for too long, one of a softly-softly approach. We complain when the police clamp down on disturbances and riots at protests, and the pathetic overreaction to 'kettling' was farcical. Then after we've we condemned and vilified the police for years we don't understand when they aren't willing or perhaps able to do what is necessary to stop violence on the streets. Generations of scrotes have grown up knowing they probably won't face much in the way of severe consequence for their actions and some of the behaviour displayed during the riots was, in part, an extension of that.
Frankly, I'm more surprised that we watch rioters engaging in rioting, arson and other violence and we AREN'T using measure such as plastic bullets or water cannon. And if getting sufficient numbers on the scene in time is an issue, then give them the tools to counter the balance.
