Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Wed Dec 21, 2011 11:25 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

Who has said they dont matter. As I said, you need a higher threshold for catastrophe

And perhaps you need to ask someone who lost their home or business - or family member - how it affected them.

SmokeyTA wrote:

And as I said, a hard and fast response is what lit the fire. Why do you then expect it to put the same fire out. I have no issue with there being more police on the street, im just not sure why you want to pretend higher numbers is the same as 'firm' and 'hard and fast' and any other aggressive terminology you think makes you look strong.

Are you daft? There was NO hard and fast response. That's precisely what let the crowds run riot in the first place, and precisely why copycat riots began to spring up. Every report has found this. I'm not sure which bit of this you don't understand.

SmokeyTA wrote:

Im not sure you need to be drunk to understand that fighting fire with fire guarantees something is going to burn.

You'd rather let the fire burn our of control, of course. Because that would be a better outcome.

SmokeyTA wrote:

And we have also seen what happens when the police go in 'hard and fast'. If you think that is preferable then there is something wrong with you.

Yes, they contained the disorder and dispersed the rioters. I'm not sure which bit of this you don't understand.

SmokeyTA wrote:

Do you think that makes you sound tough? It doesnt, just pretty stupid. The rule of law is sacrosanct. There is no standard rule of law, there is rule of law, it applies all the time.

No I just don't suffer fools and your whining makes me cringe. Again, no-one is advocating acting above the law. There are laws in place to deal with public disorder and they were used, and will be used again. As is sensible, the events are being scrutinised and if changes are necessary they will be made.

SmokeyTA wrote:

There is a lot that seems beyond you, This is why you look weak when you think you are being strong. Im not afraid of your ridiculous hypotheticals, I know that it is very unlikely to happen and I dont need some draconian protection allowing the principles of law to be suspended to protect me from it. I dont need it to assuage my fear of it happening, I have more faith in people. You are seeming terrified, so scared of this very rare scenario happening that you need to know you have a big bully on hand to protect you regardless of if innocent people get hurt.

I'm sure the people of Tottenham, Croydon, etc thought is was unlikely to happen. I'm sure hundreds of business never expected be ransacked and looted. I wonder, do you think they would have liked sufficient force on the scene to protect them?

It's very touching you're so concerned with 'innocents' being hurt. And very naive. Fortunately better people than you are willing to make grown-up decisions.

Fine, if you don't want protection, I assume you won't bother ringing the police if you hear burglars downstairs? Or see someone attacking a family member? You'll let things take their course because you have faith in the law to locate, arrest, try and convict the offender.

Frankly, it's the pathetic attitude of people like you that's helped breed these generations of scrotes. They know there will be no serious consequences for most of what they get up to, they know they can act the victim, and they think the world owes them everything. You "have faith in people"? Haha, seriously? I never had you down as naive or stupid. That's changed.

Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Wed Dec 21, 2011 12:15 pm  

Cronus wrote:

And perhaps you need to ask someone who lost their home or business - or family member - how it affected them.

Why? Will they be as ridiculously over-emotional as you? Im sure it was a terrible experience for them. Im just pretty sure worse things happen, and if we class a couple of people losing a few things as a catastrophe what are we going to call it when something really bad happens?

Are you daft? There was NO hard and fast response. That's precisely what let the crowds run riot in the first place, and precisely why copycat riots began to spring up. Every report has found this. I'm not sure which bit of this you don't understand.

Other than of course ‘firm’ policing and a ‘hard and fast response’ resulting in a the police killing someone they really shouldn’t have of course. We have to ignore that fact for you to reclaim even a little credibility. And of course the roughly 400 people who have died in police custody over the past 12 years. Also again, you are desperately trying to conflate increased numbers with ‘firm’ and ‘hard and fast’.

You'd rather let the fire burn our of control, of course. Because that would be a better outcome.

No I haven’t stated I would let anything burn out of control. You only feel the need to make up this nonsense because you know the failings of your argument but cant bring yourself to admit them.

Yes, they contained the disorder and dispersed the rioters. I'm not sure which bit of this you don't understand.

And they killed someone, but we need to ignore that don’t we

No I just don't suffer fools and your whining makes me cringe. Again, no-one is advocating acting above the law. There are laws in place to deal with public disorder and they were used, and will be used again. As is sensible, the events are being scrutinised and if changes are necessary they will be made

.You were advocating breaking the law, you were advocating the police don’t respond with necessary force but enough force to ‘send out a message’ and not even enough force to ‘send out a message’ used on people who were committing a crime but indiscriminately on people who may or may not be involved, people guilty of only being in the vicinity. Though we seem to be seeing a significant retraction away from what you originally said, I assume its because you now see what nonsense it was.

I'm sure the people of Tottenham, Croydon, etc thought is was unlikely to happen. I'm sure hundreds of business never expected be ransacked and looted. I wonder, do you think they would have liked sufficient force on the scene to protect them?

They thought it was unlikely to happen because the are clearly more intelligent than you and because well, it was very unlikely to happen, and continues to be very unlikely to happen. I see no reason for us to base our response and our attitudes and the rules which govern police behaviour on things which are very very unlikely to happen.

It's very touching you're so concerned with 'innocents' being hurt. And very naive. Fortunately better people than you are willing to make grown-up decisions.

Its sweet that you think you sound grown up.

Fine, if you don't want protection, I assume you won't bother ringing the police if you hear burglars downstairs? Or see someone attacking a family member? You'll let things take their course because you have faith in the law to locate, arrest, try and convict the offender.

there are rules which govern the police’s response and limit them to only using force which is necessary. Im more than comfortable with the police only using necessary force and not using any crime committed against me as an excuse to ‘send out a message’ or intimidate people.

Frankly, it's the pathetic attitude of people like you that's helped breed these generations of scrotes. They know there will be no serious consequences for most of what they get up to, they know they can act the victim, and they think the world owes them everything. You "have faith in people"? Haha, seriously? I never had you down as naive or stupid. That's changed.

Its not my fault these ‘scrotes’ are smarter than you and have matured beyond unquestioning obedience. There are a lot more people who do good things on a daily basis than do bad things, there is a much higher chance that someone will help me than attack me, everyday millions of people get up and do nice things, live good lives and are generally nice people. It’s only a small minority who do the opposite. Maybe you have lost sight of that, and that’s sad, because it seems a very dark and nasty world you inhabit. I would hate to join you in it, it sounds awful

Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Wed Dec 21, 2011 1:03 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

Why? Will they be as ridiculously over-emotional as you? Im sure it was a terrible experience for them. Im just pretty sure worse things happen, and if we class a couple of people losing a few things as a catastrophe what are we going to call it when something really bad happens?

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'.

SmokeyTA wrote:

Other than of course ‘firm’ policing and a ‘hard and fast response’ resulting in a the police killing someone they really shouldn’t have of course. We have to ignore that fact for you to reclaim even a little credibility. And of course the roughly 400 people who have died in police custody over the past 12 years. Also again, you are desperately trying to conflate increased numbers with ‘firm’ and ‘hard and fast’.
No I haven’t stated I would let anything burn out of control. You only feel the need to make up this nonsense because you know the failings of your argument but cant bring yourself to admit them.

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

SmokeyTA wrote:

And they killed someone, but we need to ignore that don’t we

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.

SmokeyTA wrote:

.You were advocating breaking the law, you were advocating the police don’t respond with necessary force but enough force to ‘send out a message’ and not even enough force to ‘send out a message’ used on people who were committing a crime but indiscriminately on people who may or may not be involved, people guilty of only being in the vicinity. Though we seem to be seeing a significant retraction away from what you originally said, I assume its because you now see what nonsense it was.

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?

SmokeyTA wrote:

They thought it was unlikely to happen because the are clearly more intelligent than you and because well, it was very unlikely to happen, and continues to be very unlikely to happen. I see no reason for us to base our response and our attitudes and the rules which govern police behaviour on things which are very very unlikely to happen.

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?

SmokeyTA wrote:

there are rules which govern the police’s response and limit them to only using force which is necessary. Im more than comfortable with the police only using necessary force and not using any crime committed against me as an excuse to ‘send out a message’ or intimidate people.

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.

SmokeyTA wrote:

Its not my fault these ‘scrotes’ are smarter than you and have matured beyond unquestioning obedience.

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.

SmokeyTA wrote:

There are a lot more people who do good things on a daily basis than do bad things, there is a much higher chance that someone will help me than attack me, everyday millions of people get up and do nice things, live good lives and are generally nice people. It’s only a small minority who do the opposite. Maybe you have lost sight of that, and that’s sad, because it seems a very dark and nasty world you inhabit. I would hate to join you in it, it sounds awful

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.

Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Wed Dec 21, 2011 1:48 pm  

Not wishing to get involved but from and observers point of view Smokey TA is romping to victory on this debate. Cronus, you have been comprehensively out debated in a rational and (ironically since you attempted to use the term in a demeaning context in your argument) mature fashion.

I would summerise the debate as Smokey addressing the issue with the view to representing and considering societies needs as a whole, while you seem to be advocating turning the police into the meanest gang on the streets, capable of "dishing it out" to those who step out of line.

It is not the police' role to punish those breaking the law.

Finally I would say that the length of civil disorder such as this is not generally governed by the response of the police but by the strength of feeling of those involved in the disorder. It may be there are lessons to be learned from Northern Ireland.

Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Wed Dec 21, 2011 2:05 pm  

Off! Number Seven wrote:

Not wishing to get involved but from and observers point of view Smokey TA is romping to victory on this debate. Cronus, you have been comprehensively out debated in a rational and (ironically since you attempted to use the term in a demeaning context in your argument) mature fashion.

I would summerise the debate as Smokey addressing the issue with the view to representing and considering societies needs as a whole, while you seem to be advocating turning the police into the meanest gang on the streets, capable of "dishing it out" to those who step out of line.

It is not the police' role to punish those breaking the law.

Finally I would say that the length of civil disorder such as this is not generally governed by the response of the police but by the strength of feeling of those involved in the disorder. It may be there are lessons to be learned from Northern Ireland.

Let me make this clear.

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 am advocating a larger scale and more pro-active response in such cases of civil disorder in order to prevent disorder escalating further. Nowhere have I said the police should be 'punishing' anyone or dish anything out, though of course in order to control a situation involving hundreds of rioting people then yes, aggressive action is required and that requires tactics and equipment. You think rioters will disperse if asked nicely? No, they disperse if they see a line of police shields charging at them.

Smokey is advocating the police simply standing by and watching as buildings burn, businesses are looted and people are attacked, in the hope that the offenders can be caught and dealt with after the event, and in order to protect his inflexible ideology. Which is a bit odd, because on the one hand he's standing firmly behind the rule of law and on the other he's happy to allow people to break the law at will until presumably they are tired or bored and go home. Whatever, fine, let's go with it. The police stand off, but then what about the people and property that are left unprotected? You're happy to see widespread destruction? Injuries? Loss of life?

You say the length of disorder is governed by the strength of feeling. That's fine and dandy, but that doesn't mean we should stand by and let it run it's course - that's just insanity. The simple fact is that in September the disorder was allowed to go largely unchecked and far from dissipating it spread and grew on an unprecedented scale - again, not just my opinion, but fact.

Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Wed Dec 21, 2011 2:07 pm  

Off! Number Seven wrote:

I would summerise the debate as Smokey addressing the issue with the view to representing and considering societies needs as a whole, while you seem to be advocating turning the police into the meanest gang on the streets, capable of "dishing it out" to those who step out of line.

It is not the police' role to punish those breaking the law.

Indeed, and there has been a movement in recent years towards capturing video and photographic evidence while criminal acts are being performed, and then relying on the quality of those images to unearth the culprits later, the Bradford riots may have been one of the first occasions where this tactic was used to a very successful conclusion.

In that case however the handing over of suspects was in many cases due to Asian community elders (not exclusively but certainly in significant numbers) insisting that young Asians captured on camera should face the law - the subsequent sentences in court were of a similar severity to those handed down in the August riots and possibly destroyed a lot of that good faith as the general feeling was that custodial sentences for throwing one brick or standing around watching was way over the top and there was, as is now, a feeling that political interference was made in the judicial process.

Should a police force stand back and allow criminal acts to take place as long as they are filming them in high definition, are they not relying on goodwill then to have the culprits handed back to them at a later date, and is such goodwill only given when the public feel that a fair result is given in court ?

If there is sympathy for the cause would the "dobbing in" goodwill be lost (tuition fees, unemployment marches etc), leaving the police high and dry with lots of nice video footage and just the BBC's Crimewatch to flog it to ?

Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Wed Dec 21, 2011 2:16 pm  

More to the point, if you're trapped with your kids on the third floor of a building which rioters are trying to torch, would you prefer that the police actively tried to stop the rioters torching the building, or would you be happy if they just video'd it, so there was a possibility that some of the arsonists who fried you and your family would be later identified?

Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Wed Dec 21, 2011 4:31 pm  

Complete rubbish. Police are trained to "stop" targets and aim for the centre of the torso. The reason is that outside Clint Eastwood movies, no-one can shot at a moving target with a single shot weapon with any expectation of hitting a specific part of the body.

I speak from experience.

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

Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Wed Dec 21, 2011 4:36 pm  

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.

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.

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.

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.

The debate should be about prevention, repairing lines of communication and trust between the police, community leaders and the population in general.

Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Wed Dec 21, 2011 5:17 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

More to the point, if you're trapped with your kids on the third floor of a building which rioters are trying to torch, would you prefer that the police actively tried to stop the rioters torching the building, or would you be happy if they just video'd it, so there was a possibility that some of the arsonists who fried you and your family would be later identified?

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.