[QuickTidal]

worrywort, on 10 August 2011 - 03:37 AM, said:

KK, you have one decent point here. Riots do sometimes snowball till they're way disconnected from the original point, and proportionally it might even be true that >50% of those involved are opportunists. While it's rarely that simple, on a basic level I can't fault anyone for at least acknowledging the possibility of that premise.

But when you say "police crossing the line," that's just a euphemism for breaking the law, plain and simple. I'm not afraid of police crossing the line, I abhor it. Cuz frankly, once they've crossed that line, guess what, they're on the same side of it as the rioters. I can't recall anybody making the argument that policework isn't a risky, stressful job...but arbitrarily bashing in the heads of rioters (let alone bystanders) isn't a legitimate method of blowing off steam. And yes, people in need of police aid sure do hope the police do their best. Why exactly shouldn't they? There's no basis for equating expecting officers to follow the laws they uphold and the duties of their job, with hoping the worst for them or forgetting that most police aren't corrupt. Those are straw men. I get that they're born out of frustration, but even if they were legitimate complaints it wouldn't grant police a license to overstep their regulations. They're not judges, they're not juries, and you better be thankful they are not executioners. It's not "PC" to uphold the law, it's the basic point of the job. Self defense is legit. Riot suppression is legit. Mistakes and human error: reasonable. Outright disregard for protocol, fundamental civil rights, and human decency...isn't policework. Once you cross that line, you're no longer police, badge be damned.

Edit: Okay, two good points: Teenagers are indeed awful.

my point was that everyone gets on the police's case for using extreme (read: baton rounds, water cannons ect.) to quell unrest...and I STILL say if you were a cop you'd be singing a different tune about it. Everyone has an altruistic opinion about what is "right" and what is "Just" on paper...but let me tell you the reality on the ground when you are a police officer with a shield and a billy stick is different. Police getting their hands tied more and more over the last 30 years has shown these rioting youths that they CAN get away with this shit, because the "law" is on their side as to what they are entitled to. at what point do we get to say enough is enough? At what point does the country stop taking it in the ass and say, no...these little shits don't rule our country, we do?

This post has been edited by King Kazma: 10 August 2011 - 03:54 AM

[worry]

The police serve those "little shits" as much as they serve anyone. They simply aren't the branch of the legal system that decides guilt or carries out punishments. They shouldn't be feared in the first place, because they are not supposed to be the ones deciding repercussions for crimes committed. I'm not sure why you keep coming back to the claim that people are always against the police; it's no more helpful a generalization than those who ascribe corruption to the entire force because of a few bad apples, a point you yourself made a few posts back. Most people enjoy having a non-corrupt, functioning, helpful police force. As far as things sounding good "on paper," I know the UK doesn't have a formal Constitution (though Canada sure does), but if you're attributing rule of law to "bleeding heart liberals" I would be more than happy to accept the honor. That said, I don't think it would be honest. Unfortunately, I agree with you that most cops are hardworking, trustworthy, honorable upholders of the law...but in that light, I think they would generally refuse many of the draconian measures and legal shortcuts that angry/fearful/frustrated civilians would offer them. At least I'd hope so.

This post has been edited by worrywort: 10 August 2011 - 04:31 AM

[Battalion]

They don't need to be the branch of the legal system that decides guilt to know that when someone is climbing through a smashed window with a t.v in his hands he's stolen it.

These are kids with ZERO fear of the authorities OR their parents.

There are riots going on in almost every town in the country and these fuck ups are letting their kids out. What the fuck? Not only do the rioters/looters need a sharp violent shock, but so to do the useless parents. I'd opt not for a four week prison term, but a similar spell in hospital. I'm not talking about law and order, I'm talking about retalitaion and retribution.

And damn any liberal who's going to whinge and cry about it. If you act like an animal, better prepare to get treated like one. I'm pretty sure the left wings' point of view would change pretty swiftly if it were their front doors getting kicked down, or their business being burned to the ground.

These people aren't desperate, hopeless, or without oppotunites. When this thing first started, it was organised on smart phones that I can't afford, and I've yet to see one of them without £100 shoes on (before they looted the sports shops). When you look at poverty around the world, and the desperate finaly snap, what it is they want? FOOD? or trainers and a new T.V?

[Una]

I'm having trouble getting my head around what's happening. I don't usually think of Britain as being that uncivilized, so the scale of the riots is boggling my mind right now.

I'm curious. Someone mentioned that you don't want to call the army in on the side of the police. But really, at this point, why not? There's riots and looting and burning going on all over the country and it's been going on for days. Does that really sound like something police are meant to handle? I mean, they're for doing stuff like responding to domestic disputes, going after drug dealers, homicides, and writing traffic tickets. And they certainly do respond to break and enters and arson, but I don't think they're equipped or trained for something of this scale. Does this not look like a national emergency? Has a national emergency been declared yet? Because it looks like it's gotten to that point and that's the point at which you call in the army. They're not just for disaster relief although the pictures I've seen certainly look like disaster areas. They're used to dealing with chaos and anarchy.

The government can dance around the political issues, the police can sort out the thieves and you can have a public inquiry into the shooting once the dust settles, but I'd think you have to get the craziness under control first, wouldn't you?

This post has been edited by Una: 10 August 2011 - 07:35 AM

[Solidsnape]

It waas good to see groups coming together to fend those feckless degenerates off, especially the conflicting football hooligans standing shoulder to shoulder.
Was happy to see that Newcastle didn't follow suit and join in the wanton destruction of people's property.


I agree with what's been posted about the police. They're screwed either way. There's an inevitable police brutality case in the making here. Some little 16 year shitehouse will end up getting twatted over the head.

It's making me feel embarrassed and angry. Cocks!!!!!!!!

[worry]

You're right, Batt, only conservatives are getting their businesses broken into. Liberals don't mind crime, in fact they encourage it, and that's probably why there has never been a liberal police officer. The main thrust of my argument was indeed that a cop, when witnessing a looter in the act, should drop to the floor in the fetal position rather than shoot him in the face, because there's not actually any middle ground approach there. It's not like they've been trained to arrest suspects, book them, and lock them in a jail cell until a trial can convene. The Magna Carta looks good on paper, of course, but this is the real world. And when our children behave like animals, we should expect law enforcement to act like equal but opposite animals...fight fire with fire, an eye for an eye, etc. So I concede on all points. Declare martial law, let police take care of the rabble by any means necessary. It's not so different from putting down rabid animals. And frankly the last thing we want to teach our already out of control youth is that lashing out violently against people we're angry with is wrong. Where would that leave them?

This post has been edited by worrywort: 10 August 2011 - 07:49 AM

[Battalion]

Couldn't agree more. I knew you'd understand.

TWAT.

[Tsundoku]

Blah, I have my used my rep quota for the day.

However, extreme sarcasm one the one hand and personal insults on the other don't help.

Nice to see a lot of communities getting together to protect each other, even people who normally wouldn't spit on each other.

I like the point raised above regarding how the rioters aren't fighting for their rights, or food, they're going straight for luxury goods, wearing designer clothes and using Blackberries.

Police and Army with explicit ROE are required if this shit gets worse or ever happens again. I don't know about various countries rules for martial law though.

Without giving too much away, we receive training to deal with certain situations involving proportionate/appropriate use of force and the escalation to that point, in order to protect our mates, innocent people and public property. The point where you start depends on the situation. In the case of a riot and people throwing Molotov cocktails, you'd be surprised at what an "open display of weapons", or "cocking the weapon" can do. But you always have to back it up with the use of appropriate force when necessary. If we have to open fire, you can be damn sure it's for a bloody good reason, and we don't fire warning shots or try to wound, we aim for centre of seen mass.

This post has been edited by Sombra: 10 August 2011 - 08:27 AM

[Tapper]

Battalion, on 10 August 2011 - 08:04 AM, said:

Couldn't agree more. I knew you'd understand.

TWAT.

If you're responding the way you did (aka impractical, straight from the underbelly and rather generalistic when it comes to the response of a large part of the population (what you call 'the left')), then you should know that someone is going to call you out on it in a way you may not like (and I'm sure that on closer inspection, worrywort's response rather mirrors your own black-and-white reply).

To then neg-rep the one doing it is rather childish.
I guess you have a lot to learn about debate and disagreeing with one another.

[Battalion]

If I like/agree with a post I PosRep it, so why can't I NegRep one I don't like/agree with? Surely that's my choice?

[Tapper]

Quote

Without giving too much away, we receive training to deal with certain situations involving proportionate/appropriate use of force and the escalation to that point, in order to protect our mates, innocent people and public property. The point where you start depends on the situation. In the case of a riot and people throwing Molotov cocktails, you'd be surprised at what an "open display of weapons", or "cocking the weapon" can do. But you always have to back it up with the use of appropriate force when necessary. If we have to open fire, you can be damn sure it's for a bloody good reason, and we don't fire warning shots or try to wound, we aim for centre of seen mass.

That is exactly why I'd hesitate calling in the army: because when escalation happens, it is going to be disastrous. Sure, a night of active army intervention is going to put the fear of god into the looters and I'm sure it would solve the rioting near immediately. But still... it is a very heavy handed response and one that will bring blood, as all it will take is one idiot who fires or waves a gun to set off a debacle.

That, and it shows your police force can't deal with the issue. That's a rather big admission and it means the force loses all (fearful) respect and the ability to intervene in several of these boroughs, when (hopefully) they have to be a major instrument in prevention when the dust settles.

[Tapper]

Battalion, on 10 August 2011 - 09:02 AM, said:

If I like/agree with a post I PosRep it, so why can't I NegRep one I don't like/agree with? Surely that's my choice?

1. You insult the guy you disagree with in addition to disagreeing through neg-rep.
2. He plays your own post back at you, so it's not like this is a completely unsuspected assault on you.
3. No-one neg-repped you for your opinion, why should you neg-rep for someone's reply to/ deconstruction of your opinion?

As I already said, if you'll examine your own post, you'll see that worrywort is playing your own generalisations back at you. Imho, it shows a brand of immaturity if you can't take that in stride.

[Centzon Totochtin]

Tapper, on 10 August 2011 - 09:03 AM, said:

That is exactly why I'd hesitate calling in the army: because when escalation happens, it is going to be disastrous. Sure, a night of active army intervention is going to put the fear of god into the looters and I'm sure it would solve the rioting near immediately. But still... it is a very heavy handed response and one that will bring blood, as all it will take is one idiot who fires or waves a gun to set off a debacle.That, and it shows your police force can't deal with the issue. That's a rather big admission and it means the force loses all (fearful) respect and the ability to intervene in several of these boroughs, when (hopefully) they have to be a major instrument in prevention when the dust settles.

More than 4+ days of violence shows they can't??? At this point it just needs to be stopped, with as little blood shed as is possible when something has escalated to this point, regardless of reason.

[Kanubis]

Una, on 10 August 2011 - 07:33 AM, said:

I'm having trouble getting my head around what's happening. I don't usually think of Britain as being that uncivilized, so the scale of the riots is boggling my mind right now.

Don't worry, we didn't lost all of our British civility - there were several pictures of looters queuing to loot stores.

[Silencer]

Battalion, on 10 August 2011 - 09:02 AM, said:

If I like/agree with a post I PosRep it, so why can't I NegRep one I don't like/agree with? Surely that's my choice?

Neg rep is not given out in the Discussion Board due to differences of opinion. Neg rep is only to be given to another user if they engage in personal insults or slurs, or are clearly trolling or degrading the debate - in other words, as a friendly warning that "the mods will not like you doing this" so that we don't have to step in.

This is to avoid personal vendettas, flamewars, excessive mod involvement in discussions, and to keep the quality of discussions high. It's an unwritten rule, but it's also pretty implicit from the instructions in the DB rules (link at top of thread).

Seeing as the neg rep appears to have been mostly compensated by other members, and you clearly were not aware of this, let's just consider this a friendly reminder from your local administrator.



****************


I think the question that is getting asked, indirectly, is this: as the police are neither judge nor jury, and certainly not executioners, but are incapable of arresting suspected criminals due to the scale of the incident, what are they, and indeed society, to do? In other words: is it acceptable to let people commit criminal acts, simply because they are difficult to apprehend (in this case due to scale)?

[worry]

I don't mind the neg rep (or the pos rep ), so feel free, but one of the problems there is you're only allowed so few words before I just see "..." and don't get the rest of what you're saying (whether you agree or disagree). So be wary of that. Not sure what the character limit is.

I think Tapper makes a good point about the army. It's a sticky call...things are terrible and haywire right now, but if you bring in the army, it sends a whole different message. That the police are not equipped enough, as Tapper points out, and also that the government is declaring a kind of war on its own citizens. Does England have an equivalent to the national guard? That is to say, a military level force that doesn't necessarily connote "war". I imagine they'd be working by now if it existed, so just wondering. The other thing is, as awful as this is, if the majority of rioters really are the privileged and somewhat privileged merely riding on the coattails of a legitimate issue -- as opposed to an aggrieved population with a perpetual cause as you might see in Iran, for instance -- then it will very likely burn itself out. Which isn't to say you stand back doing nothing, obviously you take reasonable measures to hasten that process...but without cheapening the loss that's already happened...this isn't the end of England as a civilized nation. The riots are gonna end, I wouldn't be surprised if there were scores of prosecutions after the fact, and there will hopefully be a genuinely heartwarming, humane period of rebuilding. And don't forget to imprison Rupert Murdoch while you're at it.

[Anomander Rake]

The problem the police have is many fold.

You only have to listen to what the Rioters say, to see why they're not bothered even if they are caught, because they'll be walking out within 24 hours.

Here's a quote from BBC interviewing a rioter: A 16-year-old looter from Manchester tells BBC 5 live he will continue participating in the violence and theft until he gets caught, because it is his first offence and nothing will happen.

But its not just people without jobs etc, look at this from BBC
BBC reporter at Highbury Magistrates Court John Brain tells BBC 5 live the first person who appeared in the dock this morning was a 31-year-old teacher called Alexis Bailey. She pleaded guilty to being part of the looting of the Richer Sounds store in Croydon.


I defintely think the police need to get tougher and make more arrest. I would definetely follow the French example of having snatch squads, who pull rioters and take them away. I would also like to see Judges get tough on their sentencing, rather than continuing to be soft.


Police are defintely stuck though, they have Liberty and other human rights groups over 1 shoulder constantly watching them, and then they have public demanding they get tougher.

As to the reason there hasn't been many arrests is that if a policeman makes an arrest, he/she has to take the rioter to the station and meet with the officer at the station, explain the reason for arrest, and then the other officer decides if the reason for arrest was lawful and correct. This means that the riot officer has to leave the scene, leaving 1 less officer in the firing line. Its basically procedures they have to follow.

They really should start using water cannon, plastic bullets, snatch squads.

Seems more deaths have followed, 3 asians were run over and killed while walking home from Mosquein Birmingham.

I don't know if anyone saw the guy (who from what I know is a foreign university student in London) who was beat up, then a few rioters helped him up and then mugged him. BBC have posted an update on him:
BBC 5 live speaks to a friend of the man, who was filmed bleeding and being helped by a gang of youths, who then stole the contents of his bag.

Dzuhair Hanafiah says the 20-year-old Malaysian student Mohammad Asyraf is currently in hospital with a broken jaw and is in "good spirits".

He only arrived in the UK four weeks ago. His bike and phone were taken and his mother is trying to find the money to visit him.

I doubt anyone is gonna be wanting to visit UK on holiday for a while.

[Battalion]

Tapper, on 10 August 2011 - 09:06 AM, said:

Battalion, on 10 August 2011 - 09:02 AM, said:

If I like/agree with a post I PosRep it, so why can't I NegRep one I don't like/agree with? Surely that's my choice?

1. You insult the guy you disagree with in addition to disagreeing through neg-rep.
2. He plays your own post back at you, so it's not like this is a completely unsuspected assault on you.
3. No-one neg-repped you for your opinion, why should you neg-rep for someone's reply to/ deconstruction of your opinion?

As I already said, if you'll examine your own post, you'll see that worrywort is playing your own generalisations back at you. Imho, it shows a brand of immaturity if you can't take that in stride.

Firstly, I felt insulted by the obvious patronising content of the post, directed at my opinions. Don't see the need to use sarcasm, I tend to respond to it with all the contempt it deserves.

I can take it in my stride, but don't really see the point of playing my own post back at me. Those are my opinions, and I don't need to be mocked.

Regarding my immaturity, who're you calling immature?

This post has been edited by Battalion: 10 August 2011 - 12:17 PM

[Anomander]

Any further personal issues can be addressed via PM, you needn't clutter the thread with bickering and snarkiness.

[Anomander Rake]

Well it seems if the Police don't get a handle of the Riots, its gonna get very ugly, and take on a more racial element in some places.

http://www.guardian....r-day-four-live
12.20pm: Martin Wainwright and Riazat Butt are in Birmingham, talking to people there about the killing of three men who were run over as they tried to protect property last night:

Feelings are running very high in Winson Green where residents of the largely British Asian area are out on the streets discussing the tragedy in shocked and angry groups.

A committee meeting at the Dudley Road mosque this morning was "very hot" according to a group of men who were there, and whose view was echoed by the Bishop of Aston Rt Rev Anthony Watson, who also took part.

He warned of events taking on a 'potentially ugly race dimension' with real concern over reprisals if pleas for calm were not heeded. He said: "There were some very good things said by older people, but some of the younger ones were very angry."

One of the group of men said: "There will be race riots if the police don't sort this out quickly".

He accused largely African-Caribbean looting gangs of targeting Asian-owned businesses, partly because they were perceived as easier targets compared with the city centre which was full of police.


They tried to do over the Jet2 garage in Dudley Road on Monday night and they knew there was money in the mosque.

We were out there to protect both of them and other businesses and we were right to do that – because four carloads of blacks came along and it was obvious what they were planning.

He said that one of the cars, an Audi, had left the road and rammed a group on the pavement including the victims – two brothers Shazad and Munir Hussein, 32 and 30, who ran a local car wash which was also among possible targets. With them was Haroon Chohan, 19, who worked as a mechanic in a local garage. He said:

"They were all bright young men working at proper jobs. The wife of one of them is expecting. It's terrible."

Concern at the meeting also focused on the 20 minutes it took for an ambulance to arrive, with Birmingham's big City hospital only five minutes down the road. The bishop said that this was an issue at the mosque meeting and the men accused police riot vans of blocking the road and adding to the delay.

Two of the men died at the scene in spite of frantic attempts to resuscitate them, and the third died early this morning at the City hospital.

This post has been edited by Anomander Rake: 10 August 2011 - 12:31 PM