I1L2T3 Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Our children will be protesting about student debts and their futures tomorrow. Our government arm the Met with rubber bullets. Democracy Fail. To be fair green they are always prepared for using them. They would be negligent if they weren't. The difference this time is the upfront threats. Very unusual - I wonder who sanctioned this rhetoric. And you are right - it's a massive failure of democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 To be fair green they are always prepared for using them. They would be negligent if they weren't. The difference this time is the upfront threats. Very unusual - I wonder who sanctioned this rhetoric. And you are right - it's a massive failure of democracy. It would have been Boris & Theresa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgksheff Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Baton rounds and armoured vehicles were also available during the August Riots. The police didn't use any baton rounds, but did deploy armoured vehicles to move folk along: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/09/london-riots-police-baton-rounds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 The bit you seem to be missing is we have laws to deal with all the things you describe. I'll repeat it again - baton rounds are for use in only extreme circumstances. We are not paying the police to shoot people who damage property - as much as you might think that it is just not the case. And long may it continue. We have laws to deal with the aftermath of riotous criminal damage. Most decent people would rather defend their property so they don't have their homes or businesses trashed rather than waiting for their livlihoods wiped out the hear the perps got a bit of community service. My home or livelyhood is unlikely to come under attack by rioters but it would me hugely hypocritical of me to demand those whose might to react differently to me just because they live in an inner city. Any violence by the demostrators should be met with overwhelming force by the police to defend those who live and work in the areas targeted by the protestors. It is not about the people vs the police, it's the residents vs the incoming riotous mob. I side with the residents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 We have laws to deal with the aftermath of riotous criminal damage. Most decent people would rather defend their property so they don't have their homes or businesses trashed rather than waiting for their livlihoods wiped out the hear the perps got a bit of community service. My home or livelyhood is unlikely to come under attack by rioters but it would me hugely hypocritical of me to demand those whose might to react differently to me just because they live in an inner city. Any violence by the demostrators should be met with overwhelming force by the police to defend those who live and work in the areas targeted by the protestors. It is not about the people vs the police, it's the residents vs the incoming riotous mob. I side with the residents. I don't disagree with the right of individuals to protect themselves and their property. I do agree with the police protecting people and property. I don't agee with the police shooting people with baton rounds for damaging property. I do agree with the possible use of baton rounds against people who are seriously endangering the lives of other people. I do not agree with routine use of them and neither would the police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balpin Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/11/07/uk-britain-protests-idUKTRE7A637H20111107 I thought we paid taxes fr the police to protect and serve the people... The Police, as a force, have never been there to protect the people. They are there to protect their employers from the people who may disturb them. If you have your car stolen, or your house broken into, you may get one bored copper a few days later turning up. If Lord Easylife has the same problem the area would be swamped with police for days. The only time they are of any real use to us, is when they are organising rescue missions such as the horrible one recently on the M5. I am sure this is why they join in the first place, to help and assist the public, to do good and public work. But it seems as if the bobby and his senior officers have very differnt view points. The average copper would never shoot an unarmed person, I am sure. But certain elite members of them would, without hesitation, if ordered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 I don't disagree with the right of individuals to protect themselves and their property. I do agree with the police protecting people and property. I don't agee with the police shooting people with baton rounds for damaging property. I do agree with the possible use of baton rounds against people who are seriously endangering the lives of other people. I do not agree with routine use of them and neither would the police. We are agreed up to a point. If the police and citizenry can prevent damage to life and property by the "protestors" by hitting them with non-ranged blunt objects then that is all well and good. If disorder gets to the point where ranged force, non-lethal from the police and whatever is needed from the citizens, is needed to drive the mob back and preserve life and property then who are we to tell them that they should let their shops and homes burn to preserve the lives of those who have attacked them? "protestors" need to understand if they move into a neighbourhood and start committing criminal damage then they will rightly be targetted as a violent mob and if they end up being killed they have nobody but themselves to blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 We are agreed up to a point. If the police and citizenry can prevent damage to life and property by the "protestors" by hitting them with non-ranged blunt objects then that is all well and good. If disorder gets to the point where ranged force, non-lethal from the police and whatever is needed from the citizens, is needed to drive the mob back and preserve life and property then who are we to tell them that they should let their shops and homes burn to preserve the lives of those who have attacked them? "protestors" need to understand if they move into a neighbourhood and start committing criminal damage then they will rightly be targetted as a violent mob and if they end up being killed they have nobody but themselves to blame. I agree up to the point of using baton rounds in extremis. Few would complain about that. In fact if someone was about to kill another person a live round could be justified. But not for protecting property. The moment a round is fired and kills or maims somebody who was attacking an insured and replaceable object then we are in trouble. I can only envisage a very messy downward spiral from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 I agree up to the point of using baton rounds in extremis. Few would complain about that. In fact if someone was about to kill another person a live round could be justified. But not for protecting property. The moment a round is fired and kills or maims somebody who was attacking an insured and replaceable object then we are in trouble. I can only envisage a very messy downward spiral from there. Hopefully the protestors will not try to engage in criminal damage and have a peaceful protest and no property will be damaged and all the protestors will be a alive at the end of their peaceful protest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANGELFIRE1 Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/11/07/uk-britain-protests-idUKTRE7A637H20111107 I thought we paid taxes fr the police to protect and serve the people... "Bullets on hand so that protesters can be shot if needs be." A very missleading Title that the Mods should have pulled. Baton Rounds are NOT bullets - FACT. Regards Angel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.