Rioting in London

[Captain Seafort]

Your intent is correct, but your interpretation isn't. It isn't a matter of what the situation demands, but (similar to the above comment) under which sphere of influence the situation falls.

Why? If the police, not being equipped to deal truly exceptional circumstances, find themselves out of their depth, why should they not request assistance from an organisation better equipped and trained to deal with the situation in question, regardless of whether or not that organisation has law enforcement as its primary mission? This attitude, if applied by the US and UK governments, would have abandoned Detroit, Los Angeles, Londonderry and Belfast to the local scum rather than take the necessary action to re-establish the rule of law. This is unacceptable.

To use another example, a spy is properly dealt with by counter-espionage forces no matter how he's armed, because in the final analysis he's still a spy.

Why? Quite apart from the fact that a spy is just another form of criminal, why would you give the job to a given organisation based solely on his actions rather than the tools needed to deal with him? If the resources available to the police are capable of arresting the spy, then why waste the time and effort of the intelligence agencies?

As in doing integration at five.

No, that's way overblown.

On the contrary it's an entirely analogy to make between the threats typically faced by the British police and those that the RUC faced in the 70s.

When criminals (not terrorists or miltants, but internal criminals of the type with which police should be able to deal)

Domestic terrorists are internal criminals you idiot, and most of the time they're dealt with by the police, not the army.

were commiting crimes with APC's, IFV's, MBT's, or tank-killers, then I'd feel perfectly justified in equipping the police with MBT's.

If you're up against heavy military hardware like that, then you're not talking about law enforcement, you're talking about a civil war. Or perhaps you think the sheriff of Adams County and his deputies should have been in charge of rounding up that bunch of internal criminals that showed up on his doorstep 150 or so years ago?

Some SWAT teams do use them, albeit without the big guns - to either get through inconvenient walls/houses/etc. and to armor the folks who are doing so.

That's almost precisely the situation I had in mind. They were used to break down roadblocks that the normal armoured vans couldn't. I'm somewhat concerned that your cities are apparently bad enough that these things are worth the money to me organic to the local SWAT team rather than simply calling the local ANG when necessary.

[Graham Kennedy]

In America, there was a case where a man created a heavily armoured bulldozer and went on a rampage with it. He was only stopped because it broke down and he committed suicide.

There was another instance where a man stole a tank and went on a rampage. He was stopped when he got stuck and a cop got the lid open and shot him. Both situations were resolved largely because the cops got lucky.

It would be insane to suggest that these two examples mean that every single police officer in the US should be trained to use anti tank missiles, and from then on must carry one around with them at all times. "It's happened before, it might happen again, and so all police must be ready to do their job and stop it!" If it happened daily, sure. But it doesn't. The reality is that such events are so rare that you're far better off either making sure the cops have some sort of armour piercing weapon somewhere that they can break out if needed, or just ask the military to help out.

That's what we do with guns. Cops don't need them, and it would be rather silly to give them all a gun. Nor do they want them. When they're needed, they're broken out and used as necessary.

[Mikey]

Why? If the police, not being equipped to deal truly exceptional circumstances, find themselves out of their depth, why should they not request assistance from an organisation better equipped and trained to deal with the situation in question, regardless of whether or not that organisation has law enforcement as its primary mission? This attitude, if applied by the US and UK governments, would have abandoned Detroit, Los Angeles, Londonderry and Belfast to the local scum rather than take the necessary action to re-establish the rule of law. This is unacceptable.

Why? Quite apart from the fact that a spy is just another form of criminal, why would you give the job to a given organisation based solely on his actions rather than the tools needed to deal with him? If the resources available to the police are capable of arresting the spy, then why waste the time and effort of the intelligence agencies?

Umm... exactly. Your point seems to be that a job should be left to anyone who might happen to have the equipment; my point is that the people whose job it is - and therefore, who are trained specifically for it - should have the proper equipment from the start.

On the contrary it's an entirely analogy to make between the threats typically faced by the British police and those that the RUC faced in the 70s.

Domestic terrorists are internal criminals you idiot, and most of the time they're dealt with by the police, not the army.

Blah, blah. Yes, of course terrorism is illegal... but you're evading the meaning here in order to hide behind syntax. I'm talking about typical crime - the sort of thing with which we both expect police to deal - vs. military or paramilitary exploits. I expect you knew exactly my intent, and dodging behind semantics is both unseemly and doesn't further discussion from either of our ends. Saying that terrorism is the same as armed robbery because they're both crimes is like saying that Maggie Thatcher is the same as Britney Spears because they're both women.

As far as the RUC, which is merely the remnants of the RIC which was in turn formed from the Garda... well, recruiting the dregs to fight the dregs is bound to be a losing battle - especially when the dregs are of a mind to stick together. Be that as it may, I'd be consistent with my position and say that the RUC and police were misplaced in that particular match-up and counter-terrorism/paramilitary would have been the proper forces. I believe you, yourself just made mention of the difference between a band of crooks and a civil war...

If you're up against heavy military hardware like that, then you're not talking about law enforcement, you're talking about a civil war. Or perhaps you think the sheriff of Adams County and his deputies should have been in charge of rounding up that bunch of internal criminals that showed up on his doorstep 150 or so years ago?

Again... exactly. Thank you. "IF you're up against..." You asked why an extension of my viewpoint didn't include arming the police with MBT's. I responded that it would IF they were going to have to deal with the sort of hardware I described... since they don't, the fact that the police don't respond with MBT's isn't salient to your attack of my point.

That's almost precisely the situation I had in mind. They were used to break down roadblocks that the normal armoured vans couldn't.

OK, good - a perfect example of the police having the tools they need.

I'm somewhat concerned that your cities are apparently bad enough that these things are worth the money to me organic to the local SWAT team rather than simply calling the local ANG when necessary.

Your concern is shared, though I hope you're not going to tell me that the U.S.A. is the only country with shitholes now (though I'd half expect it.) To get back to taking the words of old Joe Strummer songs, why would there need to be "The Guns of Brixton" or "Brixton Beat?" Why, in fact, would soccer stadiums have to ban people carrying copies of The Guardian? That's rhetorical, I know exactly why.

Be that as it may, this is yet another supportive argument for my point. You say that instead of equipping the police to do police work, they should just call in the Guard. I say that rather the police should be equipped to do police work.

It would be insane to suggest that these two examples mean that every single police officer in the US should be trained to use anti tank missiles, and from then on must carry one around with them at all times. "It's happened before, it might happen again, and so all police must be ready to do their job and stop it!" If it happened daily, sure. But it doesn't. The reality is that such events are so rare that you're far better off either making sure the cops have some sort of armour piercing weapon somewhere that they can break out if needed, or just ask the military to help out.

That's what we do with guns. Cops don't need them, and it would be rather silly to give them all a gun. Nor do they want them. When they're needed, they're broken out and used as necessary.

This is a far more cohesive argument, and speaks to a simple fact - if it works for you, then fine. I would still say that the chances of a firearm-related crime - even in the UKoGBaNI, which is apparently two inches to the left of Utopia - are far greater than the chances of some dude driving a Leopard down Main St., and would further say that when lives are at stake such niceties of degree do matter.

[Deepcrush]

True, but when the crooks in question have assault rifles and mortars I suspect you'd be calling in the army as well.

No, we call in SWAT and ATF.

And if you'd read further up you'd realise that if they've just got a knife or hammer the plod can take them on with their batons. Of course, if there's no threat to life then they'd just back off, cordon off the area and call in firearms per normal while they try and convince the offender to surrender. Why rush things when there's no need to?

Though it flew way over your head, as already stated... several times...

First being that you have cops who have to get into a knife fight anytime someone doesn't sit for your requested tea break.
Second being that if the crook runs your cop has to try and stop them which means a knife fight or has to let them go.
Third being a cordon requires the ability to stop the movement of the crook... which means getting into a knife fight.

[Deepcrush]

GK, read page two but thanks for agreeing with me in part.

Seafort, my problem is that you have a system in place where only a part of your police force is able to effectively enforce law.

All police forces have this. There's not a single police force in the world where every cop can do every job. We just choose to make shooting people a specialism, as it's not necessary for the enforcement of the law in 99.9% of cases.

Its not about being able to do every job, no one said anything about being able to do every job. Its about being able to perform for the jobs that a police officer is most likely to come across.

[Deepcrush]

It would be insane to suggest that these two examples mean that every single police officer in the US should be trained to use anti tank missiles, and from then on must carry one around with them at all times. "It's happened before, it might happen again, and so all police must be ready to do their job and stop it!" If it happened daily, sure. But it doesn't. The reality is that such events are so rare that you're far better off either making sure the cops have some sort of armour piercing weapon somewhere that they can break out if needed, or just ask the military to help out.

Problem is that those two issues had nothing to do with criminal on a day to day basis using what they picked up at home. You and Seafort have gone from "cops don't need to be trained or equipped because tax payers don't want to fund it" all the way over to "cops don't need to be trained and equipped because they aren't the army and thus should be happy to become fodder"?

Now I'm not pretending to respect either of you. But still, this is stupid even by your standards.

[Reliant121]

Problem is that those two issues had nothing to do with criminal on a day to day basis using what they picked up at home.

This is exactly the point. In 2009, firearms were used in 0.3% of all crimes in England and Wales (Scotland and NI probably do their own statistics). When firearm offenses are so low, one in every 330 crimes involving a firearm in some way and most of those in fact simply being illegal possession or illegal imitation, what is the point in spending millions in arming every policeman? For the few occasions where a handgun or a low number of automatic weapons are being brandished, armed response units from the Police force are more than adequate. If there is something truly insane, like a criminal managed to steal an attack helicopter or rolled into Trafalgar square with a Challenger 2 then you call in the military.

[Graham Kennedy]

Seafort, my problem is that you have a system in place where only a part of your police force is able to effectively enforce law.

No, we don't. A gun is not required to effectively enforce the law.

Its not about being able to do every job, no one said anything about being able to do every job. Its about being able to perform for the jobs that a police officer is most likely to come across.

Exactly. And that's the exact criteria the UK police go by. The beat cops don't carry guns because the jobs that they are most likely to come across don't require one.

[Graham Kennedy]

Problem is that those two issues had nothing to do with criminal on a day to day basis using what they picked up at home.

Nothing the criminal picks up at home on a day to day basis requires the cops to have a gun.

You and Seafort have gone from "cops don't need to be trained or equipped because tax payers don't want to fund it" all the way over to "cops don't need to be trained and equipped because they aren't the army and thus should be happy to become fodder"?

Yeah, that's not an argument anybody but you has made.

The average cops don't need to or want to be trained or equipped with guns because there's no need for it and because it would be a waste of money.

[Tyyr]

Why are you even getting into this with Seafort? Seriously? What is the point, what do you hope to accomplish? He's made it clear for as long as I've been here that he considers America a 3rd world shit-hole. He's never deviated, never been swayed. Why are you even bothering to talk to him about it? Let him be a dick about it and stew in the corner.

[thelordharry]

Why are you even getting into this with Seafort? Seriously? What is the point, what do you hope to accomplish? He's made it clear for as long as I've been here that he considers America a 3rd world shit-hole. He's never deviated, never been swayed. Why are you even bothering to talk to him about it? Let him be a dick about it and stew in the corner.

But those fucking burgers man

[thelordharry]

OK, to turn the course of the thread from the "I'm right!", "No, I'm right!" course it's taken, back to the riots themselves. I read an interesting article on the BBC website about the theorised causes of them:

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14483149? (probably easier to read on the website but I'll quote it below)

Any opinions?

Many theories have been posited about the underlying causes of the riots in England - from moral decay to excessive consumerism. Here two criminologists give their views on some of the arguments.

Welfare dependence

Sir Max Hastings, in an article for the Daily Mail, focused on "a perverted social ethos, which elevates personal freedom to an absolute, and denies the underclass the discipline - tough love - which alone might enable some of its members to escape from the swamp of dependency in which they live".

There is a culture of entitlement in the UK, says David Wilson, professor of criminology at Birmingham City University and a former prison governor.

"But it's not just about the underclass - it's about politicians, it's about bankers, it's about footballers.

"It's not just about a particular class, it permeates all levels of society. When we see politicians claiming for flat-screen TVs and getting jailed for fiddling their expenses, it's clear that young people of all classes aren't being given appropriate leadership."

Social exclusion

Writing in the Independent, Kids Company charity founder Camila Batmanghelidjh blamed a society in which the "established community is perceived to provide nothing... It's not one occasional attack on dignity, it's a repeated humiliation, being continuously dispossessed in a society rich with possession".

Studies do suggest that living in areas of social deprivation could be a factor, says Marian FitzGerald, visiting professor of criminology at the University of Kent.

"But the socially excluded are not always the ones who are rioting - in fact they are often the ones who are most vulnerable to riots. We need a better thought-out approach rather than just using social exclusion as an excuse."

Lack of fathers

According to Cristina Odone of the Daily Telegraph, the riots could be traced back to a lack of male role models: "Like the overwhelming majority of youth offenders behind bars, these gang members have one thing in common: no father at home."

"I brought up two boys on my own," says Prof FitzGerald. "Yes, there are some issues about where boys get a positive sense of masculinity from when they don't have anyone in the home to give it. But if you have a stable family set-up then these kids can still be very high-achieving."

Spending cuts

Speaking on the BBC's Newsnight, Labour's candidate for London Mayor, Ken Livingstone, suggested that austerity measures were responsible: "If you're making massive cuts, there's always the potential for this sort of revolt against that."

It's too soon to say this, Prof FitzGerald says. "The full implementation of the cuts to local authority services that will have the biggest impact on these areas will not be fully felt until next year.

"However, it may be that because there's been so much talk about police spending cuts, the rioters may have internalised the message that they're less likely to be caught."

Weak policing

In a leader, the Sun newspaper said it was "crazy" that water cannon was not available to officers, and that parliament "must not be squeamish" about the use of tear gas and baton rounds.

There has also been discussion about the impact of the fall-out from criticism of policing during the G20 protests in London in 2009. Some commentators have suggested officers might be afraid of taking on the rioters directly for fear of legal action.

It may have made some difference if the rioters had been more immediately engaged with a more robust form of policing, says Prof Wilson.

"Several of the rioters who were interviewed clearly enjoyed the feeling of being powerful. They were encouraged to feel that the cities in which they were misbehaving belonged to them.

"However, I don't think that has anything to do with political correctness. What has characterised British justice over the past 25-30 years is the large numbers of young people we have sent to prison compared with our European neighbours."

Racism

Violence began in Tottenham on Saturday after the fatal shooting by police of Mark Duggan, a 29-year-old black man. Christina Patterson of the Independent said the race factor could not be overlooked: "Too many black men have been killed by the police. Too many black men and women have been treated like criminals when they're not. This is not the cause of these riots, but it's there in the mix."

Police shootings are very rare, Prof FitzGerald notes.

"According to IPCC reports in the last three years there have only been seven and all of those - including the shooting of Raoul Moat - were of white people.

"The Met police has seen huge changes in attitude since the Macpherson report. That said, its use of section 60 stop-and-search powers disproportionately brought normally law-abiding young black people in particular into potentially confrontational encounters with the police.

"However, this is not true of many of the other police forces who are now facing similar threats to public order - so it cannot be used as any sort of excuse."

Gangsta rap and culture

Paul Routledge of the Daily Mirror blamed "the pernicious culture of hatred around rap music, which glorifies violence and loathing of authority (especially the police but including parents), exalts trashy materialism and raves about drugs".

It's certainly clear that gang culture is a real phenomenon, says Prof Wilson.

"I once interviewed a boy who said 'just because I like the music doesn't mean I agree with the lyrics', which is true," says Prof FitzGerald. "But it may be a factor when it comes to those who may be particularly susceptible."

Consumerism

"These are shopping riots, characterised by their consumer choices," insisted Zoe Williams of the Guardian. She added: "This is what happens when people don't have anything, when they have their noses constantly rubbed in stuff they can't afford, and they have no reason ever to believe that they will be able to afford it."

In studies of street crime, this has been shown to be a factor, says Prof FitzGerald.

"But with the recent riots, I'm not so sure - in the context of looting, it's about taking what you can. As well as mobile phones and clothes, there were plenty stealing petty things like sweets and cans of beer."

Opportunism

"As more and more people became embroiled in the riots, others have been tempted to join them, confident that one unexceptional individual in a sea of hundreds is unlikely to be caught or to face retribution," according to Carolina Bracken writing in the Irish Times.

This is credible, says Prof Wilson. "Opportunism, mixed with a sense of being in a big gang, will have enticed many who wouldn't necessarily do something like this normally.

"Also significant is the feeling of invulnerability because they are part of something so big. Also linked to this is the feeling of doing something transgressive and feeling powerful in a culture where they don't have much power.

Technology and social networking

"Social media and other methods have been used to organise these levels of greed and criminality," Steve Kavanagh, the deputy assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan police, told reporters.

This is an under-explored phenomenon, suggests Prof Wilson.

"For years we've been aware of gangs and football hooligans have been using technology to get together and fight. I think the police have been quite slow to respond to this.

"But as we know, mobile phones can also be used to counteract criminality and to an extent I think that's something the police prefer to downplay."

[Deepcrush]

Why are you even getting into this with Seafort? Seriously? What is the point, what do you hope to accomplish? He's made it clear for as long as I've been here that he considers America a 3rd world shit-hole. He's never deviated, never been swayed. Why are you even bothering to talk to him about it? Let him be a dick about it and stew in the corner.

The fact that he's subhuman trash doesn't change anything. If someone is wrong, its my belief that people should fight that wrong.

[Tyyr]

I don't disagree but after two years of being here he's only gotten worse. He's not changing his mind.

[Captain Seafort]

The US has done very little to persuade me to change my mind - quite the opposite.