London and England riots

[Hun200kmh]

Maybe things in Britain are different, but here being a tenant or a owner has nothing to do with being rich or poor. I'll give my example. Not being rich, I'm definitely not poor also. And I am a tenant in my current home. And a landlord in my previous home. Didn't sell it because I didn't need to when I moved. And I didn't need to because I moved to a big/better house for rent, needing improvements. So, I made a good deal ... I rented this house and paid for all the work it needed myself. In exchange, the landlord was very reasonable with the rent value. So reasonable, in fact, that the rent I pay is about the same as the rent I receive for my former (much smaller and not as well located) home.

Meaning ... I live in a big house with the money I get from my litle house.

I'm a tenant AND a landlord. And quite happy with that.

 

[axletramp]

^ Similar situation here. I own a house in the UK which I rent out and a flat in Jersey for the same purpose. The house I live in is rented, but that's because you get far more for your money. I can live in a much larger house than I could ever afford with a mortgage. It's expensive, but much more flexible. I'm lucky enough to be in the situation where I can buy when I'm ready. Not sure how that's relevant here though.

Gone a little off topic here... anyway...

 

[Moot]

But seriously folks - one of the issues with calling stuff like this "police brutality" is it shows a complete lack of understanding of the force needed in order to subdue someone to the point where they can be cuffed safely and then taken away safely.

We've all seen too many cop shows and films where the hero copper drags the bloke down, rests a knee on the perp's back and slaps the cuffs on. It just doesn't work like that in real life - it'll take at least four officers to arrest someone who is actively resisting without hurting them too much. In fact, a mate of mine is a "nurse" in Ashworth, where they do 10-man restraints i.e., if they need to restrain a "patient" then ten "nurses" will jump on them, this is the only way it's considered safe to do this.

So, if you haven't got the option of a few colleagues helping you out, the only other option is to give them a whack - it's why they're issued with batons in the first place. And you can say "there were a few coppers knocking about" but the rest will have been busy watching out for crowds of scumbags, or looking to see where the other scumbags had gone.

And you also have to consider how much riot gear will restricts your movement, which makes subdueing someone by grappling with them night-on impossible.

So not brutality, just part of the task in hand.

But if this is standard accepted police practice, why have the police force refrained from comment and not just said "This is normal and correct."

?

 

[Famine]

Don't know if you spotted it, but they're a bit busy at the moment. They'll get back to you. After the beep.

 

[axletramp]

But if this is standard accepted police practice, why have the police force refrained from comment and not just said "This is normal and correct."

?

OK, so you're not reading all the posts here which might go some way to answering your questions. Perhaps you could just let us have your solution to this or how you feel the police might deal with these individuals in order that we don't keep going around in circles.

 

[Moot]

Spokespersons and not involved in the riots. They are people in offices speaking to media etc. The comment has not come because it's not a simple response of them saying "I don't see what problem you have with the video."
They know there is something wrong with what the video shows.

 

[Famine]

Or they know there isn't and have absolutely no idea why you're even asking. They're trained to ignore trolls - or "hoaxers" as they call them in the real world.

Incidentally, has anyone actually asked any questions about that video? Only, if they haven't, wondering why they've not given a response to a question that hasn't even been asked is ridiculous beyond description, even for your normal standards.

 

[Moot]

Your thoughts are incorrect.

"A spokesman for Greater Manchester Police said: 'Police officers responding to incidents last night in Salford and Manchester were faced with extraordinary and unprecedented levels of violence being used against them.

'The Professional Standards Branch is part of GMP's response in dealing with the aftermath of this critical situation.

'As the circumstances surrounding the footage of this particular incident are currently unknown, it is inappropriate for GMP to comment further.'"

Are your standards any better? I don't think so.

 

[ScouserInExile]

But if this is standard accepted police practice, why have the police force refrained from comment and not just said "This is normal and correct."

?

Because they aren't stupid enough to release a statement about the video until they have had a very, very good look at it. Otherwise they'll look like a proper bunch of numpties when it emerges that you can see a copper carving his initials into the back of one of the lads with a Stanley. And they will need to ask the officers involved what justification there was for the level of force involved.

Y'know, actually do some investigating and research before making a baseless, sweeping statement like "it's police brutality"

 

[Moot]

The police are not saying, "but they deserved being hit, they are scum, they need a good beating, it should make them think twice".
Yet people on this forum seem to think that is what the police should be saying.

 

[axletramp]

^ So is your argument with the attitudes and opinions on here or, as originally stated, with the police's brutal tactics?

 

[Moot]

^ So is your argument with the attitudes and opinions on here or, as originally stated, with the police's brutal tactics?

My point was to show the video as news content, open discussion on what it contained, give my view that it looks like police brutality, defend that view.
Is that ok?

 

[Famine]

Your thoughts are incorrect.

No they aren't. If no questions have been asked then wondering why there has been no response is foolish.

However, it looks like a question has been asked and you quote their response. So I wonder now why you're saying they haven't commented...

 

[Jondot]

Your last post* was a bit silly, Moot, so I'm gonna jump back to this one instead.

Spokespersons and not involved in the riots. They are people in offices speaking to media etc. The comment has not come because it's not a simple response of them saying "I don't see what problem you have with the video."
They know there is something wrong with what the video shows.

...no, it's not a simple response because nothing should be a simple response when it's a press release about something of this nature. It's got to be worded in an absolutely bulletproof way to stop the press tearing it apart, while usually trying to tip-toe round upsetting anyone in the process - and that kind of thing doesn't come about very quickly. In fact, what you've quoted is a perfect example:

As the circumstances surrounding the footage of this particular incident are currently unknown, it is inappropriate for GMP to comment further.

If someone were to come out and say 'I don't see what problem you have with the video', they'd be fired - after all they might as well have said 'Well to be honest we've been looking for an excuse to break in our new batons'.

Anyway, why do I even need to say this? I'd have thought it was a fairly obvious assumption to make given that comments to the press have been presented in a similar way for about the last 50 years.

EDIT

*Sorry, last 3. Can't keep up here...

The police are not saying, "but they deserved being hit, they are scum, they need a good beating, it should make them think twice".
Yet people on this forum seem to think that is what the police should be saying.

And you seem to think that any lack of detailed response from GMP means they might as well have said it anyway. *Shrug*

 

[axletramp]

My point was to show the video as news content, open discussion on what it contained, give my view that it looks like police brutality, defend that view.
Is that ok?

Fine thanks. I would have understood what you meant without the question, but hey...

 

[ScouserInExile]

Can we move this past who's right or wrong about it being police brutality?

Moot, to quote The Dude: Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
You're entitled to your opinion, a lot of people thing your opinion is wrong, but who are we to change what you think you know.

Now, can we move on?

 

[dhandeh]

I don't like to call posters trolls, but after being asked to leave this thread once already, moot, I have you down as trollin'. You bring up one lame video, where some oik has received a couple of digs of the police. Your then up in arms, claiming police brutality. Give me a break.

If the old bill were allowed to do this from the start, without fear of the politically correct brigade being up in arms, maybe we might have not have witnessed, what we have over the last week.

 

[Moot]

And you seem to think that any lack of detailed response from GMP means they might as well have said it anyway. *Shrug*

No I don't mean that. I mean they have not seen the video and recognised it as normal police behaviour and just told us so. Which people here seem to think.
It is something worthy of investigation.
I post the video here and people give the impression of "so what?" or, "that's what they need".
But the Police have yet to say what the incident means. Or what law says about it.

 

[Stevisiov]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14474429

I thought something along these lines would appear soon.

 

[Moot]

How would that even work?
It would lead to even more theft and violence.
It would lead to more room and expense spent on prisons as that is where they would end up within 3 days of that happening. Though I suppose it would remove them from society, would just be expensive.

 

[dhandeh]

I think you believe the police would do this all the time, maybe to some pensioner, picking up their fish supper. If they did that, then yes it would be unacceptable.

But.

But, England has experienced some of the worst public disorder/riots whatever you want to call it, in living memory. The government has said the police can 'use the full force of the law'.
Now, in my mind the full force would be water cannon and plastic bullets. And if the police, believe a situation requires that, then so be it. The police have appealed people intent on getting involved to get off the streets. Now, if these youths have been suspected of causing or attempting to cause trouble, then the best way is to show (police) force. I'm sure the person who had a smack round the head, soon went home.

 

[axletramp]

How would that even work?
It would lead to even more theft and violence.

Plus a number of them live at home and probably don't get any benefits. Why not just give them a bill for the legal and courthouse fees which they need to pay off when they start working (if?). Or repay any damage. They could certainly work off the costs for the families/shop owners/community by cleaning the streets, parks, etc. Force them to do good for their benefits.

 

[dhandeh]

Plus a number of them live at home and probably don't get any benefits. Why not just give them a bill for the legal and courthouse fees which they need to pay off when they start working (if?). Or repay any damage. They could certainly work off the costs for the families/shop owners/community by cleaning the streets, parks, etc. Force them to do good for their benefits.

Would get my vote.

 

[Jondot]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14474429

I thought something along these lines would appear soon.

Oh bloody 'ell, who started that - Jan Moir?

Almost not even worth stating that that's a short sighted idea, but I'm going to anyway. I agree with the above - bill them, if possible, either through fines or community service. A big undertaking, but we can dream.

 

[Moot]

I think you believe the police would do this all the time, maybe to some pensioner, picking up their fish supper. If they did that, then yes it would be unacceptable.

No, I am concerned they are "allowed" to do it to thugs and criminals. That's why I'm keen to know of any investigation on it. There is motivation to harm criminals, innocent people are not really in any danger from the police.
Police must follow rules. If they did, and within the law, then I don't give any blame whatsoever to the policemen involved in this incident. If they did do something wrong, then I think it would be very important for the Prime Minister to make a public statement than on this specific incident, the police were wrong and this is not what he means by robust policing, and would hope members of the public also frown upon it and not be pleased by it. I'm worried that politicians will take positive from it.
I'm basing this view on assuming the video shows wrong behaviour.

 

[dhandeh]

Oh bloody 'ell, who started that - Jan Moir?

Almost not even worth stating that that's a short sighted idea, but I'm going to anyway. I agree with the above - bill them, if possible, either through fines or community service. A big undertaking, but we can dream.

Certainty does smell of the Daily Mail. I can understand the thinking behind it, making the looters pay, but agree more with axletramp's method.

 

[Jay.]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14474429

I thought something along these lines would appear soon.

I agree with it, and with Axletramps comment about billing them.

Any of the scum arrested for rioting/looting that is receiving benefits should have it revoked.

I also feel that any immigrant that is arrested and is only here on a visa should be immediately deported.

 

[dhandeh]

No, I am concerned they are "allowed" to do it to thugs and criminals. That's why I'm keen to know of any investigation on it. There is motivation to harm criminals, innocent people are not really in any danger from the police.
Police must follow rules. If they did, and within the law, then I don't give any blame whatsoever to the policemen involved in this incident. If they did do something wrong, then I think it would be very important for the Prime Minister to make a public statement than on this specific incident, the police were wrong and this is not what he means by robust policing, and would hope members of the public also frown upon it and not be pleased by it. I'm worried that politicians will take positive from it.
I'm basing this view on assuming the video shows wrong behaviour.

I disagree.

And if I was to show a video of your beloved looters, setting fire to someone's home, what's your opinion then?

 

[Moot]

I disagree.

And if I was to show a video of your beloved looters, setting fire to someone's home, what's your opinion then?

What do you mean?
I don't understand your point.

I think the looters/rioter should be captured by the riot police after being brought down to the ground and handcuffed, arrested, sent to court and jail for a decent amount of time.
What on earth makes you think I support criminal activity?

You are trolling me?

 

[axletramp]

I agree with it.

Any of the scum arrested for rioting/looting that is receiving benefits should have it revoked.

I also feel that any immigrant that is arrested and is only here on a visa should be immediately deported.

I can't help feeling the first part won't help the situation however deserving of it some of these individuals might be. Giving them less isn't going help them or their families. Give them the same, but make them contribute to the community to earn it.

The second point is an awkward one as it can quickly end up with the race card being played. In general I feel that anyone who can contribute to a society - whatever their racial or religious background - has to be welcomed. But there also needs to be stricter consequences for those who add nothing or indeed cause trouble and/or break the law. For another thread perhaps...