Home Politics & Debate
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Anyone is welcome to join. Sign up here
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

London riots

1235»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Neddy wrote: »
    People are afraid in their own homes and businesses, I don't see how that is an over reaction and perhaps if it was happening on your doorstep you might feel differently? To me we are at the point at which to say "sod civility" and do whatever it takes to restore order. Most of them are bandwagon jumping cowards who could probably do with a good kicking. It's the only language they understand.

    As a country we are too soft on people like this, the amount of petty criminals, who constantly re offend, we have in this country is outrageous and the reason it happens is because they know there is no actual long term consequences for their actions.

    I can only laugh when I hear this is happening because these kids feel disaffected and angry at society. I personally feel their is much more anger amongst hard working, law abiding tax payers who have to put up with, and pay for, scum like this to live here.

    But of course those people don't go round bricking windows and looting, so sod what they think.... :rolleyes:
    Apologies for the late reply (by a month..), but I still disagree. The point of being a civilised country is that you're civil in even the worst times. You don't break out all reactionary arming every police officer and business owner with a machine gunning, bringing in the military, reactionary legislation being implemented into law and the "shoot on sight" mentality. All that does is fuck up the problem even more. As we see now a few weeks later with hindsight, the riots eventually cooled off on their own and with extra police power. There was no need to be "omg bring in the army!1111" in the end was there? The situation was actually far off from being bad enough to declare Martial Law anyway, and the implications of that would be worrying, as we've seen in other countries - soldiers are trained to engage with and/or kill enemy combatants, not police streets and deal with rowdy teenagers/young adults.

    As for why the riots happened, I don't actually really care. I don't believe in the whole "blame society" thing, it was surely a random few days of hysteria, criminality and opportunism. Maybe it was because it wasn't literally on my doorstep that I didn't get caught up in the hysteria, who knows, though. All I know is, there's a reason why the law / justice system is kept at a safe distance from individual peoples fickle emotions. If I was robbed on the street, I'd probably want to kick the persons head in, but I wouldn't support that as a legal punishment for muggers strangely enough.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In some ways I support the idea of being able to kick somebody's head in if they mugged you. The same with a rapist... If a man tried to rape me and I had the strength/technique to hurt him a lot, I would make sure he crawled his ass to A&E. A part of me would like this to be permitted, but I guess that really, there could potentially be a lot of complications.

    One problem with martial law is the same problem with the police and military. There are thugs, bigots and people who will be attracted the opportunity for a fight and/or power trip, but at least there's a little more regulation with the government institutions, even if they do get away with murder.

    In towns where I come from, the idea would be scary, as I think it would be used as opportunism for racist and xenophobic attacks... That said, coming from a squaddie town and knowing how racist the army boys were who came in to the pub where I worked, I wouldn't want them let loose either. :rolleyes:

    Also, I don't think that being aware of social issues as a contributing factor is in any way excusing the behaviour of the rioters. I think it was complicated and a mixture of different causes for different people.

    What worried me more than the looting and what still concerns me, is the government reaction. I'm sure the leaders of the police and some government figures were knocking one out over the possibility of being able to tighten the reigns over the public, especially in regards to how it could be applied to protesters or dissidents.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    In some ways I support the idea of being able to kick somebody's head in if they mugged you. The same with a rapist... If a man tried to rape me and I had the strength/technique to hurt him a lot, I would make sure he crawled his ass to A&E. A part of me would like this to be permitted, but I guess that really, there could potentially be a lot of complications.
    .

    You're allowed to do both these things. The media play up stories of where people are prosecuted because apparently they've been defending themselves without bothering to investigate the true facts of the case.

    The law says you are allowed to use reasonable force to defend yourself, to prevent a crime or to apprehend an offender at large, in laymans terms it has to be proportionate. If someone is trying to mug you and you need to smack them to get away, then you do so. Likewise if someone pulls out a knife on you and tries to rape you, and you stab them, then the law will ask "were your actions proportionate", ie what would have happened if you did nothing. If the answer is "I would have been raped and murdered" and you'd ended up killing your attacker to prevent that happening no court in the land would convict you.

    On the other hand if someone scratches your car, so you drop them and kick them in the face, then you've got no chance.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Threxy wrote: »
    soldiers are trained to engage with and/or kill enemy combatants, not police streets and deal with rowdy teenagers/young adults.

    Well actually we are, public disorder training, for when you are in foreign lands and dealing with a rowdy crowd.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    G-Raffe wrote: »
    Well actually we are, public disorder training, for when you are in foreign lands and dealing with a rowdy crowd.

    But it's not the army's primary job and it's only when policing has failed or isn;t available that the army is used.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But it's not the army's primary job and it's only when policing has failed or isn;t available that the army is used.

    Totally agree but the insinuation was that all we are trained to do is kill and injure.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    You're allowed to do both these things. The media play up stories of where people are prosecuted because apparently they've been defending themselves without bothering to investigate the true facts of the case.

    The law says you are allowed to use reasonable force to defend yourself, to prevent a crime or to apprehend an offender at large, in laymans terms it has to be proportionate. If someone is trying to mug you and you need to smack them to get away, then you do so. Likewise if someone pulls out a knife on you and tries to rape you, and you stab them, then the law will ask "were your actions proportionate", ie what would have happened if you did nothing. If the answer is "I would have been raped and murdered" and you'd ended up killing your attacker to prevent that happening no court in the land would convict you.

    On the other hand if someone scratches your car, so you drop them and kick them in the face, then you've got no chance.
    Ahhh ok...

    See, I thought that if you caused them harm, they could charge you.

    What if somebody breaks in to your home?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    G-Raffe wrote: »
    Well actually we are, public disorder training, for when you are in foreign lands and dealing with a rowdy crowd.
    However, that's just for extreme circumstances, no? As in when everything is chaotic, like Northern Ireland and such. I'm pretty sure you're not trained to the do the police's job for them. The army certainly wasn't the option for the recent riots, for reasons I've already said.
    Namaste wrote:
    In some ways I support the idea of being able to kick somebody's head in if they mugged you. The same with a rapist... If a man tried to rape me and I had the strength/technique to hurt him a lot, I would make sure he crawled his ass to A&E. A part of me would like this to be permitted, but I guess that really, there could potentially be a lot of complications.
    The mugger scenario goes beyond what's considered "reasonable force" I think. I mean, if they grab your wallet and they're running away and you catch up with them, push them over, take your wallet back then you proceed to ram your foot into their head several times, you won't get away with that. But I think in the case of the rapist it would be okay (and he'd definitely deserve it).
    Namaste wrote:
    What if somebody breaks in to your home?
    You can use reasonable force to defend yourself, your property and your family. So if an armed burglar breaks into your house and threatens you, you pick up like a cricket bat and whack him over the head with it, you'd be alright. I think recently there was a case where a burglar was stabbed to death by a homeowner in Greater Manchester and he didn't get prosecuted in the end because he used reasonable force. Funny, the media lost interest when that fact came out, yet if he'd been charged, they'd be all over it like flies.

    The reason Tony Martin (you're probably familiar with that case it was very famous) got charged was because he shot the burglar when he was fleeing, and that isn't classed as reasonable force, though he won an appeal a few years later i think.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Threxy wrote: »
    However, that's just for extreme circumstances, no? As in when everything is chaotic, like Northern Ireland and such. I'm pretty sure you're not trained to the do the police's job for them. The army certainly wasn't the option for the recent riots, for reasons I've already said.

    ......and being in a situation where you might have your life taken, and have to take life, is not an extreme circumstance?

    I agree that the army shouldn't be involved in situations like this, after all if it hasn't got to the point where its like Afghanistan then the army cant do any more than the police!

    Though if public disorder to the scale of london did happen all over the country, then since every British Army officer is public disorder trained, then theres at least a short term solution if it was ever needed urgently.

    What I took resentment at is the being portrayed as nothing more than a killer; that is honestly the last resort.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I didn't actually say that all the army were around for is to kill people? All I said (and implied, whatever you seem to think) was the army isn't there to do the job of the police unless the police truly lose control, and yes their primary duty is to engage with with the enemy.. I stand by what I said there, if that's what you mean. Everything else is secondary, from public disorder to humanitarian work.

    The riots were quelled in the end by additional police power and time. Ergo, it wasn't what I (and most I guess) would consider an "extreme enough" circumstance to bring in the army and turn everything into Northern Ireland or Afghanistan.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    Ahhh ok...

    See, I thought that if you caused them harm, they could charge you.

    What if somebody breaks in to your home?


    Same thing except you're allowed to up the ante. The level of force you can use within your home is allowed to be greater as you don't have the option of running away like you do on the street.

    Now I'm not saying you won't be arrested, there's a good chance you will be and the sort of story you see in the paper on a regular basis is normally "Homeowner arrested for defending his home" e.t.c.
    You hardly ever see "Homeowner prosecuted for defending home" and you never see "Homeowner arrested last week released without charge".

    I can think of only one homeowner in recent years in our force who was prosecuted and that's because he chased the criminal down the street and gave him a beating. If he'd chased the scumbag out and rung the police he'd have been alright.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    G-Raffe

    I certainly don't think Threxy is making derogatory comments, at the end of the day the infantry's role is to close and kill the enemy and the rest of the army is there to support in that role.
Sign In or Register to comment.