If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
Totally agree but the insinuation was that all we are trained to do is kill and injure.
See, I thought that if you caused them harm, they could charge you.
What if somebody breaks in to your home?
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).
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.
......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.
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.
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.
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.