Tuesday, 9 August 2011

How they used to end riots in London ....

"The army was called out on 7 June and given orders to fire upon groups of four or more who refused to disperse. About 285 people were shot dead, with another 200 wounded. Around 450 of the rioters were arrested."


7 comments:

Ed P said...

That's the way to do it!

And it saves the police a huge amount of time filling in stupid forms, then cluttering up limited cell space.

As Corporal Jones said, "They don't like it up 'em"

tomsmith said...

Yes lets have the state shooting people on the street. Great idea

Smoking Hot said...

Or how they ended political demonstrations in London when 40-60,000 marched on Parliament.

Anonymous said...

Shooting people on the street, the rioters are starting to do that.
That is the endgame here if it does not stop soon they state will have no choice will it.

tomsmith said...

Why side with the state over the rioters? Both of them are equally guilty as far as I am concerned. I won't cheer if the state created parasites riot and I won't cheer if the state (also a parasite)crushes them using physical force. Siding with the state over the rioters is playing into the hands of our politcal masters.

Anonymous said...

Our Lords and Masters (sic) should think themselves darned lucky that us "middle class" aren't out there on the streets rioting as well. No, we aren't interested in such frippery as Levi jeans or Gucci handbags but we are deperately interested in our stolen pensions; crushed savings and investement plans; huge tax rises; huge fuel bill hikes and our general sense that we don't get anything that remotely looks like "value for money" from the grabbing, grubbing politicians of all colours.

Yes, they should think themselves very lucky indeed - for now...

Coney Island

outsider said...

There is a serious point here. I don't want even to think of looters or rioters to be mown down with machine guns but the ACPO guidance on riotous assembly does seem remarkably like the General's handbook in 1914.

It requires vast numbers of virtually unarmed police infantry: slow, hugely inefficient, hugely labour-intensive, hugely expensive and not very effective.
Higher productivity requires investment in more equipment to allow small numbers of police to cope effectively with mass lawbreaking.

I do not know whether that means US-style nightsticks, handguns, cheap water-cannon (obsolete fire engines), guns firing baton rounds, tazers, mace, stink bombs or whatever. But relying on police numbers rather than equipment is crazy whether you think in terms of rapid response, public spending, crime prevention or what it must feel like to be a policeman.