And a third of people supported the use of live ammunition. Very depressing.

“That is however the only good piece of news from the polls.

The vast majority of people thought the looting & riots were driven by criminal behaviour (42%) and gang culture (26%). Government cuts and unemployment featured in their single figures.”

Why is it “bad news” that people aren’t blaming government cuts and unemployment in anything beyond single figures? Because it means you can’t blame the government for it and score cheap political points off the damage done to people’s lives?

If you don’t want to hear calls for “live ammunition”, you need to accept that the only alternative is robust policing. The police are perceived as soft because, on the news pictures, we see them standing around worrying about Ian Tomlinson. When they should be charging in, cracking heads.

yeah standing around worrying about Tomlinson, during these riots they should of worried about that at the time they killed him.

“That is however the only good piece of news from the polls.

The vast majority of people thought the looting & riots were driven by criminal behaviour (42%) and gang culture (26%). Government cuts and unemployment featured in their single figures.”

I agree with Dane, how is that bad news?

I hate the cuts as much as the next liberal, but they have nothing to do with the majority of the rioters. The opinion of the ‘vast majority’ seems to be correct here.

Listen to some of the interviews, say, the BBC have done with people involved and it’s pretty obvious that it’s nothing to do with cuts and probably not unemployment. Employed people are rioting too. It’s just a few violent people finding an excuse to riot on the back of perceived bad news (i.e. the shooting), and then heaps of opportunism in the meantime when it was clear that people could get away with looting.

You realise that many of ‘em think the Tories handled it badly because they didn’t shoot the rioters, don’t'cha?

I wasn’t aware that anyone was accusing the tories of handling the situation at all.

Vlad the Twat re comment 4:

“yeah standing around worrying about Tomlinson, during these riots they should of worried about that at the time they killed him.”

I suppose if you repeat it often enough you think it is true.
Ian Tomlinson was staggering around disorientated trying to get out of the police cordon around the G20 protestors, then he was shoved by a policeman and fell to the ground landing on his backside and shoulder before being quickly picked up by an onlooker. No matter what you want to believe the shove didn’t induce the heart attack – he was having it already. He wasn’t killed by the police. The idiot police officer who shoved him merely made his departure a lousy one.

Yes we expect better of the police but don’t they deserve better treatment than to be screamed at, beaten, shoved, provoked, sworn at and inticed into lashing out by ‘protestors’ supposedly concerned with saving the world from itself?

On Saturday night the police in Tottenham stood back constrained by the niceties of community policing (with the fear of being accused racists) and reluctance to show any physical force in case it backfired on them as with Ian Tomlinson. They were keen to avoid confrontation and for these limitations to become apparant to us all.

We now know and are about to witness an enthusiastally supported police dispense with Juliet Bravo tactics and welcome back Gene Hunt.

The government is a coalition of Conservatives (Tories) and Liberal Democrats.
So why the headline accusing the Tories only of handling this badly? Every Lib Dem I have heard has supported the coalition government’s behaviour.

Having said that,istening to the sternest protestations by Therisa May reminds me of Dennis Healy’s infamous qoute “like being savaged by a dead sheep” about Geoffrey Howe.

@3. Vladimir: “If you don’t want to hear calls for “live ammunition”, you need to accept that the only alternative is robust policing. The police are perceived as soft because, on the news pictures, we see them standing around worrying about Ian Tomlinson.”

The lesson learned from Ian Tomlinson’s death is that some police officers cannot be trusted with a baton. That lesson is finally getting through to some senior coppers and most politicians.

History also tells us that constabularies occasionally employ former officers who have been dismissed elsewhere for violent conduct. That concern remains worrying.

—
On live ammunition: Soldiers are trained to shoot at people who threaten them, and most UK soldiers aren’t good at it. They generally don’t want to do it and only try hard when they are in serious danger. As we know from Northern Irish history, the army employs a few hot heads, but the majority of soldiers do not wish to shoot people.

Police firearms officers are trained to *not* shoot people. They are above average marksmen and the qualification tests exclude hot heads who might have joined the army to shoot a gun at living people. (This is not intended as a comment about Mark Duggan’s death.)

So putting armed police on the streets won’t work, because they won’t draw a firearm unless threatened (again, I am not speculating about Mark Duggan’s death). And putting soldiers on the street won’t work because the rioters aren’t shooting at them.

In the case of Jean Charles de Menezes, the public has not been given sufficient information but it is clear that the shooters were not “regular” police officers.

No matter what you want to believe the shove didn’t induce the heart attack – he was having it already. He wasn’t killed by the police. The idiot police officer who shoved him merely made his departure a lousy one.

Liar.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13268633

The jury decided Pc Harwood acted illegally, recklessly and dangerously, and used “excessive and unreasonable” force in striking Mr Tomlinson.

He died of internal bleeding, not a heart attack.

Err, what I intended to comment about before the above distraction is that citizens have little ability to judge the acts of politicians during the current riots. The role of a politician is to determine strategy and leave it to the executors to implement policy. Government does not have “strategy” for mass disorder but police officers have contingency plans. (By definition, government has strategy for order.)

I’m a great believer in transferrable skills but I find it difficult to believe that a journalist, a financial advisor and a marketing executive would inform a debate about riot control. Calendar wise, their holiday plans were apt and allowed executives to manage the riots less badly.

Senior coppers have received thirty years of training and have learned s-l-o-w-ly about social disorder. But they especially screwed up on arson control. To my knowledge, nobody has yet been charged for arson apart from the Mancunian half wit.

“In the case of Jean Charles de Menezes, the public has not been given sufficient information but it is clear that the shooters were not “regular” police officers.”

My understanding of it was that they were regular police officers but they were incorrectly informed he had a bomb. So when they got to the train and the guy was pointed out to them, they made the judgement that any warning would risk public safety, so they shot him (which in that instance they are allowed to do – it’s the only time they are allowed to fire without warning).

Rioting is against the law, so to say that the riots were caused by criminal behaviour is a tautology not an explanation. The riots were caused because a lot of people saw an opportunity to get some free stuff; if breaking in shops and looting them was legal, they would still have done this.