English Riots

[Jon]

kicking people's heads in should be a natural perk of the job (when they deserve it obviously)

I'm not sure the kind of people attracted by such a "perk" would be the sort of folks you'd want in law enforcement.

[jpj]

it's actually very hard to get into the police

but if that's all someone wants to do they can just do an SIA course within a week and get a job on the doors somewhere innit

[Randorama]

kicking people's heads in should be a natural perk of the job (when they deserve it obviously)

That's how fascist police works. Do you want to pay taxes for that?

[Obiwanshinobi]

Reportedly in Belarus people don't mess with the police. Some of you might like it there.

[dcharlie]

what i'm getting increasingly bemused by is this :

what started off as a police shooting a gangster who shot at them
became the police shooting a gangster who had a gun
became the police shooting a gangster who didn't have a gun
became the police shooting a gangster... maybe a gangster?... definitely mabye in a gang
then the riots and looting etc...

net out come?

The British public seemingly en masse asking for increased policing of the internet, social networking, and everything you type with people being banged up based on what they put as their facebook status (4 years?! are you kidding me!??), the actual murder that triggered a -part- of this being largely ignored (under no illusion that there's several tenticles to the riots), and just a general feeling of wtf

It's all starting to have a bit of a stench about it - Police force was about to get drastically cut, there's a huge riot whilst parliament is not sitting, police do -near zero- at the start of the action and now there's mass public sympath for the police and a call for TOUGHER POLICE MEASURES. Next few weeks will see a repeal of the Police cuts - guaranteed. Just makes you wonder and, as a rule, it's always good to see who benefits.

You couldn't make it up for the UK'ers though - listening to talk radio shows it seems everyone is banging to the same drum : PLEASE take away more of our liberties and keep an eye on us all a bit more and if you fancy it bang us up for tweets/facebook status updates despite no crime being committed, with the hilariously short sighted "if you've nothing to hid you have nothing to worry about" justificaion for what would effectively be sanctioned mass monitoring. I wonder what happens if you leave your logon open and someone else types something "illegal" ? :/

UK - please wake up.

[jpj]

i was waiting for the inevitable Police-Cuts-Conspiracy-Edition

4 years is a tough sentence, but if it were some extremist muslim group doing some rallying call online i doubt you or anyone would bat an eyelid. are threats of violence not considered a crime anymore..?

if these measures catch more criminals by giving police more info to work with i don't see the problem. i think justice is more important than typing dumb shit on facebook

i personally forwarded about half a dozen people's facebook/twitter details to police

(rando, if someone attacks you and you hit them back, that doesn't make you a fascist)

[Randorama]

(rando, if someone attacks you and you hit them back, that doesn't make you a fascist)

You can't hit a policeman that is officially "doing his duty", I am pretty sure that it is at least 3 months of prison, regardless of the country. History is littered with policemen who abuse their status to just beat people without a reason (say, Italian police in Genoa 2001).

Personally I am all for proper training: policemen can wear teflon suits so they simply can't get hurt when being hit, learn some serious grappling tecniques (e.g. Brazilian ju-jitsu) and disarm or render inoffensive violent citizens when it is necessary. I am ok in paying taxes if it finances well-trained policemen, who can keep public order without abusing citizen even if said citizens are committing a crime. Sending poorly trained fat guys (who get a crap salary) against poor and riotous kids (who get a crap future) is just a "dog-eat-dog" scenario that benefits the armchair fascists calling for "more security" from the safety of their basement littered with animu dolls (or figurines, or whatever).

[jpj]

what's an animu doll?

police training is not the issue, it was their assessment of the situation (which determined their strategy and response), deeming it public disorder as opposed to rioting

i was also glad the police didn't interfere with the sikh community who were blatantly brandishing knives and swords, and the vigilante gangs of enfield

[dcharlie]

i was waiting for the inevitable Police-Cuts-Conspiracy-Edition

*shrug* - seems not particularly far fetched to me. Still would like to see what is happening with the inquiry given the story has changed so much. I'm sure it'll all come out smelling of roses!

4 years is a tough sentence, but if it were some extremist muslim group doing some rallying call online i doubt you or anyone would bat an eyelid. are threats of violence not considered a crime anymore..?

4 years is a frankly -fucking absurd- sentence for the crime they both failed to commit. Usually in sting operations you have to at least wait for some semblence of something to happen before you nick the wannabe criminals. Then we have privacy issues etc.

extremist muslim groups? you know what - i don't trust the shower of piss that's holding the reigns in the UK at all and given the reaction to this whole incident is people seemingly supporting for more clampdowns on -themselves- then i think the whole country has gone absolutely nuts.

Again - how did the UK public get to volunteering up civil liberties following riots (in part) sparked by what looks potentially like a police action gone wrong? (and that's being pretty kind)

if these measures catch more criminals by giving police more info to work with i don't see the problem. i think justice is more important than typing dumb shit on facebook

And whose "justice" is this? Yours? "The Public" ?

Written media has a ton of issues carried with it - if you don't know the person how the hell can you guage the tone, whether it's a flippant or sarcastic comment? etc etc. But yeah, let's have anyone even suggesting anything "wrong" on social media sent to prison for longer than most actual criminals!

[cools]

I'm interested in hearing what talk radio you've been listening to.

I've heard plenty of rational discussion from all facets of society over the past week or so on Radio 4. Some of the least biased radio I've heard in an awfully long time.

[dcharlie]

well, i'm listening on my morning run here in Japan so it's 7am-9am this time so the utter graveyard shift ... so yeah... it was talksport this morning, but i flick around other stations too.

Still , talking to people from back home even the sane ones seem to be calling for the same things. Which is just weird.

[jpj]

people volunteering to "give up civil liberties" is by the by, police & government can already monitor all that stuff anyway

you can swap justice for "public safety" or crime prevention, or whatever term if that makes it clearer

you say "both" so this is just two people we're talking about. am i to believe that out of millions of people on facebook in the UK only two people made comments about them possibly doing some rioting or looting? i know i saw a lot more than two from people i know (in jest obviously )

GCHQ is only a 30 min bus ride away from me, maybe it's time for a career change

edit: lastly, i just wanna add that there are very strict guidelines on sentencing in the UK. this isn't a case of people making up the appropriate punishment for the crime as they go along. if they got four years, then that would've been within the courts' powers before any of these riots even took place. same again for the guy who got 6 months for stealing a bottle of water

[cools]

Talksport for reasoned debate about politics? I see what you did there

I've stayed out of the discussion IRL for the same reasons you've just mentioned - even normally sane people seem to be calling for harsher punishments, more policing. It's difficult to have debate with people unwilling to open their mind to alternatives.

And on the other side of the world you've got stories like this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-14544034

[Randorama]

what's an animu doll?

police training is not the issue, it was their assessment of the situation (which determined their strategy and response), deeming it public disorder as opposed to rioting

Which also very likely stems from poor training...they should have assessed the situation carefully, shouldn't they?

[jpj]

well, i'm not sure that's to do with individual officers on a ground-level.

from what i understand of it when police are dealing with a public disorder problem their strategy is not to use force if possible and contain the group in one area. but what happened here is that they were often severely outnumbered, and in the time taken for more officers to arrive the group of people could easily disperse and move onto another area. with real-time communication tools like facebook and twitter, the mobs were able to ascertain where police currently were & were not, so it became like a game of cat and mouse round the london districts.

the police were outnumbered, out maneuvered, and when they did arrive at places that were being attacked, they were impotent. you would see 10-15 officers arrive somewhere and rather than stop looters, would be trying to form lines to block roads whilst standing off from them in some instances

but this wasn't just the first night, i would say the first 2 days were like this before police really stepped it up.

at least that's how i saw it

[dcharlie]

people volunteering to "give up civil liberties" is by the by, police & government can already monitor all that stuff anyway

yes, under some guise of "terrorist prevention" or some other loop hole - the fact they -can- do it now in a roundabout using powers in a not-as-intended way is a hell of a lot more different from having the public voice a "yes, monitor everything" view and them given a mandate to do it across the board. That sort of power will be very very difficult to take away once "given away" and by given away i mean 'signed into law without any opposition' which you'd hope the UK public -would- be up in arms about. Alas - as i say - people have lost their minds.

you say "both" so this is just two people we're talking about. am i to believe that out of millions of people on facebook in the UK only two people made comments about them possibly doing some rioting or looting? i know i saw a lot more than two from people i know (in jest obviously )

I am sure you did - some would have been serious, some not, some hard to tell, some not so hard to tell. Someone somewhere made the judgement that these were real incidents and decided the two lads organising each event were guilty and would both serve 4 years. The two have different circumstances but the sentence is still stupidly over the top.

I completely and utterly disagree that this "this isn't a case of people making up the appropriate punishment for the crime as they go along." - yes, there's preset ranges of punishments that can be used and you obviously you aren't going to get consistancy (you never do usually) but there's definite pressure to appease public anger and political pressures. Four years for at least one of these guys that looks pretty much like a stupid post on facebook whilst drunk gone wrong. I mentioned "whose justice?" before - are the right sentences being carried out? certainly looks like a lot of overly harsh sentencing is being done and people in the police and the PM etc are all "welcoming" the harsh sentences with the word "deterent" coming marching straight behind as if to futher reinforce that these are overly inflated sentences. Don't get me wrong, there's a wide range of offenses where i want to see the perps get what they have coming to them, but some of the sentences for previous non-offenders involved in low level pinching? Just daft.

And the latest "take away peoples benefits!!" idea from the cheap seats? jesus christ. Make it stop.

[jpj]

i agree that four years is pretty severe, but i don't think this will be the norm at all & what we're seeing is more about making an example of people

(i do agree with you on the shooting as well btw)

conversely, i'm under the impression that anyone convicted of looting who's 16-17, pleads guilty, and has no previous offences, can only get a community service/supervision order (..?)

but i think the reason why some of these sentences seem harsh (not just this example) is because we're quite used to softer sentencing in recent years (put down to prison over-crowding) more towards the other end of the spectrum for offences that wouldn't go to a crown court

you lose your benefits anyway if you go to prison, but sanctions for those who are claiming benefits and are responsible for a minor who is charged might become a reality. i don't wanna say any more on that as it's a bit of a conflict of interests