Why police were so soft on London looters: They 'were ordered to stand and observe' as capital burne

Source: dailymail

Why police were so soft on London looters: They 'were ordered to stand and observe' as capital burned (but in Manchester they were hunting looters within hours)

# Yard insiders: Officers were 'told just to try and contain violence'
# Complaints by public that looting mobs were being allowed to continue
# Tactics finally changed on Monday as armoured vehicles moved in
# Met Police took three days to issue pictures of offenders

Police were ordered to 'stand and observe' rioters as they laid waste to London's streets instead of confronting them, it was claimed today.

Scotland Yard insiders have revealed teams were frustrated at their inability to wade in and arrest troublemakers while they looted and burnt out shops.

They had apparently been told to try and contain any violence but not to haul away offenders who would instead be identified through video footage later, according to The Times.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024412/London-riots-Police-soft-looters-ordered-stand-observe.html

New development opportunities?

We have a Winner!

1044: An anonymous police officer in Surrey

e-mails: The UK will continue to be under siege from the mindless violence until something changes in the way we police this country. When my granddad was a police officer in the 1940s he was feared by those who broke laws. He acted professionally and upheld the law, but did not have worry about trial by media if used force to restore order. Every use of force by a police officer in the UK has to be documented and justified. Many officers will not use the force necessary to restore order as they fear for their jobs and liberty! The interview with the two teenage girls on Monday shows this really well where they state 'we are showing the police we can do what we want!' The yobs and looters need something to fear or they will continue their reign of terror on the law abiding community.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14449675

Repeat :

Every use of force by a police officer in the UK has to be documented and justified. Many officers will not use the force necessary to restore order as they fear for their jobs and liberty!

That stood out a mile to me just watching what was going on. Our police are unduly constrained.

On the subject of the pictures : the looters/loosers/tossers/rats are already complaining about their human rights being breached by the publication of their mugs in our media.

that wasn't a run of the mill operation. Our police are not armed : only the special response units. Those units are not called out as a matter of routine and their use needs to be qualified. The taxi wasn't stopped as matter of routine - it was part of an ongoing situation. The cause of the event was that he was carrying a gun : the effect is that he's dead.

The moral is don't carry a gun here. What has yet to become clear, if ever , is how the police knew he was carrying.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/08/mark-duggan-handgun-lethal-weapon

He was a gang member with a modified handgun on him with a bullet in the chamber.
He was no victim. He was a thug who victimized other people. Only the baddest criminals
have guns in the UK. He was killed during an ongoing incident. The IPCC investigation
is continuing so there is no way you know he is innocent. Just because many US cops are
baddies doesn't mean all UK cops are too. I know many posters here would like to believe it
but it doesn't make it so. Yours is an opinion. Not a fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Mark_Duggan

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2011/08/20118106121910261.html

Interesting that the handgun found at the scene had not been fired. The bullet lodged in the cop car's radio was police issue.

Imminent threat was sufficient to shoot him - those are the rules applied to the special response unit.

Was a single bullet to the chest killed him and it doesn't follow that a fatal shot was intentional.

So, for example, if someone has a gun pointed at a loved one, you don't support doing anything until they fire? Or, are you one of those people who watch TV and get mad if the police don't aim for the hand/arm?

Right. You're one of those people who watch TV and get mad because if the police don't kill everyone in their way?

No.

1. Look at the laws surrounding guns in the UK.
2. This individual was, in fact, carrying a gun.
3. This individual was known to be using a gun and the police were looking to aprehend.

I am not commenting on the right/wrong of what happened. Hopefully, time will tell. However, given these facts, I am willing to wait and see and certainly think the outcry we have seen is more than a bit premature.

The cop and the thug, both pointing guns at each other, while a conversation takes place.

P-p-f-f-T.

The investigation is ongoing yet the police have admitted it was their bullet. Does that sound like a coverup to you?
Duggan was not just a known gang member. He was a gang leader. People are giving this punk way too much time.
He inflicted suffering on others on a daily basis. He was a yob. Wait and see what is truly revealed about this arsehole.

One thing in common to all 3: They had guns and were reaching for them. They were also minority. Why is this significant?

In this time frame, a man who was acquitted of participating in the murder of 3 school girls, was stopped for a traffic violation, chased down by police and shot dead. No evidence he even had a gun. Not much of a flap, except from family: He was white.

You go for a gun and you will be shot.

had to explain their reasons behind the use of force more often...They tazzer old womnen in this country & children...And NEVER have to explain their actions & almost NEVER get in trouble.

However, I would not want the police to be so constrained that they are scared to do their job...But that is no where near the case in the USA.

Each arrest pulls, at the very least, one officer off the street. The fewer cops, the less restraint on the crowds (and yeah, there doesn't seem to be much restraint in a riot, but...)

why the police here were more intent in "holding the line" rather than going after odd individuals.

it must be frustrating not to be able to use it at will...

Tough noogies.

Or the Iranian government. Or as the Syrian government is doing. Anyway we know what the response here would be. We would be slaughtered without hesitation or remorse.

Aren't we now opposed to any government that "shoots its own citizens"?

Or are we only opposed to Middle East governments with oil that shoot their own citizens?

I'm pretty much a "Theory Y" guy, so it's no great surprise that I would object to the police sentiment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X_and_theory_Y


Substitute "citizen" for "employee" and "society" for "workplace" and you've got the picture.

did so because in the old days it was a convenient way to get housed. :shrug:

However I doubt your friend would have joined if he objected to the idea of the exercise of power and control over others.

:rofl:

Not sure if that was the police or not.

You realize, of course, the man in green and his helper will be questioned and asked to explain why his use of force, and the consequent injuries sustained by da thug, was necessary and proportional to the act committed, esp. since the act may have been committed on a property, and not on the man in green. So explain your self, Mr. Green!

justify their austerity programming. "they're just looters & rioters!"

i wouldn't be a bit surprised if there was a strong element of agents provocateurs involved.

so's they tell the human rights court in Strasbourg to fuck off.

I don't mean the violence itself : just some associated issues here.