And besides, the army aren't trained for dealing with riots like this, they absolutely should not be deployed in these circumstances. There's a reason we've had a dedicated Police force for the last 150 years.
Where did you get this information from? This is actually something that the British army has been dealing with for a very long time, and believe it or not, but the police usually has tasks very different from riot control in war zones.
I certainly wouldn't send the army after burglars or drunk drivers, but riots like these are ideal for military assistance. The mere sight of troops would be enough to lower the killing spirit of people who riot simply because they can do it without any consequences.
They may lack the training (and rights) to detain and arrest people, but the militairy could assist in other ways sucj as blocking of streets and areas, while the police move in and sweap the streets clean.
I'd been reading some discussions between members of the TA, and the general consensus seemed to be that they didn't consider the riot control training that they had received to be adequate for the situation at hand. Some of the most senior police officers are opposed to the idea of bringing in the army; I'm more inclined to listen to them than random members of the public with precisely zero experience.
I'd been reading some discussions between members of the TA, and the general consensus seemed to be that they didn't consider the riot control training that they had received to be adequate for the situation at hand.
TA, is that the Territorial Army? I.e. the national militia in the UK, that barely receives any training at all? If this militia doesn't receive reasonable crowd control training, why not bring in the regular army?
Quote:
Originally Posted by The One and Only
Some of the most senior police officers are opposed to the idea of bringing in the army; I'm more inclined to listen to them than random members of the public with precisely zero experience.
Sure, listen to the very same people who failed to stop or even control those riots.
Ever realized that those guys are more politicians than police officers? They have their careers to think about, and the prestige of the force would be hurt by asking for assistance in a situation that the police should have been perfectly capable of taking care of.
As I recall the TA were sent to Iraq, with those who were unwilling to go being forced to leave - they're meant to be there just to defend the homeland but that's blatantly not what they're used for anymore. I think it's unfair to call them a barely trained militia all considered.
-------------
The police have been having budget cuts and increased hand-tying for years. I don't see how they could have controlled the riots really.
Edit: Well other than what they did of course - stripping the surrounding forces for an extra ten thousand officers so they'd actually have the numbers for a change.
As I recall the TA were sent to Iraq, with those who were unwilling to go being forced to leave - they're meant to be there just to defend the homeland but that's blatantly not what they're used for anymore. I think it's unfair to call them a barely trained militia all considered.
I was exaggerating to prove the point that a few members of the TA might not be the highest authority to judge the British Army on, but that said the TA doesn't even share basic training with the army, those sent away probably received training before their departure.
Regardless I'm fairly confident that the TA would have done well in assisting the police with the riots.
Probably a similar reason to why Washington DC doesn't allow pistols.
In the UK the people do not want to carry firearms, thus it being a democracy the people have their wish and ownership of many types of firearms (ie, those you can conceal) are banned.
Oppression is not allowing people to have guns, why would a government not trust it's people, ay ?
I'm sorry, but that is honestly the most pointless statement I've read in this thread. If there would be a genuine oppression somewhere and the rights to bear arms, then the death toll would be much higher.
Besides, a government isn't made to talk about the trust of the people, but to serve the people. The government is ought to be made by the people, for the people. Unfortunately, the latter case is continually failing in most countries, because the government has the interest of corporations in its eyes, not the people's.
I laugh at anonymous neg-reppers who misread my posts.
Oppression is not allowing people to have guns, why would a government not trust it's people, ay ? if things are so damn fine to live their.
In a democracy, the will of the people (in theory) is carried out. Unfortunately in the UK, the vast majority of people do not want handguns and the like legalised in any way - and even shotguns are suspect, and tightly controlled - and so they are not legal. This is the opposite of oppression, for the majority of the population anyway.
The UK has never had a strong gun culture. You're talking about gun control in Britain as though we are Americans, when we aren't. Even talking about firearms, in any way, often makes many people here visibly uncomfortable. Just bring up the topic of gun control, as though it's a thing that can be debated, with an average person and you are branded as a gun nut. I would go so far as to say that there is a general fear of firearms in Britain.
I saw a statistic quite a long time ago that suggested that gun ownership did not significantly decrease after the tight legislation we have now was put into place - because gun ownership levels were essentially microscopic to begin with. The vast majority of the British people did not notice a difference in their lives, because none of them owned firearms in the first place. I might be misremembering, and I can't find it now, but it sounds realistic to me.
Banning firearms in America would of course be a much different proposition. Large swathes of your population are active members of a (comparatively) liberal - and often passionate - gun culture. The topic of gun control in America is met with suspicion and scorn, compared to the suspicion and scorn that the mere mention of the word 'gun' finds in Britain.
And all that said, I still fail to see the relevance of your gun ranting in regards to the recent riots. To my knowledge, the topic of firearm legislation hasn't been mentioned, either by the media, the government, or even the rioters themselves.
Disclaimer: FileTrekkers are opinion by personal endorsed.
Last edited by Mr. Matt; August 19th, 2011 at 11:49 AM.
This site is part of the Defy Media Gaming network
The best serving of video game culture, since 2001. Whether you're looking for news, reviews, walkthroughs, or the biggest collection of PC gaming files on the planet, Game Front has you covered. We also make no illusions about gaming: it's supposed to be fun. Browse gaming galleries, humor lists, and honest, short-form reporting. Game on!
The Pub 
14Likes
Re: UK Riots 
I laugh at anonymous neg-reppers who misread my posts.
Linear Mode
