I'm almost embarrassed to ask, but why is this happening? I read that this started saturday as a protest against a policeman who shot someone, but that doesn't seem to be what the protests is about now. The sources I checked don't reach any kind of consensus.
Forty years ago Harvard Professor Edward Banfield wrote a chapter in his book about the riots of the 1960's. From what I can tell, almost everything he wrote applies to these current riots in London. The primary reason that people riot is that rioting is fun. It gives an immense surge of adrenaline and other hormones, it gives the thrill of chaos and action, of the power of mindless destruction. In order for a riot t…
the thrill of chaos and action, of the power of mindless destruction.
I find that really hard to relate to, although I do see this in some people. I wonder if these people have ever had the thrill of creation--birthing something beautiful and unique into the world? That's quite a rush, too. Are riots ultimately a symptom of a failure to educate, to guide, to nurture?
I had always been told that UK cops didn't carry guns, when/why did that change? Was it a reaction to 9/11 or 7/7?
The city of London has it's own police force called the Meltropolitan Police (the Met). This is a different organisation to the normal English police. I think the Met carry guns but the normal police don't. Rome has a similar thing with the Carabinieri, I understand these guys are part of the military.
The Met is responsible for Greater London (where all the riots seem to be so far). The City of London Police is responsible for the Square Mile (the actual City) in the centre.
The City of London police don't especially carry firearms. That said, you may see more of the specially armed police in the City, simply because of a high terrorist threat
The fundamental problem is that the police are not free to use the force necessary to put down the riot. If rioters knew they would be shot on sight, they would stop rioting. As it is, police are afraid to crack down for fear that they'll be brought up on charges of "police brutality". Ultimately it will only end when the military is called in and can brandish actual firearms. EDIT: Amazed that someone downvoted this…
Ultimately it will only end when the military is called in and can brandish actual firearms. My ex was career military. I don't know about the UK, but he always said "You really don't want to bring in the military (for stuff like this). Police are trained to wound and bring them in alive. We are trained to shoot to kill."
Yep, and we've been there before, quite recently actually. See Bloody Sunday on wikipedia. Paratroopers killed 13 people at peaceful demo when they mistakenly thought they had come under fire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1972)
The fundamental problem is that the police are not free to use the force necessary to put down the riot. If rioters knew they would be shot on sight, they would stop rioting. As it is, police are afraid to crack down for fear that they'll be brought up on charges of "police brutality". Ultimately it will only end when the military is called in and can brandish actual firearms. EDIT: Amazed that someone downvoted this…
Ultimately it will only end when the military is called in and can brandish actual firearms. My ex was career military. I don't know about the UK, but he always said "You really don't want to bring in the military (for stuff like this). Police are trained to wound and bring them in alive. We are trained to shoot to kill."
Based on what they showed on UK news this evening, much of the police aren't well-prepared.
Ultimately it will only end when the military is called in and can brandish actual firearms. My ex was career military. I don't know about the UK, but he always said "You really don't want to bring in the military (for stuff like this). Police are trained to wound and bring them in alive. We are trained to shoot to kill."
Yep, and we've been there before, quite recently actually. See Bloody Sunday on wikipedia. Paratroopers killed 13 people at peaceful demo when they mistakenly thought they had come under fire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1972)
Though I wouldn't call the 1970's "quite recently", similarly, the US had four deaths of protesters in 1970, known as The Kent State Shootings or Kent State Massacre:
I think by immigrant communities he was also including immigrants children (1st 2nd generation or more). I've seen this used as to visible minorities in many places around the world. Including country that are mostly immigrants like Canada (where I'm from). What has been reported is that it's youth from poor neighborhoods. Considering the population composition of those neighborhoods, I'm going to guess that it's pro…
Everyone in Canada is an immigrant of some type - unless you are native
Everyone everywhere except maybe in Africa is an immigrant of some type. At some point we just stop calling them immigrants, though.
The fundamental problem is that the police are not free to use the force necessary to put down the riot. If rioters knew they would be shot on sight, they would stop rioting. As it is, police are afraid to crack down for fear that they'll be brought up on charges of "police brutality". Ultimately it will only end when the military is called in and can brandish actual firearms. EDIT: Amazed that someone downvoted this…
Ultimately it will only end when the military is called in and can brandish actual firearms. My ex was career military. I don't know about the UK, but he always said "You really don't want to bring in the military (for stuff like this). Police are trained to wound and bring them in alive. We are trained to shoot to kill."
Military is also supposed to protect a country from outside (military) attackers, police are supposed to protect from domestic (criminal) threats. When you make the military the police you make citizens the enemy the state of their own country.
I'm in my flat in NW2 and I can hear police cars going down the Edgware Road. Fucking terrifying. The police can't keep up, according to the news they're showing up hours late to everything and they don't have any water cannons. Bad times. Edit: #riotcleanup tomorrow morning all over town: http://twitter.com/#!/search/riotcleanup
The fundamental problem is that the police are not free to use the force necessary to put down the riot. If rioters knew they would be shot on sight, they would stop rioting. As it is, police are afraid to crack down for fear that they'll be brought up on charges of "police brutality". Ultimately it will only end when the military is called in and can brandish actual firearms. EDIT: Amazed that someone downvoted this…
Don't bet on it. The group dynamic (deindividuation[1]) behind rioting is exactly the same as the group dynamic used to build armies that are willing to risk their lives on orders. Introducing military on the streets like was done in Northern Ireland[2] is a recipe for decades of pain and division. The military are not police; you don't want that.
Forty years ago Harvard Professor Edward Banfield wrote a chapter in his book about the riots of the 1960's. From what I can tell, almost everything he wrote applies to these current riots in London. The primary reason that people riot is that rioting is fun. It gives an immense surge of adrenaline and other hormones, it gives the thrill of chaos and action, of the power of mindless destruction. In order for a riot t…
the thrill of chaos and action, of the power of mindless destruction. I find that really hard to relate to, although I do see this in some people. I wonder if these people have ever had the thrill of creation--birthing something beautiful and unique into the world? That's quite a rush, too. Are riots ultimately a symptom of a failure to educate, to guide, to nurture?
I think the thrill of the riot is pretty widespread. I myself am a pretty staid, law abiding, non-violent fellow. But I definitely feel the urge - whether its wanting to destroy my tennis racket after losing a game or wanting to participate in post-victory riots that I've witnessed first hand. But the thing that holds me back are a) fear of getting in trouble and b) my conscience. My mom brought me up with a very strict sense of right and wrong and that still stays with me. From what I have read and experienced of inner city culture, its the parenting (or lack thereof) and the failure to instill a conscience that makes rioting more common in these communities. Another factor is that the media and/or educational system and/or community culture have generally built up a sense of grievance and entitlement. That sense of grievance gives an excuse to act out, and a rationalization that assuages the conscience. These grievances may be real or not, but the destruction is still completely unjustified, because its certainly not the hard working storekeeper who's shop is getting burned who is responsible for whatever grievances the rioter might have had.
Ultimately it will only end when the military is called in and can brandish actual firearms. My ex was career military. I don't know about the UK, but he always said "You really don't want to bring in the military (for stuff like this). Police are trained to wound and bring them in alive. We are trained to shoot to kill."
Military is also supposed to protect a country from outside (military) attackers, police are supposed to protect from domestic (criminal) threats. When you make the military the police you make citizens the enemy the state of their own country.
The military has more functions than that and is very effectively mobilized to assist in disasters, such as fires and floods. My ex participated in such things. Still, the point you make (about it making your own citizens "enemies of the state") is a chilling one and I can't really rebut it per se.