Tottenham riots

[Jon MW]

love how people in the forces always think the forces are the answer

Traditionally/historically having lots of the criminal element in the army has been a good thing - for the army

It hasn't necessarily reformed all of them into not being criminals outside the army. but they have tended to make good soldiers.

[ManuelsMum]

amazing how people view this so differently.

I saw the kid on the bike today on Sky, and said out loud to myself, "about time too"

The Police have had everything thrown at them for 3-4 days, and have no "real" power to stop anything, so the rioters carry on with no regard for property, human life or anything.  Other louts from other areas saw this and were encouraged, think no doubt if they can we can.  so it spreads...

It has been made very clear, get off the streets and stop watching these criminals.  Why on earth would you be out on the street with this going on, unless you were intent on doing something.

Good on them I say, as 100% that kid ain't on the streets tonight - Job Done!

What if they Police ignored him, as he wasn't "doing anything" and he went around the corner and torched something...the Police would have been lamblasted for not dealing with a "youth on the rioting streets"  We saw in London that standing watching people loot didn't work.. The public were and are screaming out for more action from the Police - about time we saw it.

Human rights is great for the right reasons, not protecting muppets like this.  Fk'em, and their hiding behind Lawyers.  go in and go in hard, 100% it would quell it in one night.

You commit a crime, you lose your rights.

Extreme case - bet you don't get much if any shoplifting in places like Saudia arabia - wonder why.  We are imo to soft, and too worried about consequences by  lawyers actions.

If someone commits a crime, that permits the police to act outside the law?

It should permit them to deal with the person(s) how they see fit at the time of the incident.   Common sense approach of course, reasonable force is fine in theses situ's  Why shouldn't they!  This was fine imo, he was dealt with in a way the i reckon 99/9% of the public agreed with.

If some-one was damaging your property, or putting you or your family lifes at risk,  wouldn't that give you the right to act how you see fit at the time.  Wouldn't you want the backing of the public and law makers in dealing with the criminal / thug that was breaking the law in the first place.

Remember this guy?


Copper coming round the corner this time probably didn't even know who the guy was, just a guy on a bike coming from the scene of some trouble.

yes, awful..did he mean to kill him.....or was he moving him on?..nasty incident....but for ever 1 you give me, i'll give you a 1000 that are attacks on the police, who simply do there job.  how many missles, bricks, petrol bombs have th police thrown

I never got whacked by the police during the last 4 days..why...cause i stayed of the streets....not worth getting caught up in it

trust me i have very very much reason to hate the police on 2 occasions...and i do with certain branches.....they do wrong..they fk up and cover up...some are power driven bstads....liars etc

but not 1 one sec do i have any sympthony for any of the protesters wotsoever if they get battered.

Looks to me like he used excessive force which led to the man falling down (which may have caused his death).
Tomlinson had a pre-existing condition which made him vulnerable to death in the circumstances. None of the officers could have known this. Tough. You take your victim as you find them http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull If his force had been reasonable in the circumstances (ie within the law) he wouldn't currently be facing an involuntary manslaughter charge.

[ ] It's a dead easy job for the police in these circumstances, you just ask rioters to move on, otherwise cuff them.
  Their own lives are threatened, it's chaotic, you have to herd people almost like animals, and non-protesters are getting caught up in the mayhem. But the fact is that the vicious over-aggressive lawless violence that the police are fighting is present in part in their own ranks too. The police aren't all angels. Donning a badge and riot gear doesn't give them licence to do whatever they want. They are trained in how and when to use force. The original video seems to show a breach of this. Did they have any idea who the kid was? Did they know he was involved in violence? Were they trying to arrest him? Was he resisting this?
Or were they just giving him a good hiding for being a bad boy. Probably. Lol if you like a police force that behaves like this, move to the Third World. I've been on the receiving end of that crap there, it makes you value what's different about policing in the UK.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/25/police-g20-inquiry-report
Denis O'Connor, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, used his report to demand wide-ranging reforms and a return to an ideal of policing based on "approachability, impartiality, accountability and … minimum force".
He criticised the way officers were trained for the use of force, saying they wrongly believing "proportionality" means "reciprocity". Through the ranks, there was a failure to understand the law on policing protests.

[Geo the Sarge]

love how people in the forces always think the forces are the answer

I can guarantee that most people in the forces would not like national service to be an option for these scum. However if it was forced on them, there'd be a far better chance of instilling a bit more morality/respect for society in them than any other option open to them at present which currently seems to be youth workers, many of whom seem to be more interested in politicsing (sp? not sure it's even a word) them into that individuals way of thinking.

TBH the "bring back National Service" chants I see mostly come from non-service personnell

Geo

[redarmi]

love how people in the forces always think the forces are the answer

I can guarantee that most people in the forces would not like national service to be an option for these scum. However if it was forced on them, there'd be a far better chance of instilling a bit more morality/respect for society in them than any other option open to them at present which currently seems to be youth workers, many of whom seem to be more interested in politicsing (sp? not sure it's even a word) them into that individuals way of thinking.

LOL at youth workers trying to make them think a certain way but the army not!!!!

[Geo the Sarge]

love how people in the forces always think the forces are the answer

I can guarantee that most people in the forces would not like national service to be an option for these scum. However if it was forced on them, there'd be a far better chance of instilling a bit more morality/respect for society in them than any other option open to them at present which currently seems to be youth workers, many of whom seem to be more interested in politicsing (sp? not sure it's even a word) them into that individuals way of thinking.

LOL at youth workers trying to make them think a certain way but the army not!!!!

Methinks you'd be surprised. The Forces do not politicise, they merely train in warfare. Anyone joining the forces have their own political views. To force National Service on anyone whose political views are anti forces would be ridiculous.

As part of Education for promotion we used to have a subject, Army in the contemporary world (ACW) during which National Service is often debated with the majority of service people absolutely against it. And we are not talking merely National Service for criminals here, this is a debate on if the country felt the need to introduce NS for everyone should recruiting numbers not be sustainable.

Regardless of what I say it won't change your thoughts, but hey ho, each to their own.

Geo

[Geo the Sarge]

love how people in the forces always think the forces are the answer

Traditionally/historically having lots of the criminal element in the army has been a good thing - for the army

It hasn't necessarily reformed all of them into not being criminals outside the army. but they have tended to make good soldiers.

Evidence please?

At what point was a large criminal element introduced into the Army that would support this statement?

The recruiting process has set limits for what is acceptable for past criminilaty. For example, a young person who had been put in front of the court for an offence deemed to be minor enough to be given a conditional discharge (guilty however no actual punishment applied) they would still have to wait something like 12 months after this has been served before being eligible to apply to join up.

Most other sentences would have at least the minimum rehabilitation period attached to it as per The Rehabilitation of offenders act 1974 before being allowed to apply to join up. Even this would not guarantee their acceptance dependant on the type of crime committed.

Geo

[AndrewT]

It probably would be a good idea if there was some sort of compulsory National Service - not teaching them how to shoot and that, but something closer to the Scouts, with the groups made up of a cross-section of society, so individual groups contain both people from Eton and those from council estates.

There would be a bit more of a community service aspect, along with more general discipline and fitness.

[Jon MW]

love how people in the forces always think the forces are the answer

Traditionally/historically having lots of the criminal element in the army has been a good thing - for the army

It hasn't necessarily reformed all of them into not being criminals outside the army. but they have tended to make good soldiers.

Evidence please?

At what point was a large criminal element introduced into the Army that would support this statement?

The recruiting process has set limits for what is acceptable for past criminilaty. For example, a young person who had been put in front of the court for an offence deemed to be minor enough to be given a conditional discharge (guilty however no actual punishment applied) they would still have to wait something like 12 months after this has been served before being eligible to apply to join up.

Most other sentences would have at least the minimum rehabilitation period attached to it as per The Rehabilitation of offenders act 1974 before being allowed to apply to join up. Even this would not guarantee their acceptance dependant on the type of crime committed.

Geo

Not really relevant to the era's I was referring to

[Geo the Sarge]

It probably would be a good idea if there was some sort of compulsory National Service - not teaching them how to shoot and that, but something closer to the Scouts, with the groups made up of a cross-section of society, so individual groups contain both people from Eton and those from council estates.

There would be a bit more of a community service aspect, along with more general discipline and fitness.

I totally agree Andrew, generally a boot camp type of thing without the military link.

Geo

[Geo the Sarge]

love how people in the forces always think the forces are the answer

Traditionally/historically having lots of the criminal element in the army has been a good thing - for the army

It hasn't necessarily reformed all of them into not being criminals outside the army. but they have tended to make good soldiers.

Evidence please?

At what point was a large criminal element introduced into the Army that would support this statement?

The recruiting process has set limits for what is acceptable for past criminilaty. For example, a young person who had been put in front of the court for an offence deemed to be minor enough to be given a conditional discharge (guilty however no actual punishment applied) they would still have to wait something like 12 months after this has been served before being eligible to apply to join up.

Most other sentences would have at least the minimum rehabilitation period attached to it as per The Rehabilitation of offenders act 1974 before being allowed to apply to join up. Even this would not guarantee their acceptance dependant on the type of crime committed.

Geo

Not really relevant to the era's I was referring to

What era's? and again evidence please?

The 74 act is the one still prevelant at this time, previously there would have been other limits?

Or is this based on watching The Dirty Dozen?

Geo

[Jon MW]

love how people in the forces always think the forces are the answer

Traditionally/historically having lots of the criminal element in the army has been a good thing - for the army

It hasn't necessarily reformed all of them into not being criminals outside the army. but they have tended to make good soldiers.

Evidence please?

At what point was a large criminal element introduced into the Army that would support this statement?

The recruiting process has set limits for what is acceptable for past criminilaty. For example, a young person who had been put in front of the court for an offence deemed to be minor enough to be given a conditional discharge (guilty however no actual punishment applied) they would still have to wait something like 12 months after this has been served before being eligible to apply to join up.

Most other sentences would have at least the minimum rehabilitation period attached to it as per The Rehabilitation of offenders act 1974 before being allowed to apply to join up. Even this would not guarantee their acceptance dependant on the type of crime committed.

Geo

Not really relevant to the era's I was referring to

What era's? and again evidence please?

Or is this based on watching The Dirty Dozen?

Geo

I haven't got any history books to hand but here's a reference

http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/static/Punishment.jsp#miscellaneouspunishments

I 'believe' the US did have the army as an alternative to jail in the 20th century but I haven't got the time to look for references.

[leethefish]

whilst in basic training at about week 8 or 9  something happened that resulted in me spending 28 days in jail....

 the reason is irrelevant...


the point being.. this  28 days( i think i done 26 two days off for being a good boy)..are what turned me into

a, a good soldier
b, a good civilised human being.

that along with the rest of my training and advaced training i think set me up for life

i honestly believe this would be good for young kids of today

[leethefish]

love how people in the forces always think the forces are the answer

most forces will always think the same because of  the way of life...its normal

[highmile]

whilst in basic training at about week 8 or 9  something happened that resulted in me spending 28 days in jail....

 the reason is irrelevant...


the point being.. this  28 days( i think i done 26 two days off for being a good boy)..are what turned me into

a, a good soldier
b, a good civilised human being.

that along with the rest of my training and advaced training i think set me up for life

i honestly believe this would be good for young kids of today

The training, routine and discipline maybe. But you cannot force people to go and put their lives at risk for you own ideals. Might be different if they were required to fight for their country.

[leethefish]

whilst in basic training at about week 8 or 9  something happened that resulted in me spending 28 days in jail....

 the reason is irrelevant...


the point being.. this  28 days( i think i done 26 two days off for being a good boy)..are what turned me into

a, a good soldier
b, a good civilised human being.

that along with the rest of my training and advaced training i think set me up for life

i honestly believe this would be good for young kids of today

The training, routine and discipline maybe. But you cannot force people to go and put their lives at risk for you own ideals. Might be different if they were required to fight for their country.

i think after two years no fighting war zones etc... then can choose to stay for ..lets say 3 years and go to Afghanistan etc probs 50% would  do...by choice