Riots

[Phil Reynolds]

I meant to comment at the time, but when Phil linked that Not the 9 O'clock News clip I thought it was pretty funny that they were saying precisely the sort of things that are being said now, and that presumably at the time of them making that they were already cliches.

Yup. I was actually reminded of that sketch after listening to a woman from Hackney on the Jeremy Vine programme on Radio 2 on Tuesday who used the "Look, I live in the sort of area we're talking about, I know these kids, I know their problems, their social frustrations..." line almost verbatim.

[Jon O'Neill]

People have been saying that "discipline is being eroded" forever.

Citation needed

“Children today are tyrants. They contradict their parents, gobble their food, and tyrannize their teachers.”

Of course in the centuries inbetween it may have been different.

Thanks, that works.

[Ryan Taylor]

It's pretty conclusive that standing back and watching, turning a blind eye or just not bothering to intervene is the best thing to do. This is a pretty fucked up world to live in when this is the case.

This is ridiculous. You think you are some sort of Jon Corby for stopping a fight once.

At the moment I'm at university as I need a degree to go into teaching. Why do I want to go into teaching? For money? For holidays? No. Because I want to make a difference to children's lives far beyond what a syllabus ever sets out. From the start of October 2010 until the end of January 2011 my university timetable was such that I had Monday's off. Did I use these Mondays as a day off? No. I gave up my own time (getting up at 6.30am) to make the 8 mile trip from the centre of Hull to my former secondary school to volunteer in classes with children aged 11-14 years old and I helped them learn and I disciplined them too so that they didn't disrupt the class as they normally would without an extra pair of hands in the class. Some of the kids I helped did better in a little practice test paper they were given and they thanked me. Also in this short period of volunteering one Year 9 pupil made the remark of "ginger biscuit" and proceeded to throw scrunched up paper at me. He was disciplined because I stood up for what is right and he was rightfully punished. The next week when I was in the school the same pupil greeted me warmly with a "morning sir" and apologised for what he had done.

In November I have been asked as the guest speaker at an awards ceremony hosted at the Guild Hall in Hull and I have to give a 15 minute speech to roughly 500 students in which I will attempt to put across some messages of life. I'm not getting anything for any of these things. I do it because I care and want to give up my time.

I've gone off the original post a lot, but that is to try and hammer home that your perception of me as a "Jon Corby" figure (in the sense that I think I'm a moral hero for breaking up a fight once) is just wrong. I've actually broke up plenty of fights but I'm not counting.

How about the real problems in the world that you're doing nothing to help? Why are you standing back and watching, turning a blind eye to and just not bothering to intervene with their HIV problem?

Worldwide problems? I donate to charities on a regular basis that deal with the HIV problem that you mention. In fact, I have hosted my own charity events for these causes and more. It is still a plan of mine to complete LEJOG for charity too either in a gap year or during one summer. Later on in the year I am hosting another fundraising event. All of these might not exactly be going to the source of problems first hand but they do at least address problems.

The fact is, if you spent your whole life worrying about other people's problems, you'd have no time left for anything else. So you live your own life. Which is fine... just don't sit on your high horse when you're 99.99999999999999% as guilty as everyone else of what you're accusing the fucked-up world of as the world is itself.

I certainly wasn't on a horse when I made my original post. And as for worrying about other people's problems...of course you can't help everyone, there isn't enough time in the world, but I do try and help as many people as I can. I may have this facade on this forum as a cunty DM reader that makes inappropriate comments and jokes and even hide behind the same mask when at Co events but that is as far as it stretches.

I'm talking life and death situations... why don't you relocate to The Congo and look after orphans?

Why would I want to go to Africa with all those blacks?

Consider this my last post on this forum other than my recaps.

[Jon O'Neill]

Why would I want to go to Africa with all those blacks?

Fucking racist.

[Jon O'Neill]

It's pretty conclusive that standing back and watching, turning a blind eye or just not bothering to intervene is the best thing to do. This is a pretty fucked up world to live in when this is the case.

This is ridiculous. You think you are some sort of Jon Corby for stopping a fight once.

At the moment I'm at university as I need a degree to go into teaching. Why do I want to go into teaching? For money? For holidays? No. Because I want to make a difference to children's lives far beyond what a syllabus ever sets out. From the start of October 2010 until the end of January 2011 my university timetable was such that I had Monday's off. Did I use these Mondays as a day off? No. I gave up my own time (getting up at 6.30am) to make the 8 mile trip from the centre of Hull to my former secondary school to volunteer in classes with children aged 11-14 years old and I helped them learn and I disciplined them too so that they didn't disrupt the class as they normally would without an extra pair of hands in the class. Some of the kids I helped did better in a little practice test paper they were given and they thanked me. Also in this short period of volunteering one Year 9 pupil made the remark of "ginger biscuit" and proceeded to throw scrunched up paper at me. He was disciplined because I stood up for what is right and he was rightfully punished. The next week when I was in the school the same pupil greeted me warmly with a "morning sir" and apologised for what he had done.

In November I have been asked as the guest speaker at an awards ceremony hosted at the Guild Hall in Hull and I have to give a 15 minute speech to roughly 500 students in which I will attempt to put across some messages of life. I'm not getting anything for any of these things. I do it because I care and want to give up my time.

I've gone off the original post a lot, but that is to try and hammer home that your perception of me as a "Jon Corby" figure (in the sense that I think I'm a moral hero for breaking up a fight once) is just wrong. I've actually broke up plenty of fights but I'm not counting.

How about the real problems in the world that you're doing nothing to help? Why are you standing back and watching, turning a blind eye to and just not bothering to intervene with their HIV problem?

Worldwide problems? I donate to charities on a regular basis that deal with the HIV problem that you mention. In fact, I have hosted my own charity events for these causes and more. It is still a plan of mine to complete LEJOG for charity too either in a gap year or during one summer. Later on in the year I am hosting another fundraising event. All of these might not exactly be going to the source of problems first hand but they do at least address problems.

The fact is, if you spent your whole life worrying about other people's problems, you'd have no time left for anything else. So you live your own life. Which is fine... just don't sit on your high horse when you're 99.99999999999999% as guilty as everyone else of what you're accusing the fucked-up world of as the world is itself.

I certainly wasn't on a horse when I made my original post. And as for worrying about other people's problems...of course you can't help everyone, there isn't enough time in the world, but I do try and help as many people as I can. I may have this facade on this forum as a cunty DM reader that makes inappropriate comments and jokes and even hide behind the same mask when at Co events but that is as far as it stretches.

I'm talking life and death situations... why don't you relocate to The Congo and look after orphans?

Why would I want to go to Africa with all those blacks?

Consider this my last post on this forum other than my recaps.

No, fair enough. I didn't know you were the next Mother Theresa. I thought you were just another one of the middle-aged middle-class fat women who go on like they're good people when all they've done is profit from their lucky circumstances.

I wouldn't want you to leave the forum just because of one misunderstanding. I mean, I don't value your contributions but some people might.

[Marc Meakin]

fucking hell jono give the bloke a break (ginger on ginger infighting not good) so he seems a bit racist but he seems to be a good egg. your anti police stance is equally odious and though you stop short of cheering on the rioters i get the distinct impression your a bit of an anarchist. yeah i thought id have ago of this assumption lark that yr so shit at. im afraid this wont be my last post on this forum .

[Jon O'Neill]

fucking hell jono give the bloke a break (ginger on ginger infighting not good) so he seems a bit racist but he seems to be a good egg. your anti police stance is equally odious and though you stop short of cheering on the rioters i get the distinct impression your a bit of an anarchist. yeah i thought id have ago of this assumption lark that yr so shit at. im afraid this wont be my last post on this forum .

Only joking about the racist part, although I did genuinely think he was racist until the Mother Theresa post. I don't dislike racists anyway - my dad's one. Anyway I'm all apologies as my original condemnation was presumptuous and more personal than I had intended. I meant it as a general sort of thing.

As I told you, I'm not (necessarily) anti-Police. The Police I know are all fuckwits. Example, Special Constable friend of mine on Facebook: "need the okay to be a force again not a service, start cracking some fucking skulls. their human rights are lost as soon as they start stealing and robbing and smashing shit up. so frustrating." If you agree that when you steal or rob you "lose your human rights" then you're a fuckwit too.

The rioters weren't anarchists, nor am I. I think everyone who broke the law should be appropriately punished for breaking the law. Doesn't mean we shouldn't ask why one day there weren't riots, and the next day thousands of criminals were on the streets setting stuff alight. Clearly society has failed to some extent for this to happen.

[Jon Corby]

but stuff like this doesn't help their image

People jumping to conclusions about an excerpt of video doesn't help. Why instantly assume that the police are in the wrong? They're fairly specific about which guys they take down, and in fact they're running to intercept them before they'd be in their view. Which kinda suggests there's something a little more co-ordinated than "look, there's some kids on bikes, let's beat them!" going on, doesn't it? Why on earth would you assume that the police (who are accountable for their actions) are in the wrong, rather than some kids out at night in a riot area? I mean, they might be, and I guess if so there'll be a complaint and an investigation etc, but why the fuck would you assume that?

I do think it's a problem that there's always some liberal prick ready to defend those who don't deserve it.



I think you should reconsider as well, Ryan.

Your recaps are shit and nobody would miss them.

(that last line's a joke, obviously)

[Jon O'Neill]

but stuff like this doesn't help their image

People jumping to conclusions about an excerpt of video doesn't help. Why instantly assume that the police are in the wrong? They're fairly specific about which guys they take down, and in fact they're running to intercept them before they'd be in their view. Which kinda suggests there's something a little more co-ordinated than "look, there's some kids on bikes, let's beat them!" going on, doesn't it? Why on earth would you assume that the police (who are accountable for their actions) are in the wrong, rather than some kids out at night in a riot area? I mean, they might be, and I guess if so there'll be a complaint and an investigation etc, but why the fuck would you assume that?

I do think it's a problem that there's always some liberal prick ready to defend those who don't deserve it.

I can't contrive of any circumstances where that sort of beating is not wrong, unless they are under threat themselves, which they are clearly not here. I agree with you it's pretty clear that these kids are criminals... that's why the helicopters is following them. Why do they feel the need to take the law into their own hands here? That's not their job. Whether or not they are criminals, there should be a complaint and an investigation in this particular instance.

I agree with you that this is one instance and this is one individual which is why I said "stuff like this doesn't help their image" and not "this proves police are wankers". I accept that a lot of the riot police are gonna be pretty stressed out from having idiots throwing bricks at them for a few days and seemingly being under orders simply to maintain the police and not get stuck in back.

But that's their job, isn't it?

[Jon Corby]

Whether or not they are criminals, there should be a complaint and an investigation in this particular instance.

Eh, complain away then.

Please keep this thread updated, I'd love to know the outcome.

btw I'd be surprised if it "didn't help their public image". It's what a hell of a lot of people want to see at the moment. The pricks whing(e?)ing about it, well they're never going to be happy whatever. You can't accurately pick out all the individual offences when there's mobs of hundreds involved. I actually find it pathetic that you see that and think "those poor lambs!" rather than "haha, they won't do [whatever it is they did] again, and hopefully it'll put a few others off too".

[Jon O'Neill]

Whether or not they are criminals, there should be a complaint and an investigation in this particular instance.

Eh, complain away then.

Please keep this thread updated, I'd love to know the outcome.

btw I'd be surprised if it "didn't help their public image". It's what a hell of a lot of people want to see at the moment. The pricks whing(e?)ing about it, well they're never going to be happy whatever. You can't accurately pick out all the individual offences when there's mobs of hundreds involved. I actually find it pathetic that you see that and think "those poor lambs!" rather than "haha, they won't do [whatever it is they did] again, and hopefully it'll put a few others off too".

If it was me getting beaten, I'd be complaining.

If I'm one of the pricks whingeing about it, then I will be happy when they're not brutalising people, criminals or otherwise. I was happy the other day when they were containing the riots, when everybody else was complaining that they weren't getting stuck in enough. I'm happy now, knowing that most of the police aren't doing what this guy is doing.

It is what a lot of people unfortunately want to see. Long-term though, I can't see how it can possibly be a good thing for people to fear the police. We are lucky to live in a civilised country where the police can't just do what they want. You should appreciate that fact, not bemoan it.

I find it pathetic and naive that you think they won't do it again or that it will put anyone off.

[Jon Corby]

If it was me getting beaten, I'd be complaining.

And if you'd taken part in a riot, I'd hope your complaint was treated with the contempt it deserved.

I was happy the other day when they were containing the riots, when everybody else was complaining that they weren't getting stuck in enough.

Bitchin'. 16,000 police on duty every night in London it is then.

Long-term though, I can't see how it can possibly be a good thing for people to fear the police. We are lucky to live in a civilised country where the police can't just do what they want. You should appreciate that fact, not bemoan it.

The police don't do whatever they want. These are really exceptional circumstances. I do appreciate the fact.

People should fear the repercussions of breaking the law. I have no issue with the repercussions of taking part in violent, destructive riots possibly being getting a bit of a battering (that's really all it is as well, I doubt they were even hospitalised). I'm really happy with that.

[Mark James]

I actually find it pathetic that you see that and think "those poor lambs!" rather than "haha, they won't do [whatever it is they did] again, and hopefully it'll put a few others off too".

I wouldn't be thinking "those poor lambs!". But the police still can't beat the shit out of people. One of the kids was knocked off his bike. He could have been killed. We've seen on this thread honest law abiding citizens get criminal records for throwing one punch despite provocation. If the police are above the law then the law's an ass. And it wont put others off. The death penalty doesn't even deter murderers. People commit crimes with the mindset that they will not be caught.

[Jon O'Neill]

If it was me getting beaten, I'd be complaining.

And if you'd taken part in a riot, I'd hope your complaint was treated with the contempt it deserved.

So who decides when you can and when you deserve some brutality? You're implying there are crimes which deserve brutality, and crimes which don't. You don't lose your (human) right not to be brutalised by committing a crime.

I was happy the other day when they were containing the riots, when everybody else was complaining that they weren't getting stuck in enough.

Bitchin'. 16,000 police on duty every night in London it is then.

As I said, it's got nothing to do with the number of police on duty. I was happy with the job the police were doing before the riots, I'm happy now. I've never been unhappy. You implied that I'll never be happy because I'm not happy with this instance. Well, I feel safe in my town, I respect the job most police do, despite my reservations about the personalities of police people I have met. I'm happy when they do their job. Their job is not to kick criminals when they're on the ground.

Long-term though, I can't see how it can possibly be a good thing for people to fear the police. We are lucky to live in a civilised country where the police can't just do what they want. You should appreciate that fact, not bemoan it.

The police don't do whatever they want. These are really exceptional circumstances. I do appreciate the fact.

People should fear the repercussions of breaking the law. I have no issue with the repercussions of taking part in violent, destructive riots possibly being getting a bit of a battering (that's really all it is as well, I doubt they were even hospitalised). I'm really happy with that.

Well then we'll agree to disagree on that.

What shocks me about this is the binary view that everyone seems to have taken. If you're in the riots, you're the worst of the worst, scum of the earth, you should go to jail, be sterilized or executed or get the shit kicked out of you, simple as, and if you don't agree then you're a "liberal prick". No. The arsonists should be charged with arson. The looters with breaking and entering. The rioters with disturbing the peace. It's easy to just jump them all together as one big mob, but it's very reductive.

[Jon Corby]

But the police still can't beat the shit out of people. One of the kids was knocked off his bike. He could have been killed. We've seen on this thread honest law abiding citizens get criminal records for throwing one punch despite provocation. If the police are above the law then the law's an ass. And it wont put others off. The death penalty doesn't even deter murderers. People commit crimes with the mindset that they will not be caught.

See above, the police don't generally go around beating the shit out of people. These are exceptional circumstances. I can think of several cases where unwarranted force has been used, and the individuals involved have received just punishment. I'll be watching Jono's complaint with interest to see how this one pans out.

[Jon O'Neill]

Not sure what I meant by "jump" but I'm not editing it out. It felt right at the time.

[Jon O'Neill]

But the police still can't beat the shit out of people. One of the kids was knocked off his bike. He could have been killed. We've seen on this thread honest law abiding citizens get criminal records for throwing one punch despite provocation. If the police are above the law then the law's an ass. And it wont put others off. The death penalty doesn't even deter murderers. People commit crimes with the mindset that they will not be caught.

See above, the police don't generally go around beating the shit out of people. These are exceptional circumstances. I can think of several cases where unwarranted force has been used, and the individuals involved have received just punishment. I'll be watching Jono's complaint with interest to see how this one pans out.

As I said above, you can't complain if you're not the victim.

[Jon Corby]

As I said above, you can't complain if you're not the victim.

Beating them to death is the safest option then, I guess.

[Jon O'Neill]

As I said above, you can't complain if you're not the victim.

Beating them to death is the safest option then, I guess.

Yeah, there must be some other way to complain. Or does a killing trigger an auto-investigation?

[Jon Corby]

You don't lose your (human) right not to be brutalised by committing a crime.

Heart-warming.

As I said, it's got nothing to do with the number of police on duty. I was happy with the job the police were doing before the riots, I'm happy now.

I'm lost. Which "containment of the riots" are you referring to then, if not when it was where there was 16,000 police on duty? Or are you saying you've been happy the whole time, when buildings were burning and shops were being looted?

What shocks me about this is the binary view that everyone seems to have taken. If you're in the riots, you're the worst of the worst, scum of the earth, you should go to jail, be sterilized or executed or get the shit kicked out of you, simple as, and if you don't agree then you're a "liberal prick". No. The arsonists should be charged with arson. The looters with breaking and entering. The rioters with disturbing the peace. It's easy to just jump them all together as one big mob, but it's very reductive.

That's the problem though, when it's on this sort of scale, they have to be treated as a mob, because that's exactly what they are. They're relying on being part of a large enough group that their individual responsibility is diminished. Either they're planning that they won't be identifiable, or won't be fully accountable for their own actions. They are acting as a group. I would expect (and deserve) to be arrested if I ran amok through town with a gang of football hooligans, regardless of whether I personally threw a punch/brick/petrol bomb.

[Jon O'Neill]

You don't lose your (human) right not to be brutalised by committing a crime.

Heart-warming.

Does that mean you disagree? We can debate the Human Rights Act if you want.

As I said, it's got nothing to do with the number of police on duty. I was happy with the job the police were doing before the riots, I'm happy now.

I'm lost. Which "containment of the riots" are you referring to then, if not when it was where there was 16,000 police on duty? Or are you saying you've been happy the whole time, when buildings were burning and shops were being looted?

They were doing what they could when the buildings were burning and the shops were being looted. Whether or not they made the right tactical decisions by standing and not steaming in (I tend to think it was the right tactical decision... things can escalate quickly when you get violent people receiving violence and getting more violent) is open to question, but when they're keeping order to the best of their ability then that's fine. When they're isolating and brutalising people when the riots are basically calmed down (if that's what has happened, which it looks like to me), I'm not happy. I don't understand what's so hard to understand about that.

What shocks me about this is the binary view that everyone seems to have taken. If you're in the riots, you're the worst of the worst, scum of the earth, you should go to jail, be sterilized or executed or get the shit kicked out of you, simple as, and if you don't agree then you're a "liberal prick". No. The arsonists should be charged with arson. The looters with breaking and entering. The rioters with disturbing the peace. It's easy to just jump them all together as one big mob, but it's very reductive.

That's the problem though, when it's on this sort of scale, they have to be treated as a mob, because that's exactly what they are. They're relying on being part of a large enough group that their individual responsibility is diminished. Either they're planning that they won't be identifiable, or won't be fully accountable for their own actions. They are acting as a group. I would expect (and deserve) to be arrested if I ran amok through town with a gang of football hooligans, regardless of whether I personally threw a punch/brick/petrol bomb.

Yeah, you would be arrested for breach of the peace or whatever they call it, I don't know. I agree that they are breaking the law by being involved. But breach of the peace and arson or even murder are just completely different levels of crime. It's reductive to label them all as equally bad as each other. You can't charge someone for crimes they haven't committed (this may be in the Human Rights Act as well, not sure).

[Mark James]

See above, the police don't generally go around beating the shit out of people. These are exceptional circumstances.

It doesn't matter that they don't generally, they're not supposed to, ever. The circumstances aren't that exceptional. There's been riots before. I have no problem with the police hitting people in self defence but if their attackers run away they can't chase after them to continue beating them. These guys on bikes weren't attacking the police in the video. Why weren't they just arrested with no violence involved? If they had resisted arrest and put up a fight I'd be with you on this but they didn't.

[Jon Corby]

If they had resisted arrest and put up a fight I'd be with you on this but they didn't.

Eh, I'm not debating this incident any further, because frankly none of us know exactly what went on. My point was that it staggers me that some people see it and yell "no! bad police!". It's a bizarre assumption to make. I'm much more happy to assume (particularly given the points I noted about the video earlier) that they had reason to act as they did. If they don't, I'm sure it will come out, and action will be taken against those involved. We'll see.

[Jon O'Neill]

If they had resisted arrest and put up a fight I'd be with you on this but they didn't.

Eh, I'm not debating this incident any further, because frankly none of us know exactly what went on. My point was that it staggers me that some people see it and yell "no! bad police!". It's a bizarre assumption to make. I'm much more happy to assume (particularly given the points I noted about the video earlier) that they had reason to act as they did. If they don't, I'm sure it will come out, and action will be taken against those involved. We'll see.

Our point of contention is that there is NO reason to act like that. Once they're down and restrained, there is no crime they could've committed which justifies being kicked. So we've already seen. It doesn't matter if that was Harold Shipman or Osama Bin Laden on the floor.

[Jon O'Neill]

And you disagree, which is fine.

VIEWS VIEWS VIEWS, WE ALL HAVE VIEWS!

[Brian Moore]

And good to see largely good grammar, capitalisation and punctuation.

Oh, sorry, wrong thread.

[Jon O'Neill]

If they had resisted arrest and put up a fight I'd be with you on this but they didn't.

Eh, I'm not debating this incident any further, because frankly none of us know exactly what went on. My point was that it staggers me that some people see it and yell "no! bad police!". It's a bizarre assumption to make. I'm much more happy to assume (particularly given the points I noted about the video earlier) that they had reason to act as they did. If they don't, I'm sure it will come out, and action will be taken against those involved. We'll see.

Our point of contention is that there is NO reason to act like that. Once they're down and restrained, there is no crime they could've committed which justifies being kicked. So we've already seen. It doesn't matter if that was Harold Shipman or Osama Bin Laden on the floor.

In fairness, the kick could be just to turn him over. The baton(n?)ing was excessive though.

[Jon Corby]

Does that mean you disagree? We can debate the Human Rights Act if you want.

Go for it. I actually know nothing about the Human Rights Act. Considering pretty much the only time I ever hear it mentioned is in relation to criminal's rights, my view is already somewhat tainted

They were doing what they could when the buildings were burning and the shops were being looted. Whether or not they made the right tactical decisions by standing and not steaming in (I tend to think it was the right tactical decision... things can escalate quickly when you get violent people receiving violence and getting more violent) is open to question, but when they're keeping order to the best of their ability then that's fine. When they're isolating and brutalising people when the riots are basically calmed down (if that's what has happened, which it looks like to me), I'm not happy. I don't understand what's so hard to understand about that.

I think you're in the minority for being happy while buildings were burning and looting was rife. I also think you're slightly insane.

As for the "brutalising", as above: I'm happy to wait and see what the outcome is of that incident, but I disagree with your assumption of it.

But breach of the peace and arson or even murder are just completely different levels of crime. It's reductive to label them all as equally bad as each other. You can't charge someone for crimes they haven't committed (this may be in the Human Rights Act as well, not sure).

Sure. Hopefully the act of rioting ("breach of the peace" makes it sound a little tamer than the reality) is considered a suitably serious offence as well though, considering how it encourages, enables, disguises etc the much worse crimes you listed to be committed in its onset.

[Jon Corby]

Our point of contention is that there is NO reason to act like that. Once they're down and restrained, there is no crime they could've committed which justifies being kicked. So we've already seen. It doesn't matter if that was Harold Shipman or Osama Bin Laden on the floor.

Hahaha, only just seen this.

What had the kid done? You have no idea.
Did he have a weapon? You have no idea.
What information were the riot police acting on? You have no idea.
Was the force therefore excessive? You have no idea.

The assumption you leap to speaks volumes.

Btw, have you ever had a kick at someone while playing football?

[Mark James]

If they had resisted arrest and put up a fight I'd be with you on this but they didn't.

Eh, I'm not debating this incident any further, because frankly none of us know exactly what went on.

Fair enough, hypothetically though, lets take the video on its merits, purely on what we can see. We see some guys on bikes getting beaten up by the police. If the guys on bikes had committed a crime the police should have arrested them, not beaten them up unless they resist arrest. Would you not agree with this?

[Jon O'Neill]

Quoting is a pain in the arse so I'll just go point-by-point.

The Human Rights Act, as far as I understand, asserts that there are certain rights which anybody is entitled to, including murderers, paedophiles, rioters, c4c trolls. One of these rights is (I think, I could easily Wikipedia this but it's like cheating) the right to personal safety. Another one is the right to life (so Capital Punishment is out the window). I agree with both of these. Also (key point): you don't lose your human rights by taking away someone else's human rights.

I'm not happy when the buildings are burning. You know that. Don't be simplistic. Let me elucidate: I was not disasatisfied with the job the police were doing when they were outnumbered and overstretched. The individual riot police followed the orders of their superiors, it appeared to me. Whether or not the orders were right is open to debate. I don't have enough experience (and nor do most laypeople) to say whether or not that was the right deicision.

Brutalising - yes, we agree to disagree.

Rioting: yeah, well they're charging people already today which is good. So we're agreed on that.

I'm gonna miss this debate later when I go to the pub and try to argue with my friends there.

[Jon O'Neill]

Our point of contention is that there is NO reason to act like that. Once they're down and restrained, there is no crime they could've committed which justifies being kicked. So we've already seen. It doesn't matter if that was Harold Shipman or Osama Bin Laden on the floor.

Hahaha, only just seen this.

What had the kid done? You have no idea.
Did he have a weapon? You have no idea.
What information were the riot police acting on? You have no idea.
Was the force therefore excessive? You have no idea.

The assumption you leap to speaks volumes.

Btw, have you ever had a kick at someone while playing football?

Personally no. I stand by my statement.

[Jon Corby]

If they had resisted arrest and put up a fight I'd be with you on this but they didn't.

Eh, I'm not debating this incident any further, because frankly none of us know exactly what went on.

Fair enough, hypothetically though, lets take the video on its merits, purely on what we can see. We see some guys on bikes getting beaten up by the police. If the guys on bikes had committed a crime the police should have arrested them, not beaten them up unless they resist arrest. Would you not agree with this?

Fucking hell, can you not read?

Okay, I'll say it again. I don't want to debate this any further.

However, it seems fairly obvious to me, even from a shaky bit of 90 second long-distance camera footage, that the police didn't just randomly beat up some kids on bikes. It seems likely to me therefore that they are acting on information. Maybe they have good reason to believe they have weapons, etc. etc. But the fact is WE DON'T FUCKING KNOW. What pisses me off is the assumption that the police are in the wrong. It's fucking ridiculous. Seriously, look at what's gone on, and the only link Jono has made is to this video, to try and score points against the police, especially when it's extremely likely that he's taking it out of context to do so. It makes my fucking blood boil tbh.

(I'll actually add a rider that I'm prepared to give the police a bit of slack considering the exceptional circumstances of all this.)

LAST FUCKING WORD ON THIS PARTICULAR SUBJECT FROM ME.

[Charlie Reams]

Also there's good evidence that corporal punishment is a pretty good way to screw you up.

Parental corporal punishment was associated with all child constructs, including higher levels of ... aggression and lower levels of moral internalization and mental health

Remind you of anyone, Marc?

[Mark James]

Fucking hell, can you not read?

Okay, I'll say it again. I don't want to debate this any further.

But that's why I said hypothetically. Its kind of a new debate. Forget the video, forget the riots even. It's something I would like to know how you feel about. If people commit crimes should the police just arrest them or is it ok for them beat them up before hand? Does it depend on the crime and if so which crimes is it ok to beat people up for and why?

[Jon O'Neill]

Just to be clear, as I know this debate is over and we've each given our positions on the brutality issue quite clearly (we've agreed where and upon what we disagree without getting angry)..

Seriously, look at what's gone on, and the only link Jono has made is to this video, to try and score points against the police, especially when it's extremely likely that he's taking it out of context to do so. It makes my fucking blood boil tbh.

As I've made clear in this thread several times, despite not taking a stance early on, I actually support the police's activity in this riot. The original intention of posting that video was to play devil's advocate for people who do feel that the police take the piss. It's not just that video... people do think it. I know loads and loads of people that think the police do a bad job; that they make a lot of situations worse for their interference. On the whole, I'm not one of them.

[Ian Volante]

Consider this my last post on this forum other than my recaps.

I was only going to give this flounce 6/10, but the unexpectedness of it prompts me to make it an 8.

[Marc Meakin]

what is it with you gingers and incorrect assumptions. Charlie i knew your work at google would help you find the correct jigsaw piece to suit your argument. however i was hardly ever hit it was used as a deterrent. but nice try. there have been riots and unruly behavrour but this lawlessness is worrying. oh an ffs would someone post a video link that shows the police in a nice light. ive seen footage of hitler being nice to his dogs so im sure its possible.

[Marc Meakin]

just been told by a friend of mine in belfast that there has been an incident of looting there. one chap swashed his laptop screen whilst attempting to loot ebay.

[Mark James]

what is it with you gingers and incorrect assumptions. Charlie i knew your work at google would help you find the correct jigsaw piece to suit your argument. however i was hardly ever hit it was used as a deterrent. but nice try. there have been riots and unruly behavrour but this lawlessness is worrying. oh an ffs would someone post a video link that shows the police in a nice light. ive seen footage of hitler being nice to his dogs so im sure its possible.

I'm sure Corby would probably think the video we were talking about does show them in a good light.

In all seriousness though, I'd like to reiterate what Jon O'Neill said above. I think the police do a decent job in extremely difficult situations. I just don't think they should be twatting people who aren't attacking them.

[Marc Meakin]

I think it is a case of too much andrenaline and testosterone. similar to the squaddies in Northern Ireland when they used too much force on occassions during the troubles.

[Jon Corby]

I know loads and loads of people that think the police do a bad job; that they make a lot of situations worse for their interference.

I'd stop hanging around with them if I were you, they're idiots.

As for the whole human rights thing, I'd agree that there are fundamental human rights, but (whatever you might think) people do forfeit those rights when they commit a crime (isn't liberty one of them after all?) To what degree they should is an interesting debate, and it would seem that we'll differ hugely in our opinions. I'd wager the Human Rights Act wasn't intended to be used in the way it seems to be - as I said, pretty much the only time I hear it mentioned is in relation to a criminal's rights. This strongly suggests to me that it needs some work, I doubt very much these were the people it was intended to help. (Is the story doing the rounds that rioters were being handed leaflets explaining rights and the number of a law firm true?)

[Charlie Reams]

I know loads and loads of people that think the police do a bad job; that they make a lot of situations worse for their interference.

I'd stop hanging around with them if I were you, they're idiots.

I guess that makes me an idiot.

[Jon O'Neill]

As for the whole human rights thing, I'd agree that there are fundamental human rights, but (whatever you might think) people do forfeit those rights when they commit a crime (isn't liberty one of them after all?) To what degree they should is an interesting debate, and it would seem that we'll differ hugely in our opinions. I'd wager the Human Rights Act wasn't intended to be used in the way it seems to be - as I said, pretty much the only time I hear it mentioned is in relation to a criminal's rights. This strongly suggests to me that it needs some work, I doubt very much these were the people it was intended to help. (Is the story doing the rounds that rioters were being handed leaflets explaining rights and the number of a law firm true?)

I think Liberty is defined differently than what you'd imagine in the Human Rights Act. I'm not sure about it, but I imagine there's some clause or exception for people serving a custodial sentence.

The point of it is not to be intended to be used in any way. It's to sit above every other law and every other law has to abide by it, including how we treat criminals. Whether you like to admit it or not, the mob is made up on people, and the people are humans.

You're right that we'd disagree about it to be honest, there's no point in arguing. I think my opinion is informed, you think yours is, but ultimately neither of us are going to do anything about it so what's the fucking point? You're not Ryan Taylor and nor am I,although I do look more like him.

I'd stop hanging around with them if I were you, they're idiots.

They're no more idiots than you or I.

[Andy Wilson]

Disappointed to see things start to kick off in Scotland this evening.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW0356br ... r_embedded

[Jon Corby]

The point of it is not to be intended to be used in any way. It's to sit above every other law and every other law has to abide by it, including how we treat criminals. Whether you like to admit it or not, the mob is made up on people, and the people are humans.

Yeah, and they should forfeit certain rights when they behave as they do. I find the view pathetic that they deserve to be treated the same as a law-abiding citizen, when they don't give two shits about causing millions of pounds of damage for their own greed and entertainment, ruining countless lives by trashing their homes and livelihoods (or even directly placing them in jeopardy with violence and arson), placing entire communities in absolute terror etc. etc. And yet you're concerned if one of them gets a kick. (Oh yeah, I didn't believe you earlier when you said you'd never had a kick at anyone during football either.) The effects of this (save for loss of human life, which is miraculously low considering what we've seen) are akin to an appalling terrorist attack. I'd be interested to see if you were appealing for clemency if the perpetrators were a smaller gang of religious fundamentalists.

Having already admitted to not really knowing much about the Human Rights Act, I don't know why you therefore assume it is perfect. You're happy that it contains clauses to deal with imprisonment, but that's the extent that people should lose certain rights in certain situations? You're happy that people can riot (and indeed be encouraged to riot) while being armed with knowledge of their rights which say people have to be careful how they react to it. It's bollocks.

I actually consider myself pretty liberal, but you're an arseclown of the highest order.

[Jon O'Neill]

Yeah, and they should forfeit certain rights when they behave as they do. I find the view pathetic that they deserve to be treated the same as a law-abiding citizen, when they don't give two shits about causing millions of pounds of damage for their own greed and entertainment, ruining countless lives by trashing their homes and livelihoods (or even directly placing them in jeopardy with violence and arson), placing entire communities in absolute terror etc. etc. And yet you're concerned if one of them gets a kick.

They should be treated like criminals. Captured, arrested, imprisoned. This is what the police do. They don't punish the criminals themselves. If they think that's they're job then they're not fit to be police.

(Oh yeah, I didn't believe you earlier when you said you'd never had a kick at anyone during football either.)

So you ask me a question and don't believe me about the answer? What's the point of asking? One of us knows whether I have or not, one of us doesn't. I know. You don't.

The effects of this (save for loss of human life, which is miraculously low considering what we've seen) are akin to an appalling terrorist attack. I'd be interested to see if you were appealing for clemency if the perpetrators were a smaller gang of religious fundamentalists.

I must've missed the bit of the Koran where it tells believers to loot the Curry's digital of infidels. In any case, they should be treated like criminals. Captured, arrested, imprisoned. This is what the police do. They don't punish the criminals themselves. If they think that's they're job then they're not fit to be police.

Having already admitted to not really knowing much about the Human Rights Act, I don't know why you therefore assume it is perfect. You're happy that it contains clauses to deal with imprisonment, but that's the extent that people should lose certain rights in certain situations?

Well I agree with the spirit of it, having read the full thing a while back. I don't assume it's perfect. It's almost definitely imperfect for what my version of morality is, and yours too. I probably shouldn't have brought it up knowing that, because it's a whole new thread compared to this one isolated event which highlights our complete disagreement on such matters.

You're happy that people can riot (and indeed be encouraged to riot) while being armed with knowledge of their rights which say people have to be careful how they react to it. It's bollocks.

If that's how you want to frame it then yes. I could frame your viewpoint like this: you're happy that when somebody commits any crime, there should be nothing to stop an individual police officer treating them how they feel they need to be treated without the need for a fair trial in which that person's actions are judged in the eyes of our judicial system.

I actually consider myself pretty liberal, but you're an arseclown of the highest order.

Quoting for posterity.

[Jon Corby]

They should be treated like criminals. Captured, arrested, imprisoned. This is what the police do. They don't punish the criminals themselves. If they think that's they're job then they're not fit to be police.

No, but they need to be able tackle, subdue and restrain violent criminals. We're kinda returning to the point that you have no idea what these kids had done. They could have been armed. If those kids were simply being apprehended for riding their bikes in a dangerous way, then you've got a point, and nobody would disagree that they were dealt with in an inappropriate way. Even given the scant detail from your video, I'm fairly confident that isn't what happened. Don't take part in violent riots unless you accept that you might get cracked with a riot policeman's baton. If you carry a gun, you're running the risk of getting shot yourself should you ever choose to try and use it.

So you ask me a question and don't believe me about the answer? What's the point of asking? One of us knows whether I have or not, one of us doesn't. I know. You don't.

Yeah, the point of asking the question is to stop and think how pathetic it is to complain about a kick, when, for example, everybody who has played football knows how easy it is in the heat of the moment to stick a leg out to catch someone who hasn't even really done anything wrong other than be a bit annoying. The point being made didn't really depend on you answering the question truthfully. Which means I still don't believe you, by the way, but that's not really relevant.

I must've missed the bit of the Koran where it tells believers to loot the Curry's digital of infidels. In any case, they should be treated like criminals. Captured, arrested, imprisoned. This is what the police do. They don't punish the criminals themselves. If they think that's they're job then they're not fit to be police.

And I must've missed the bit of my post that mentioned the Koran or Muslims. It seems a shame though that appropriate force can't be used when dealing with violent criminals without it being scrutinized by people like you who seem more concerned about the rights of the criminals. You seem to think it's possible during a riot to wait for somebody to do something proper bad, like breaking and entering or arson, and then wade through the crowd and apprehend them. It's utter fuckwittery.

If that's how you want to frame it then yes. I could frame your viewpoint like this: you're happy that when somebody commits any crime, there should be nothing to stop an individual police officer treating them how they feel they need to be treated without the need for a fair trial in which that person's actions are judged in the eyes of our judicial system.

You could, but that would be outrageously and deliberately disingenuous. I've nowhere said anything remotely like that. I've said that we don't even know what these kids have done, however I'm prepared to assume there's more to it than the video shows, and that the police had their reasons for stopping them as they did. After all, they're accountable for their actions, and if they did just randomly beat up some kids for no reason, there'll be consequences. I'm just happy for force to be used when dealing with violent criminals and I'm certainly not that interested in scrutinizing the minutiae of such incidents, it must be a difficult enough job as it is without having to worry about how many punches is too many.

[Chris Corby]

As a former police officer, I was sent to Birmingham to help the local police control the riots in 1981. Dangerous, unpredictable, informative, educational. But having read most of the foregoing, I shall keep quiet. It would be me against 99% of this forum again, which is time consuming and somewhat depressing for the soul.

[Jon O'Neill]

They should be treated like criminals. Captured, arrested, imprisoned. This is what the police do. They don't punish the criminals themselves. If they think that's they're job then they're not fit to be police.

No, but they need to be able tackle, subdue and restrain violent criminals. We're kinda returning to the point that you have no idea what these kids had done. They could have been armed. If those kids were simply being apprehended for riding their bikes in a dangerous way, then you've got a point, and nobody would disagree that they were dealt with in an inappropriate way. Even given the scant detail from your video, I'm fairly confident that isn't what happened. Don't take part in violent riots unless you accept that you might get cracked with a riot policeman's baton. If you carry a gun, you're running the risk of getting shot yourself should you ever choose to try and use it.

So you ask me a question and don't believe me about the answer? What's the point of asking? One of us knows whether I have or not, one of us doesn't. I know. You don't.

Yeah, the point of asking the question is to stop and think how pathetic it is to complain about a kick, when, for example, everybody who has played football knows how easy it is in the heat of the moment to stick a leg out to catch someone who hasn't even really done anything wrong other than be a bit annoying. The point being made didn't really depend on you answering the question truthfully. Which means I still don't believe you, by the way, but that's not really relevant.

I must've missed the bit of the Koran where it tells believers to loot the Curry's digital of infidels. In any case, they should be treated like criminals. Captured, arrested, imprisoned. This is what the police do. They don't punish the criminals themselves. If they think that's they're job then they're not fit to be police.

And I must've missed the bit of my post that mentioned the Koran or Muslims. It seems a shame though that appropriate force can't be used when dealing with violent criminals without it being scrutinized by people like you who seem more concerned about the rights of the criminals. You seem to think it's possible during a riot to wait for somebody to do something proper bad, like breaking and entering or arson, and then wade through the crowd and apprehend them. It's utter fuckwittery.

If that's how you want to frame it then yes. I could frame your viewpoint like this: you're happy that when somebody commits any crime, there should be nothing to stop an individual police officer treating them how they feel they need to be treated without the need for a fair trial in which that person's actions are judged in the eyes of our judicial system.

You could, but that would be outrageously and deliberately disingenuous. I've nowhere said anything remotely like that. I've said that we don't even know what these kids have done, however I'm prepared to assume there's more to it than the video shows, and that the police had their reasons for stopping them as they did. After all, they're accountable for their actions, and if they did just randomly beat up some kids for no reason, there'll be consequences. I'm just happy for force to be used when dealing with violent criminals and I'm certainly not that interested in scrutinizing the minutiae of such incidents, it must be a difficult enough job as it is without having to worry about how many punches is too many.

And I don't agree. I think we're just covering the same ground over and over now. It's been

Dangerous, unpredictable, informative, educational.

But now it's becoming

time consuming and somewhat depressing for the soul.

[Jon Corby]

And I don't agree.

Whatever. I think you're pretty clueless. You seem to be under the misapprehension that you can go "stop! police!" and they'll stop. But if they don't, you can try and restrain them, but always just using that little bit more extra force than they're prepared to use, so you don't get accused of being heavy-handed. Reality surely is - if somebody is armed or prepared to use violence, you have to incapacitate them. As quickly and effectively as you can. If you have good reason to believe somebody is armed or prepared to use violence, this clearly should also apply. For me, taking part in riots is reason enough to believe somebody is armed or prepared to use violence.

I don't actually know either btw, my dad being former police doesn't really give my any kind of insight (although it obviously gives me more respect for the police than you and Charlie clearly have). What I do think is kinda obvious though is that tactics like these aren't just made up on the spot by the officers in question, they don't just go around doing what the hell they like. They're well trained, and I would also suggest that training is built on years of knowledge and experience of how to handle certain situations. And if they're acting outside their training, and wrongly so, there'll be consequences for them.

That just seems like common sense to me.

[Marc Meakin]

The situation, as I see it, is that the police, on the whole, stood back and were reluctant to intervene as they are so worried about getting prosecuted via youtube footage, that they are too scared to get stuck in.
i don't think there has been a single mention of police brutality on the news.
btw, Jon you fell into Jono's trap......BECAUSE YOU STARTED TALKING ABOUT THAT FOOTAGE AGAIN.
Also I have been offered tickets For a channel 4 live debate this saturday on the 'August riots', if Jon and Jono are willing to go, I will get request some.

[Marc Meakin]

Could someone please start a poll on what we think of the police in this country....ta!
From all coppers are bastards on the one scale(at least 2 votes there), to arm all the police on the other side.

I have a bit of creasote poisoning from sitting on the fence on this one, but having been both arrested by them and on more than one occasion needed them in a crisis, I can say that on the whole they seem to be sticking to a lot of legal restraints that prevent them from doing a proper job. I'm probably in a low minority, for yearning for the days when a copper could give you a clout round the ear when you was up to no good. There is a distinct lack of rerspect for authority on the whole in this country by the younger generation (under 25's)

[Jon O'Neill]

And I don't agree.

Whatever. I think you're pretty clueless. You seem to be under the misapprehension that you can go "stop! police!" and they'll stop. But if they don't, you can try and restrain them, but always just using that little bit more extra force than they're prepared to use, so you don't get accused of being heavy-handed. Reality surely is - if somebody is armed or prepared to use violence, you have to incapacitate them. As quickly and effectively as you can. If you have good reason to believe somebody is armed or prepared to use violence, this clearly should also apply. For me, taking part in riots is reason enough to believe somebody is armed or prepared to use violence.

I think they had long enough there to see that he wasn't a threat. You have repeatedly straw manned me as some sort of police-hater. I never presented a view earlier on, and now I'm talking about one specific example of what I perceive to be bad policing, which I haven't ever said is indicative of policing as a whole.

I don't actually know either btw, my dad being former police doesn't really give my any kind of insight (although it obviously gives me more respect for the police than you and Charlie clearly have). What I do think is kinda obvious though is that tactics like these aren't just made up on the spot by the officers in question, they don't just go around doing what the hell they like. They're well trained, and I would also suggest that training is built on years of knowledge and experience of how to handle certain situations. And if they're acting outside their training, and wrongly so, there'll be consequences for them.

That just seems like common sense to me.

I hope that's the case.

[Mark James]

they need to be able tackle, subdue and restrain violent criminals.

I've no problem with tackling, subduing and restraining but this is not what happened in the video. One of the kids put his hand over his head to protect himself in a defensive manner. He didn't require multiple baton hits and then a kick while on the ground in order to be tackled, subdued and restrained, regardless of what happened earlier.

it must be a difficult enough job as it is without having to worry about how many punches is too many.

If some one attacks you one punch, is enough if it subdues them. If that hasn't subdued them and they attack you again another punch is enough. If they continue attacking you there's no end to the amount of punches you should be allowed until they are subdued. Having said that, preventing someone from hitting you is a better tactic than hitting them yourself. I don't like MMA but from what I've heard the out and out boxers get their asses kicked by the grapplers.

[Jon Corby]

I've no problem with tackling, subduing and restraining but this is not what happened in the video. One of the kids put his hand over his head to protect himself in a defensive manner. He didn't require multiple baton hits and then a kick while on the ground in order to be tackled, subdued and restrained, regardless of what happened earlier.

You haven't got the slightest clue what's required. And I mean particularly you, Mr "I don't watch the news or read newspapers", as is evidenced by your next paragraph. How do you even know about these riots? They're not happening in your bedroom.

Anyway, putting a hand over your head is a pretty instinctive reaction to an incoming blow. I'm impressed that you can state with absolute confidence that he had no plans or means to retaliate after that. If only everyone had your foresight to know exactly how situations would pan out.

If some one attacks you one punch, is enough if it subdues them. If that hasn't subdued them and they attack you again another punch is enough. If they continue attacking you there's no end to the amount of punches you should be allowed until they are subdued. Having said that, preventing someone from hitting you is a better tactic than hitting them yourself. I don't like MMA but from what I've heard the out and out boxers get their asses kicked by the grapplers.

I've thought you were a total moron since you exploded onto the scene with "you shouldn't treat 7 year old girls and 27 year old women any differently", and you've done precisely nothing in the interim to make me reconsider that opinion.

[David Williams]

Is this Corby's longest wind-up ever? I don't recall one he didn't pull the plug on well before this.

[Jon Corby]

Is this Corby's longest wind-up ever? I don't recall one he didn't pull the plug on well before this.

Is this your most meaningless post ever?

What do you think I'm "on a wind-up" about? That police should be able to use force when dealing with rioters? Explain.

[David Williams]

Is this Corby's longest wind-up ever? I don't recall one he didn't pull the plug on well before this.

Is this your most meaningless post ever?

What do you think I'm "on a wind-up" about? That police should be able to use force when dealing with rioters? Explain.

What's that you say? A wolf? Again? I'm not biting.

[Andy Wilson]

I guess in general there are plenty of stories of unnecessary police heavy handedness and bent policemen and so on it's easy to focus on this. It certainly must be seen as a big factor in this weeks shocking events, the us Vs them nature of it all. It's hard to defend that officer in the video. He just starts pummeling the kid who in fairness, could have just been out trying to get a look at some of the excitement. If I was a working class kid with nothing to do, whose parents didn't give a shit and I had a bike, in the areas where rioting was taking place, I'd have been out on it this week for sure.

In a sense, i'm pretty happy that what happened this week happened. I'm definitely one with socialist views. I think it's funny that the likes of Wayne Rooney and Ferdinand, two working class boys done good and I suppose, symbols of the massive class divide, don't seem to appreciate that they are part of the problem, demanding such obscene amounts of money for their trade and living extravagant lifestyles. Britain (and Ireland) needs to work at closing this gap, somehow.