Not just with rubber bullets (they're for children). As economies turn down democracies always get tough: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... mends.html

Not just with rubber bullets (they're for children). As economies turn down democracies always get tough: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... mends.html

DAILY MAIL ATTEMPTS TO CAUSE OUTRAGE WITH SPECULATIVE/ FABRICATED STORY.

Stop the presses!

Quote Dally="Dally"Not just with rubber bullets (they're for children). As economies turn down democracies always get tough: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... mends.html'" For someone who "doesn't read the Daily Mail", you don't half post a lot of guff on here linking to their site.

Quote Dally="Dally"Not just with rubber bullets (they're for children). As economies turn down democracies always get tough: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... mends.html'" For someone who "doesn't read the Daily Mail", you don't half post a lot of guff on here linking to their site.

I haven't even got a gun.

Quote Matt23="Matt23"DAILY MAIL ATTEMPTS TO CAUSE OUTRAGE WITH SPECULATIVE/ FABRICATED STORY. Stop the presses!'" They're all at it: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... finds.html

Quote Matt23="Matt23"DAILY MAIL ATTEMPTS TO CAUSE OUTRAGE WITH SPECULATIVE/ FABRICATED STORY. Stop the presses!'" They're all at it: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... finds.html

Have you got a gun Dally?

Bet you have.

Armed police in "in certain circumstances, we may actually fire " shock.

Edited

A few newspapers have run with this, they are obviously trying to get attention from people who will think it is a recommendation that police will open fire on peaceful protestors.

The recommendation here is that when people are burning down businesses that have a residential property attached to them (eg a newsagents/corner shop where the family live above) then due to the likelihood of this trapping people in the property above and having to either jump out of a window or burn to death then the police reserve the right to use lethal force.

Sounds reasonable to me, it's hardly a restraint on human rights to take away peoples rights to set fire to someone's house.

I would imagine the police already have the authority and the right to do such a thing anyway.
The problem with it is, as with the idiots suggesting water cannon and rubber bullets would have stopped the riots earlier this year, that a police presence is necessary where these crimes are taking place.

The problem with the police response to the riots wasn't a lack of equipment or wrong tactics. It was a lack of police on the streets.

Agreed. But do people feel this is a good or bad thing? Is it a change from years of being soft with criminals and treating them as victims of circumstance?

There is no special "riot law" relating to armed police. Police use of force, including lethal force, is governed by common law and various statutes. These laws apply to all circumstances. Armed police officers in the MPS are always reminded of their legal responsibilities before deploying.
I agree with HIM that it was the numbers that were a major factor. The MPS call out plan used to be able to put thousands of officers on the streets over set periods of hours. The call out plan fell into disuse as officers were deployed on safer neighbourhood teams and "ring fenced" from performing public order duties. I suspect the the new Commisioner will change that.