Riot in London last night

[the_leander]

OK, how about the Telegraph? Same biases?

Not normally, no.

Nice catch btw.

Which is exactly what I mean. Where have the BBC created this story? You seem to be implying that has happened here.

No, what I'm saying is on past form, I'm not prepared to accept either the Guardian or the BBC's coverage at face value. Your pointing to the Telegraph is useful and I accept that in this case there may be something to the story.

Likewise whenever the police start putting out statements with regard dealing with individual protesters I look for corroboration. Too often their claims are contradictory or in some cases false.

Which is why I love camera phones and CCTV on both counts.

That the BBC have some sort of agenda against the police and created this news out of thin air.

When large sections of the media, including the BBC push the idea that somehow it is the police's fault that the riots kicked off, whilst at the same time decrying any use (regardless of justification) of force to stop bad things from happening, yeah, I would say there is a problem.

Given the increasing suggestion that the police are going to be phased out in favour of private security companies (and gods help us should that ever come to pass), I begin to wonder if perhaps this isn't part of some much bigger game.

As a security guard I'll tell you now: We are neither qualified or equipped to deal with such, and should riots ever happen, the devastation will be epic.

 

[Dammy]

That's an unfounded assumption on a couple of counts. First of all "15 riot police" could well be (and in my opinion probably is) an exaggeration. Only one witness mentioned "15". Secondly, the same eyewitness claimed she was dragged away very quickly. I've also seen people battered with shields and batons and emerge relatively unscathed.

I want to see 15 cops with shields surround a single person less it's a 7m circle, just not enough space for this to happen. In most modern law enforcement countries, there are specific strike zones that may be targeted that are considered non-lethal. I see the media in the UK is just as bad as it is in the US, say anything for ratings, truth be damned.

 

[Robert]

I want to see 15 cops with shields surround a single person less it's a 7m circle, just not enough space for this to happen.

I've already said that I think this was probably an exaggeration but if you're claiming that there's not enough room for 15 people to attack one person, I beg to differ. If you've ever seen a mob descend on someone who falls over during a running battle, you'll know that greater numbers than 15 can and will try to attack a single person.

I see the media in the UK is just as bad as it is in the US, say anything for ratings, truth be damned.

Media is media - "liberal" of course. ;-)

 

[the_leander]

Craig Murray on the riots.

 

[Robert]

When large sections of the media, including the BBC push the idea that somehow it is the police's fault that the riots kicked off,

I don't accept this premise at all. Why would they make the absurd claim that the girl was attacked "accidentally" if they were trying to blame the police?
I saw that as quite the opposite; trying to make an excuse for a disproportionate Police response.

 

[the_leander]

I don't accept this premise at all.

Right, so trotting out person after person providing interviews condemning the police doesn't do anything? The one surprise is that there were people higher up who actually gave half hearted support to the police. Compared to the 1985 riots, that (where the officials interviewed described the police as an occupation force), that is a significant change.

Why would they make the absurd claim that the girl was attacked "accidentally" if they were trying to blame the police?

As I have said, on this particular incident, there might be something in it. However, the tone of a lot of the coverage came over (to me at least) of the police being at fault, this time for not doing enough.

I saw that as quite the opposite; trying to make an excuse for a disproportionate Police response.

Without knowing the facts, describing it as disproportionate seems a little presumptuous. Was this girl part of a much larger group for instance?

 

[Dammy]

I've already said that I think this was probably an exaggeration but if you're claiming that there's not enough room for 15 people to attack one person, I beg to differ. If you've ever seen a mob descend on someone who falls over during a running battle, you'll know that greater numbers than 15 can and will try to attack a single person.

While wielding shields? Have you ever tried to swing while holding a shield? Now try that in impossible tight quarters with 14 others doing the same with a single target in front of you. Not happening.

Media is media - "liberal" of course. ;-)

Of course they are Progressives, they couldn't get a story right even if it's written for them in a completely factual manner.

 

[the_leander]

Fantastic piece by Jack of Kent.

There were many causes of what happened last night in Tottenham and Wood Green; but that is just because a lot of rather different things happened. Accordingly, there may be a limited extent to which there is a single "solution" to what is seen as the problem.

But there is a general rule - few people accurately predict civil disturbances; and afterwards, few people have any doubt as to why they happened.

 

[Robert]

Without knowing the facts, describing it as disproportionate seems a little presumptuous.

Yes, lots of presumptions. I've admitted to my presumptious cyncism right at the start fo the thread. I make no apology for it and could well be completely wrong.

Your presumtion seems to be the BBC were being anti-police.

"We've heard reports that a 16 year old girl may have been struck by an officer's baton, upsetting the protesters, however I understand the girl in question was struck accidentally."

How is that statement in any way anti-police?

Was this girl part of a much larger group for instance?

Apparently several hundred strong. I fail to see how that justifies atacking her.

 

[Robert]

While wielding shields? Have you ever tried to swing while holding a shield?

No. Have you?

Now try that in impossible tight quarters

Absurd argument anyway, you're throwing in your own parameters:

Bailey said the girl was then "pounded by 15 riot shields".

Nothing about, "impossible tight quarters" or even being simultaneous.

Now, I already said (three times now, ffs) I suspect the witness was exaggerating but if you want to continue with this excercise in silliness, I'm happy to oblige.

Of course they are Progressives, they couldn't get a story right even if it's written for them in a completely factual manner.

Telegraph? 'Course they are.

Almost as progressive as Fox.

 

[Dammy]

"We've heard reports that a 16 year old girl may have been struck by an officer's baton, upsetting the protesters, however I understand the girl in question was struck accidentally."

How is that statement in any way anti-police?

Because it doesn't show why the girl was there and why she was within swinging distance of multiple officers in riot gear. Perhaps she was not there by accident and participated in the riot which means she was responsible for the incident?

 

[Dammy]

No. Have you?

Although I was trained and certified for baton and expanding batons under FL Dept of Law Enforcement regulations, we didn't use riot shields in our training. However, many moons ago, I was an active participant with a medieval recreation society (no, not SCA) and I'm use to using a shield and padded "swords" during competitions. So I do have a fairly good idea on how much space is required to go one on one with a subject with a shield and 15:1 ain't happening. Basic riot techniques call for a solid line of shields to herd rioters to where you want them to go.

 

[the_leander]

Your presumtion seems to be the BBC were being anti-police.

Way to take out of context what I said. I'll repeat it just so that we're clear:

"When large sections of the media, including the BBC push the idea that somehow it is the police's fault that the riots kicked off, whilst at the same time decrying any use (regardless of justification) of force to stop bad things from happening, yeah, I would say there is a problem."

Coupled with "Right, so trotting out person after person providing interviews condemning the police doesn't do anything?"

To clarify, the above. By doing so you set a tone for the debate and in media terms create a narrative.

"We've heard reports that a 16 year old girl may have been struck by an officer's baton, upsetting the protesters, however I understand the girl in question was struck accidentally."

How is that statement in any way anti-police?

How many times do I have to repeat that in this particular incident may have something to it? Seriously, is your reading comprehension that poor today?

What I'm talking about goes beyond this one particular incident. I'm talking about the overall tone of the coverage.

Apparently several hundred strong. I fail to see how that justifies attacking her.

Right, so out of several hundred rioters, lobbing amongst other things flaming wheely bins at the police, and they single her out...

Because as we all know, large groups who are engaged in such behaviour automatically choose to come quietly and not resist in any manner when asked to do so by the old bill.

If she does exist outside of a rumour, and was lifted, I very very much doubt she was the only one if she was part of such a group.

 

[the_leander]

Let us step back from this for a moment.

Let us take this example and assume that it is essentially correct, that a very large group of youngsters, did in fact go toe to toe with 15 or more riot police.

The riot police charge, grab as many as they can, ideally aiming for ringleaders.

"Laurence Bailey "holed up in a church 10 metres away from the Tottenham riot". He told the Guardian that he saw a large group of youths, including a girl "throw some card and something else, maybe a stone, at the original riot police line".
Bailey said the group was then "pounded by 15 riot shields". He said that the police "launched into them with startling force using both batons and shields. Some went down on the floor but a few managed to get up with some being hit again before being half-dragged away by their friends."
He added: "After they were removed there were a few minutes of peace and then lots of glass bottles started being thrown, we could hear them."

Suddenly, this justification looks really really ropey.

A little spin here, a little there. And voilà! A story and a pretext is born.

 

[Robert]

Because it doesn't show why the girl was there and why she was within swinging distance of multiple officers in riot gear. Perhaps she was not there by accident and participated in the riot which means she was responsible for the incident?

You obviously haven't read any of the context for this otherwise you wouldn't make such an ignorant statement.

 

[Robert]

Way to take out of context what I said.

My apologies. I took it that's what you meant. So we can agree that the BBC weren't being anti-police on this particular incident?

How many times do I have to repeat that in this particular incident may have something to it? Seriously, is your reading comprehension that poor today?

Apparently.

Right, so out of several hundred rioters, lobbing amongst other things flaming wheely bins at the police, and they single her out...

OK, it's appears it's not just me with the reading comprehension issues.
I suggest you (and Dammy for that matter, as this clearly went over his head too) go back and read what was being claimed.
To re-cap something that I thought was eye-splittingly obvious, the claim by the eyewitnesses was that it was the incident with the girl that *sparked* the riot.
If this was indeed the case, there wouldn't have been "several hundred rioters, lobbing amongst other things flaming wheely bins" beforehand.
The claim was that this is when it went from "protest" to "riot".

As for a reason singling her out, I take it you also misread the suggestion about her throwing something at police. More than enough justification for the average Polis.

 

[Robert]

Let us step back from this for a moment.

Yes let's.

Suddenly, this justification looks really really ropey.

What justification?
Who is justifying anything?

 

[Robert]

Although I was trained and certified for baton and expanding batons under FL Dept of Law Enforcement regulations, we didn't use riot shields in our training. However, many moons ago, I was an active participant with a medieval recreation society (no, not SCA) and I'm use to using a shield and padded "swords" during competitions.

Ah, I was wondering what the point of this otherwise irrelevant part of the conversation was. Now I get it.
Sounds like a lot of fun.

 

[the_leander]

Hope you don't mind that I combined your two responses, I figured it'd make it cleaner.

My apologies. I took it that's what you meant. So we can agree that the BBC weren't being anti-police on this particular incident?

Absolutely correct. Which is why I said so three times.

To re-cap something that I thought was eye-splittingly obvious, the claim by the eyewitnesses was that it was the incident with the girl that *sparked* the riot.
If this was indeed the case, there wouldn't have been "several hundred rioters, lobbing amongst other things flaming wheely bins" beforehand.
The claim was that this is when it went from "protest" to "riot".

As for a reason singling her out, I take it you also misread the suggestion about her throwing something at police. More than enough justification for the average Polis.

No, I read it alright, what I seriously doubt is that out of a substantial group, she was the only one doing so, or that she was the only one who copped one in return. Hence my subtle altering of the guardian quote you put up, to try to show how whilst both might be correct, by ignoring everything else and pointing solely to the girl you end up with a wildly different context.

By spinning it as it all being aimed at an individual girl rather than one within a larger group, suddenly we get a justification to do what happened according to the interviewees.

I think it might even have been you who pointed to an article a while back which showed that the police overestimated numbers of a protest whilst those attending underestimated them. I took that position and do every time whenever stories come up like this.

The Police will underestimate their actions, the rioters will overestimate them. It doesn't help when you have professional protesters like Jody Mcintyre running around fanning the flames and actively encouraging violence.

Yes let's.

What justification?
Who is justifying anything?

Actually that was a little unfair of me and I should have been clearer. I've seen this used as a means of justifying the riot by interviewees.

 

[the_leander]

Looks like it's spread to Hackney and Lewisham.

edit

Add Haringey to the list as well. Looks like a large part of south London will be in flames before tomorrow night.

Turns out Camaron was lying about cuts to police funding not effecting the front lines, who'd have thought it!

edit

Rumours circulating that Manchester might be next to go up in smoke.