![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
So, rampaging mobs in London have been forced to turn and run when confronted by chaps waving hockey sticks and cricket stumps. Even Millwall residents who were completely unarmed were sufficient to deter some looters who turned up on their patch - one wonders how well the citizens of London would be able to keep law and order given the proper training and some decent kit.
But, the Brits have also got a petition in the air about repealing the ban on capital punishment. So, should we judicially execute people? A writer on the Times letter page, claiming to work for an organisation called Amicus, says that in the USA, the States that have the death penalty have a higher murder rate per capita than the states that have banned executions. True or false, guys? Tell us if you know.
But, if rioting in the UK continues to be a feature of daily life, then it may be that cops and even civilians may have to resort to lethal force to stop rampaging looters. So, I want to ponder the rights and wrongs of ordering troops to open fire. Of taking out an aggressor with a lethal blow from a baseball bat or similar.
It may even be necessary to declare a State of Emergency in a future crisis. If looters and rioters do not disperse, I am happy for a Home Secretary to issue orders for rioters to be shot at with live ammo, or for looters to be shot on sight. I just wonder if this may be counter productive, or what other effective means there are of preventing looting.
Guns are not on sale to the public (yet) but if they became available, would I use one? Permit their use by police or troops if I were in office? Whereas executions have little value as a deterrent, the use of hot lead or cold steel may well be effective in clearing a street of rioters. If it were absolutely needed to prevent mobs from setting fire to buildings, I would be happy to give the order, or to open fire myself, if need be.
Certainly, as recent experience has shown, the use of Wooden Hand Weapons (WHWs) is very effective against rampaging mobs. These people are mainly opportunists and have a reputation of fleeing rather than standing their ground when confronted by the righteous anger of the local people. I am therefore more in favour of allowing the people in the community the right to carry WHWs or any other Effective Weapons to deter rioters, muggers and other ne'er do wells, rather than arming the police or calling upon the Troops.
So long as we accept that we are only prepared to kill as a last resort, and that any citizens out on patrol on the streets are competently led by someone in authority with the necessary training, and that they have the means to capture and hand over any suspects to the Civil Powers, I don't see any problems in allowing citizens to police their own areas. Nor should we deter people from stepping up to defend their property or fellow citizens when confronted with Anti Social Elements. Britain has got too many criminals already. Perhaps a few going home in body bags is something that we should accept as the price of having a safe space to live and work.
Volunteers should be encouraged to come forward and receive training in first aid, traffic control, assisting with the aftermath of natural disasters, as well as riot control and civil defence. A bounty could be paid to them and Civil Guard created that would ease the workload on the police. certain features, like volunteers and First Aid Training already exist in the UK. What I propose it simply to widen its scope. The bounty paid would ease the welfare budget, and give people a more useful role in society than just drawing a welfare cheque. Volunteers should be suitably kitted out with proper batons, helmets and riot shields, of course, as well as proper uniforms and anything else needed to protect and serve the community.
Obviously, America and other countries have more experience of this sort of thing already. I just wonder how this works out in practice.
But, the Brits have also got a petition in the air about repealing the ban on capital punishment. So, should we judicially execute people? A writer on the Times letter page, claiming to work for an organisation called Amicus, says that in the USA, the States that have the death penalty have a higher murder rate per capita than the states that have banned executions. True or false, guys? Tell us if you know.
But, if rioting in the UK continues to be a feature of daily life, then it may be that cops and even civilians may have to resort to lethal force to stop rampaging looters. So, I want to ponder the rights and wrongs of ordering troops to open fire. Of taking out an aggressor with a lethal blow from a baseball bat or similar.
It may even be necessary to declare a State of Emergency in a future crisis. If looters and rioters do not disperse, I am happy for a Home Secretary to issue orders for rioters to be shot at with live ammo, or for looters to be shot on sight. I just wonder if this may be counter productive, or what other effective means there are of preventing looting.
Guns are not on sale to the public (yet) but if they became available, would I use one? Permit their use by police or troops if I were in office? Whereas executions have little value as a deterrent, the use of hot lead or cold steel may well be effective in clearing a street of rioters. If it were absolutely needed to prevent mobs from setting fire to buildings, I would be happy to give the order, or to open fire myself, if need be.
Certainly, as recent experience has shown, the use of Wooden Hand Weapons (WHWs) is very effective against rampaging mobs. These people are mainly opportunists and have a reputation of fleeing rather than standing their ground when confronted by the righteous anger of the local people. I am therefore more in favour of allowing the people in the community the right to carry WHWs or any other Effective Weapons to deter rioters, muggers and other ne'er do wells, rather than arming the police or calling upon the Troops.
So long as we accept that we are only prepared to kill as a last resort, and that any citizens out on patrol on the streets are competently led by someone in authority with the necessary training, and that they have the means to capture and hand over any suspects to the Civil Powers, I don't see any problems in allowing citizens to police their own areas. Nor should we deter people from stepping up to defend their property or fellow citizens when confronted with Anti Social Elements. Britain has got too many criminals already. Perhaps a few going home in body bags is something that we should accept as the price of having a safe space to live and work.
Volunteers should be encouraged to come forward and receive training in first aid, traffic control, assisting with the aftermath of natural disasters, as well as riot control and civil defence. A bounty could be paid to them and Civil Guard created that would ease the workload on the police. certain features, like volunteers and First Aid Training already exist in the UK. What I propose it simply to widen its scope. The bounty paid would ease the welfare budget, and give people a more useful role in society than just drawing a welfare cheque. Volunteers should be suitably kitted out with proper batons, helmets and riot shields, of course, as well as proper uniforms and anything else needed to protect and serve the community.
Obviously, America and other countries have more experience of this sort of thing already. I just wonder how this works out in practice.
(no subject)
Date: 11/8/11 21:19 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/8/11 22:57 (UTC)The Britain I would like to see emerge would be a pluralisstic one. there would be more than one Political Party, more than just the apparatus of State,even so, the Civil Guard would not be militaristic in nature , but would be an adjunct to the civil police force.
We already have a Lifeboat Institution, run and financed by volunteers. We could run the Civil Guard the same way.
(no subject)
Date: 12/8/11 11:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/8/11 17:23 (UTC)The Boys Scouts, the SJAB, the RNLI, the London Fire Brigade - they all wear uniforms, they all march on parade. Which one do you think is most likely to organise WW3 for us or launch a fascist take over?
If they won't then why should a Civil Guard?
(no subject)
Date: 12/8/11 20:08 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/8/11 20:35 (UTC)All other political parties had to be disbanded, and even the boy scouts were as well. You could only join the Hitler Youth in Nazi Germany. There was no press other than what hitler said, no political party other than his own .
But we in Britain do allow the Boy Scouts, and let the Morning Star be sold alongside the Times and the Daily Mail. And it is this pluralism that will, I hope , save England.
As I have said before, lots of people wear uniforms here, and have marching bands and march in step on some occasions. But the London Fire Brigade, the St John's Ambulance Brigade, and the Girl Guides are not seen by us as the threat that you seem to think they are.
Maybe it's because we are Brits, but one of our best known poems is about a military defeat and we celebrate events like Dunkirk, which was what generals like to call ' a tactical withdrawal'.
No, we are not that militaristic. - the Civil Guard would only field small detachments armed with what are effectively broom handles and custom made dustbin lids. They could easily quell a riot, but never take over a whole country. Nor would they want to, in my opinion.
(no subject)
Date: 12/8/11 21:22 (UTC)And from where I'm standing the mere existence of the USA and the British conquest of 1/4 the world and fighting both world wars from first to last hardly argues Brits are a bunch of hippies. You prefer to shoot outsides, not your own, which is a different matter altogether.
(no subject)
Date: 12/8/11 21:56 (UTC)Even so, he had his own political ' stormtroopers', a bunch of people who fought for him, and him alone.
The existence of a band of folks in Britain , who have got batons and riot shields, working under the direction of local leaders is not likely to lead to a beer hall putsch.
A private Army, working for one person the way the Met Police worked for Thatcher is a different ball game, though. Abu hamza had one in Finsbury Park. But a written constitution should make a take over very hard to achieve, and if they did , they only have broom handles.
(no subject)
Date: 13/8/11 13:05 (UTC)