Bristol Riots

[Tefal]

3. Surely a small armed response unit would have been more appropriate?

Not unless you wanted shootings.

A small armed unit cannot deal with a large number of angry people without killing some of them, as they 100% cannot let them get close enough to take their weapons unlike a riot officer who can lose a shield or a baton without too much worry.


Plus the police always follow the sensible rule that more officers can use less force.

a group of 4-5 officers can restrain you safely and tbh reasonably comfortably, however when there's only 1 it ****ing hurts.

 

[MotherMayI]

Not unless you wanted shootings.

A small armed unit cannot deal with a large number of angry people without killing some of them, as they 100% cannot let them get close enough to take their weapons unlike a riot officer who can lose a shield or a baton without too much worry.


Plus the police always follow the sensible rule that more officers can use less force.

a group of 4-5 officers can restrain you safely and tbh reasonably comfortably, however when there's only 1 it ****ing hurts.

There was no large crowd until the police blocked off the road in riot gear and people came to see what was going on. A van full of armed officers could have parked up outside the house and raided with hardly attention drawn to themselves at all. That is the whole point.

 

[Tefal]

There was no large crowd until the police blocked off the road in riot gear and people came to see what was going on. A van full of armed officers could have parked up outside the house and raided with hardly attention drawn to themselves at all. That is the whole point.

it's not outside it;s inside though.

there's what 10+ people in that building?

armed officers can't just shoot them if they resit.

think of the bloodshed of what would have happens if some bloke rushed an officer and he shot them?

after all the officer cant just let him take his weapon he'd have to fire, riot police on the other hand can just whack them.

You think that place would have been safe for the police, the residents or the paramedics when they brought out a body bag?

 

[MotherMayI]

it's not outside it;s inside though.

there's what 10+ people in that building?

armed officers can't just shoot them if they resit.

think of the bloodshed of what would have happens if some bloke rushed an officer in the confusion and he shot them?

You think that place would have been safe for the police, the residents or the paramedics when they brought out a body bag?

Sorry, what is inside? Not getting what you mean by that.

There were only 4 people in at the time, and the only reason I said armed officers is because of the supposed threat they thought they were under. Regardless of what sort of police were used blocking off a busy intersection/main artery road with riot police is nothing more than unneccesary and confrontational - I simply cannot see how it could be rationalised. Perhaps if they had evacuated the nearby pubs etc., it would make sense to set up some sort of perimiter - But they didn't, and even if that was the case - Why riot gear? Why send this guy:

(Photo by Jonathon Taphouse who took some amazing photos of the goings on that night - http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonathantaphouse/page1/ )

To do a job this guy:

Can do just as well? Lets not even get started on the fact the guy in the first photograph obviously forgot to put on his numbers that night as well. Granted, the whole thing might be explained by terrible decisions by the polices command - But it just seems that bad to me that there may be something else to it.

 

[Atrox Moris]

Even without taking anything else in to ccount, if they truly believed there were people in Telepathic Heights intent on using petrol bombs I find their course of action very strange for a number of reasons:

1. They said it was intended to be a quick and decisive action. So why were 75% of the Police out sent from Wales?
2. Why send police equipped for a riot, let alone 200 of them?
3. Surely a small armed response unit would have been more appropriate?
4. Why were local businesses and residents not informed/evacuated? Instead they simply blocked off the road and didn't tell anybody the reason. Pubs etc., opposite were still open for business.
5. Why be so heavy handed with the, often unrelated, locals?

Either seems to me like something else was going on, or some incredibly bad decisions were made.

Afaik they also didn't actually recover petrol bombs - Just the components to make them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/23/bristol-squatters-tesco-attack-petrol-claims

Most of the mainland UKs policing like that is learnt from Northern Ireland and later with football hooliganism.

1: Where they're from is irrelevant. They needed a large team because they knew it could possibly descend into a public order situation. Which surprise surprise, it did.

2: Because of point 1. During past years here they've had to bring in the riot squad for public order situations in the Holylands area of Belfast for students getting ****ed and out of control during St Patricks day. Students told to turn off music and go back in doors resulted in them pelting police with bottles. They call for back up, back up arrives, more people take to the street feeding their bravado with drink. It descends into public disorder.

3: No. It wouldn't. Police riot situation procedures are taught to not require armed police. If you want to see what happens when armed police get separated from their main lines you only have to look at RUC and PSNI that have had to draw and fire their weapons to drive back crowds. Or in the case of the Corporal killings see that in a mob situation, a firearm is next to useless to an officer or soldier that isn't allowed by law to fire into said mob unless the mob happen to be armed and open fire first. The little Yellow Card they gave to soldiers on tour in Northern Ireland pointed out what the army could and could not do when it came to opening fire and the same goes for the PSNI and armed units on the mainland.

4: Because if you inform or evacuate locals it gives the targets time to hide evidence / set up ambushes, yada yada yada. They block off the road to contain the disturbance. During disturbances here, people are simply told to stay in doors until the police deal with it. I doubt it's any different on the mainland.

5: You wouldn't know heavy handed if you were in the front line of a riot having plastic bullets shot at you. If there's a disturbance in the street, you move to the back of the house and stay out of the way until police have dealt with it. It's simple common sense. Coming out into the street to shout "what's going on" is going to do nothing except give you one more idiot that could end up a casualty because he's got a brick or bottle in the head. Then as the police you have to have a snatch squad to go in and get them out for treatment. Of course that means you have to separate a small team of men to possibly go forward, which makes them an easier target and puts them at risk.

 

[MotherMayI]

All completely valid points that I understand, but what I dont accept is why would they expect a simple house search to result in a public order issue? If they had not of blocked off a busy road with riot police it would not of become one. They entered the house without issue, they conducted their search without issue, etc. There was no reason to expect it would go any differently - House searches get conducted every day, and they sure as hell don't normally bring along 200 riot police from other forces for the ride.

 

[Atrox Moris]

All completely valid points that I understand, but what I dont accept is why would they expect a simple house search to result in a public order issue? If they had not of blocked off a busy road with riot police it would not of become one. They entered the house without issue, they conducted their search without issue, etc. There was no reason to expect it would go any differently - House searches get conducted every day, and they sure as hell don't normally bring along 200 riot police from other forces for the ride.

Why would asking a couple of ****ed up students to go back indoors and turn the music down descend into a public order situation? Because they can and do. When police go into areas here to conduct searches, they go in with several Tangi landrovers and kitted up to the hilt because there are just some areas you don't go into without that level of force.

You've seen how many public disturbances? I've seen years worth where you don't even need an excuse to start having a riot... It's irrelevant of whether or not the road is blocked to a situation becoming a public disturbance.

They entered the house, did their search and everything went swimmingly. Then a bunch of scummy hippies, crusties, squatters and socialists or anarchists decided they might like to have a bit of a riot. I'm sure the usual (and I've seen it happen here) of a couple of drunks starting with the "YOU'RE BEING HEAVY HANDED, YOU'RE OUT OF ORDER YOU ARE" are told to get back and stop being threatening. Then of course they get more aggressive with the "YOU WHAT MATE?! I WANT YOU NUMBER". So they get a quick rap with a telescopic baton. "HE HIT ME HE DID!" suddenly all his ****ed up mates want a go at the police and there you have it. Public disorder. More people think "OH POLICE OPPRESSION" and it spirals out of control.

Honestly, since the student "protests" against fees, the amount of people on the British mainland I've seen thinking they're sticking it to the police is embarrassing.

 

[MotherMayI]

Why would asking a couple of ****ed up students to go back indoors and turn the music down descend into a public order situation? Because they can and do. When police go into areas here to conduct searches, they go in with several Tangi landrovers and kitted up to the hilt because there are just some areas you don't go into without that level of force.

You've seen how many public disturbances? I've seen years worth where you don't even need an excuse to start having a riot... It's irrelevant of whether or not the road is blocked to a situation becoming a public disturbance.

They entered the house, did their search and everything went swimmingly. Then a bunch of scummy hippies, crusties, squatters and socialists or anarchists decided they might like to have a bit of a riot. I'm sure the usual (and I've seen it happen here) of a couple of drunks starting with the "YOU'RE BEING HEAVY HANDED, YOU'RE OUT OF ORDER YOU ARE" are told to get back and stop being threatening. Then of course they get more aggressive with the "YOU WHAT MATE?! I WANT YOU NUMBER". So they get a quick rap with a telescopic baton. "HE HIT ME HE DID!" suddenly all his ****ed up mates want a go at the police and there you have it. Public disorder. More people think "OH POLICE OPPRESSION" and it spirals out of control.

Honestly, since the student "protests" against fees, the amount of people on the British mainland I've seen thinking they're sticking it to the police is embarrassing.

I have no doubt that some areas are not worth entering without force. This, however, was Stokes Croft. At worst you could normally expected to be expected to put up with world music and Tofu. It is far from a war zone. Also interesting how the police hit a local MP and a local counciler with batons - But yeah, must just be the local drunks accusing them of being heavy handed, right?

Nobody is claiming they are 'sticking it to the police', and I honestly have no idea what you are even attempting to articulate by saying that. Last I checked, the student protests were not to 'stick it to the police', nor was the recent riot in Bristol. Way to be self involved though.

 

[Atrox Moris]

I have no doubt that some areas are not worth entering without force. This, however, was Stokes Croft. At worst you could normally expected to be expected to put up with world music and Tofu. It is far from a war zone. Also interesting how the police hit a local MP and a local counciler with batons - But yeah, must just be the local drunks accusing them of being heavy handed, right? I thought we were about to have a fairly decent conversation. I guess not.

Obviously the police thought otherwise. And were proved right. A councillor and an MP got a rap? So ****ing what. Unless they had on their huge "I'M A COUNCILLOR" and "I'M AN MP" sombreros, they're just another member of the mob.

You are clueless. I've seen your "discussion" already in this thread and you come across as a cliched socialist student. You think what happened was the oppression of the people, when it was the police dealing with a situation that occured AFTER the successful completion of their operation.

I have no interest in conversing with you, nor anyone else who thinks these scumbags are fighting for a "cause" against a ****ing Tescos. I was just telling you that what you think you know about police operational procedures during public order situations is nothing.

 

[Atrox Moris]

Nobody is claiming they are 'sticking it to the police', and I honestly have no idea what you are even attempting to articulate by saying that. Last I checked, the student protests were not to 'stick it to the police', nor was the recent riot in Bristol. Way to be self involved though.

Jog on hippy.

 

[Tefal]

Sorry, what is inside? Not getting what you mean by that.

the armed police wouldn't be dealing with the people outside only inside the building, and armed police arn't useful for that unless it's reasonable for them to shoot the occupants if they resit, ie if they attack the police they're only recourse is to fire on them, so you can't really use them against people who aren't suspected of very serious crimes and considered dangerus.

Why riot gear? Why send this guy:



To do a job this guy:

Can do just as well? Lets not even get started on the fact the guy in the first photograph obviously forgot to put on his numbers that night as well. Granted, the whole thing might be explained by terrible decisions by the polices command - But it just seems that bad to me that there may be something else to it.

because if you throw a brick at that second guy he's going to the hospital or the morgue unlike the guy with shield who's just going to bounce it off.


damage is one thing but the police are worried about the harm to people, riot gear means they arn't at much risk, and riot officers mean they're better trained for dealing with crowds so can use tactics over force.

 

[MotherMayI]

Obviously the police thought otherwise. And were proved right. A councillor and an MP got a rap? So ****ing what. Unless they had on their huge "I'M A COUNCILLOR" and "I'M AN MP" sombreros, they're just another member of the mob.

You are clueless. I've seen your "discussion" already in this thread and you come across as a cliched socialist student. You think what happened was the oppression of the people, when it was the police dealing with a situation that occured AFTER the successful completion of their operation.

I have no interest in conversing with you, nor anyone else who thinks these scumbags are fighting for a "cause" against a ****ing Tescos. I was just telling you that what you think you know about police operational procedures during public order situations is nothing.

Honestly, your last post proved you so utterly moronic that you are not worth even replying to. I find it utterly hillarious that you find either being in education or being a socialist negative things - Sadly for you though, I am neither. Really, you're a shining example of a policeman - You had an opportunity to have a decent conversation, to educate me about certain things and maybe even take something out of it youself - Instead your resort to abuse. Good one.

1. The MP/councillor getting hit was in response to it being said that all those saying the police were being heavy handed were drunks. They clearly were not, and saying so is an easy way to shift the blame.

2. You have obviously not read the thread, either that or you are even more moronic than I originally gave you credit for - You obviously have no idea what order of events things occured in or how they did. In addition to that, for the millionth time - It was not a protest, nor was it against Tesco's. Fairly easy concepts to grasp, maybe you should give it a go.

 

[dowie]

Or in the case of the Corporal killings see that in a mob situation, a firearm is next to useless to an officer or soldier that isn't allowed by law to fire into said mob unless the mob happen to be armed and open fire first. The little Yellow Card they gave to soldiers on tour in Northern Ireland pointed out what the army could and could not do when it came to opening fire and the same goes for the PSNI and armed units on the mainland.

Not wanting to disagree with your post in general but a minor point on this- regardless of the rules of engagement in place in whatever theater you're operating in you've always got an inherant right to self defence. This is generally noted on the bottom of the card - can't remember the wording and tbh.. theatre specific rules of engagement are restricted but you'll basically be told that the rules don't affect your inherant right to self defence.

To this end I'd go along with the saying 'tis better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6'.

 

[Richie]

In addition to that, for the millionth time - It was not a protest, nor was it against Tesco's. Fairly easy concepts to grasp, maybe you should give it a go.

I hear you harp on about this a few times already but were the police not involved to begin with as there were reports of petrol bombs being stored in the squat that were rumoured to be there for use against the Tesco shop?

That's not against Tesco in any way?

 

[RDM]

1. They said it was intended to be a quick and decisive action. So why were 75% of the Police out sent from Wales?

Extra officers for a large job? It isn't like Wales is awfully far from Bristol is it? Cross one bridge and you are there...

2. Why send police equipped for a riot, let alone 200 of them?

Because they knew that said people equipped with petrol bombs where hardly going to go "Oh, it's alright guvner, it is a fair cop, slap the cuffs on."? As to riot gear, possibly because it has been designed to withstand things along the lines of...petrol bombs!

3. Surely a small armed response unit would have been more appropriate?

So let me get this straight, you think that riot cops was an overreaction but armed police aren't?

4. Why were local businesses and residents not informed/evacuated? Instead they simply blocked off the road and didn't tell anybody the reason. Pubs etc., opposite were still open for business.

Because we have lovely public spirited people like you that would happily warn the people in question? Or they may look out of the window and go "Hmm, I wonder why everyone is closing up and going home and why all those police officers are talking to them?"

5. Why be so heavy handed with the, often unrelated, locals?

Where these the unrelated locals that were smashing up Tescos, assaulting police officers, throwing paint or kicking off against the police vehicles? If so, I think that may answer the question...

 

[Tefal]

As to riot gear, possibly because it has been designed to withstand things along the lines of...petrol bombs!

that's one thing i find horrifying in these rights/protests, image standing there on the front lien knowing people are not only trying to hurt you but it's quite possible you're going to get burned alive

 

[MotherMayI]

Extra officers for a large job? It isn't like Wales is awfully far from Bristol is it? Cross one bridge and you are there...



Because they knew that said people equipped with petrol bombs where hardly going to go "Oh, it's alright guvner, it is a fair cop, slap the cuffs on."? As to riot gear, possibly because it has been designed to withstand things along the lines of...petrol bombs!



So let me get this straight, you think that riot cops was an overreaction but armed police aren't?



Because we have lovely public spirited people like you that would happily warn the people in question? Or they may look out of the window and go "Hmm, I wonder why everyone is closing up and going home and why all those police officers are talking to them?"



Where these the unrelated locals that were smashing up Tescos, assaulting police officers, throwing paint or kicking off against the police vehicles? If so, I think that may answer the question...

1. Since when is a house search a large job?
2. Right, so riot gear makes sense - In reasonable numbers. Not 200.
3. I am suggesting that a smaller force of police officers would have done the job a huge amount more effeciently than an army of riot police and it would not of ended in a riot.
4. Right, and they totally wouldn't of done that when 200 police turned up outside and blocked off the entire road. Why, after doing that, would they let people remain in the vacinity if they thought they were under threat?
5. Maybe some of them were, but I imagine most werent - Regardless, not even our great British police can predict the future. The house search took place at around 9pm, the tesco's got smashed at 2:30am.

 

[Tefal]

1. Since when is a house search a large job?
2. Right, so riot gear makes sense - In reasonable numbers. Not 200.
3. I am suggesting that a smaller force of police officers would have done the job a huge amount more effeciently than an army of riot police and it would not of ended in a riot.
4. Right, and they totally wouldn't of done that when 200 police turned up outside and blocked off the entire road. Why, after doing that, would they let people remain in the vacinity if they thought they were under threat?
5. Maybe some of them were, but I imagine most werent - Regardless, not even our great British police can predict the future. The house search took place at around 9pm, the tesco's got smashed at 2:30am.

why would people not riot against 50- 10 or 5 officers?

much more likely they'd have rioted but not been contained and spread elsewhere or the officers involved would have been severely injured.

 

[Atrox Moris]

Honestly, your last post proved you so utterly moronic that you are not worth even replying to. I find it utterly hillarious that you find either being in education or being a socialist negative things - Sadly for you though, I am neither.

1. The MP/councillor getting hit was in response to it being said that all those saying the police were being heavy handed were drunks. They clearly were not, and saying so is an easy way to shift the blame.

2. You have obviously not read the thread, either that or you are even more moronic than I originally gave you credit for - You obviously have no idea what order of events things occured in or how they did. In addition to that, for the millionth time - It was not a protest, nor was it against Tesco's. Fairly easy concepts to grasp, maybe you should give it a go.

Honestly, your posts are all boring pseudo intellectual little remarks from someone who thinks he knows more than he does. You know nothing, like I pointed out, about police operational procedures for these kinds of situations. Your ignorance of them in fact is cringe worthy.

1: So? They were obviously in the road and got rapped for it.

2: I have read the thread and every little pseudo intellectual cliche and snide remark from you. I don't think you should be calling anyone a moron. Your a boring little socialist student ******.

And here's a concept you should grasp....

Someone made a threat to burn down the tescos. Police went in to deal with that. People got uppity about "police heavy handedness" when they know (quite like yourself) absolutely nothing about police operational procedures for these kinds of operations. They kicked off and a public order situation arose, just like the police expected it would. Then we have every little know it all on the internet (that's you) giving their ignorant opinions on what they think the police should have done.

It's a ****ing Tescos. Some scum got cracked round the head because they wanted a barny with the police. Big deal. Maybe if they were oppressing your right to celebrate your history and culture I could have some sympathy....

 

[RDM]

1. Since when is a house search a large job?

When it is a squat filled with an unknown number of individuals who may be armed with petrol bombs and expecting troulbe?

2. Right, so riot gear makes sense - In reasonable numbers. Not 200.

So with your extensive knowledge of police tactics how many police officers is reasonable? It is OK to answer with "I haven't a clue, I don't actually have any knowledge of police tactics. Also what happens when said "small number of officers" turn up and it still turns into a riot? Let them get a good kicking?

3. I am suggesting that a smaller force of police officers would have done the job a huge amount more effeciently than an army of riot police and it would not of ended in a riot.

A smaller number of police officers with guns. I cannot see any possible way that could end up worse than a riot....

4. Right, and they totally wouldn't of done that when 200 police turned up outside and blocked off the entire road. Why, after doing that, would they let people remain in the vacinity if they thought they were under threat?

Once the police were there then the chance of running and escaping is greatly reduced...

5. Maybe some of them were, but I imagine most werent - Regardless, not even our great British police can predict the future. The house search took place at around 9pm, the tesco's got smashed at 2:30am.

In other words "I don't know."