The article in fact simply says that Thatcher and Willie Whitelaw agreed that using the Army "could not be contemplated", and they would prefer to arm the police. To me, that hardly sounds controversial. The PM and Deputy consider what may be needed to deal with serious rioting, obviously there is the army, it is considered and dismissed seemingly out of hand, and the way it reads, it's like saying "I'd sooner arm the police than contemplate troops". But that's as far as it went. Any PM would of necessity "consider" any possible options. Arming the police seems to have been an obvious bullet point on a list of options, but one which was rejected. The police were not armed, they got better equipment and they were sent out in numbers.
The article in fact simply says that Thatcher and Willie Whitelaw agreed that using the Army "could not be contemplated", and they would prefer to arm the police. To me, that hardly sounds controversial. The PM and Deputy consider what may be needed to deal with serious rioting, obviously there is the army, it is considered and dismissed seemingly out of hand, and the way it reads, it's like saying "I'd sooner arm the police than contemplate troops". But that's as far as it went. Any PM would of necessity "consider" any possible options. Arming the police seems to have been an obvious bullet point on a list of options, but one which was rejected. The police were not armed, they got better equipment and they were sent out in numbers.
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total
The article in fact simply says that Thatcher and Willie Whitelaw agreed that using the Army "could not be contemplated", and they would prefer to arm the police. To me, that hardly sounds controversial. The PM and Deputy consider what may be needed to deal with serious rioting, obviously there is the army, it is considered and dismissed seemingly out of hand, and the way it reads, it's like saying "I'd sooner arm the police than contemplate troops". But that's as far as it went. Any PM would of necessity "consider" any possible options. Arming the police seems to have been an obvious bullet point on a list of options, but one which was rejected. The police were not armed, they got better equipment and they were sent out in numbers.
Good morning. I love it when people write things like that by accident. I'm sorry, you can't claim it retrospectively.
The article in fact simply says that Thatcher and Willie Whitelaw agreed that using the Army "could not be contemplated", and they would prefer to arm the police. To me, that hardly sounds controversial. The PM and Deputy consider what may be needed to deal with serious rioting, obviously there is the army, it is considered and dismissed seemingly out of hand, and the way it reads, it's like saying "I'd sooner arm the police than contemplate troops". But that's as far as it went. Any PM would of necessity "consider" any possible options. Arming the police seems to have been an obvious bullet point on a list of options, but one which was rejected. The police were not armed, they got better equipment and they were sent out in numbers.
Good morning. I love it when people write things like that by accident. I'm sorry, you can't claim it retrospectively.
War does not determine who is right - only who is left.
Post subject: Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people?
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 11:31 am
Ajw71
Player Coach
Joined: Feb 23 2006 Posts: 1978
Cronus wrote: However, it seems the protest was mainly peaceful until a rumour spread that police had beaten a 16 year-old girl. It could therefore be argued that this rumour was in fact the cause of riots?
But for the shooting their would not have been a protest and but for the protest their would not have been a 16 year old girl to push / attack at that time.
"They cited "policing" as the most significant cause of the riots, and anger over the police shooting of Mark Duggan, which triggered initial disturbances in Tottenham, was repeatedly mentioned – even outside London"
See it's their for you to see. 'Anger over the police shooting of Mark Duggan triggered initial disturbances'
But for the police shooting Mark Duggan their would not have been a riot in Tottenham.
Cronus wrote: However, it seems the protest was mainly peaceful until a rumour spread that police had beaten a 16 year-old girl. It could therefore be argued that this rumour was in fact the cause of riots?
But for the shooting their would not have been a protest and but for the protest their would not have been a 16 year old girl to push / attack at that time.
"They cited "policing" as the most significant cause of the riots, and anger over the police shooting of Mark Duggan, which triggered initial disturbances in Tottenham, was repeatedly mentioned – even outside London"
See it's their for you to see. 'Anger over the police shooting of Mark Duggan triggered initial disturbances'
But for the police shooting Mark Duggan their would not have been a riot in Tottenham.
Alex watched the car he set fire to smoulder. He waited for the windows to crack and the petrol tank to explode. He had known nothing about the protest when he first left the pub. When people in the crowd explained why they were there, he quickly decided to join in.
Alex rioted 'when the crowd explained why they were there' - to protest over Duggan.
But for the shooting their would have been no protest, no violence, no riot - In Tottenham.
Alex watched the car he set fire to smoulder. He waited for the windows to crack and the petrol tank to explode. He had known nothing about the protest when he first left the pub. When people in the crowd explained why they were there, he quickly decided to join in.
Alex rioted 'when the crowd explained why they were there' - to protest over Duggan.
But for the shooting their would have been no protest, no violence, no riot - In Tottenham.
Post subject: Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people?
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:31 pm
Ajw71
Player Coach
Joined: Feb 23 2006 Posts: 1978
LSE-Guardian Study....
"They cited "policing" as the most significant cause of the riots,and anger over the police shooting of Mark Duggan, which triggered initial disturbances in Tottenham, was repeatedly mentioned – even outside London"
Now let FA come on and try and argue otherwise....
Post subject: Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people?
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:40 pm
SmokeyTA
Club Owner
Joined: May 24 2006 Posts: 22777
McLaren_Field wrote:There's a bit of a confused logic there though isn't there ?
You believe that the consequences of the police shooting a man are civil riot and yet would support the police shooting more people who are rioting, presumably leading to more people rioting because of those shootings ?
No, i agree with you, the police responding more aggressively would have only inflamed the situation.
However if the police had needed to respond more aggressively in a specific situation to save lives then they of course, without question, would have needed to do so, but only in that very specific situation.
//www.pngnrlbid.com
bUsTiNyAbALLs wrote:Do not converse with me you filthy minded deviant.
vastman wrote:My rage isn't impotent luv, I'm frothing at the mouth actually.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 131 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
