Many people would have you believe the UK police are just a load of devious, violent, murderous, semi-criminal thugs operating beyond the law as it is.

The UK has some of the most lenient policing in the world - at times far too lenient, probably in fear of the typical press overreaction and witch hunt. We saw disturbances last year that would have seen rubber/plastic bullets, water cannon, tear gas - even new innovations like the 'Active Denial System', MEDUSA and the Reizstoffwerfer 99 deployed in many other countries without hesitation, and yet we're up in arms about rioters getting walloped occasionally and largely passive tactics such as 'kettling'.

I'm not in favour of acting beyond the law, but I'm in favour of getting tough when required.

Which kinda makes what you've written above totally unnecessary, unless your idea of "getting tough when required", means operating beyond the rule of law? The police are already allowed to get tough, they are simply bound by the entirely reasonable constraint of proportionality. Once they step beyond that, they shouldn't complain if they face investigation and possible prosecution. Saying that, I don't know of any other group who are allowed by law to consult with fellow officers when writing up their notebooks. Anyone else would be accused of collusion

There isn't a police force in the world that doesn't have at least some element of the above. Police are human and have human failings. I don't see 'many' people suggesting that the UK Police in their entirety are anything like as bad as you suggest.


The UK has 'lenient' Policing - although that's an emotive and subjective term probably best kept out of a sensible conversation on the topic - because the UK Police was founded on, and has always operated by, the principle of policing by consent. It's worked very well for many, many years and has resulted in a police force which - despite some problems - is still seen as less remote and threatening than many others.

I don't see many people 'up in arms' about the harshness of the tactics used during the riots - quite the opposite in fact. The issue is whether the Police had the powers necessary to handle the riots with appropriate force and whether or not they chose the correct tactics. I'd rather that fundamental principles like this be discussed calmly and rationally with input from the officers who actually have to implement said tactics without the nonsense being put forward by the extremes on both sides of the debate.

Indeed, and I wouldn't disagree with any of that. Yet even with the legal scope to toughen up it was maddeningly frustrating to see the police standing and watching in September as shops were looted and streets trashed - even people attacked. I understand that in many cases they were outnumbered, but the 'stand back' order was pathetic and it was clear from early on that the police we unwilling (or unable) to take on the rioters. It was also clear that was a key reason for trouble escalating.

And when the police do step things up and a couple of skulls are cracked or a few people complain about 'kettling', the subsequent press overreaction and witch-hunt is ridiculous.

I completely agree, though it's apparent many people see the police as nothing more than uniformed thugs - that sort of expression has been used many time on this very forum. I have a friend who irrationally hates the police thanks to a couple of minor experiences and nothing will change that view.

Of course we probably all have friends or 'associates' who hate the police for 'career' reasons.


No-one is up in arms about that harshness of police tactics during the riots simply because the police were largely ineffective, certainly in the early stages. They suffered primarily from lack of numbers and also from the fluid nature of events.

And it's been whispered in some quarters that one reason the police decided to adopt a stand off approach in September was as a result of the onslaught of damning criticism they received in the press following the disturbances and riots at various demonstrations earlier this year. Friends of mine serving in GMP have confirmed that is the feeling amongst many officers. Yet paradoxically public support for the police was overwhelming in September.

The police are damned if they do, damned if they don't. Generally they get the balance right.

The official explanation was that the officers in charge had designated the events as a "public order" situation, and not as simple criminality, and as such the main official tactics seem to be to contain, and watch.

In fact I'd go on to say that the UK police force does a great job on the whole, considering it's got one arm tied behind it's back half the time, and the other half it's being vilified by the members of the public that they are there to protect. Yes they make mistakes, but as someone has said - they are only human.

If you do nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about. Stay out of the way and you wont get shot. Loot and be prepared for a baton round to the Boll*cks-Seems fair to me

And if you ever become a case of summary justice via mistaken identity, you will stick to your view, yes?
Like hell you will.

This has been proven wrong time and time again. Why do people still bother to trot it out?