Big Graeme wrote:Manchester police didn't go to London. 100 officers from GMP dispatched to London on 9th August. Fairly common knowledge round here that GMP sent officers to London, only 100 but riot and disorder specialists apparently. Iirc they travelled down but were recalled once the situation in Manchester became clear. They spent much of their valuable time in a minibus when their skills were sorely needed.

Big Graeme wrote:Manchester police didn't go to London. 100 officers from GMP dispatched to London on 9th August. Fairly common knowledge round here that GMP sent officers to London, only 100 but riot and disorder specialists apparently. Iirc they travelled down but were recalled once the situation in Manchester became clear. They spent much of their valuable time in a minibus when their skills were sorely needed.

Why am I a 'nutter'?!

Cronus wrote:100 officers from GMP dispatched to London on 9th August. Fairly common knowledge round here that GMP sent officers to London, only 100 but riot and disorder specialists apparently. Iirc they travelled down but were recalled once the situation in Manchester became clear. They spent much of their valuable time in a minibus when their skills were sorely needed. Ah, I thought because they weren't deployed they didn't travel. In the end both forces did what they should have done on the first night and throw bodies at the problem, they didn't need to riot specialist to deal with the amateur rioters.

Cronus wrote:100 officers from GMP dispatched to London on 9th August. Fairly common knowledge round here that GMP sent officers to London, only 100 but riot and disorder specialists apparently. Iirc they travelled down but were recalled once the situation in Manchester became clear. They spent much of their valuable time in a minibus when their skills were sorely needed. Ah, I thought because they weren't deployed they didn't travel. In the end both forces did what they should have done on the first night and throw bodies at the problem, they didn't need to riot specialist to deal with the amateur rioters.

Diasgree with you there. I would say having riot specialists who understand riots and controlling them would make it easier to bring said riot under control, instead of just using ordinary plod.

Would you like to expain the difference between amateur and other type of rioters?

Have some gone to Uni to learn how to riot properly, was it amateur rioters that were committing arson and potential murder ?

That would be you - as you reply to this will, I predict, perfectly illustrate.


Responses to your drivel don't have to be boring. I can entertain, as well as demolishing you ever decreasing circular non-points. If you don’t like it, then try sensible posts.


You see, it’s just this goldfish-like retention of your own rambling that makes you seem stupid. Your words were:

So, you report that the police “said… they didn’t think they could use lethal force”.

So, you SPECIFICALLY suggested that the police were unaware they could use lethal force. And now you have been caught out.


Having already demolished the wider point, I don’t need to do the same to this more restricted “individual police officer” point. However, I’d be interested to know what the difference in this individual’s case actually is, between “being unaware he could use lethal force” (which you say you haven’t suggested) and “didn’t know he could use lethal force”, which were, er, again YOUR words. Oops.



I consider the view that holding the police “responsible” for the riots, and/or claiming that the riots were a “consequence” of that incident, is arrant nonsense. I would bet a lot of money that 99% of the rioters couldn’t even tell you the deceased’s name, and that incident will have played not the slightest part whatsoever in the riots in other cities.

Obviously the initial spark of rioting in Tottenham followed the shooting, but even there I have seen no suggestion that anyone rioted because of that incident or as some sort of protest at the death of that individual. Of course, there is a massive anti-police feeling in much of UK subculture, and I equally have no doubt that the opportunity to use this as an excuse to have a crack at the police was a major factor.

Do you understand the distinction? Anti-police rioting, of people claiming to be oppressed by the police, as opposed to people who had no issues with the police, but suddenly decided to go on the rampage just because this individual was shot?

The LSE/Guardian analysis of explanations from a large number of convicted rioters themselves. Of those interviewed:


Do you know how many said the shooting of that individual caused them to riot?
Try “none”.

Wow talk about splitting hairs.

But for the shooting the riots would not have happened? Do you agree.

If they were riots in the traditional sense you'd have a point, these were just petty criminals doing a bit of robbing, using the "rioting" as an excuse.

There was no particular target, no urge to confront police, in fact they actively avoided confrontation.

So these were ' retail rioters ' then? , well maybe these amateur retail rioters would have had second thoughts if they thought theyd get a baton round in the nuts for their trouble rather than just having the bobbies watching them commit crimes, destroy livelyhoods , burn peoples homes and potentially burn people to death ?

If that is what you want to call them, fine.



Or maybe putting people on the ground would (and did) do the job without resorting to shooting people.