Don't get me wrong. That's not how Police should be behaving under normal circumstances, or even under "normal" circumstances of civil unrest (one night of student protests etc) as people who have simply been unwittingly caught up in events will be there. When you are talking about a prolonged series of extremely violent events that have been preceded by a warning both to keep off the streets and that serious measures will be taken by the Police then I think you have to let the Police off of the leash somewhat, otherwise the perpetrators won't get the message that they aren't in control of the streets, the Police are.     

Totally agree RAS. If the police used that force when stopping a motorist for speeding for example they should have the book thrown at them, but in a riot a couple of taps with a baton is definitely reasonable force. the ipcc should look at the context of their actions and say no case to answer instead of giving more amm to the bleeding hearts groups. regards

I like your suggestions Concy!

MartinW wrote: I like your suggestions Concy!   But May I suggest an alternative staregy...   Once convicted of rioting/looting, an electronic device is placed in the brain. Then, at a moments notice, if you or I feel the need, we can tap a key on our PC keyboards, and their brains explode like over inflated balloons.   Would that be too extreme? Not sure

I don't think so, though I think my next suggestion may be.

But why not listen to him, where is the harm in getting as much advice as you can get, whether it's directly comparable or orders of magnitude differrent?

Yes, they may have many more gangs than us by why does that mean his advice can not be useful? They don't run as one huge police force but rather as numerous departments/precints/divisions etc. based in various sizes of communities - surely they have much in common with our city based police forces?

MartinW wrote: It's not just London, it's Nottingham and many other councils.   But what purpose will that serve?   We don't want this idiot, so here, another council can have him.   shuffling the perpetrators around from one council to the next is a waste of time and money.   It's a knee jerk overreaction.

I wouldn't call it over-reaction as much as completely ill-thought out.

Kicking them out of their existing housing would serve no useful purpose, and would just make them homeless, and make any negative thoughts they already hold against society greater.

Cameron's plan is to kick them out of *cheap* housing into *privately operated more expensive rental accommodation*. I wonder who owns these companies that are set to benefit from this? People have already forgotten that many of these people are on housing benefit, so the higher cost of private housing doesn't actually affect them in the first place.

What we need are more prisons, and tougher sentences. If someone sees they will get a year in jail for looting they may think twice before doing it. As it is, they get 1 day, and don't even do that due to the time they were held in custody!

Regarding this so-called "super cop" - first of all, there is no such thing. Second, the gangs in the US are significantly different to the gangs we have over here. The US gangs are generally more violent, more likely to have access to serious fire power, and they aren't afraid to use it, either. They also make some areas off-limits to Police. If you remember the problems in LA, they needed a 24/7 army presence to deal with their problems, as the gangs were committing a small-scale war.

Compare that to the gangs here that generally don't have access to serious fire power, generally only steal things, and generally go after those they perceive to be vulnerable. As far as I know, there isn't anywhere that is off-limits to Police. They also tend to do it for quite different reasons. As a result, the way we need to deal with things is very different.

Best regards,
Vulcan.

Vulcan's sensible clone can be mightily impressive.