Any London left?

MrChuck

georgee wrote:

shameful to watch the police behaving like such cowards.

That's pretty ignorant. How do you think they should have handled it, with the benefit of hindsight gained from the vantage point of your sofa?

I'm absolutely sure there were failings, but comments like that are just knee jerking and help nobody.

rick_chasey

Turns out there was rioting literally 40m from my flat last night.

Had nooo idea.

garnett

notsoblue wrote:

Ah, it was dreamlx10 and not you that posted that quote. Sorry about that.

No worries.

gtvlusso

Rick Chasey wrote:

Turns out there was rioting literally 40m from my flat last night.

Had nooo idea.

Was it Quiet Riot?

garnett

Have to say, I'm not usually the first to commend the police, especially when they're kettling peaceful demonstrators, but from what I've seen last night, they were pretty heroic. They were stretched to breaking point. Everyone in Clapham who is shocked by how long they took to respond - that's because everywhere was like that.

There were about 30 looters loitering on our road off Walworth Road, and the Police used that tactic of speding down the road in the Toyota Hilux-esque riot vans, and left behind 5 officers in riot gear in a thin line across the top of the street. That line must have felt damn thin behind a riot shield if you ask me. They stood there for a few minutes before backing up and then running off.

Later we had to colect a friend (who decided Peckham was a better bet than Croydon - tough choices!) and walked down the Walworth Road about 9.30. It was carnage but there were riot police outside most of the raided shops. Reckon they earned their pay last night big time.

jzed

Garnett wrote:

There were about 30 looters loitering on our road off Walworth Road, and the Police used that tactic of speding down the road in the Toyota Hilux-esque riot vans, and left behind 5 officers in riot gear in a thin line across the top of the street. That line must have felt damn thin behind a riot shield if you ask me. They stood there for a few minutes before backing up and then running off.

30 looters and a response. In Clapham Junction there were 200-300 looters and no response. And when I say no response I mean nothing, no-one, just the looters having a free-for-all for 2 hours.

The issue is they knew it was going to happen and deserted the area to let it happen. This had to be tactical and a realisation they didn't have the resources to deal with them so just let them get on with it until there are enough free resources.

Jay dubbleU

Using the army is not an option. They are not trained in riot control and are stretched anyway. Putting them on the streets would be pointless - we were dumped on the streets on Belfast in the 60's with a riot shield and a pick handle and look what that lead to.

bails87

Had to laugh at this:

"I've been at an emergency Cobra session since 7am and now I'm too sh1tfaced to do any rioting"

garnett

JZed wrote:

Garnett wrote:

There were about 30 looters loitering on our road off Walworth Road, and the Police used that tactic of speding down the road in the Toyota Hilux-esque riot vans, and left behind 5 officers in riot gear in a thin line across the top of the street. That line must have felt damn thin behind a riot shield if you ask me. They stood there for a few minutes before backing up and then running off.

30 looters and a response. In Clapham Junction there were 200-300 looters and no response. And when I say no response I mean nothing, no-one, just the looters having a free-for-all for 2 hours.

The issue is they knew it was going to happen and deserted the area to let it happen. This had to be tactical and a realisation they didn't have the resources to deal with them so just let them get on with it until there are enough free resources.

No, no, 30 looters just in our side road, probably closer to 5 times that on the high street proper. And I don't follow you - "200-300 looters and no response. And when I say no response I mean nothing, no-one, just the looters having a free-for-all for 2 hours."

Did the looters then quietly disperse of their own volition?

At ours they had the 2 hours and then the Police turned up.

dreamlx10

Was quoting from Enoch Powell's the Rivers of Blood speech "a bit rash" too?

I don't think so, I only posted a small section as the whole "speech" runs to six pages. The man saw this coming a long time ago and was vilified for it, we're now paying the price.

DonDaddyD

OK skimmed. Thoughts:

See all this can't smack your own child for telling you to "f*ck off" has come to roost.

Deploying the army wouldn't work. What would they do, they aren't trained to deal with riots. Riots are very much about psychological posturing as it is apply force. Sure the army could charge the rioters and bust out the ninja moves but holding the line with shields as they are being charged... not so much. Personally I thought the police out on the front lines did the best they could.

The police out there on the front lines did the best they could. But did they get the best support they could? The police have been irked by the cuts, frustrated by the criticism, shaken by all the allegations of scandal and frustrated that they've had to reduce policing numbers. They've had requests for water canons in the past shot down and they've warned that low policing numbers couldn't deal with a high scale situation like this one. (Greg66 will agree) While they did take it seriously, who here really doubts that some of the top brass' reactions were motivated by proving a point... ergo Clapham and Croydon

I also think force with force may not work. While I want to agree that the police really did need to go upside some rioters head. It only needs for a rioter to be a teen, unarmed, trying to get and some officer in the heat of the moment hits him a little too hard. Rodney King style video clip on Facebook/Youtube/Twitter and then it really kicks off and looting becomes are last worry. (My brother - corn rows, trainers and Nike - who stepped off a train and found himself in the middle of a riot was too afraid to ask the police for help getting home).

Water cannons are the way forward. Cannons aren't used to catch people they're used to disperse crowds. Had a couple of them been sent through Clapham earlier (these things are armored) the crowd would have been dispersed and suddenly the small number of police officers look far larger. I mean, lets look at the tactic they did finally use in Clapham and Ealing, they didn't increase the number of officers dramatically they added three armored vehicles and charged the crowds forcing them to disperse (this is dangerous had anyone gone under the vehicle... well they'd have given the rioters a real reason to riot) which isn't dissimilar to a water canon but arguably more dangerous.

Personally, while I think looting a Debenhams is one thing, looting a private owned shops, like the ones in Ealing, where most disgusting. Massive Starbucks fair game as long as no one gets hurt.

Cause: Criminals, opportunistic SCUM but the socialist in me cannot help think that this social unrest has been building. And the fact is we don't do enough or provide enough schemes and facilities for young people. The riots weren't about that, no. But those children are the way they are, they are capable of doing what they did partly because society/Government/Council's refuse to constructively engage with them enough. Library's, youth centers, swimming pools things people can feel connected to when they grow up gives them a sense of attachment and feeling to the area's they've grown up. These people have none. Put the mob down, go upside the head and cull the 'generation lost' but lets do more with the generation after that so we don't have to continually rule by fear and a need for force to be met with force.

And before the grumble bums jump on me, you don't see affluent people rioting, why? Because they and by extension their communities (immediate social groups) have installed in them community/social values (the type engaging in after school clubs gives and experience of), which poor areas are increasingly devoid of.

It is a worry what the legacy of this will be after they clear up the glass etc. I can see race relations worsening significantly in the area.

Wasn't a race riot. People of many cultures (except the Turks in Dalston) were involved. I don't even think it was entirely youths or teenagers - though they probably made up the majority.

notsoblue

dreamlx10 wrote:

Was quoting from Enoch Powell's the Rivers of Blood speech "a bit rash" too?

I don't think so, I only posted a small section as the whole "speech" runs to six pages. The man saw this coming a long time ago and was vilified for it, we're now paying the price.

What was the gist of his speech, and could you explain how you think its relevant to whats going on now?

jzed

Garnett wrote:

At ours they had the 2 hours and then the Police turned up.

The same then.

sketchley

DonDaddyD wrote:

Massive Starbucks fair game as long as no one gets hurt.

Apart from the fact local people who worked there may lose their jobs and we will all pay for the cost via increased insurance premiums.......

DonDaddyD

On my facebook reports had said a crowd was building long before the 2 hours of rioting.

Clapham was bad not because of the destruction but by how long it was left to be lawless. Croydon had a police presence even before it kicked off I'm told.

daviesee

Can we please stop going on and on about water canons. We don't have any.

Move on to the next solution please.

DonDaddyD

Sketchley wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Massive Starbucks fair game as long as no one gets hurt.

Apart from the fact local people who worked there may lose their jobs and we will all pay for the cost via increased insurance premiums.......

Yes, yes yes. We could then go on about how Starbucks is an evil empire selling £1 coffee in a £6 cup and paying the people where the coffee is sourced less than 1p per kilo.

It was terrible and shouldn't happen. But if it has to happen I'd rather see a massive department store get hit than some sole trader who sells baby clothes for example. I would argue the sole trader has more to lose.

FoldingJoe

Rick Chasey wrote:

Has anyone watched La Haine?

Yes, great film.

Greg T

DonDaddyD wrote:

Personally, while I think looting a Debenhams is one thing, looting a private owned shops, like the ones in Ealing, where most disgusting. Massive Starbucks fair game as long as no one gets hurt.

You know what.

Sometimes you are are a complete idiot.

sketchley

DonDaddyD wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Massive Starbucks fair game as long as no one gets hurt.

Apart from the fact local people who worked there may lose their jobs and we will all pay for the cost via increased insurance premiums.......

Yes, yes yes. We could then go on about how Starbucks is an evil empire selling £1 coffee in a £6 cup and paying the people where the coffee is sourced less than 1p per kilo.

It was terrible and shouldn't happen. But if it has to happen I'd rather see a massive department store get hit than some sole trader who sells baby clothes for example. I would argue the sole trader has more to lose.

Couldn't agree more. it was the "no one gets hurt" bit I had the issue with.

rjsterry

Can't agree with this bit.

DonDaddyD wrote:

Personally, while I think looting a Debenhams is one thing, looting a private owned shops, like the ones in Ealing, where most disgusting. Massive Starbucks fair game as long as no one gets hurt.

Just because it's a big corporation, doesn't make it any less criminal or damaging to the community. Take the HMV in north London that was trashed. HMV is struggling as it is with people thinking they no longer have to pay for music. The staff (who won't be on big wages to start with) won't be able to work for days or even weeks, so will lose out.

Larger shops will also start to move out of areas if they think it's too dangerous, undoing a lot of the regeneration that has gone on in the last 20-30 years in various parts of London.

garnett

Good read, and hard to argue with.

DonDaddyD wrote:

Cause: Criminals, opportunistic SCUM but the socialist in me cannot help think that this social unrest has been building. And the fact is we don't do enough or provide enough schemes and facilities for young people. The riots weren't about that, no. But those children are the way they are, they are capable of doing what they did partly because society/Government/Council's refuse to constructively engage with them enough. Library's, youth centers, swimming pools things people can feel connected to when they grow up gives them a sense of attachment and feeling to the area's they've grown up. These people have none. Put the mob down, go upside the head and cull the 'generation lost' but lets do more with the generation after that so we don't have to continually rule by fear and a need for force to be met with force.

And before the grumble bums jump on me, you don't see affluent people rioting, why? Because they and by extension their communities (immediate social groups) have installed in them community/social values (the type engaging in after school clubs gives and experience of), which poor areas are increasingly devoid of.

Now may not be the time for investigating the long term causes and solutions but I really hope these lootings spark some serious debate.

Now, I think it is too late for anything other than swift and tough response - water cannons sounds about right to me.

I agree that the youths lack any engagement with anyone other than their peer group. I think there are many barriers to engagement - how does a minority kid from a poor background get involved in politics? - but one of the big ones IMO is the peer group. It might be trendy to say it, but, almost like drug addicts, no form of treatment can improve the addict's lot, if afterwards he is compelled to rejoin a group of people who, while individually sometimes similarly keen to climb out, as a group will drag him back down.

Some kind of enforced interaction between all walks of society would be be my best bet for a long term solution.

Sewinman

DonDaddyD wrote:

Wasn't a race riot. People of many cultures (except the Turks in Dalston) were involved. I don't even think it was entirely youths or teenagers - though they probably made up the majority.

It is unpalatable but In Clapham it was a very specific demographic...'many cultures' would not be an accurate description at all.

rick_chasey

dreamlx10 wrote:

Was quoting from Enoch Powell's the Rivers of Blood speech "a bit rash" too?

I don't think so, I only posted a small section as the whole "speech" runs to six pages. The man saw this coming a long time ago and was vilified for it, we're now paying the price.

No we're not.

This has nothing to do with what he was going on about.

This isn't a clash of different cultures. This is young generation of underclass children and teenagers who are so excluded from normal society that this awful behaviour isn't constrained. They don't feel part of society, so don't feel they have to abide by it. We continue to exclude them (post-punishment, obviously) at our peril.

lastant

JZed wrote:

In Clapham Junction there were 200-300 looters and no response. And when I say no response I mean nothing, no-one, just the looters having a free-for-all for 2 hours.

The issue is they knew it was going to happen and deserted the area to let it happen. This had to be tactical and a realisation they didn't have the resources to deal with them so just let them get on with it until there are enough free resources.

I'm in Clapham Junction too (although the other side of the station) and had read early on in the day reports that it was going to be a target at 20.00-20.30ish. I had a wander down St. John's Road around 16.00ish and saw most shops had third party security on the doors as others were starting to board up.

Coming up to the evening there were loads of sirens in and around the area, but it went eerily quiet at the point the trouble was 'expected' and that's when it seemed the looting started - whilst not acceptable, isn't as bad as what was going on down the road in Croydon and I reckon that's where all of the local forces were diverted.

Can't decide if the Sky News correspondent that was filming and attempting to interview the looters was ridiculously brave or stupid but it made for incredible viewing and I hope he's rewarded for it. Wouldn't actually be suprised if he was out with his mates in The Northcote before wandering down with a bit of dutch courage inside him.

Reading the reports today, it's the mindless vandalism and arson that's really getting to me to be honest. There's going to be a massive fall out from this and it's going to take a long time for things to go back to normal...

DonDaddyD

Greg T wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Personally, while I think looting a Debenhams is one thing, looting a private owned shops, like the ones in Ealing, where most disgusting. Massive Starbucks fair game as long as no one gets hurt.

You know what.

Sometimes you are are a complete idiot.

GregT wrote:

I only loot when I'm sure no-one will get hurt.

No harm in that.

Following the fool I guess.

sketchley

rjsterry wrote:

Can't agree with this bit.

DonDaddyD wrote:

Personally, while I think looting a Debenhams is one thing, looting a private owned shops, like the ones in Ealing, where most disgusting. Massive Starbucks fair game as long as no one gets hurt.

Just because it's a big corporation, doesn't make it any less criminal or damaging to the community. Take the HMV in north London that was trashed. HMV is struggling as it is with people thinking they no longer have to pay for music. The staff (who won't be on big wages to start with) won't be able to work for days or even weeks, so will lose out.

Larger shops will also start to move out of areas if they think it's too dangerous, undoing a lot of the regeneration that has gone on in the last 20-30 years in various parts of London.

+1 on this. One of the adverse consequences of this is the return of the inner city slum / no go areas which will just compound the problem further. The good work that has gone on to regenerate areas will stop, and the equally good work in getting the multicultural London we all enjoy will take a massive step backwards as people with money move out. Which in turn has the knock on effect of them not spending money in the town centre which means shops close etc etc etc. It would not surprise me if last night signals then end of the high street as we know it, with retailing moving to internet and anonymous warehouses and out of town shopping malls that are easier to protect.

dhope

DonDaddyD wrote:

Greg T wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Personally, while I think looting a Debenhams is one thing, looting a private owned shops, like the ones in Ealing, where most disgusting. Massive Starbucks fair game as long as no one gets hurt.

You know what.

Sometimes you are are a complete idiot.

GregT wrote:

I only loot when I'm sure no-one will get hurt.

No harm in that.

Following the fool I guess.

Swap 'loot' with 'RLJ' and all becomes clear.

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

Can't agree with this bit.

DonDaddyD wrote:

Personally, while I think looting a Debenhams is one thing, looting a private owned shops, like the ones in Ealing, where most disgusting. Massive Starbucks fair game as long as no one gets hurt.

Just because it's a big corporation, doesn't make it any less criminal or damaging to the community. Take the HMV in north London that was trashed. HMV is struggling as it is with people thinking they no longer have to pay for music. The staff (who won't be on big wages to start with) won't be able to work for days or even weeks, so will lose out.

Larger shops will also start to move out of areas if they think it's too dangerous, undoing a lot of the regeneration that has gone on in the last 20-30 years in various parts of London.

It is criminal and I'd rather no riot at all but honestly, seriously answer this. A riot has happened what would you rather see, McDonalds trashed or 'Gino's' an independent family owned restaurant?

cjcp

dhope wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Greg T wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Personally, while I think looting a Debenhams is one thing, looting a private owned shops, like the ones in Ealing, where most disgusting. Massive Starbucks fair game as long as no one gets hurt.

You know what.

Sometimes you are are a complete idiot.

GregT wrote:

I only loot when I'm sure no-one will get hurt.

No harm in that.

Following the fool I guess.

Swap 'loot' with 'RLJ' and all becomes clear.