Rioting

Jake331 wrote:But we are not talking about "dealing with punishment for a crime", we are talking about tactics used during a riot - cant you understand the difference? The police dont punish people for crimes.

I beg to differ oh wise one. The Police do punish people for crimes, such as Fixed Penalty Notices for Public Order Offences (if applicable), along with other offences. As mentioned Restorative Justice is another way that the Police can deal with an offence without CPS or the courts getting involved. Cautions, Reprimands, Final Warnings all are ways in which an offender can be punished by the police without the involvement of the courts. This is without mentioning the many traffic offences dealt with by way of ticket.

I'm very pro Police and even I know that they responded to slowly and with a tactic that was poor. Possibly due to media pressure and lack of numbers, rather than the best tactic to deal with the riots in the best way. You wouldnt have to ask the victims of the riot what they would have the police do. I think the answer is pretty bloody obvious. But I'm sure what they wouldnt want was the Police to stand around trying to contain the riot. It looks like we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Dave wrote:

Jake331 wrote:But we are not talking about "dealing with punishment for a crime", we are talking about tactics used during a riot - cant you understand the difference? The police dont punish people for crimes.

I beg to differ oh wise one. The Police do punish people for crimes, such as Fixed Penalty Notices for Public Order Offences (if applicable), along with other offences. As mentioned Restorative Justice is another way that the Police can deal with an offence without CPS or the courts getting involved. Cautions, Reprimands, Final Warnings all are ways in which an offender can be punished by the police without the involvement of the courts. This is without mentioning the many traffic offences dealt with by way of ticket.

A bit of a stretch with the fixed penalty notice idea but good effort:-), neatly avoiding the fact again that we were talking about riot tactics and not punishment for crimes - unless you are now saying that fixed penalty notices should have been used as a better way of controlling violence? The courts decide punishment and guilt as we all know.

Dave wrote:I'm very pro Police and even I know that they responded to slowly and with a tactic that was poor. Possibly due to media pressure and lack of numbers, rather than the best tactic to deal with the riots in the best way. You wouldnt have to ask the victims of the riot what they would have the police do. I think the answer is pretty bloody obvious. But I'm sure what they wouldnt want was the Police to stand around trying to contain the riot. It looks like we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Well unlike you I dont know the exact reasons for the tactics and I dont think the problems are obvious, but as mentioned previously, I agree that you could be right with that.

I wasn't there so I don't know about the tactics and what should of been done. It is obvious though from reports that we have too few police, which is a big big problem and probably leads to not have the correct tactics available. They possibly did the best they could with the resources available.

There was one copper who, when asked why he and his few mates weren't going to go charging into a mob many times they're size turned around and said 'We're police not Spartans.' I think that sums it up.

Ironically the money that we've been saving on keeping police numbers low has probably now been spent on fixing half the shops in London.

You can't blame the coppers on the street, they will act only according to the policies and powers that are available to them.

If the boss says don't enagage with the looters then they don't. I'm positive many of them would have been dead keen on getting stuck into them but were not allowed to.

Dave wrote:I'm very pro Police and even I know that they responded to slowly and with a tactic that was poor. Possibly due to media pressure and lack of numbers, rather than the best tactic to deal with the riots in the best way.

Interestingly, David Cameron seems to agree with you (is that good or bad?) but strangely while saying on the one hand that "far too few police" were a contributing factor, he also disregarded calls to reverse planned police funding cuts.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14485592

Of course Camerons lips were moving at the time of the statement so any truth involved is purely accidental, Cameron and May have both been accused of "spin" by appearing to suggest that it was politicians who turned around the "initially sluggish police response" to last week’s riots!

Despite many saying that crime will come down only if there are more police on the streets, Cameron prefers to cut Police funding and import American 'supercop' Bill Bratton to solve the problems using the same zero tolerance tactics he used against gang warfare in LA and NewYork. Incredibly, one of the tactics used by 'supercop' Bill Bratton in LA and New York to vastly reduce violent crime was to flood the streets with more Police officers

I agree with the zero tolerance approach. But, as already stated, it requires more Police Officers to do this as Zero Tolerance requires more work. Which in the Police means more paperwork and less time actually on the street patrolling. It will be very interesting in deed to see what Mr Bratton comes up with.

The police at the moment are very undermanned from what I understand. They don't have the numbers to work effectively and then when they do catch them they have to their best not to hurt them even though the other may well be doing their level best to hurt them. And then they have to back everything up in court to the hilt.

On top of that their jobs and pensions are at risk. It amazing they get anything done

I stole this from my Den's site...emphasis in bold is all mine.

Here's the view of Met former Deputy Assistant Commissioner David Gilbertson:


All week I’ve talked to old colleagues about why the Met got it so wrong. What they said shocked me to the core. Since the ill-starred operation to arrest Mark Duggan just over a week ago, former colleagues in the Met have been in regular contact.
I have spoken to officers of all ranks, from constables deployed on the front line, to senior officers who served alongside me at Scotland Yard a decade ago. Their collective account of recent events has shocked me to the core.
I spent 35 years of my professional life in the police service, and was fiercely proud of the forces I served in and the people who worked with and for me.

Weak: A once world-renowned organisation that represented the best in policing has been reduced to a pale imitation of what it once was
However, nothing prepared me for what my erstwhile colleagues had to say. In essence, a once world-renowned organisation that represented the best in policing, a vital element in the supporting structure of a healthy democratic society, has been reduced to a pale imitation of what it once was.
The reason we experienced almost a week of violence, arson, anarchy and murder in our cities stemmed directly from the failure of the Metropolitan Police to deal robustly with the initial outbreak of disorder in Tottenham on that first Saturday night. To be effective, police have to exercise authority.
A century of experience has shown that if they do so, that very authority allows a relatively small number of uniformed officers to control an unruly mob. They can prevent situations from flaring out of control and protect life and property.
But if the police fail to be proactive, the mob will sense weakness and go on the attack. On that first night, the Met abdicated their authority and their failure, which emphatically was not the fault of the junior officers deployed in harm’s way, set the tone for what followed.
Because the Met stood back, every feral lout and wannabe ‘gangsta’ from Enfield to Manchester watched and learned that it was open season for them to harvest designer clothing and flatscreen TVs with impunity.

Those who watched on television clearly took the view that there were easy pickings to be had, with a slim chance that they would be arrested. It is little wonder they decided to join in the ‘fun’.
Constables who were in Tottenham on that first night spoke of a lack of leadership, confused command and control, and the mind-numbing inefficiency of their bosses. ‘There was no strategy, no plan, no nothing,’ said one Territorial Support Group officer, a grizzled veteran of public-order operations going back two decades.
Without exception, the junior officers wanted to go forward and take on the thugs because they knew that the key to success was to take ground aggressively and hold it.
More than one said they had pointed out to the control team that a retail park in Tottenham was an obvious target for the gangs and that they should be deployed to confront the looters. Instead, they were told to remain at static locations as mute and ineffective witnesses to criminality.
Again and again they raised the issue of the almost total invisibility on the ground of any officer above the rank of inspector – a failure of leadership that the Met should find shaming, for with senior rank comes a responsibility to lead from the front that cannot be shirked.


Deputy Assistant Commissioner Steve Kavanagh has denied that orders were given to adopt a ‘softly-softly’ approach and I have no evidence to the contrary.
However, it is as plain as a pikestaff that assertive intervention and the prompt arrest of rioters formed no part of their strategy. As the week progressed, nothing seemed to change until London was flooded with 16,000 police officers from more than 30 provincial forces.
This totally unsustainable level of manpower – more than 15 per cent of the entire police strength for the whole of England and Wales – finally brought calm to the capital. But by then, the genie was out of the bottle, as the good people of Manchester, Birmingham, Nottingham and Liverpool were to discover.
The most telling point made to me came from a chief inspector who said: ‘If this has demonstrated anything, it’s that the Met is incapable of dealing with more than two problems at a time. If the ‘‘yoof’’ decide to kick off during the Olympics, we won’t be in any position to deal with them. Let’s hope someone is thinking about the implications of this mess for next year.’
So how did we end up in a situation where the most generously resourced police force in the land cannot police our capital city without reinforcement from the shires and cannot deal with a couple of hundred petty criminals without withdrawing behind static lines – sending the implied message that they were afraid to take them on?
As the image of Met officers backing away from hooded louts was flashed around the world, any reputation that the force had as protectors of the ordinary citizen disappeared.
As is so often the case, this is a collective failure of leadership.

An entire generation of senior officers has no operational experience of, nor organisational memory of, the last time we experienced large-scale street disorder in the Eighties. To the current people at the top, public-order policing is about pre-planned events, marches, meetings and demonstrations.
They seem to have a mindset that is focused upon how to deal with operations such as the G20 summit, or the student demonstrations of last year, with strategies and tactics such as ‘kettling’, which are of little use when dealing with rampaging mobs.
Containment operates on the basis of holding a largely law-abiding crowd in one location until they get bored and can be allowed to go home. Violent and unpredictable mobs with access to bricks, bottles and other weapons just cannot be dealt with in this way.

Community leaders have been warning for years of the alienation of large sections of the urban young and the cauldron that was bubbling. Likewise, frontline police officers, their heads spinning from a decade-long regime of diversity training, which has sought to turn policing into a subset of social work, knew what was really happening.

They knew that the rioters were the same louts that they stop and search on a daily basis, who whine that the police ‘disrespect’ them, and who, when arrested for the umpteenth time, are either cautioned or let off by the courts with a derisory penalty.
They knew that these people are not real members of any ‘community’, but are predators who lose no opportunity to prey on their neighbours. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the damage was done long before Mark Duggan died. Even the most partisan observer would admit that the Met is in a mess. In a sense, the loss of Sir Paul Stephenson and John Yates over the phone-hacking saga is a peripheral issue. Since the late Nineties, the force has been in headlong retreat from its core duty, so intent has it been on convincing the world of its non-racist and non-sexist credentials.

The events of last week must now convince the new commissioner, whoever he or she may be, that there is a real world of crime and disorder out there, not the New Jerusalem that many pseudo-liberal members of the Association of Chief Police Officers seem to want to build.

Start checking the names of senior police officers against an organisation called Common Purpose and you will see why the police force is in the state it is.This organisation has infested public life from top to bottom,spreading the doctrine of politcal correctness and diveristy.

http://drjn.co.uk/cp.htm

Nick Hughes wrote:I stole this from my Den's site...emphasis in bold is all mine.

Here's the view of Met former Deputy Assistant Commissioner David Gilbertson:


All week I’ve talked to old colleagues about why the Met got it so wrong. What they said shocked me to the core. Since the ill-starred operation to arrest Mark Duggan just over a week ago, former colleagues in the Met have been in regular contact.
I have spoken to officers of all ranks, from constables deployed on the front line, to senior officers who served alongside me at Scotland Yard a decade ago. Their collective account of recent events has shocked me to the core.
I spent 35 years of my professional life in the police service, and was fiercely proud of the forces I served in and the people who worked with and for me.

Weak: A once world-renowned organisation that represented the best in policing has been reduced to a pale imitation of what it once was
However, nothing prepared me for what my erstwhile colleagues had to say. In essence, a once world-renowned organisation that represented the best in policing, a vital element in the supporting structure of a healthy democratic society, has been reduced to a pale imitation of what it once was.
The reason we experienced almost a week of violence, arson, anarchy and murder in our cities stemmed directly from the failure of the Metropolitan Police to deal robustly with the initial outbreak of disorder in Tottenham on that first Saturday night. To be effective, police have to exercise authority.
A century of experience has shown that if they do so, that very authority allows a relatively small number of uniformed officers to control an unruly mob. They can prevent situations from flaring out of control and protect life and property.
But if the police fail to be proactive, the mob will sense weakness and go on the attack. On that first night, the Met abdicated their authority and their failure, which emphatically was not the fault of the junior officers deployed in harm’s way, set the tone for what followed.
Because the Met stood back, every feral lout and wannabe ‘gangsta’ from Enfield to Manchester watched and learned that it was open season for them to harvest designer clothing and flatscreen TVs with impunity.

Those who watched on television clearly took the view that there were easy pickings to be had, with a slim chance that they would be arrested. It is little wonder they decided to join in the ‘fun’.
Constables who were in Tottenham on that first night spoke of a lack of leadership, confused command and control, and the mind-numbing inefficiency of their bosses. ‘There was no strategy, no plan, no nothing,’ said one Territorial Support Group officer, a grizzled veteran of public-order operations going back two decades.
Without exception, the junior officers wanted to go forward and take on the thugs because they knew that the key to success was to take ground aggressively and hold it.
More than one said they had pointed out to the control team that a retail park in Tottenham was an obvious target for the gangs and that they should be deployed to confront the looters. Instead, they were told to remain at static locations as mute and ineffective witnesses to criminality.
Again and again they raised the issue of the almost total invisibility on the ground of any officer above the rank of inspector – a failure of leadership that the Met should find shaming, for with senior rank comes a responsibility to lead from the front that cannot be shirked.


Deputy Assistant Commissioner Steve Kavanagh has denied that orders were given to adopt a ‘softly-softly’ approach and I have no evidence to the contrary.
However, it is as plain as a pikestaff that assertive intervention and the prompt arrest of rioters formed no part of their strategy. As the week progressed, nothing seemed to change until London was flooded with 16,000 police officers from more than 30 provincial forces.
This totally unsustainable level of manpower – more than 15 per cent of the entire police strength for the whole of England and Wales – finally brought calm to the capital. But by then, the genie was out of the bottle, as the good people of Manchester, Birmingham, Nottingham and Liverpool were to discover.
The most telling point made to me came from a chief inspector who said: ‘If this has demonstrated anything, it’s that the Met is incapable of dealing with more than two problems at a time. If the ‘‘yoof’’ decide to kick off during the Olympics, we won’t be in any position to deal with them. Let’s hope someone is thinking about the implications of this mess for next year.’
So how did we end up in a situation where the most generously resourced police force in the land cannot police our capital city without reinforcement from the shires and cannot deal with a couple of hundred petty criminals without withdrawing behind static lines – sending the implied message that they were afraid to take them on?
As the image of Met officers backing away from hooded louts was flashed around the world, any reputation that the force had as protectors of the ordinary citizen disappeared.
As is so often the case, this is a collective failure of leadership.

An entire generation of senior officers has no operational experience of, nor organisational memory of, the last time we experienced large-scale street disorder in the Eighties. To the current people at the top, public-order policing is about pre-planned events, marches, meetings and demonstrations.
They seem to have a mindset that is focused upon how to deal with operations such as the G20 summit, or the student demonstrations of last year, with strategies and tactics such as ‘kettling’, which are of little use when dealing with rampaging mobs.
Containment operates on the basis of holding a largely law-abiding crowd in one location until they get bored and can be allowed to go home. Violent and unpredictable mobs with access to bricks, bottles and other weapons just cannot be dealt with in this way.

Community leaders have been warning for years of the alienation of large sections of the urban young and the cauldron that was bubbling. Likewise, frontline police officers, their heads spinning from a decade-long regime of diversity training, which has sought to turn policing into a subset of social work, knew what was really happening.

They knew that the rioters were the same louts that they stop and search on a daily basis, who whine that the police ‘disrespect’ them, and who, when arrested for the umpteenth time, are either cautioned or let off by the courts with a derisory penalty.
They knew that these people are not real members of any ‘community’, but are predators who lose no opportunity to prey on their neighbours. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the damage was done long before Mark Duggan died. Even the most partisan observer would admit that the Met is in a mess. In a sense, the loss of Sir Paul Stephenson and John Yates over the phone-hacking saga is a peripheral issue. Since the late Nineties, the force has been in headlong retreat from its core duty, so intent has it been on convincing the world of its non-racist and non-sexist credentials.

The events of last week must now convince the new commissioner, whoever he or she may be, that there is a real world of crime and disorder out there, not the New Jerusalem that many pseudo-liberal members of the Association of Chief Police Officers seem to want to build.

This is interesting as in the past David Gilbertson has been quite outspoken about the "sweeping power" that he claims is being abused on a daily basis in all of the 43 police forces, the rudeness of the Police and the treatment of the public as the enemy "It is clear that a significant minority of officers see the public as their enemy and as a potential hazard to be dealt with aggressively" and the "drift of this country to what has been described as 'Stasi state'".

Most interesting are his previous comments regarding Police being over aggressive -
"He claimed the leadership failings had filtered down to officers who then considered any contact with the public as a potential threat. This meant they were overly aggressive - as seen during the G20 protests - instead of adopting the 'defensive' approach once central to British policing."

I wonder how many here would agree with his previous articles?

Although at face value his latest article may seem hypocritical considering his previous condemnation of the Police as being too aggressive, that may not be the case as there is obviously a difference between a protest/everyday policing and a full blown riot. Interesting point of view from him though, worth considering. Although I mostly agree with his previous comments, this latest article obviously goes against my opinions on the riot tactics - however Im not going to dismiss his point of view as he seems to have talked some sense in the past

THE RIOTERS PRAYER -

Our father, who art in prison, my mum knows not his name, thy Riots come, read it in the s*n, in Birmingham, as it is in London, give us this day our Welfare bread & forgive us our looting, as we're happy to loot those who defend stuff against us, lead us not into employment but deliver us free housing, for thine is the teles, the Burberry & the Barcardi, forever and ever...Innit !!!!

Gilbertson certainly makes some interesting and compelling points.

It is worth remembering that he has been making a living for the past few years almost exclusively commenting on what the current MET regime is doing wrong.

That's not to say that he isn't correct in his comments. Just that he seems to also have an ongoing agenda and a financial committment to making contentious comment about MET failures.

Re: what Chris said, and indeed what Gilbertson is quoted to have said. I've found it curious what Gilbertson said.

Being one time heavily involved with gangs and having been caught up in riots in N.I. i do understand folks making critical assertions toward the cops. For sure, folks on here are qualified in various ways, i accept that. To me, looking at it from the criminal perspective, i'd like to give an opinion. You'll see, i really feel the police done a pretty good job.

I've just scanned over the topic, but will mention some things from memory.

First is Gilbertson. Chris, you can maybe put my right here. In serious national trouble, is it not the ACPO, namely Hugh Orde, who would be responsbile for policing strategy? If he was, as we know, he is no stranger to civilian unrest, and done a great job back home in N.I. I find it hard that the Met had no operational knowledge/experience available to them that would help.

Second is the police standing back watching looting. The police have a duty of care to themselves as well as the public. Providing there is no risk to the public with the looting of those shops, a supremly out-numbered civilian group should be welcome to take the goods. CCTV will most likely get them their just deserts anyhow. Tactical withdrawal isn't semantics, . And the police change of tactics did work, under extreme conditions for them.

Riot situations are a game of cat & mouse. I've witnessed police use rubber bullets, witnessed the accidental killing of civilians with them, and saw the police move up town centres clearing thousands of people. However, this is only effective if the mob respect or fear the authority of the police. In the group mentality of the mob it takes more draconian policing to penetrate this mindset. Water cannons are useless, plastic bullets are much more effective. It is the fear factor as much as anything with the latter.

Third is the concept of others in other places joining in the riots cause they see the police 'cant' do anything. As far as criminals go, they factor into police response time if they wish, even in normal times. the ones who may have been influenced would be the not-normally criminal types perhaps.

Fourth, sending in the army. It's a very good point. Although to have the army on the streets is not great for citizens morale, less so for the police's or the publics perception of law & order in general.

Having said that, as can be saw in the LA riots in 1992, we can see that the LAPD where also over-whelmed. What changed things was bringinin in federal & state LE, as well as the national guard, and the marines. Similar to London, once the city was swamped with more police, things died down. For a criminal, provided they are not in the active throes of rioting, the visual deterrent of the police complicating the criminals operations does in fact work.

there has to be though some merit in that the operational tactics of the police in the early stages didn't sufficiently deal with the situation. I cant see any 'blame' in that per se. Though it falls back to my point about Hugh Orde, and others who already have operational experience in such events. Perhaps there was some form on internal politics via a dispute on how to proceed, i dunno. It was a new phenomena in ways though in England. Here in nottingham, on the night the police stations were attacked by fire, if i remember right, Nottingham police made the same amount of arrests that London did. Granted though the London violence was more extreme.

One last point i feel is probably the most important. Decent folks feeling the need, and deciding to take up the role as protecting their areas. A criminal will naturally 'raise the bar' mor easily & readily than a law abiding citizen. After all, it's what they do day in day out. Think how much they can raise the bar if they know the police are already over-whelmed. although ordinary people know a riot is occuring, to me most fail to understand how much law & order breask down, quickly at those times. The rules we so comfortably life by no longer apply. And sadly as can be saw, more damamge was done once folks decided to become protectors, than was done to all the property & goods in England in total. As human life is worth much mroe than theese other things. And decent folks were sadly out of their depth with the sheer bastard anarchy. Some paid with their lives.

It is important as far as possible, that the police be permitted to do their job. Yes it is usually a reactionary one i know, but, imo unless someone was entering your home (where you should be in a riot) then leave the rioters, and indeed the Justice system to do their own thing. It really isn't worth it.

warmest wishes
Wayne

CPP wrote

One last point i feel is probably the most important. Decent folks feeling the need, and deciding to take up the role as protecting their areas. A criminal will naturally 'raise the bar' mor easily & readily than a law abiding citizen. After all, it's what they do day in day out. Think how much they can raise the bar if they know the police are already over-whelmed. although ordinary people know a riot is occuring, to me most fail to understand how much law & order breask down, quickly at those times. The rules we so comfortably life by no longer apply. And sadly as can be saw, more damamge was done once folks decided to become protectors, than was done to all the property & goods in England in total. As human life is worth much mroe than theese other things. And decent folks were sadly out of their depth with the sheer bastard anarchy. Some paid with their lives.

This would be true if the riots had been carried out by hardened criminals but as far as I am aware such people don't steal bottles of water,doughnuts or winegums.This would indicate a lot of people had got swept along in the frenzy and grabbed what they could.Personally I feel communities can defend themselves against such people provided they come together as one unit.That proved to be the case as Sikhs in Southall,football hooligans in Enfield and Muslims in Birmingham stopped rioters from entering their area.Sadly three Muslims did lose their lives but that was down to a few psychotic individuals who had no respect for human life.It dosen't mean every rioter is psychotic.

tonyk wrote: CPP wrote

One last point i feel is probably the most important. Decent folks feeling the need, and deciding to take up the role as protecting their areas. A criminal will naturally 'raise the bar' mor easily & readily than a law abiding citizen. After all, it's what they do day in day out. Think how much they can raise the bar if they know the police are already over-whelmed. although ordinary people know a riot is occuring, to me most fail to understand how much law & order breask down, quickly at those times. The rules we so comfortably life by no longer apply. And sadly as can be saw, more damamge was done once folks decided to become protectors, than was done to all the property & goods in England in total. As human life is worth much mroe than theese other things. And decent folks were sadly out of their depth with the sheer bastard anarchy. Some paid with their lives.

This would be true if the riots had been carried out by hardened criminals but as far as I am aware such people don't steal bottles of water,doughnuts or winegums.This would indicate a lot of people had got swept along in the frenzy and grabbed what they could.

I'd mentioned the criminals who do things day in day out, tony. Not the opportunistic doughnut brigade, . The riots were carried out by hardened criminals mate. not only them of course, but they were there.

It's important also we're aware that yes there were opporunistic folks, but this goes beyond a sporadic criminal act. It's about people who cross the line and break the law, and how far they cross. Which will vary greatly. There's much ground, and much personal danger, between the ones who steal the doughnuts and ones who murdered. This is the mistake decent folk made. I'll lead onto this now.

tonyk wrote:
Personally I feel communities can defend themselves against such people provided they come together as one unit.That proved to be the case as Sikhs in Southall,football hooligans in Enfield and Muslims in Birmingham stopped rioters from entering their area.Sadly three Muslims did lose their lives but that was down to a few psychotic individuals who had no respect for human life.

For sure, communities have the choice to defend themselves, but certain realisations should be in place. Once law & order has completely broke down. This was the mistake. Numbers mean absolutely nothing if one is getting knocked down. Or getting shot at from a car with a 120lbs crossbow. Or maybe having petrol bombs thrown at the crowd, and jumping back into the car. strength in numbers is an illusion. Unless the community has made preparations to meet the current risk, and has the will to impliment it. I'm in no way suggesting being a vigilantee. There is really no point in putting your life in danger to protect property. If it's to protect entry into a residential area, then people standing around can be placing themselves in danger. At strategic points the areas should have become a no-go zone, with cars across roads for example. eassily drive away the next day, or when police come. if folks come and smash into the car then it's clear what they're wanting, so the game plan changes. It is illegal to blockade a road, and perhaps this goes to the mindset of it all. Decent folks may find it hard to impliment more appropriate measures, whereas the criminals will of course have little or no rules.


This is just one idea of the top of my head. Hindsight for sure Tony, i feel pretty uncomfortable even writing this as i wasn't there in real time.

tonyk wrote:
It dosen't mean every rioter is psychotic.

Of course not. It does mean that every rioter should be assumed to be psychotic though. In our personal safety we cant' assume any psycholgical profile of anyone in the mob.

Warmest wishes
Wayne