Nobody has lost their life in the riots to this point and we do have armed police to respond if necessary. Armed police are not typically useful for riots unless you live in a dictatorship where it's ok to shoot into crowds.
On the surface it might make sense but, as an American, there's an enormous downside. When all cops are armed then criminals get armed and the populous gets armed. That most definitely makes matters worse.
In my opinion the British Police do not need to be armed on a day to day basis - we do have highly trained units of Armed Police that can be used if circumstances require.
@Spotpot as a brit and seen this rioting on television i can understand your thinking but personally i would i would be reticent going down the road of the united states and arming the police
The instant jailing of those three less than sparkling examples of british masculinity seemed to have an effect on others who were liking the idea of causing some mayhem.
Perhaps the lesson is we need to invest in our justice system.
@Alter4Ego It was not "instant jailing" - someone may be arrested and held in custody but only a hearing in Court can instruct a prison sentence and that usually includes the remand.
However, I do agree we must invest more in the judicial system - and the Police. These, like all the public services generally, have suffered from funding cut after funding cut by governments of both parties for decades, apparently applied on pure cost rather than value criteria.
I wonder if there might be other factors beginning to calm things down.
One is the dawning realisation that not only can you be arrested for committing the crimes, but also for inciting them by antisocial-media posts. The latter shows you can be traced.
Another is the rioters realising they not only received no support from the neighbourhoods they attacked, but those communities united afterwards to clear up the mess and repair the damage, and to condemn the vandals, irrespective of personal backgrounds and beliefs.
......
Is prison the best sentence?
For anyone organising the mayhem, whether on site or trying to hide behind an Internet nick-name, probably it is. Unfortunately the prisons are full to capacity already with "ordinary" criminals, and it is expensive to keep people locked up.
Far better, I think, would be unlimited fines, legal costs and compensation totals starting at, say, £500, and loss of driving-licences and vehicles. Many rioters are not local to their victims' areas, and the damage included wrecking cars.
Confiscation of IT equipment shall be normal practice, but not just as part of the punishment. The equipment - 'phones and computers - will of course be analysed for evidence but also to help find accomplices. The Court, but not Police, may order the equipment be destroyed, or eventually returned. If returned, all malignant material and social-media accounts will be erased, and the relevant account managers informed of this action and the reason. It will be then the social-media company's responsibility to allow or forbid the individual's request for a new account.
The threat of losing the car and "social-media" access might themselves be enough to deter many from thinking they can drive to a town, smash up and loot a few shops, and ruining other property, then calling it a "protest".
While arrests and trials of people for on-line incitement shows they can be found even if a long way from the physical mayhem.
If the financial penalty is genuinely not possible, such as for a rioter living on benefits, then use huge community orders (unpaid work) including removing litter, fly-tipping and animal-fouling, and graffiti, and as far as practicable, helping repair own or other vandals' damage generally.
Though a rioter obeying "social"-media calls to drive somewhere to wreck the place, can't be that poor.
Just two point: the rioters caused a lot of pointless damage to property and I have no support or sympathy for them; but though some tried to set fire to a hotel holding asylum-seekers, none actually murdered anyone.
On the other hand, randomly killing people merely for being a rioters or because you think they might kill someone despite your having no evidence of such intent, is itself murder or at least manslaughter.
Watch your fingers. No one died in the riots, so you can stop spreading misinformation.
Arming cops is a misnomer because we do have police who are trained to shoot and kill if necessary - IF NECESSARY is the important part here because these police would have been (and still are) on standby.
It would've solved nothing in this instance. If they felt the need, the police had pepper spray and tasers on hand - but, from the footage I have seen neither were deployed.
The last thing you need to be doing in a place where large numbers are gathered is firing big bangy things, because then, people get scared and will stampede crushing others to death.
All that aside, does it really seem fair that you should die for hurling a brick through a window???
We have armed response teams of Police specially trained to deal with armed criminals only, most riots were originally supposed to be peaceful protests which turned ugly, give a thought for the peaceful protesters in the crowds they are the majority.
By no means all Americans think they have to own a gun, though some do seem to own sizeable arsenals, including weapons that have no conceivable civilian use.
Coming from you, this one quote of your's is probably the funniest statements I think I've ever heard you write! But I do understand your point. Truth is, you are correct in what you've written.
It is a very sensitive topic within US society and politics and one that only the Americans themselves can and have any right to deal with.
True, this is an American-grown issue of sorts, but it is noteworthy to learn that Canadian travel advisories have been in place for over a year now, warning Canadians to curtail travel to anywhere in the USA unless it is absolutely necessary to travel there, sighting the very strong probability of gun violence suddenly erupting anywhere in the USA without apparent reason or warning.
So, I'm not sure I'd agree with your quoted statement whereby you've stated that "only the Americans themselves can and have any right to deal with".
I think that since Canada is the USA second-largest trading partner globally, this issue with guns in the USA makes America's gun problem, also a problem that Canada has an equal right to deal with, considering that ALL guns that enter Canada are smuggled into Canada from the USA.
And now you say that only Americans themselves have any right to deal with? Don't think so ArishMell! What you have to understand is that Canada's current gun problem is supported by the USA, which now makes America's gun problem Canada's gun problem.
*I added the explanatory clause because a "public school" is a private (fee-paying) one in the UK.
In both Canada and the USA, the term "public school" means the opposite to what it means in Britain.
In North America, the public school system are mass education schools that are paid for by the taxpayer and are open to everyone to attend. In Canada, it is a legal requirement for parents to ensure that their children attend primary school for 8 years which is achieved through the public school system and further education beyond that becomes optional when a child reaches 16 years of age. At 16, a kid can drop out of high school if they choose, noting that the high school system also forms part of that 'public school' system which is paid for by the taxpayer.
The public school system therefore ensures that everyone can and will attend school to at least the age of 16, regardless of their family's financial status in life.
That is what the American woman you mentioned was referring to when she sighted school shootings that take place in American 'public schools', which are schools that are open to everyone.
She was not referring to 'private schools' (privately funded) which otherwise have paid security staff on the premises and which is wholly paid for by the parents of the students who attend those private schools and not paid for by the taxpayers.
