It was recently reported in the press (yesterday or the day before I think) that the government is considering allowing police to subdue rioters with live ammunition. Not plastic bullets you understand. Proper bullets.
Ho hum. Not sure how I feel about this.
Not granted the government has made it clear that this will only be allowed in situations where the rioters are about to say burn down somebodys house or buisness - under which circumstances I can hardly see the owners objecting - and I know there is a great deal of difference between a protest and a riot though one can quickly become the other. But am I the only one who thinks this not only smacks of overly excessive realiation but also of slight hypocricy?
It's the social networking scenario all over again. Prior to the riots, we merrily decried every dicatatorial government we could find for wanting to limit its people access to social networking sites, claming its breaching their freedom of expression. Then post riots we find Cameron in discussion with web providers about how we could do the same thing. Now we have this. Prior to the riots and for some time afterwords, we've been sending angry memos to Bashar al-Assad the President of Syria, ranging in content from
"Dear Mr Assad
Please stop shooting your citizens.
Thanks
Mr Cameron"
Ho hum. Not sure how I feel about this.
Not granted the government has made it clear that this will only be allowed in situations where the rioters are about to say burn down somebodys house or buisness - under which circumstances I can hardly see the owners objecting - and I know there is a great deal of difference between a protest and a riot though one can quickly become the other. But am I the only one who thinks this not only smacks of overly excessive realiation but also of slight hypocricy?
It's the social networking scenario all over again. Prior to the riots, we merrily decried every dicatatorial government we could find for wanting to limit its people access to social networking sites, claming its breaching their freedom of expression. Then post riots we find Cameron in discussion with web providers about how we could do the same thing. Now we have this. Prior to the riots and for some time afterwords, we've been sending angry memos to Bashar al-Assad the President of Syria, ranging in content from
"Dear Mr Assad
Please stop shooting your citizens.
Thanks
Mr Cameron"
to
"Dear Mr Assad
If you don't stop shooting your citizens we will INVADE YOU.
Yours
Mr Cameron."
Now however Cameron is considering shooting British citizens, all be it in a non-lethal manner. Am I the only one who smells the hypocracy here?
Now I'm not suggesting for a moment we simply allow rioters to do as they please, of course I'm not. But surely considering we have access to water cannon, plastic bullets and bean bag rounds - though those of course have there own problems - they should surely be our first recourse in any situation.
To my mind the only time it would be acceptable to take pot shots at British citizens is
A: They start storming up Whitehall preparing to remove the Queen
B: They storm up Whitehall preparing to remove the Queen and replace her with Cameron/Cheryl Cole/Simon Cowell.
Under those circumstances, I'll be quite happy to pick them off. Just hand me a gun. But under any other circumstances.
No. Just no.
My first thought was that in a protest turned to rioting, it seems perfectly fine. But then your comments on what you have available reminded me you guys don't have anything like the Second Amendment. In America riots have the potential to be much more dangerous because of the ready access to firearms, but it also makes defense much easier as well.
ReplyDeletePrecisly.
ReplyDeleteIn the States there is always the chance the Rioters will start shooting people thus shooting them seems logical if only in the name of defending civilians.
But here, it comes down to shooting unarmed people. Which is bad