Plastic bullets

bonkey

While I have only been getting reduced news on the state of affairs in Ireland and England (Bradford & NI) on account of living in Switzerland, I did notice one thing which struck me as unusual.....

During last week, I remember hearing about how the Bradford police apparently had riot police on standby, armed with rubber bullet "launchers". The article I saw/heard had something to the effect that rubber bullets have *never* been used on mainland Britain. Not only that, but this is apparently the closest they have ever been to using them, and the authorities were delighted that they didnt have to resort to such brutal measures.

Now, forgive me if I'm wrong, but rubber bullets have become almost the crowd control device "du jour" in Northern Ireland. I recognise that nothing in mainland Britain rarely (if ever) compares to the worst of the troubles in the North, but rubber bullets have been used in the North for far less violent affairs than those which are occurring in Bradford.

Is this an indication of how bad things in the North really are, or is it an indication of how different the policing policy in the North is?

Irrespective of who is to blame in the North, I find it very hypocritical and somewhat perverse that the British actually take some form of pride over the fact that rubber bullets have never been used on the mainland.

jc

GreenHell

Plastic bullets, I don't think there used anywhere else in Europe so its hard to justify their use in any situation especially since they can and have killed people.

Victor

Without making light of things - they just seeem to use real bullets. Does 'The Bill' and similar shows now have SO19 in every episode?

http://www.boards.ie/bulletin/Forum15/HTML/000545.html

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2001/0713/breaking8.htm

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2001/0716/breaking62.htm

---

Kill, kill, kill the laser mice.

bugler

Hypocrisy would seem to be present bonkey, as far as I know the fact that the RUC is, to a certain extent a distinct separate, branch of the UK police forces has something to do with it I believe.

The problem with Plastic/rubber bullets is that they usually cause serious injury when used incorrectly.They are supposed to be fired at the lower part of the body, ideally striking the ground in front of the person before hitting them.

Victor, that incident bares no relevance here.No meaningful correlation can be drawn between the shooting of a lone man with an imitation firearm and the control/dispertion of large crowds with political or social connotations.

[This message has been edited by bugler (edited 17-07-2001).]

bonkey

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by bugler:
Hypocrisy would seem to be present bonkey, as far as I know the fact that the RUC is, to a certain extent a distinct separate, branch of the UK police forces has something to do with it I believe.</font>

Yes - their being distinct and seperate has led to differing policies to the "mainland".

What I found so sick, though, was the sense of pride I felt from teh interview I saw with the mayor (or someone important - police chief perhaps) of Bradford in announcing that they did not have to use rubber bullets, and the news making a deal about it.

If I was a Unionist in Northern Ireland, I would be absolutely disgusted that such a distinction was being made. Its almost as if the North is seen to be a seperate entity where whatever goes on is ignorable other than as part of "da troublez".

Ah - maybe I'm just picky...

jc

Xterminator

Just a comment.

The use of rubber bullets is supposed to be a last resort.

The violence in NI is so serious at times, and the use of firearms, and petrol bombs so common by thugs (paramilitarys) on both sides that the use of rubber bullets has to bee seen in that context.
I.E. the lives of the police were in mortal danger.
Also the history of violence and the no. of officers killed has an effect on that too


Now contrast this to the violence on the street in mainland u.k.
No organised armed force behind it. Mininum no. of firearms. The police force have not had many collegues killed in this way.
My understanding is that the riots concentrated more on destroying property.
Now you can argue that one life is more precious that any private property which can be rebuilt.

I do not find it very hard to understand the retecience in using the baton rounds in the latter situation.

I wonder if you are looking at the 2 situations as impartially as a non Isish person might?

[This message has been edited by Xterminator (edited 18-07-2001).]

bonkey

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Xterminator:
Just a comment.

The use of rubber bullets is supposed to be a last resort. </font>

Key words here are "supposed to be". It is not used in the North for that reason, it is used for riot control.

You may argue that riots escalate and police get injured, but it is impossible to say how many riots have escalated only *after* police intervention.

The British forces in Northern Ireland have lost all credibility with riot control ever since Bloody Sunday. They have yet to get it back.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
I wonder if you are looking at the 2 situations as impartially as a non Isish person might? </font>

Well, lets see. My point is not that they should be used in Bradford, but rather the hyprocicy of being PROUD that they have never been used on the mainland, while using them to such a large extent in the North.

As to the validity of their use in the north...here's an article in the Belfast Observer from June of this year :

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
POLICE in Northern Ireland were accused today of keeping inadequate records on the firing of plastic bullets.

Important documents were missing in several files about the use of baton rounds, according to research conducted for the Human Rights Commission.

The report was published to coincide with the official introduction today of a new type of plastic bullet for riot control.

Professor Brice Dickson, the commission's chief commissioner, said: "There are serious questions over whether this new bullet is safer than its predecessor.

"Regardless of that, it is vital that where such a weapon is used, its deployment be accurately and meticulously recorded so that any questions concerning the legitimacy of its use can be meaningfully explored after the event."

Research was carried out last October on 20 files about the firing of 122 plastic bullets by RUC officers between 1997 and 2000.

The documents suggested a total of 48 people had been hit but no disciplinary or court actions ensued.

It found:
files often took months to complete;
files were poorly maintained;
the principal form used by sub-divisional commanders were inadequate;
witness statements were often presented in an overly standardised manner;
72 of the 189 witness statements were not properly signed by the officer making them;
not enough detail about the level of violence at the time bullets were fired;
in many the chain of authority was not made clear;
several files were closed when they should not have been by any meaningful standard of accountability.
The report recommended designing new forms for police chiefs to fill in requiring more information about circumstances of plastic bullet shootings.
It also called for more detail in witness statements and for files to be completed more quickly.
</font>

Of course, you want a non-irish viewpoint. A quick web search revealed this as the first non-irish viewpoint I could find on the subject. I do not claim for a moment that it is representative of the common view, but it is interesting :

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Police methods in Northern Ireland are also markedly different from those in Britain; some have argued that Northern Ireland is used as a proving ground for techniques which may not be acceptable in Britain.[60] This suggests that it is acceptable for a few Irish (usually Catholics) to be maimed or killed before methods are used on "real" British citizens. Certainly the sectarian nature of the violence in Northern Ireland calls for different methods, but even in analogous cases the state is more brutal in Northern Ireland. Riot control, for example, should not be significantly different in Ireland and Britain; a riot is a riot. However, in Northern Ireland the police have, since 1973, used plastic bullets frequently.[61] Plastic bullets, also known as baton rounds, were not introduced in Britain until 1985; they were considered too dangerous.[62]

Consistent with their usual practice, the RUC and other authorities have ignored evidence that the plastic bullet is lethal. The security forces have used baton rounds, on the assumption that they are not lethal, to justify force as a first resort, rather than last. This escalates situations of conflict and has probably lead to more deaths and injuries than would strict open-fire orders and live bullets. In the face of allegations of police using unnecessary force, and very strong prima facie cases for murder by police, there have been few prosecutions. In those cases that the Attorney General does take to trial, he seems to be motivated by the likelihood of an acquittal which will make the security forces look good.[63] Moreover, there are numerous allegations that the police have not followed the proper regulations concerning the use of baton rounds; trials have shown they have fired at protesters' chests and heads from close range.
</font>

You see my point? The British are being criticised left, right and centre, by Irish and foreigner, for their apparent lack of restraint using baton rounds in the north, but at the same time, they will brag about how proud they can be that it has never been necessary on the mainland.

In one situiation, they are being ultra-cautious, and very sensible (this is good). They have had people demolishing walls to get bricks to throw at the police station, and no action was taken - they allowed it to disperse.

In the otherlocale , there are accusations of excessive willingness to use them, incorrect usage, lack of accountabliity, and so on. Its not just that they use them in the North, its how they use them. You cannot condone relaxation of the rules simply because "its dangerous up there". If that was the case, then the rules themselves should be changed to allow that.

Of course, if the rule were changed to allow the use of plastic bullets in the way in which it is alleged they are used, then the British would have every civil rights movement coming down on them faster than 9.81m/sec^2.

In otherwords, not only are there different policies in effect, but apparently different standards too - and I find it incredible hypocritical to applaud one when the other is where the real problem is.


jc


[This message has been edited by bonkey (edited 18-07-2001).]

Xterminator

hmm

I don't accept your quotes as being impartial, unbiased fact. I do not accept someone elses opinion , dressed up with selective facts as being a coherent argument.
My point still remains, that there is nothing wrong ith being proud that the police on mainland UK are proud of showing restraint.
You also said they did nothing, which is not true.

And to compare this situation with the 1 in the north, is mischevious. The situation is different up there, where a large minority don;t accept the police as being for there own good, and the majority only accept the police when it suits them.

I made the point of the fact that the rioters in the north are often backed by a paramilitary gang, armed and very dangerous.

Given the clear differences in the situations that exist, it does not strike me as a form of hipocrasy.
And I do believe it is a sign of just how bad it can be in the north, that such a different situation exists.

Finally i dont care what your grievance is, it behoves nobody nor their cause to behave in a riotious manner, in fact it only gives their critics more ammunition, and the moral higher ground.

I am not getting into a debate on the policing of the north. (not on this thread anyway!)

[This message has been edited by Xterminator (edited 18-07-2001).]

bonkey

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Xterminator:
I do not accept someone elses opinion , dressed up with selective facts as being a coherent argument.
</font>

A newspaper article,commenting on the findings of research carried out for the Human Rights Comission is "selective facts" which you choose to discount?

You dont think that this raises the slightest bit of a question about the validity of the use of baton rounds in the North, which might possibly weaken your argument somehow?

No?

Every argument always be someone elses opinion, dressed up with selective facts - which you have stated you do not accept...

Which makes discussing things with you a bit of a waste of time really.


jc


[This message has been edited by bonkey (edited 18-07-2001).]

Xterminator

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by bonkey:
A newspaper article,commenting on the findings of research carried out for the Human Rights Comission is "selective facts" which you choose to discount?

You dont think that this raises the slightest bit of a question about the validity of the use of baton rounds in the North, which might possibly weaken your argument somehow?

B]</font>

I have to point out, your quotes were without source reference. They could have been from anyone. Thats why i didn't accept them. I didn't read about any UN or amnesty international report etc. on that issue. (I'm so busy lately I dont read a 10th of what I used to!).

Where did you get them from?

bonkey

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Xterminator:
I have to point out, your quotes were without source reference. Where did you get them from?</font>

In the original post, I pointed out that the first article was from an article in the Belfast Observer, from June. Which of course is incorrect, because I should have said the Telegraph, not the Observer.

It was attributed, you chose to ignore it.

I attributed the second source to tyhe results of a quick web search, and admitted it was non-representative. I have no problem with it being sidelined.

My point still stands. There is evidence (persistent for quite some time, now legitimised by the Human Rights COmission) which says that the use of baton rounds in the North has been somewhat less stringent than it should be....by the police's own rules.

Given this, and given that the UK is *one* nation, I find it hypocritical of anyone to be proud that plastic bullets have not been used in one part of the country, while serious questions have been raised about the mis-use of them in another part.

jc

Xterminator

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by bonkey:
In the original post, I pointed out that the first article was from an article in the Belfast Observer, from June. Which of course is incorrect, because I should have said the Telegraph, not the Observer.

It was attributed, you chose to ignore it.

jc</font>

I have read the thread again, and i still don't see your source reference.
I didnt (and dont see it), so i did not choose to ignore it.

Still it is a small matter.

I disagree with your opinion because of the more volatile situation in the north, the proliferance of arms, and the history of police being killed, all makes the situation very different than that in mainland Britan.

Given the different conditions, I can understand why a cheif in a mainland force could have expressed the opinion he did, and take it a face value.

bonkey

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Xterminator:
I have read the thread again, and i still don't see your source reference.
I didnt (and dont see it), so i did not choose to ignore it.
</font>

Look at the first article I included. Look at the line directly above it. It says what the article is, and where it came from.

In case you cant find it, here it is again :

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
As to the validity of their use in the north...here's an article in the Belfast Observer from June of this year
</font>

Now, as I mentioned afterwards, that should have said Telegraph, not Observer.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I disagree with your opinion because of the more volatile situation in the north, the proliferance of arms, and the history of police being killed, all makes the situation very different than that in mainland Britan.</font>

I have never doubted nor even questioned that the situations are very different. I do, however, object to using the difference in situation as an excuse for the irresponsible use of authority and weaponry, if (as I believe is very likely) there is truth to the allegations of misuse of baton rounds.

The British Government make the rules for the UK. There can be no excuse for their own police force flouting these rules because "the situation is different".

If, on the other hand, you feel that the police force in the North can be excused for flouting the rules because of the adverse conditions they face, where do you draw the line? Can they ignore the rules completely? Why are there rules at all then? Surely, the police's job is to uphold the law. They, above all others, have to be seen to obey the law, not flout it.

In terms of the hyprocacy...I find it distasteful that the British will happily ignore the troubles (and possible abuse of authority) in the North, and focus solely on the mainland to have something to be proud of.

A nation is just that...a nation. It would be like the Irish government deciding to boast about how wonderful a certain thing was, except in one county, which they will ignore because it lessens their pride. They are discriminating against that one county, and being selective in their inclusion in order to appear better.

The simple fact is that baton rounds are used in the United Kingdom. They are used by the British. There is evidence to suggest that they are being used irresponsibly by the British. The British media are advertising how wonderful it is that they have never had to resort to using them in one part of the country. I find this selectivity for self-glorification somewhat distasteful. Your mileage may vary.

jc



[This message has been edited by bonkey (edited 19-07-2001).]

Shinji

The rioters in Bradford didn't have paramilitary troublemakers among their ranks.

Besides which, if some wee bástard is throwing petrol bombs at me, be he a Northern Irish wee bástard or a Bradford wee bástard or whatever the hell, I think I'm entitled to fire baton rounds back at him. I mean, call me reactionary or whatever, but throwing a petrol bomb at someone is *attempted murder*, and I think a self-defensive reaction is perfectly in order.

It's like this argument over here at the moment about the guy with the sword in Liverpool who got shot dead - I'm sorry, I don't see the problem. Nutter with big fúck off sword starts acting threateningly in public area, eventually RUNS at a police officer waving aforementioned sword, and gets shot in the head. There's a shock eh, running at an armed man waving a sword and getting shot as a result...

The job of a police officer is getting increasingly dangerous and downright unpleasant; not only can they no longer expect the respect and co-operation of the community at large, they are confronted with far more violent and aggressive behaviour than ever before. The criminals have escalated their violence towards the police massively; what are the cops meant to use, harsh language?

OConnor

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Shinji:
The rioters in Bradford didn't have paramilitary troublemakers among their ranks.

Besides which, if some wee bástard is throwing petrol bombs at me, be he a Northern Irish wee bástard or a Bradford wee bástard or whatever the hell, I think I'm entitled to fire baton rounds back at him</font>

what if i said Civil Rights demonstrators were marching and the police opened fire on them with plastic bullets?
a few dissendents threw some petrol bombs in retaliation? Now im making it sound like the marchers acted in self defence arnt I?

im preparing to face the wrath of Shinji now...
someone used the word "Police Force" and "RUC" in the same context up there.
Crime rates are quite low in Northern Ireland, so why do they patrol around the streets with sub machine guns and body armor?
what other Police force in the world does that?
PS: im not a bigot
(why if i had a big machine gun id shoot em all ahem sorry)

Shinji

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Crime rates are quite low in Northern Ireland, so why do they patrol around the streets with sub machine guns and body armor?</font>

I take it you mean crime rates OTHER than twenty-five years of sectarian paramilitary violence resulting in thousands of deaths through shootings and bombings?

bonkey

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Shinji:
if some wee bástard is throwing petrol bombs at me, be he a Northern Irish wee bástard or a Bradford wee bástard or whatever the hell, I think I'm entitled to fire baton rounds back at him. </font>

Id agree with that 100 percent.

However, one of the major issues in the Human Comission findings was that in some (several?) cases, there is insufficient detail about the level of violence at the time shooting was authorised and used.

This is a key point - something which has been rumoured on before, and which was often trotted out by Sinn Fein and the like - that plastic bullets were being used too readily, and actually contributing the the escalation of violence.

Now, I dont know the truth of it....but despite the increasing dangers and lack of respect, the police *have* to play by the rules more stringently than anyone else.

In Liverpool, I'd back the cop all the way. Some ****ant runs at me waving a chunk of sharpened metal, and Id drop him if I had the weaponry.

My main point, which I didnt make in the first post, because I wanted to get some feedback first and see if anyone else introduced the idea, is that there have been allegations of irresponsible use of baton rounds in the North. These rounds have allegedly been used in situations which were (at the time of firing) less violent then the worst of the riots in Bradford.

Now, I accept the point that Xterminator was making, that we should take these things in context of the surroundings, but even so, I find there to be a disturbing difference in policy which personally I feel is unjustifiable.

jc

Shinji

To be honest, given that the rioting in Bradford continued unchecked for several nights and the police did fúck all about it, I'd argue that it's more likely that plastic bullets are used insufficently in Bradford rather than being overused in the North.

It seems that the police chief in Bradford was more scared of being the first policeman to deploy baton rounds in England than he was of the millions of pounds of damage caused by the rioters or the injuries sustained by his own officers.

OConnor

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Shinji:
I take it you mean crime rates OTHER than twenty-five years of sectarian paramilitary violence resulting in thousands of deaths through shootings and bombings?</font>

thats a rhetorical question innit?
im not going to answer that
(see i know some of these sneaky underhand english techniques as well.. well that one anyway)