Olly Zanetti: Military policing

Back in August, there was rioting in London and a handful of other English cities. For many, ranging from Facebook clicktivists to a Tory MEP, the response was calls to bring in the army. The Sun even commissioned a poll via YouGov which apparently showed that 33 per cent of Brits would have supported live bullets being used on rioters. Turns out it wasn't just the rioters who had anger management issues – we're all a pretty bloodthirsty lot.

In the end, the riots petered out of their own accord after a couple of days and life returned to normal. Had they escalated, however, what would bringing in the army have achieved? Whether in the Middle East or our own doorsteps, bringing in the army doesn't seem like an effective way to solve problems. In fact, it creates a war where there isn't one. Plus, realpolitik (logistics over ideologies) needs to be considered. An unstable coalition government that felt forced to employ the army against its own people fifteen months into their leadership would've been unlikely to win much kudos once the riot-hysteria had died down, let alone win the next election.

But on reflection, perhaps it wouldn't have been such a bad idea to have had the army on the streets? No, you haven't reached a handbrake turn in my argument. I think that the sight of young men with camo gear and machine guns actually strolling about the local high street would, rather than giving peace of mind, have completely freaked out all those who had been calling for their presence. Compared to what's going on at the moment, this could only have been a good thing.

Because what's going on at the moment is not good at all. Apparently, additional police officers are being given training in the use of plastic bullets, and it's now emerged that the Met is considering spending £4 million on three water cannons to use in public order situations. Why in future would we need to bring in the army, when we're so vigorously militarising our police force?

Of course, these kinds of tools would only be used as a last resort, right? Sorry, but based on past experience I'm not convinced. That was the line we heard when tasers were brought in (tasers were never supposed to be used for day-to-day policing, they were meant to be employed in situations where officers might have used a gun). Since then, officers have tasered a man lying on the ground surrounded by four officers before punching him in the face; they've tasered a man in his 40s having an epileptic fit; and even accidentally tasered a 14-year-old girl in the head having decided to use a taser to arrest a nearby man of 20 when a “short struggle” failed to be enough to stop him.

Plus, I'm not convinced that there are adequate systems in place to deal with situations where the police misuse the weaponry they currently have – you need only look back at the Ian Tomlinson case to see that. Though they're branded as non-lethal weapons, both plastic bullets and tasers have killed. And those who think water cannon is the equivalent of turning a hose on fighting dogs would be advised to check out what happened to Dietrich Wagner, a German in his mid 50s who was sprayed in the face by a water cannon at close range. The images are horrific, although how much this troubles Wagner is questionable given he may never see again.

Back in 1829, the then Home Secretary Sir Robert Peel's Bill for Improving the Police in and near the Metropolis was passed. From Peel's philosophy came the nine principles of policing. The principles set out a police service which serves its community in a civilised fashion, not a quasi-military force. It's about time, as we move ever more quickly in the direction of the latter, to step back and ask ourselves if this is what we really want?

Subscribe to HUCK for six issues
Only £21 (UK) / £44 (EU) / £59 (Rest of the World).

Military policing (text) by Shelley Lee Jones is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.