Boris and the water cannon

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

10 years 8 months

Posts: 2,748

By: snafu - 11th June 2014 at 13:10

Boris’s police deputy to buy water cannon without Home Secretary’s approval

Boris Johnson’s deputy mayor for policing has authorised the purchase of three water cannon despite not having permission from Home Secretary Theresa May to deploy them.

Earlier this year Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe asked the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) to buy three cannon from the German federal police.

Scotland Yard insists there is no evidence of a specific threat to the capital but says the vehicles would plug a major gap in its ability to tackle large-scale public disorder.

Senior Met officers, including the Commissioner, have repeatedly said the vehicles would be “rarely used and rarely seen”.

A majority of London Assembly members say the Met has failed to establish a genuine need for the purchase and have opposed introducing water cannon into the capital’s policing.

Some, including Conservative members, have also expressed concern over contradictory answers on whether Scotland Yard or the Mayor would have the final say over their use.

Although oversight of the Met is devolved to City Hall, the deployment and use of water cannon on the UK mainland requires the Home Secretary’s permission.

The Mayor wrote to Mrs May in March seeking the go-ahead to purchase the cannon but his deputy mayor for policing, Stephen Greenhalgh, has now authorised the purchase of the cannon ahead of the Home Secretary’s final decision.

In a document published on the City Hall website, Mr Greenhalgh confirms “it was the original intention to wait for the Home Secretary to taken a decision to authorise the use of water cannon”.

Mrs May has asked for a report into the medical implications of the cannons’ use.

The cost of the three vehicles is £91,305 plus £126,900 for “transportation and refitting the vehicles to make them fit for purpose for London”.

The City Hall document warns the time being taken by the Home Office risks another European force buying the vehicles and forcing London to make a more expensive purchase if the go-ahead is ultimately given.

The document justifies buying the cannon without Mrs May’s consent on the grounds that the rule requiring Home Office approval “relates to the approval for use, rather than purchase”.

It continues: “The impact of a negative decision from the Home Secretary can be mitigated by maintaining the option to resell the cannon. There is a proven demand for second hand water cannon and other European Forces have expressed an interest in the devices that we are seeking to buy.

“We would seek to take advantage of this to mitigate any losses in the event that no authorisation is granted.

“Even were it not possible to resell any devices the maximum loss per cannon would be £72,735. This compares extremely favourably to the addition cost of £797,000 should the German devices be sold elsewhere leaving only an option of procuring new devices.”

In a statement the Met said: “We welcome the deputy mayor for policing and crime’s decision to purchase three water cannon from Germany. We stress that these will not be deployed until or unless the home secretary authorises the use of water cannon in England and Wales.”

Commenting on the deputy mayor’s decision, London Assembly member Jenny Jones said: “Pre-empting the Home Secretary’s decision is rash and smacks of arrogance on the Mayor’s part, not to mention a possible waste of taxpayers’ money at a time when the Met is making huge cuts.

“It’s also ignoring the views of the vast majority of Londoners who don’t want water cannon. If the Mayor had actually taken the time to look his own consultation he would have seen 98% of people opposed the plans for water cannon.”

Baroness Jones added: “We’ve been told by police chiefs that water cannon would have been useless in the riots and yet still the Mayor seems fixated on giving the police this weapon.

“It’s an indiscriminate military weapon that risks injuring and distressing innocent bystanders and making things worse rather than containing situations. Water cannon have no place on the streets of London and I hope the Home Secretary sees sense.”

Liberal Democrat AM Caroline Pidgeon commented: “There is no evidence to defend the provision of water cannon in London. After three hearings at City Hall the case against the use of water cannon was compelling.

“London Assembly Members, across the political parties have expressed their total opposition to one of the worst aspects of European policing being adopted in London. The Mayor’s refusal to listen or engage with evidence presented to him is shameful.

Ms Pidgeon said Mr Johnson’s earlier admission that he hadn’t read a London Assembly report criticising the purchase “sums up exactly why he is basing a decision on myth not fact.”

She added: “The adoption of water cannon, far from controlling public disorder problems, might actually provoke and heighten protests. We also know that water cannon runs the risk of innocent people being harmed for simply taking part in a protest.

“The Mayor’s obsession with changing the culture of British policing beggars belief. The Mayor looks set to destroy our proud tradition of policing by consent for good.”

Joanne McCartney AM, Labour’s Police and Crime spokesperson on the Assembly, said: “I’m deeply concerned that the Mayor is rushing the purchase of water cannon without a proper public debate.

“There is still confusion over the reasons behind the purchase of water cannon and exactly how the process of their deployment will work.

“To rush this through is typical of Boris’ slapdash approach to issues of crucial importance to Londoners. It is telling that 20 out of 25 Assembly Members – from all parties – voted against their purchase earlier this year.”

http://www.mayorwatch.co.uk/boris-police-deputy-to-buy-water-cannon-without-home-secretarys-approval/

So 98% of the London public doesn't want them, yet Boris and co go ahead anyway, despite their use not being sanctioned (yet) and their usefulness in something like the riots of 2011 being doubted. Hardly policing by consent either...
And I'd love to hear what excuses they'll come up with when an innocent member of the public is blasted by a jet of water and severely injured, or worse. I mean, its not like the Met doesn't have a history in that area!

Original post

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 8,983

Send private message

By: TonyT - 11th June 2014 at 13:52 - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

One hopes they learn from NI where the simple addition of a dye meant they could use the cannon to disperse the crowd and then use the dye to identify individuals later on after the riot or whatever had finished and arrest them far from the offence and without causing more disturbance... ;)

Member for

11 years 6 months

Posts: 11,141

Send private message

By: charliehunt - 11th June 2014 at 14:01 - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Yes that thought occurred to me.

Member for

18 years 11 months

Posts: 1,084

Send private message

By: Paul F - 11th June 2014 at 14:59 - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Well, if HMG doesn't sanction their use in the Big Smoke, then they can always be painted red or yellow and re-deployed as firetrucks at the new Boris Island International Airport..... :)

Member for

15 years 10 months

Posts: 686

Send private message

By: silver fox - 11th June 2014 at 20:22 - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

As long as they are used on Boris first, go right ahead.

Member for

13 years

Posts: 6,535

Send private message

By: John Green - 11th June 2014 at 21:17 - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Perhaps we could alter them to fire 'heavy water' so it really hurts. That would stop the looters and fire raisers in their tracks.

Member for

10 years 8 months

Posts: 2,748

By: snafu - 12th June 2014 at 18:02 - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

And what about the innocents?

Or are there no innocents - like Boris and his quip about having done nothing to deserve being fired at by a water cannon - when the police draw a line?

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 9,739

Send private message

By: Creaking Door - 13th June 2014 at 08:43 - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

So 98% of the London public doesn't want them...

That'll be the same 98% that criticised the Police for not taking stronger action to stop the rioting then! :rolleyes:

Member for

10 years 8 months

Posts: 2,748

By: snafu - 13th June 2014 at 08:53 - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

In that respect you can blame the bias of the questions asked, but water cannon won't help quell a riot in Britain. The only way would be to kettle protesters and by that point they are subdued and essentially detained - firing water cannon at them then would be similar to a beating in the cells, which the police are also happy to provide...

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 9,739

Send private message

By: Creaking Door - 13th June 2014 at 09:09 - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Years ago I thought that the thing that was needed during a 'riot' was a vehicle that could drive up to a burning car, extinguish the fire, and then pick the car up and drive away with it; all while the operators were safe from the missiles that the 'peaceful protesters' would no doubt hurl at them.

Nobody wants water-cannon on British streets, nobody wants rioting on British streets either; why is it that the public fear that every 'weapon' of justice will be immediately misused and, at the same time, claim that those responsible for crime are never treated harshly enough by the justice system?

The Police are damned either way.

Member for

10 years 8 months

Posts: 2,748

By: snafu - 13th June 2014 at 10:46 - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

why is it that the public fear that every 'weapon' of justice will be immediately misused

Experience. Good, old fashioned experience. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HECMVdl-9SQ&feature=kp

The Police are damned either way.

Oh no. The police are now the tools of the state, oppressing whenever the state needs protest silenced. They have damned themselves.

The officer who assists a little old lady across the road and helps find lost kids is hugely different from that monster dressed all in black, baton out, coming at you with the one honest intention of beating you mercilessly to the ground in his unseen eyes.
The well regarded copper of yesteryear has become the uncaring officer of 2014; they care little about the law but demand your (but, for the most part and with good reason, get little) respect (I witnessed two cycle cops, cruising through a crowded pedestrian precinct, chatting away until they told a woman wi8th kids to 'mind your own f"$%#@*g business' as they cycled past yet another no cycling sign). Some have appointed themselves judge, jury and (occasional) executioner - Ian Tomlinson, Jean Charles de Menezes, Stephen Waldorf, James Ashley, Harry Stanley, Mohammed Abdul Kahar, Azelle Rodney, Blair Peach, Richard O'Brien, Anthony Grainger, Olaseni Lewis, etc. The public are regarded as something to control, a lower caste.

But that is not a problem to you, is it...

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 9,739

Send private message

By: Creaking Door - 13th June 2014 at 18:41 - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Some [police officers] have appointed themselves judge, jury and (occasional) executioner - Ian Tomlinson, Jean Charles de Menezes, Stephen Waldorf, James Ashley, Harry Stanley, Mohammed Abdul Kahar, Azelle Rodney, Blair Peach, Richard O'Brien, Anthony Grainger, Olaseni Lewis, etc.

The public are regarded as something to control, a lower caste...


The 'public' control themselves; criminals ARE a lower caste.....and DO need to be controlled!

At least you used the word 'some' in you diatribe rather that smear the entire Police Force with the same brush!

You'll have to forgive me but I only recognise three of the names that you listed...

Well, I went through your list of eleven people who 'died at the hands of the Police' and there is certainly cause for concern in most of these cases, BUT...

...you did have to go back thirty-five years to 1979 to get just these eleven cases (there will be more obviously). And then there were cases of accidental shootings and mistaken identity, and as for the rest, well, as a sample of the 'public', they weren't all exactly as-white-as-the-driven-snow were they?

Yes, the Police could do better. No, no Police Force can never make any mistakes (especially given the circumstances of armed stand-off with potentially armed criminals or terrorists). So where do you suggest the Police go from here?

Better training? More money. Stricter recruitment policy? More money. No firearms? More dead Police, criminals and public. (So more money.) Same money? Fewer Police and more crime?

So, what is the solution?

Anybody can sit at a keyboard and say the Police killed people they shouldn't have; anybody can say they wouldn't have made those mistakes.....anybody.

But while Police Officers are human beings, just like anybody, they'll make mistakes.

Member for

10 years 8 months

Posts: 2,748

By: snafu - 14th June 2014 at 10:49 - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

The 'public' control themselves; criminals ARE a lower caste.....and DO need to be controlled!

Are they? So now we need to define the word 'criminal'.

Do you 'borrow' pens from work, do you speed in your car or occasionally answer your mobile phone when driving? Just a few examples...

At least you used the word 'some' in you diatribe rather that smear the entire Police Force with the same brush!

Well, it must be statistically impossible for the whole police force to be corrupt...isn't it?

You'll have to forgive me but I only recognise three of the names that you listed...

Hmm.

Well, I went through your list of eleven people who 'died at the hands of the Police' and there is certainly cause for concern in most of these cases, BUT...

I did not say 'died at the hands of the police'. I know that some of those did not die, but not for want of somebody trying.

...you did have to go back thirty-five years to 1979 to get just these eleven cases (there will be more obviously). And then there were cases of accidental shootings and mistaken identity, and as for the rest, well, as a sample of the 'public', they weren't all exactly as-white-as-the-driven-snow were they?

There are more cases; I grew bored.
It is the accidental and mistaken cases which, in some ways, are the worst - it could just as easily been you or some other innocent member of the public, not even someone who (in your opinion) deserved it. And those who you believe to be scum - were they armed? Did they actually pose a threat at the moment of death? Or were they executed without trial, because a trained marksman was apparently so scared that instead of doing his job properly he shot an unarmed naked man, or a man with a mobile phone, or a man with a freshly restored table leg in a plastic bag...

Don't get me started on that other 'wonder' weapon of the police service, the taser - a blind man with his white stick mistaken for a rampaging Samurai sword waving loony, anyone? How about tasing an epileptic on the floor in the middle of having a fit?

Yes, the Police could do better. No, no Police Force can never make any mistakes (especially given the circumstances of armed stand-off with potentially armed criminals or terrorists). So where do you suggest the Police go from here?

I guess you are going to tell me - it is your question, after all...

Better training? More money. Stricter recruitment policy? More money. No firearms? More dead Police, criminals and public. (So more money.) Same money? Fewer Police and more crime?

Why not properly declare a police state and destroy the illusion?
Look, I have had a police gun pointed at me by lazy coppers who went in like Rambo because they couldn't be bothered to make enquiries: not proper, but any (see a previous thread).
You know that thing about give a man a fish...? Well, give a man a weapon of some sort and the macho gene kicks in: much better training would work wonders, but then you might be reguilding the already guilded lily.
But whatever solution is used there needs to be absolutely no accidental deaths of innocent or unarmed people - they are you and I and (to mash up an applicable quote from Boris) we have done nothing (no amount of pilfered Biro's, even) to deserve a death sentence.

Anybody can sit at a keyboard and say the Police killed people they shouldn't have; anybody can say they wouldn't have made those mistakes.....anybody.

Indeed, unless they've been accidentally shot dead by a subsequently very apologetic police officer.

But while Police Officers are human beings, just like anybody, they'll make mistakes.

And some of those mistakes are really dumb, the kinds of mistakes that wouldn't be tolerated in - say - the army. And they get away with it!