A classic response from that great thinker of our time, Diane Abbott:
The introduction of water cannon to the streets of London would be a public order disaster. If politicians were perturbed by the violence they saw on the streets in urban areas in 2011, it would be as nothing compared to the disorder that agreeing to the request by the Metropolitan police for water cannon could provoke.
Ummm, yeah. OK, Diane. That makes sense…
Water cannon would be a signal to the wider community that the state was “weaponising” its policing of disorder.
I’m assuming by ‘wider community’ she doesn’t mean people whose arse is the size of hers?
It is alarming that the proponents of water cannon claim proudly that they are less dangerous than metal batons, firing baton rounds, or horses charging into crowds. What gives them the idea that in 2014 these are remotely acceptable methods of controlling public disorder?
Why don’t you ask some of those people whose homes and businesses burned to the ground in 2011, Diane? I think they might have been quite happy to have seen a charging line of police horses…
She does, however, have a point here:
The police already have all the powers they need to control urban disorder. The problems that arose in 2011 with rioting spreading, apparently unchecked, had more to do with poor police tactics than a lack of weaponry.
Yes indeed, Diane. And what do you think caused those ‘poor police tactics’, hmm?
Why do you think the Met looked at the violence and disorder and thought ‘We’d better play this softly softly’ rather than getting on with their job of stopping it?