AIBU to think rubber/plastic bullets are not appropriate...

[woollyideas]

...to use against student demonstrators and that they should not 'be available' for police to use at today's planned protests against higher education fee increases?

When have these bullets been used previously?

I too am disgusted. Call me Dave is a coward.

YA sooooooo NBU - it's disgraceful

Tiffany - AFAIK these have never been used in England before, although they were, of course, used in Northern Ireland.
This is from Channel 4's website:
Plastic bullets were approved for use in England and Wales in 2001, but have never been used on the British mainland.
They were used extensively in Northern Ireland against demonstrators after replacing rubber bullets in 1976.
Seventeen people have been killed by rubber or plastic bullets in Northern Ireland, including several children.
The last person to be killed was a 15 year old, Seamus Duffy, who was shot in Belfast in 1989.
The first person to be killed by rubber bullets was Frances Rowntree, aged 11, in Belfast in 1972.
They have also been used by the Israeli security forces against demonstrators in the West Bank.

YANBU at all it is disgusting, more so that they would not use them on the feral underclass rioting in August but they will consider using them on students who are just trying to stop higher education being priced out of reach of the majority

My daughter wanted to go on the protest with her politics teacher but yesterday he pulled out and has urged them not to go because of the plastic bullets.

How long have they been available for demonstrations on the mainland? Is this due to a new a newish regulation or is it simply a new attempt to intimidate demonstrators by mentioning a long-existing nominal power?

I know baton rounds were mentioned during the summer riots as being available. I was worried at the time that the govt would use the summer's criminal rioting as a means of further ratcheting up of the oppression of protest.

Calatalie - maybe they are worried about dog bombs?

Thanks.

Here I am .

Catalie, apparently this is the first time they've been made available.

Rights to protest were eroded under the previous Government, usually when there was another headline Act being passed, such as the smoking ban or the ban on hunting with hounds. I'm trying to google to find some further information.

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/07/plastic-bullets-available-student-protests

hahahaha I had forgotten the Currency Cat and it's rogue limb!

Thank you Dawn.

It is very disturbing. It is hard to see that they would be necessary. It looks like a way of shaping attitudes to protest. When you see extreme measures being used by the authorities against groups, it tends to reinforce an idea that those groups are dangerous.

Remember when detainees first arrived at Guantanamo Bay they were made to wear goggles and facemasks, and sometimes to be carried strapped to stretchers? At the time those images created an impression that these men were simply so dangerous that a total paralysis of their bodies was the only safe treatment of them. As if their spittle was acidic; as if they were Hannibal Lecter. I was kind of taken in by those images, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. But we know now how false the impression was, given that so many of these men were innocent, or guilty of smaller offences.

Many people seeing image of British students shot at would conclude that they were dangerous enough to be shot at.

YABU. After the apalling destruction that happened last time, the police are right to get permission in advance for all reasonable measures they need to keep the people of the city safe. FWIW the summer riots were carried out by small running gangs in multiple locations rather than mass demonstrations involving thousands in one place. Different control techniques are required by different situations

YANBU. They are not an appropriate 'control solution' to the right to protest.

YABU, they are not going to be used if they are not needed just because they are available.

Teh police are not going to use them against peaceful protesters when there is no need to. But they should have them available in case people turn up purely to cause trouble. There are twats in society that will do this, people who couldn't care less about tuition fees and the like, but do care about giving the police a hard time.

The protesters know the risk they are taking. The bullets will not be used against them if they are peaceful, and if others turn up to cause trouble, then the police will need to protect the protesters as well as the public, and themselves.

The police should not be getting the blame for needing to take these measures. It is not their fault that some people are scum who just want to attack them because they are in uniform.

The police are going to change their tactics are they, they've used violence against peaceful protesters before, so what's going to change today?

What happened to our right to a peaceful protest

Nothing, but the question should be "what happened to a peaceful protest".. :( because, the last student protests were more like riots than peaceful. Nothing much to do with students, and more to do with idiots who use protests as an excuse to create chaos. Rent-a-mobs who just like to cause trouble.

YANBU

These bullets are used not just for tactical reasons to give the police another tool to disperse people but to intimidate people from going out in the streets to begin with. I suppose there is some logic to using them in a low-grade conflict situation, where you are trying to contain ongoing violence, although the fact that they kill people and are particularly dangerous for children makes them far too aggressive for me.

But there is no moral logic for using them in the context of a peaceful democracy with the right to free assembly and free speech, because you are essentially trying to frighten people away from exercising their political rights.

To say that this is justified because there might be some property damage is just as bad as trying to justify the government spying on everyone to catch a few terrorists, and any line of thinking that promotes giving up essential rights in the name of security.

Now let me get back to my Guardian and latte...

In fairness to the police, though, surely they (and democracy itself) need some sort of defence against newspaper sellers walking away from them with hands in pockets?

yes, Cat and the wheels on that wheelchair can go pretty fast too!

The police need to be able to defend themselves against bricks and other weapons being thrown at them, by mobs of baying crowds.

YA Def NBU. Plastic bullets on school kids!!! What kind of police state do we live in? Water cannon, perhaps, but what are they going to do with the bullets - fire indiscriminately into a crowd? Or pick kids out sniper like? There is far too much chance of some perfectly peaceful child/ student demonstrator being maimed. The police should arrest the troublemakers/ those committing criminal offences, not shoot at crowds. I am appalled.