Using water cannon in London would be disastrous | Diane Abbott
 If the Met gets its way, it will be a signal to the commmunity that the state is 'weaponising' its policing of disorder 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. Those Tory politicians claiming the cannon are the answer to social disorder obviously know nothing about the communities in which they would attempt to use them. Water cannon would be a signal to the wider community that the state was "weaponising" its policing of disorder. Some would be reassured. But the East End of London and other similar inner city areas have had an oppositional attitude to the police that goes back centuries. Nothing would be more likely to get otherwise law-abiding people on to the streets in protest than the use of water canon. Water cannons do not de-escalate violence, they ramp up social violence. Anna Feigenbaum writes: "Seen as a declaration by the state that dissent must be crushed, the deployment of luminous, militarised water cannon vehicles often results in escalating force from both police and 'crowds'. It has been seen to increase the use of home-made firebombs and defensive attacks on police, turning protest into asymmetrical urban warfare – and giving weapons buyers and manufacturers the need to produce more and more equipment." 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? Nor is it true that water cannon are safe, that people will just get wet, cold and go home. As recently as 2010 a German protester suffered severe eye injuries after being hosed. It is possible that most of the time this weapon will not hurt anyone. But it would only take one incident of serious injury to trigger further disorder. And in the world of the camera phone and Twitter, pictures of injuries would be halfway around the world before the police could refill their cannon with water. The practical problem with this as a policing option is that they require the wide, straight roads of a capital like Paris to be effective. The Met seems to think it can use them in areas such as Hackney or Tottenham, which have Victorian street patterns not boulevards. A cannon would be lumbering and unwieldy. And in the time it takes to refill it – 10-20 minutes – the determined (if now damp) rioter could cause even more damage. It is these practical problems that have caused five out of six big city police forces to reject the idea. One police commissioner described them as being as much use as a chocolate tea pot. And most police forces can think of better ways to spend the £600,000-£1m each cannon would cost. 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. The use of water cannon would be largely symbolic. But the symbol would be a truly horrific one for anyone who believes in the long-term importance of policing by consent. theguardian.com © 2014 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds |
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario