I hate to have an empty blog, so I'll share my personal highlights from my old page.

#1 'The police are the public, and the public are the police' - November 2011

An interesting sentiment. If the Police are ordinary people with a place in society and a role to protect the public, does the public have a duty to protect itself and its society and to police the community?

Psychologeek has read two very interesting and contrasting documents on the August London riots in the last couple of weeks. First Cliff Stott and Steve Reicher’s ‘Mad Mobs and Englishmen?’ and today the Executive Summary of The Riots, Communities and Victims Panel’s officially sanctioned report on the riots.

In some ways there in consensus between the two. Both agree that ‘Stop and Search’ policies need to be addressed in many areas in London, especially disadvantaged areas. Young people feel this process is happening too often, unfairly and with disrespectful treatment and bias. It was seen that this was part of growing tension between some communities in London and the police.

Similarly, both agree on the part played by the death of Mark Duggan on the 4th August 2011. Police protocol was seen to have broken down, with no commission of a Family Liaison Officer or sufficient information being given to family. What began as a peaceful protest sparked violence in the community.

Both agree that there are many reasons behind the riots; that there were many different groups of people taking part - some opportunists hoping for the latest gadget dictated by our consumerist society, some people engaging in anti-police rioting as a culmination of generations of mistrust and anger, and some joining in because it was suddenly okay to rebel against ‘the machine’.

However there is dispute. What was the part played by the police in the causing of the riots? ‘Mad Mobs and Englishmen’ argues that the tension between communities and police was a significant factor leading to the riots and police control methods must be carefully reviewed (and that water cannons and plastic bullets should not have even been considered). The report argues that many people rioted because it was seen that the police were not keeping control, could not be trusted and therefore rebellion was possible. It has been said that the panel found great feelings of abandonment in affected communities and are in favour of tougher policing.

Psychologeek would argue that both of the above may well be true with regards to attitudes to police, as different people interpreted events differently.

The police force cannot necessarily be expected to have a contingency plan of large enough scale to tackle such a huge eruption of disorder, and many members of the force showed incredible bravery to protect the public. Certainly, however, all literature on the riots calls into question policing in this country - where is the line between public and police, and can a happy medium be found so anti-police riots are not considered and the police can be trusted to protect us when disorder does occur?