The Prime Minister's decision to put water cannon 'on the table' may be popular - but they are ill-suited to dealing with looting, and have the potential to make things far worse
DAVID Cameron is under immense pressure to be seen to act tough in response the appalling violence and looting we have seen this last week. In his statement to MPs yesterdaay the prime minister set out his plan for restoring order, telling the House:
“…while they would not be appropriate now, we do have in place contingency plans for water cannon to be available at 24 hours notice.”
While most of the measures he set out are reasonable and proportionate given the severity of the circumstances, retaining the option to deploy water cannons against protestors must remain a cause for deep concern.
Last October 66 year-old Dietrich Wagner was badly injured during an environmental protest in Stugart when German police turned water cannons on protestors. As the Daily Mail reported:
“His eyelids were torn, the lenses of his eyes were damaged and part of his orbital bone – which encases the eye – was fractured.”
Although deployed in Northern Ireland for thirty years, it is recognised that water cannons still pose the risk of serious injury. The Defence Scientific Advisory Council’s Sub-Committee on the Medical Implications of Less Lethal Weapons recommended to the Northern Ireland Office that:
“The impact of a high-pressure water jet from a water cannon is a high momentum event and may therefore lead to the displacement of the body. In certain scenarios (such as people close to solid obstacles), the potential for an increased risk of injury exists. Future guidance and training should reflect the risks arising from the displacement of people and objects.”
On top of the need for “further guidance and training” before using water cannons we have the small problem that the Police Service of Northern Ireland (the only force that actually has any water cannons) only has six of them in any event. Exactly how half a dozen water cannons – requiring specialised training – could be deployed across the whole of Britain “within 24 hours” remains a moot point.
Despite sounding like a tough measure – and with 90% of voters said to approve of their use – the question of efficacy remains: Do water cannons work and will they add any value to police chiefs on the frontline?
One man who knows better than most is Sir Hugh Orde – former Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and currently head of the Association of Chief Police Officers. Writing in this morning’s Independent he said:
“In stark terms, without extremely violent and static crowds, they [water cannons] are useless.”
To avoid flatly contradicting ministers, he added that water cannons should retain “a vital place in our armoury”, but said their use had to be “proportionate and appropriate to the situation we face.”
Sir Hugh is not usually cast as a bleeding-heart liberal so his assessment should carry weight. Unlike the disturbances we have seen this week, Northern Ireland’s civil unrest usually focuses on territory; with stand-offs centred on parade routes, or in certain flashpoint communities. Protestors are usually confined and ‘static’.
The thugs running amok in our cities are peripatetic and operate in smaller units, organising and dispersing quickly in order to avoid detection.
Cumbersome and indiscriminate, water cannons are simply not fit-for-purpose for the task of disrupting their activities, making them neither “proportionate” nor “appropriate”.
Finally, the prospect of water cannons being used to quell civil unrest amounts to a creeping militarisastion of policing in England and needs proper debate and safeguarding.
The announcement that the home affairs select committee will begin an inquiry into the disturbances is welcome, but it should specifically examine the possible deployment of water cannons, including who decides if they can be used and in what particular circumstances.
When there was speculation last December that water cannons may be used on student protestors, home secretary Teresa May claimed their use in England may in fact be illegal.
The government’s understandable desire to restore public confidence should see ministers focus on deploying existing police resources effectively; not reach for gimmicks that will add little to the task of making our streets safer.
40 Responses to “Water cannons are “useless”, require specialised training and we only have six”
Ed's Talking Balls
Water cannon can cause displacement of the body and, in general, physical injury? Well gosh, I am surprised. Actually, no, of course I’m not. Batons, rubber bullets, guns and even riot shields have been used to defend society against criminals in the past. Civil society needs weapons too and, thankfully, it has them.
There is nothing wrong with a police force deploying force: the clue is in the name. The valid point of your argument is about efficacy. Given the nature of the scum on the run in London, it has to be questioned whether water cannon will be an effective tool for the police. We should be in no rush to use them, even in response to understandable public clamour for stronger policing techniques, but their use should be debated and reports should be consulted (or new ones commissioned).
More versatile weaponry, such as tasers, CS gas and rubber bullets, combined with a strong police presence making use snatch squads strikes me as the best way of tackling criminality of this nature in the future.
Francis Cox
Water cannons are “useless”, require specialised training and we only have six: http://bit.ly/ou28Be writes Kevin Meagher #riots
Anon E Mouse
Kevin Meagher – So in your warped version of reality you say: “His eyelids were torn, the lenses of his eyes were damaged and part of his orbital bone – which encases the eye – was fractured.”
So why is one individual white German who has a fractured eye socket for not doing what the police told him – he had a choice – more important than the three Asian men KILLED in Birmingham?
I suspect it’s because it’s because he’s white which to me stinks of backhanded racism…
David Gillon
Good post @leftfootfwd about watercannon http://bit.ly/poeTsJ They're a tool, just like a hammer is a tool, but not all problems are nails
DavidG
Note the MoD’s wording in the reference to the Defence Subcommittee : ‘Less Lethal Weapons’. That’s a lesson the military learnt through bitter example. The original wording was ‘non-lethal weapons’, but that was found to encourage reckless use, on the presumption ‘non-lethal’ meant they wouldn’t harm people, whereas it simply meant they were less likely to kill them than shooting them would be. The most spectacularly tragic lesson was probably the Israeli Defence Force’s bizarre idea that it could deal safely with Palestinian rioters during the 2000 Intifada by turning its snipers on them, but only issuing .22 sniper rifles as opposed to military bore. The fact that .22 is a preferred calibre in assassinations because however low impact it may be, it still lethal, seems to have passed them by. The results were predictable, with deaths, an urgent inquiry and the IDF Judge Advocate General ordering the weapon reclassified as lethal. Militaries around the world learnt these and other lessons and changed the way they talk about the weapons, because people considering their uses needed to remember that if they used them there was a real chance they would kill somebody, as the sad history of the 17 deaths in NI from baton rounds shows.
The calls this week for water cannon, baton rounds and even live ammunition are the voices of amateurs. They come from people with a genuine right to be concerned, even frightened, but they remain amateurs with no knowledge in the use and characteristics of weapons and the tactical circumstances where their use may be or may not be appropriate. And that’s why decisions on their use should be left in the hand of professionals who do understand those characteristics, and have been trained* to reflect on the fact that every time they authorize their use they put lives at risk.
* That training isn’t simply for the people who will use them directly, to use them safely, the police officers who will order their use at the Gold Command or lower tactical levels need to fully understand the risk factors involved and how they interact with crowd behaviour and the physical environment. It’s obvious from his article in the Independent that Sir Hugh Orde understands those restrictions and risks, but how many other senior officers on the mainland is that true of?