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”
DavidG
Mr Mouse – which part of using the right tool for the job is so difficult to understand? Will you similarly challenge Sir Hugh Orde, with whose statement I was agreeing? A water cannon could indeed have been turned on the flames, just as you can use a hammer to bang in a screw, but none of that makes it the right tool for the job. A water cannon is a tool intended for use against a massed crowd, not fast moving rioters in small groups. There are circumstances in which I might well advocate use of a water cannon if that is what the police say is needed (and where I am certain that that need is tactical rather than politically convenient), just as I’ve supported their right to use lethal force in other situations, but that is not what the police are saying would have been useful.
“your idea just means that as a society we are totally incapable of resisting these mindless thugs and criminals.”
As demonstrated in the following nights there are a range of options that could be used, ranging from simply more men and women on the ground up through the use of the Jankel Guardian armoured vehicles. Some of that needed the additional preparation of knowing trouble was going to happen, but a more interventionist approach in the first couple of nights (where that was compatible with the safety of officers) might have paid some benefit; the rioters were mobile, but moving slowly enough they were still able to commit mayhem, forcing them to spend even more time moving would have complicated the tactical situation, but limited their opportunity for systematic destruction and looting, which might in turn have reduced the spread from violent elements to opportunist elements drawn by the opportunity to loot. But these are questions that can only be answered by professionals with the knowledge and skills to analyze the situation and see what could or should have been done and measure it against what was actually done. We owe the police the opportunity to do this in proper after action analyses and the operational freedom to implement the lessons as they see fit. Being on the left does not mean being soft on crime, nor tying one hand behind the police force’s back, nor does being effective on stopping crime simply mean being authoritarian, it does however require you to think about the whole issue and deny you the luxury of arguing solely on the basis of knee-jerk emotions and not the facts.
What exactly is your issue with people, including one of the most senior police officers in the land and the one with most practical experience of dealing with serious rioting, asking that reactions be thought through and that the police be allowed to do their job in the most effective way possible?
Ed's Talking Balls
‘addressing the underlying issues around worklessness, gang culture and a lack of social conscience is essential’
Very true. The problem is that there is no easy answer to this and I suspect people across the political spectrum will have very different ideas about how to deal with these issues, which have been blighting this country for years.
Honestly, I don’t see how anyone can still stand up for this bien pensant stuff, i.e. give them plenty of carrot, don’t mention the “R” word (responsibility), resist educational reform at all costs (sink schools have served society so well, after all…) and let’s not have any of that prehistoric stuff about families.
The status quo is wrong. In truth, that’s one of the bigget understatements I’ve ever written. We need drastic change and, although it’ll stick in the craw of the left in this country, I believe we need to look at unfashionable/old-fashioned concepts (such as personal responsibility and strong law and order policies) afresh.
Matthew Pearson
some details on water cannons and 'water-tight' reasons why they would not have been effective in #ukriots http://t.co/qYkV4nq
Kevin
Ed – agree. There’s that other ‘R’ word too – respectability. That’s been a major casualty over the past thirty years. Not bringing shame on your family and feeling part of a real community helped bind people together and avert the nihilistic behaviour we’ve seen this week. A toxic combination of Thatcherism and moral relativism saw it off…
Ed's Talking Balls
Yes, moral relativism has infected society to a horrifying degree. Some of the quotes from the rioters and the incitements published by the likes of Jody McIntyre should repulse all right-thinking people.
This “R” word theme is developing nicely. I agree that respectability is conspicuous by its absence here, but I was at least heartened to see some parents turning their brats over to the police: let’s have none of this “grassing” nonsense.
I resent the abuse of the word “communities” in commentaries in the aftermath. Geography alone does not a community make. Where are the ties that bind? These people don’t have respect for those around them. They smashed up their own streets.
I would add another “R” word actually, which is respect. This is a term even more abused than the aforementioned “communities”. The scum talk about it incessantly, saying that police don’t respect them. Well, given recent events it’s hardly a surprise. Respect must be earned, just as rights exist alongside responsibilities. If you watched Jamie Oliver’s Dream School on Channel 4 a while back, you will know precisely what I mean. The pupils genuinely thought they were on the same level as the teachers. No. Accepting authority is an important aspect of maturity.