Killer arrested

An alternative to more armed police, would be to disarm the criminals.

That could be easier said than done.

How DO criminals get hold of hand grenades and automatic weapons?

cyfrifia wrote:An alternative to more armed police, would be to disarm the criminals.

We're still waiting for them to crack the drugs problem... you know, the one they have repeatedly assured us they are on top of.

Someone said earlier that there aren't any 'no-go' areas in Britain. Oh yes there are, in almost every town and city in the UK there are places where drugs are traded virtually openly. How come? Simple; it's because the police don't 'go' there or do on such rare occasions that their presence rarely amounts to more than a slight inconvenience or a brief lull in trade.

That was me said there are no 'no go' areas for the police in the UK, but, there are 'difficult' areas, where risk of death or injury to officers is higher.

However, what happens in practice is, as you say Hinch, rather different. There are obvious areas where a police presence is needed, but, does not appear.

If 'difficult' areas were designated as such, and patrolled by armed officers, we might see more 'shootouts' and lose more officers, but, the alternative seems to be the 'cop-out' that we are talking about, the effective abandoning of areas to drug gangs and to violent crime.

johnb wrote:
How DO criminals get hold of hand grenades and automatic weapons?

Smuggled or re-activated:

Disarmed grenades can be bought off the Internet and experts say converting them back to 'live' status is extremely easy. Nothing new there, apart from that the two recent attacks took place on Mainland Britain. Reactivated grenades were a common feature of The Troubles in Northern Ireland, in use by both republican and protestant terror groups.

Police believe that the grenades used in these crimes in Manchester are former military weapons that arrived in a shipment from the former Yugoslavia through the drugs (and arms) smuggling network of 'the Balkans Route.'

@cyfrifria: The Drugs problem will not be cracked by any police shoot-outs ! What happened to Intelligence policing ... I suspect that work has been offered up in sacrifice to some EU human rights laws, and what happened to the UK's Special Forces-SAS? If you seriously want armed conflict in 'difficult areas,' I think you'd need the expertise of the military.

As the 'now steamimg' Hinch posted earlier, the interests of justice also need to be balanced across events. In the absence of a criminal prosecution, the discredited police-thug who attacked Ian Tomlinson is allowed to keep his full police pension ! Victim blame has been a police-led Mantra in some cases and needs accounting for: Hillsborough is an example and those still seeking justice don't detract from other tragedies

Mojo Hill wrote: @cyfrifria: The Drugs problem will not be cracked by any police shoot-outs ! What happened to Intelligence policing ... I suspect that work has been offered up in sacrifice to some EU human rights laws, and what happened to the UK's Special Forces-SAS? If you seriously want armed conflict in 'difficult areas,' I think you'd need the expertise of the military.

If the police did seriously attempt to stop drug trade by actually going to where it is happening, and arresting people, there probably would be some 'shoot-outs'. The use of intelligence seems a safer way to go about it, and does have it's successes. What goes on behind the scenes in such operations though, is mostly unknown to the public, and unaccountable to anyone except politicians This is where things can, and do, go awry. Due to political pressure, in some cases, drug trade and associated crime has been allowed to continue on a massive scale without intervention, political guidance being to observe only, so to trace international routes and players. This fails, international players are replaced as quickly as local dealers, the policy of non-intervention has emboldened criminals. Much as in the cases of grooming and people traffiking, non-intervention causes a lot of casualties and rots society. At some point, the police do have to intervene with weapons, it's choosing when and where to do so that is the 'intelligent' bit. As for the effect of the EU, I don't know what that is, it's usually expensive and problematic.

Nobody seriously wants armed conflict in 'difficult' areas of towns and cities, but then, some of that already does go on.

In my opinion the only way to defeat the criminal drug gangs that are responsible for much of the gun crime, is by undermining them. The way to undermine them in my opinion is to legalise, license and tax all drugs. The so called war on drugs has failed everywhere it's been tried, and now a different approach is required.

I find myself agreeing with UTD. Good gracious me - whatever next.

Charly wrote:
Radio interviews this morning said he (Cregan) had been seen on the estate and had even been drinking in the pubs!
People were too scared to inform police.
This i'm not surprised about... a recent event near me ended with the police putting flyers through the doors saying 'an arrest has been made due to information from neighbours' which left everyone being blamed for 'grassing' not a good move by them as I know they wont get any more information after that!

Great PR exercise - NOT!

Re U.T.D.s idea. Undermining somehow, yes, but decriminalising drugs might not be practical.

I agree with the sentiment, but the reality of decriminalising drugs now could be a disaster. The new range of cheap synthetic drugs used primarily in the USA are devastating, highly addictive and destructive.

At least one generation of teenagers could be ruined. It is astonishing what deadly drugs young people in situations of little economic hope will use, as seen in Russia etc.

Also, wouldn't it turn the biggest and most ruthless existing criminal organisations into legal retailers, who would then expand their activities in other illegal trades such as prostitution and people traffiking?

Under my idea the state would regulate and sell/provide the drugs. Some drugs MIGHT be given by prescription to addicts as part of a programme of weaning them off dependency. Cannabis could be prescribed for painkilling and other medical uses. Under the licensing any known current dealers or associates, would be barred from having a license to sell. And I am talking about ALL drugs here, so any new drugs come under the regulations as they become known about. It would need careful planning and introduction. My guess is that very few politicians have the guts to introduce such a law and therefore are to blame for the current situation.

All I know is the current situation leads to other crimes including shootings, and these dealers getting very wealthy at the expense of some people dying sometimes due to bad gear.

I would also legalise prostitution introducing safe houses for the men and women working in the industry with proper health and safety including full health screening. There is a lot of criminality around it at the moment including violence, drugs etc.

I wish to make it clear that I don't use illegal drugs and have never used prostitutes. I wish to undermine the criminal gangs involved with both industries, and to make it safer for the wider community as well as drug users themselves and prostitutes etc. Also it would see a massive reduction of crime associated with both activities.

Atlas wrote:I find myself agreeing with UTD. Good gracious me - whatever next.

Our great minds can sometimes agree-not so often but sometimes.

Your idea for legalising drugs and prostitution is worth thinking about U.T.D., but, at the moment, our society is informally accepting more and more guns, drugs and prostitution as a normal part of the fabric of life, are we really comfortable with going in that direction?

We have to accept the current policies of making these activities illegal are not working. People will always resort to drug taking and prostitution, and both activities have happened probably for all the existence of human beings. Legalisation, licensing of such activities does not mean support of such activities, though on a personal level the only problem I have with these activities is the crime and violence surrounding these activities.

Your point of view on this is rather more 'hands off and 'let it be' than mine, U.T.D.

It's true drugs, weapons and prostitution have been around for ever probably, but there is something rather different about modern times. With the characteristics of life today, everything moves faster, further, is more intense and commercial.

You may have no personal problem with these activities, but the toll on youth and young minds once they get caught up in addiction and exploitation makes for a very dangerous world to grow up in. A world created by the laws, standards and attitudes of adults. Someone, at some point, has to take responsibility.

Sorry I was not very clear. I am concerned about people getting too hooked on drugs etc, but I believe we have more chance of controlling them if regulated. The biggest problem seams to be the fact that a lot of drugs available have things added to them that can be even more dangerous. Weapons will never be acceptable in my mind. The biggest problem about drugs is the criminality surrounding them as is the case with prostitution.

Did anyone see the 70 year old twins who are prostitutes on tv this morning?
There's hope for me yet!

Looking at news coverage of memorial services for the two murdered police women, it's obvious a lot of people are very genuinely upset and distraught about what has happened. It may be a distance from Rochdale, but, it's the same Greater Manchester police service.

You might think the criminal gangs of Manchester would give their shotguns a brief rest, but oh no. Gangs have been blasting away with shotguns in Salford the last few days.