Friday, December 17, 2010

Have the British Government deployed the Army against civilian protestors?

His Grace has been sent a link to a very interesting series of photographs taken during the recent student protests against the rise in tuition fees.

They are stark and disturbing. But he was struck by the one featured above, which appears to show the police officer wearing army DPM combat trousers beneath his navy overalls (clearly visible at the top of his boot - click to enlarge).

Have Her Majesty's Government deployed Her Majesty's Armed Forces against civilian protestors?

Are police numbers 'supplemented' by soldiers where there is a threat to the Queen's Peace?

It is known that some police officers occasionally 'forget' to display their identification numbers in public order situations, such that their victims may not identify those officers who may be a little over-zealous with their truncheons.

His Grace wishes to stress that he neither opposes peaceful protest nor the response of Government to deploy all necessary resources to maintain the rule of law.

But if the military have been deployed to maintain order on the streets of London and mobilised to admonish hordes of stroppy children, ought this not to have been a matter of parliamentary debate?

Since the Iraq War, the Government is now bound to consult Parliament before engaging with an enemy. Is that same Government at liberty to invoke the Royal Prerogative to mobilise the Armed Forces against its own people?


Blogger Baron Metzengerstein said...

Having read through the first four volumes of Sir Hume's History of England, it seems rioting for no real reason is quite the tradition in London; and the army has an equally rich history of being the chosen tool to quiet said civil disturbances.

That said, current events are not particularly special; though Your Grace certainly has a point concerning the principle of the matter. Still, one wonders how strongly a group of brats who have no respect for the monuments of their nation, and who would blatantly attack the royal family (who have little say over tuition anyhow) can be considered as "their own people." They themselves seem the type that would blanch at such an accusation of identity...

17 December 2010 at 01:25  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Baron Metzengerstein—Far worse, we are governed by a group of brats who have no respect for our country’s history, traditions, constitution or democracy. Compared to their destructiveness, urinating on Sir Winston’s plinth is small beer.

17 December 2010 at 01:41  
Anonymous not a machine said...

I would need a bit more info than a picture of some trousers different to standard issue in cold temperatures .I think a yes or no question to dep met chief would clear it up .
I watched NN discussion on "clash of civilisations" and I think I understand Dr Nadirs position much better on the persecution of the church (I assume he is no longer titled bishop). I thought it was a pretty brave discussion chaired by the experienced Kirsty Walk and some interesting subtlties. Explaining that secularism was not a neutral benign fallback was timely .
The rest left me a little unsure , I appreciate there may be moderate Islamists wanting to show somthing of there veneration for Allah as being a worthy civilisation faith , but it is very difficult for me to understand why Islam continues to progress in the way that it does .
Johnnyrottenborough perhaps pricked my peacful aims a little and I would add that for some of us the fights are spiritual, and I see it as loss when christians begin to suffer the troubling thoughts of determining the evils that are about , and lose there immediate family and pastoral lives.
The Christian faith can and does endure many things , it is salvation through/beyond the corruptions of the flesh , the cruxifiction story itself showing the failings of earthly power.
I can only continue to pray , not as someone unsure of the truth , but in trying to live for it , even when faced with problems that have no easy answer and obvious loss to what I believe to be of the utmost value .
Cowards can have pride as much as misled heros , our faith is under duress , but it is still our faith and the power/grip of the fall weakens when we know and love our lord.

17 December 2010 at 01:58  
Anonymous PJ said...

Could it be that it is just the policeman's casual trousers which he just happened to wear under his uniform that day?

17 December 2010 at 02:19  
Anonymous non mouse said...

I don't know who the german "aristo" is, above. Nor do I want to.

It is par for the course we're on, however, that be they aristo or commie, euros lead the way in dishonoring British rights, justice, or military procedure. The whole object of their exercise is to subjugate us, humiliate us, and deprive us of every form of freedom.

I have no doubt that their puppets in Parliament will turn every force possible against the British people at the earliest possible opportunity. These students should consider themselves lucky that the forces at work here are British. It won't be long before they're ... well I won't attempt to use the words I choose for the nationalities of their militias and other forces.

This is the beginning, that's all. That's what you get when you're stupid enough to let people give your country away.

17 December 2010 at 02:44  
Anonymous Old Bill said...

@PJ: The Police Service is a disciplined service, and uniform is to be correctly worn (it is a discipline offence for it not to be...). The overalls worn in riot gear are fire-retardent, and are worn over either regular uniform or fire-retardent undergarments according to need. As a uniformed officer, you do not wear your caual trousers (or anything else you may fancy)when on duty. It is also "being improperly dressed" not to wear your identification numbers, and His Grace makes a good point that those "policemen" who have no numbers on display (and therefore cannot be checked against a roster of serving officers) may well not be police officers at all.

17 December 2010 at 03:02  
Anonymous Sportster said...

@not a machine: "I would need a bit more info than a picture of some trousers different to standard issue in cold temperatures .I think a yes or no question to dep met chief would clear it up ." You really think you would get an honest answer to a direct question put to the Metropolitan Police Commander????
Does the name Jean Charles de Menezes mean anything to you at all? Wake up man!

17 December 2010 at 03:27  
Blogger OldSlaughter said...

A lot of builders use combat trousers. Are the Army building homes on the streets of our country?

17 December 2010 at 03:50  
Blogger Edward Spalton said...


In response to parliamentary questions, the last government repeatedly refused to rule out the calling in of the paramilitary European Gendarmerie Force to deal with disorder in this country.

At a recent private discussion, a long serving parliamentarian remarked that he and a colleague from the other side of the house discussed how little things had changed since the election. They came to the conclusion that there were two parallel governments - the elected government (which could be changed at elections) and the real government which carried on regardless.

Research by parliamentary library staff had established that 53% of primary legislation was now at the behest of the EU. Of course, there are even more changes in the form of secondary legislation like statutory instruments under many Acts with very broad powers which may not have been included. SO it's not difficult to guess where the authority of the "real government" lies.

Bring back Praemunire!

17 December 2010 at 07:32  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace

I am reasonably sure that police numbers are not supplemented by soldiers. The combat trousers worn underneath are merely to keep the officer warm.

A far deeper problem however is likely to emerge driven by equality legislation.

At some point, in the near future, about a third of the officers policing such a demonstration are likely to be female. It is predictable that if such a proportion was to, say, police something like the Brixton riots of 1981 – the police line is likely to collapse. Then the cavalry will probably be called in.

17 December 2010 at 08:17  
Blogger DAD said...

Uniform trousers are maufactured with man-made fibres. If Molotov cocktails are thrown, the trouserd melt and attach to the skin. If one wears pure cotton (especially if they have been sprayed with a fire-retardant)this does not happen.
The ex-army trousers are made this way.

Simples - as my children would say.

17 December 2010 at 08:17  
Blogger BigDai said...

Spoke to my TSG friend about this. They are allowed to wear anything under the fire retardant riot gear. Pure cotton combats are very popular because they are warm, fire resistant and tough

17 December 2010 at 08:55  
Blogger Battersea Boy said...

In any event, I would have thought it good practice to encourage officers of Her Majesty's Armed Forces (who may have to deal with not wholly dissimilar events abroad) to spend some time working alongside Police Officers in such difficult situations as have been recently experienced in London. Indeed, I would be disappointed to discover that army officers were expected to deal with such incidents abroad without having first-hand experience of similar situations.

17 December 2010 at 09:16  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

If the police have no warm undergarments,they can always warm up by dragging a cripple out of his wheelchair ,or running away from members of the religion of perversion,backwards.

17 December 2010 at 09:25  
Anonymous greg tingey said...

Technical point:
"Not a Machine"
Secularism is NOT atheism.
One can be a religious believer, and still want secular government and stae:
It stops all the OTHER religons and sects grabbinbg power, and persecuting you, after all....

A lot of secularists are atheists (me, for example), but it is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition.
Logic FAIL.

17 December 2010 at 09:34  
Blogger Travelgall said...

As the other posters point out. The current C95 issue trousers are made of cotton - not man made fibres. So they won't stick if set on fire from a Molotov Cocktail. A very sensible precaution. They are also designed to cut off very easily if the individual wearing it is wounded.

They are not however even remotely warm or tough. You put extra warm kit on when you stop moving, and when you are - why would you want to overheat with warm clothing. Arctic and Falkland clothing is different. They are pretty disposable and you can retire them from HM Service after 6 Months or if they are ripped.

17 December 2010 at 09:41  
Anonymous JayBee said...

I have no doubt that the Government will use any law enforcement agency as it sees fit, be they civil or military, UK or EU.
Whether or not army personnel were used to contain the student protest is difficult if not impossible to determine. Maybe the officer in the photo is from the Military Police but who knows.

His Grace is right to raise the matter of parliamentary debate. As the Pashto word Tālibān means student I would like to hear the Home Secretary explain why a member of our armed forces was apparently restraining a student in the UK instead of crushing the students in Afghanistan.

17 December 2010 at 10:28  
Blogger Willie said...
For those interested, this is the book on MACA. Chapter 4 discusses military aid to the civil power, which the deployment of soldiers would be. It would not be done without approval of ministers (MOD and HO). Unlikely, in my opinion and Police reinforce themselves from other forces first (BTP, for example who were used).

17 December 2010 at 10:40  
Blogger Span Ows said...

Have Her Majesty's Government deployed Her Majesty's Armed Forces against civilian protestors?

No, for various reasons stated above, I however would support the use of the army, preferably the Paras, at the next demo, not so much for twitty students but to snatch and detain the ringleaders using ANY force they see fit. And to snatch and detain the "set piece" photo-opportunity perps (the ones always surrounded by 20 photographers)

17 December 2010 at 10:49  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Are police numbers 'supplemented' by soldiers where there is a threat to the Queen's Peace?"

In this instance , cannot say.
In other instances , I can answer truthfully with a YES.

17 December 2010 at 10:58  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

@Not a Machine.
I assume he is no longer titled bishop
Once a bishop, always a bishop, whether or not you have a diocese.

17 December 2010 at 11:56  
Anonymous Warwick said...

Whether the officer pictured is a
military man or a civil officer will probably remain one of lifes mysteries, unless revealed by a 'leak'.
The real worry is, the question that I believe was asked of army personnel some time ago. "Would you open fire on people of your own country if you were ordered to do so?".
With the current pressure that is currently being applied to the populace. And will undoubtedly get worse in the forseeable future as many lose jobs & desperate people become more active in protests, one can anticipate a scenario of like proportion to the infamous Peterloo massacre if the military are currently being 'tried out'.


17 December 2010 at 12:16  
Anonymous Tanfield said...

In reply to Warwick @12.16 I recollect that in the mid 1960's the Army was asked this question in relation to "kith and kin" in what was then Rhodesia. The answer from all, from Generals to Privates was a resounding "NO". Since then the Army Rumour website has come into existence (popularly known, I believe, as ARSSE or something similar)and I believe that last year this question was raised there. The opinion was that if such a request came from High Authority there was no way it could possibly be prevented from leaking out and becoming generally known - and that the answer to such a request would be the same as in the 1960's. This of course implies that in such extreme circumstances HM Government would have to contemplate requesting EU Forces to "help". is this one reason why the Prime Minister was recently talking about increased co-operation with France on naval and military matters?

17 December 2010 at 12:51  
Blogger Fantana said...

You Grace,

I certainly did not suspect that you would run with this paranoid disinformation seen elsewhere on the blogo-sphere.

Might I suggest that you sit in a darkened room for a while (possibly wearing a tin-foil hat)?

17 December 2010 at 13:05  
Blogger Demetrius said...

It was cold. Having combat trousers under the uniform made compete sense.

17 December 2010 at 13:36  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ not a machine (01:58)—As I understand the history of World War Two, most British Christians rejected the option of conscientious objection and fought for their country. Perhaps their motivations included defending their way of life and their faith.

Today’s challenge to the Christian faith comes from a religion that has always been the enemy of Christianity and whose followers—invited here by ignorant politicians—are now living among us. I regret having to use the word ‘enemy’ but history bears me out.

I respect your belief in the power of prayer. My belief, though, is that prayer alone will not defeat Islam, just as prayer alone would not have defeated Hitler.

17 December 2010 at 14:17  
Blogger jdennis_99 said...

This has been discussed ad nauseam at Old Holborn's blog. The police are occasionally supplied CLOTHING and EQUIPMENT by the military for riot situations. Nothing more.

17 December 2010 at 14:23  
Anonymous Bede said...

Secular - to be pedantic, 'secular' has to do with the world. In the Roman Church a secular priest is one not in a religious order - that is, an ordinary parish priest.

17 December 2010 at 14:53  
Anonymous John Thomas said...

I quite agree with
Jonnyrottenborough, regarding the brats who now run the country, and their lack of respect, etc. However, it said a lot that the descerator of the cenotaph did not know what it was and was a student of HISTORY at Cambridge (student of sanitation engineering at Huddfersfield Tech you might be able to understand); however, the aforesaid Cambridge student will probably be Minister of Culture, or something, in ten years' time ...

17 December 2010 at 15:05  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace

It’s that time of year – and the chit authorising ‘Shore Leave’ has arrived. I hope to be back next year:

Deo Volente.

Merry Christmas to you and the many fine posters here.

17 December 2010 at 15:21  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are basing your assertions on that photo above? Ridiculous and only meant to stir the pot. The photo is flimsy evidence of the military being called in. If the military were called to help keep peace there would have been no hiding it.

17 December 2010 at 15:42  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Merry Christmas to all here ---

17 December 2010 at 16:00  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Your Grace should look at ACPO the Ltd Company which acts as a business front for Chief Constables.

Sir Hugh Orde is CEO of ACPO after being Chief Constable of Police in Northern Ireland 2002-2009 and prior to that in the Met Tactical Support Group.

In the 1990s Sir Paul Stephenson current Met Commissioner was in the RUC in Northern Ireland and in 1982 he was on the Bramshill Special Course with Sir Hugh Orde.

So the contacts flagged by Ian Paisley Jr with respect to conversations about water cannon in N Ireland should be seen in the context of Orde-MI5-Special Branch-Stephenson-ACPO

There are some peculiar attributes of Northern Ireland having been run by Army Intelligence and MI5-approved Policemen that are now very much entrenched on the mainland.

I doubt even the Home Secretary is fully aware of what is going on

17 December 2010 at 16:40  
Anonymous not a machine said...

greg tingey 9:34 .A secular state does not need to take on any religions belief , therefore it does not believe in God or that god has any traction in politics? It may allow others to hold a faith and practice it freely .
However a secular state can also allow no religion so it can be athiest and is therefor not a benign option , as it is exclusive based on its own concepts .
ie pol pot .

secularism is not a default position of neutrality , as it is nearer a management position in some cases of what it doesnt believe .

Best of luck with mathematics of chance , how can I have a logic fail ! as there is a chance god exists

17 December 2010 at 16:51  
Anonymous BDZ said...

I wear camoflaged trousers and jacket when I'm working on my car or decorating because they're nice and warm, hard wearing, and readily available at low cost. I suspect the police officer is wearing them underneath his flameproof overalls for the same reason.

17 December 2010 at 17:35  
Anonymous Tancred said...

It was very cold. Its not just soldiers who have cammo trousers you know.

Conspiracy theories do not suit you Arch Bish

17 December 2010 at 19:17  
Anonymous Mercian said...


Before you believe the ranting of the cripple dressed as a Palestinian terrorist read this..

The guy is an attention seeking creep hiding behind his disability.

17 December 2010 at 19:23  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is no doubt H.M. Gov are in Enmity with the people, the EU agenda creates Conflict of Law.

Its just a pity these radicalized student protests are about their own little concerns, rather than the BIG PICTURE!

As time passes everyone will wake up, we are at war, like it or not.

17 December 2010 at 20:04  
Blogger English Pensioner said...

Why is it all right for the Army to assist the civil authorities in clearing snow, and not in assisting them to contain disorder?
In any case, I believe it would be a good thing for them to get some experience, as the day may come when they will be needed in some numbers - I personally believe there will be major race riots within probably ten years.

17 December 2010 at 21:24  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The fact H.M. Gov will be needing Black and Asian uniformed enforcement agents to break the skulls of Englishmen fighting for liberation is an afront to all we hold dear.

Then again if the riots are communist inspired and infused with ungrateful migrants, then it would be advisable to allow the English and fellow brethren to deal with the matter.

Its sad things have come this far, I doubt the Brits will tire until politicians are done for Treason though.

The harder things get, the stronger our bulldog spirit and the more intense our desire for justice.

17 December 2010 at 22:08  
Blogger English Viking said...

Ironically amusing that some seem to think that a civillian uprising is imminent and that the powers that be will be removed, piano wire and all.

If history teaches us anything, it surely must be that the rich and powerful did not become so by accident, and they will not remain so by accident.

Blood on the streets is inevitable, and unless organised, trained, determined and co-ordinated opposition meets the Government jack-boots head-on, the result will always be the same: defeat. Female screamers never were much good against truncheons.

Even if an opposing force strong enough to prevail did take power, they would merely become that which they despise.

Take to the hills, or in other words, emigrate.

It's over.

17 December 2010 at 23:26  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Emigrate where? Is there a good place left?

17 December 2010 at 23:46  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Anonymous @ 23:46 -- No.

That's why we need to get back our own.

18 December 2010 at 00:19  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Come off it English Viking, the Establishment may not change but history will prove itself true, as in when the Jews held all the Bonds in the Treasury and Wat Tyler rose up and Kingship is not a fixed factor in any Monarchy.

Nobody needs a civilian uprising, we need a Lineage uprising because Lineage is a claim, my claim is that in a multi-cultural country my culture believes the etymology of the word kingdom means not the domain of a king but domain of your kin and our Established Kinfolk have the right to elect a King to lead us.

Thats the beauty of Monarchy, you can never have enough Kings, or recover enough debts.

A Horse A Horse!

18 December 2010 at 01:05  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

your grace

yes its a soldier. obviously the only explaination is that the gumint has got hold of some soldiers from somewhere, secretly trained them in police public order tactics, secretly issued them with police uniforms, vehicles, collar numbers, transit vans etc, to secretly use them against students. then of course someone has just got to spoil it by wearing the wrong trousers on the big day, typical!
I do hope this is a very 'dry' gag at the expense of the conspiracy loons or that you have been overdoing the communion wine. Anything else would be embarasing for your non tin foil hat wearing readership.

18 December 2010 at 13:51  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Johnny Rottenborough @ 14.17

Yet again, abso-bloody-lutely on the nail!

18 December 2010 at 16:45  
Blogger Jess The Dog said...

The man photographed isn't a soldier, he's a cop. As pointed out by others, CS95 is fire retardent, many cops are ex-Army and would retain their old uniform (they aren't reissued as worn next to skin) or would buy them second hand for practical reasons or simply indulgence in machismo. Soldiers are only deployed under MACA/MACP (as in Northern Ireland) and the Army certainly doesn't pick up the bill, as well as the requirement for ministerial authorisation (to protect the country from the notional threat of a military coup d'etat). RAFP and RMP (presumably Navy regulators as well) NCOs and officers undergo some civpol type training, and say it's quite heavy going....there is no way that troops would be allow to arrest people because of the many legal pitfalls. Believe it or not, British police are probably among the best in the world, which may reflect poorly on other nations, particularly the USA, rather than being a glowing endorsement of our cops...although most I've met have been reasonable enough.

18 December 2010 at 17:08  
Anonymous Dick the Prick said...

Happy Chrimbo D.Singh

As this thread has progressed it seems that talk has become mildly concerned with more extreme events, hypotheticals and so on.

The Army can & should be used as a measure of civil restriction - the possibility regarding having a foreign force on these lands is quite amusing. All Army personnel from general Go-Lightly Jockstap to private Tommy Atkins immediately stop whatever it is they're doing when accosted by a British Mother. I don't know where mums learn the skill or attend the clubs but anyone else's mum is my mum if she barks an instruction at me. Students are students - when the mums are on the street rioting then government stops and reboots.

I assume foreign troops have been planned if someone drops off a nuke or smallpox or something.

18 December 2010 at 17:25  
Anonymous srizals said...

Johnny Rottenborough said,
"I respect your belief in the power of prayer. My belief, though, is that prayer alone will not defeat Islam, just as prayer alone would not have defeated Hitler."

Try Johnny, Islam is carried by Muslims, not Christians. Who had supported Hitler before?

19 December 2010 at 00:30  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ srizals—Who had supported Hitler before?

Hi srizals. Well, there was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and these young ladies seem quite keen on Hitler, too.

19 December 2010 at 00:45  
Anonymous srizals said...

He disliked the British Imperialism, remember 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' Johnny?

And those young ladies who witnessed the horror inflicted by the Jews in real time couldn't have helped themselves. I don't like the banner, but I understand their reason, and it is not just Dier Yassin, Sabra and Shatilla. The Jews, some or is it most, have become the likes of their tormentors themselves. And I am not just referring to the Pharaohs.

19 December 2010 at 01:08  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older