Several political idiots have been advocating what they call 'robust policing' to deal with rioters.
I would like to know what they mean by that.
Would it include any of the following -
rushing at people and hitting them with truncheons. Didn't somebody try that at a demonstration and it did not work out well?
beating them up in the back of police vans or in cells [always a favourite].
making up evidence to get convictions.
assaulting or even shooting them under the guise of a search or arrest. Wasn't that tactic the cause of the demonstration that lead to the riots?
doing other unlawful things that might land police in court [whilst the politicians gently fade into the background].
Come on, don't be shy. What do you mean by robust policing (and will you indemnify policemen against civil and criminal action if they get too robust)?
Why do you think arresting people and bringing them to court is no longer enough?