General Chat

I am fairly sure that the police will be reluctant to bring the army in. One senior policeman I know was aghast at that suggestion.

Anyway, what would soldiers do? Shoot them and bring down more trouble on their heads than it's worth? Remember Northern Ireland?

Linda, I know the area and one huge crowd of mostly-young people in one city square (out of numerous squares) is unlikely to bring down the wrath of the Police. If rules were more solidly laid down as they are now, it might be worth collecting a few fines but not in that one situation of which you wrote. Many young people could not or would not pay the fines and to send them to gaol would not be feasible the way things are so it would be an utter waste of time.

The police are exercising the caution and common sense that I would expect - and they need to stay safe as much as they can too because the next thing they attend may be a road accident involving numerous casualties.

The only occasion that I can think of where the army may be useful is one of logistics, moving freight and ensuring clear passage of goods - and that may come with Brexit.

Pat made a statement of fact so why assume that her closeness to Greece and Turkey clouded her understanding :-S

The crowds weren't an organised violent riot when the Army may, (as a last resort) be used.

They were the result of yet another not-thought-through 'law' created by this Government.
Yes, we're short of policemen - but then, what 'flavour' Government got rid of them?
Johnson also voted to cut the police force in 2010.
He 'promised' to bring them back (4,000 so far) - but they're trainees, not the established police we lost.

If they'd sent in the Army, not only would it have shown how short of police we are, it would have indicated how wrong the Government was, and would also have indicated a despotic tendency - like non-democratic countries, like China had.

It's one thing, the Army giving covid tests, yet another to send them in to 'quell' a group of people, all thrown out of pubs at the same time!

Those people, when dispersed, would then have squeezed themselves onto public transport, to get home, thereby spreading the virus, anyway, so gathering in the streets, in the open air, was actually less likely to spread it!

The army may assist the civil power in the case of problems such as severe flooding and so on and so forth.
It may not get involved with keeping good order on the streets . That is the task of the police. The police do not expect in a democracy full on confrontation with citizens.
Maybe living close to Turkey and Greece, countries with a poor democratic record, it is easy to lose sight of what an army is for in a democracy. Greece, Cyprus and Turkey are no strangers to using the Army for propping up an unpopular government

Other than the Household Regiments the Army is not allowed to bear arms within the UK except at its training grounds.
This general principle dates back to 1666. Deviations from it eg Peterloo, Northern Ireland have not been very successful.

In a democracy laws have to fit in with the will of the people not the other way around.

The government have made them available but they have not been asked for.

I cant understand why the government has not sent the army in to disperse the crowds that are gathering in the streets after the pubs and bars close at 10pm or is it just me thinking this I'm sure the police are doing a good job but there is not enough of them and the sight of that one police car surrounded by those crowds in liverpool the other night was frightening