PDA

View Full Version : Troops on the streets


ExRAFRadar
21st Sep 2013, 19:12
BBC News - Gordon Brown 'discussed troops on streets' in crisis (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24184728)

In the spirit of What-If

What law would give a goverment the right to do this? What would be the ROE/Aim of the troops on the ground ?

Just how close were we to collapse in 2008 ?

mixture
21st Sep 2013, 19:24
Just how close were we to collapse in 2008 ?

It was a fairly tough time, but lots has been written on the matter and the reasons behind it. Probably not much need to regurgitate it all again.

fireflybob
21st Sep 2013, 19:47
What law would give a goverment the right to do this? What would be the ROE/Aim of the troops on the ground ?

ExRAFRadar, state of emergency? To maintain civil order.

It's seems to be well known that our cousins in the USA have beefed up their reserves etc for dealing with civil unrest for when/if their economy collapses big time.

Halfbaked_Boy
21st Sep 2013, 21:07
There's such a over-dramatization culture in the UK.

The 2008 'crisis' was just a blip, we were a long way from civil unrest. Summer of 2011 was probably more urgent but again, nowhere near where we should have involved the military.

galaxy flyer
21st Sep 2013, 21:27
Bob,

Where did you get tht idea? Posse Comatatis Law prohibits military to be used in civil matters, witness New Orleans after the hurricane. The city and state had to request Federal assistance before any military were sent and the military has to leave once the situation is under control.

Do Euros and UKers just make this stuff to troll?

GF

fireflybob
21st Sep 2013, 21:45
galaxy, am sure you're right but once people start rioting who knows what might happen?

Flap 5
21st Sep 2013, 22:25
Probably not much need to regurgitate it all again.

Too long ago eh? We're all getting bored with are we? Let's just sweep it under the carpet eh? History is such a bore eh?

Metro man
22nd Sep 2013, 02:26
The Americans are wanting to increase their debt ceiling again, now nudging $17 trillion. Obviously this can't go on forever and when the wheels come off they will come off in a big way. The shock waves will be felt right across the world. We are simply in the lull before the storm.:uhoh:

JAKL
22nd Sep 2013, 02:37
Surely you are all naive if you think those with something to lose, ie power, will not order the military to do what ever is necessary to subdue the citizens. It's already happening in some parts of the world. The only difference in countries like the UK or US is that the citizens hope the military would side with the people rather than the power. A simplistic view maybe, but ask the people of countries like Syria, Russia and China what they think.

lomapaseo
22nd Sep 2013, 02:52
It's seems to be well known that our cousins in the USA have beefed up their reserves etc for dealing with civil unrest for when/if their economy collapses big time.

not just the economy, but in case congress passed a draconian gun control law :)

BenThere
22nd Sep 2013, 03:19
Or maybe when the first state tries to secede.

parabellum
22nd Sep 2013, 08:14
What law would give a goverment the right to do this? What would be the ROE/Aim of the troops on the ground ?

Declaring a state of emergency should do it - bit like Northern Ireland perhaps?

When I was in the Army, in a Corps Engineer Regiment, we were out every winter helping the locals when the bad weather came, different kind of emergency but only took a few 'phone calls and we were out with all our equipment.

UniFoxOs
22nd Sep 2013, 08:52
Likewise with the old "Green Godesses" for firefighting.

It's what JAKL said.

KelvinD
22nd Sep 2013, 08:56
In the UK, I am not sure any particular law is required. I would imagine the Riot Act would be good enough. In 1968, while stationed at Catterick (Army), a group of us were called out to travel to London to help the police in the Grosvenor Square riots. We were armed with pick axe handles to "persuade" the rioters it was time to go home. For a while, it looked as if the police were losing control of things but, just before we were about to set off, they started to gain the upper hand and we were stood down. I have to admit, some of us were disappointed, particularly those of us who had spent year or two in Aden and were thoroughly bored with North Yorkshire! Re Jakl's comment about the people hoping the military would side with the people: I remember swearing my oath of allegiance to the Crown. I have always thought it interesting that soldiers do not swear an oath of allegiance to the government. So, technically, if HM the Queen was to say to the government "wind your necks in" (or the royal equivalent!), the Army would be there to ensure they did. A great system. I wonder if it had its origins in the days of Cromwell?

mixture
22nd Sep 2013, 09:46
Too long ago eh? We're all getting bored with are we? Let's just sweep it under the carpet eh? History is such a bore eh?


No, its just that you can simply type "2008 financial crisis" into Google and be rewarded with as much information as you care to spend time reading on it.

If that's not enough for you, you can go to your favourite book store and pick up any number of books on the topic.

I think most people who didn't have their heads buried in the sand at the time knew the causes of it and the effect it had on the economy.

The focus now should be on recovery rather than continuing to dwell on things that happened in the past.

Tankertrashnav
22nd Sep 2013, 10:02
"Troops on the Streets"?

What troops? This was possibly feasible in 1968 (see Kelvin D's post), but by 2008 our army had shrunk so much that once you subtracted those committed in Afghanistan the numbers of troops available to deal with civil unrest would have been so small as to be totally ineffective.

None of the above
22nd Sep 2013, 20:59
1970: State of emergency called over dock strike
British Home Secretary Reginald Maudling has declared a state of emergency to deal with strikes at UK ports. Within 10 minutes of returning from a trip to Canada the Queen signed the proclamation allowing the government special powers to deal with major disruptions to daily life.
The Army has ordered 36,000 troops - including the Royal Navy and RAF - to be on standby to handle cargo from the 150 ships affected.
BBC On this Day. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/16/newsid_2504000/2504223.stm)

I haven't had time to look it up, but I'm pretty sure that Edward Heath declared a State of Emergency during the Three Day Week later in the 1970s.
James Callaghan's government also had to take the same measures during the 'Winter of Discontent' towards the end of the decade.

racedo
22nd Sep 2013, 21:39
Given strength of Army and reserves they would probably be able to hold onto London This would probably please the rest of the country who hate the place anyway with the deal being that seal everything in using M25 as border and food will be sent weekly.

In the spirit of diversity there would probably be a unit of volunteers detached allowed to ensure Brighton was er safe.............alledgedly.

Reality is that if everything had blown up then military would not have been in a position to hold the country and Govt assummes they would want to do it.

Great being in action overseas but having to fire on kith and kin to protect wealthy people in London would start to be a problem very quickly.

radeng
22nd Sep 2013, 23:05
I suspect it depends on the situation. If Her Majesty disagrees sufficiently with the PM and/or the government, I believe the armed forces and the police follow their oaths of allegiance to her, and the PM can go stuff himself while she decides what is to be done. Looking at the performance of the last four PMs and their incompetent (and in some cases, arguably corrupt) cabinets, we would probably have effectively more democratic and better government...

sitigeltfel
23rd Sep 2013, 06:55
There is an act called Military Aid to Civil Power that can be used in a national emergency but it is a fat lot of good if there are insufficient troops and arms to enable it.

In the past, when a new infantry weapon was introduced into service, the weapon it replaced was held in armouries with sufficient ammunition to be issued if the need arose. The theory was that there was a large reserve of trained military personnel, who had left the services, and could be called back into action to protect the country. These weapons would be used to arm them. When the SLR superseded the Lee Enfield large stocks of the latter were kept for this purpose, but when the SA80 took over from the SLR the Labour government sold large numbers of the outgoing weapon to regimes in sub-Saharan Africa.
They are now being used to great effect by the likes of The Lords Resistance Army.

Blacksheep
23rd Sep 2013, 07:55
Posse Comatatis Law prohibits military to be used in civil mattersKent State University crisis?

I remember it well. Land of the Free and all that.

AtomKraft
23rd Sep 2013, 11:26
We should have put Gordon Brown on the streets.

Cacophonix
23rd Sep 2013, 11:28
Ah mad dog McBrown, what ever happened to that swivel eyed loon?

Caco

G-CPTN
23rd Sep 2013, 11:57
'It's that bloody Tory': How Gordon Brown launched a 'volley of abuse' at BBC political editor Nick Robinson after EVERY interview | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2429793/Its-bloody-Tory-How-Gordon-Brown-launched-volley-abuse-BBC-political-editor-Nick-Robinson-EVERY-interview.html)

rgbrock1
23rd Sep 2013, 15:57
Blacksheep wrote:

Kent State University crisis?

Tsk, tsk Blacksheep, tsk, tsk. The soldiers who responded at Kent State were not federal troops i.e., regular Army but Ohio National Guardsmen. The National Guard of any American state is under the control of that state's governor and can be called out at his, or her, whim.

There is a huge difference between deploying National Guardsmen in a state and deploying regular Army troops onto American soil. The latter, to my knowledge, has never been done. And god help us all if it ever does happen.

radeng
23rd Sep 2013, 22:23
rgb

there's an enormous difference here between the US and the UK. Here, if HM (whoever it is said 'No'), the armed forces and police would probably wave half a finger at the politicians and look to maintain order, make sure the population were safe, ensure emergency services operated etc.

As that soldier who died in Iraq and got the VC posthumously said ' I fight for the Queen, not that pratt in Downing Street' (referring to Tony Blair aka T.Bliar)

Which is the advantage of separating Head of Government from Head of State. Admittedly, the US seems to be moving towards making the President more responsible to Congress than in the past.

air pig
24th Sep 2013, 00:25
Radeng:As that soldier who died in Iraq and got the VC posthumously said ' I fight for the Queen, not that pratt in Downing Street' (referring to Tony Blair aka T.Bliar)

That soldier is very much alive, Cpl Johnson Beharry VC, Princess of Wales Royal Regiment.

silly question.......but I thought the Army since Cromwell was specifically under parliamentary control, not royal. Thats why its not the Royal army....
The Yeomanry and Militia may have been under royal orders (via the Lords Lieutenant) but the actual army wasn't. When did it change?

Actually the Armed Forces and Police have an oath of Allegiance to the Sovereign, not to the political classes. The PM operates under the Royal Prerogative. Below for the Royal Air Force and the Army, in the former case with a change to reflect the rank structure, the RN and RM are under a Royal prerogative.

I... swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the generals and officers set over me. So help me God.

For the Police in England and Wales, different in Scotland and NI.:

I... of... do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will, to the best of my skill and knowledge, discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law

Most if not all armed forces people present and ex would string politicians of all parties from the nearest lamp post. I suspect if you had a threat to the Sovereign, so many ex and present forces people would defend them, the threat would disappear very quickly.

I still consider myself bound by that Oath even after many years outside the Royal Air Force.

rgbrock1
24th Sep 2013, 13:55
I much prefer pledging myself to the ideals as put forth in the U.S. Constitution than pledging myself to some individual or individuals. The latter are not usually deserving of such. The former document, most certainly so.

air pig
24th Sep 2013, 16:29
Rgbrock1

I much prefer pledging myself to the ideals as put forth in the U.S. Constitution than pledging myself to some individual or individuals. The latter are not usually deserving of such. The former document, most certainly so.

We in the UK, do not have a written Constitution as you do in the USA, but I believe even that took many years to compose until everyone was happy. With an elected Head of State, you do have the possibility of corruption all kinds, fiscal sexual and criminal. I'll stick to ours.

rgbrock1
24th Sep 2013, 17:04
air pig:

The U.S. Constitution was a work in progress until 1789 when it became law of the land. Although it had been adopted by the Constitutional Convention in the city of Philadelphia on 17 September 1787.

Before then it went through several iterations beginning with the 'Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union' which were drafted by the Continental Congress in mid-1776, the year of Independence.

Following the passage into law of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights - written by the esteemed James Madison using suggestions put forth by the highly esteemed and greatest US President, Thomas Jefferson - was implemented in 1791.

It is this Constitution and these Bill of Rights which I pledged allegiance to when I signed on the dotted line to become a member of the US Armed Forces. I did not pledge allegiance to any individual man, or group of individuals. I pledged to defend this Constitution to the best of my ability against enemies both foreign AND domestic. And I will continue to do so until the hour of my death. In essence, as a Patriotic American I will always stand to defend the ideals set forth in that document. And will swear allegiance to the flag for which it stands. but I will swear allegiance to no man and to no group of individuals.

air pig
24th Sep 2013, 17:22
Rgbrock1:

The U.S. Constitution was a work in progress until 1789 when it became law of the land. Although it had been adopted by the Constitutional Convention in the city of Philadelphia on 17 September 1787.

Before then it went through several iterations beginning with the 'Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union' which were drafted by the Continental Congress in mid-1776, the year of Independence.

Following the passage into law of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights - written by the esteemed James Madison using suggestions put forth by the highly esteemed and greatest US President, Thomas Jefferson - was implemented in 1791.

It is this Constitution and these Bill of Rights which I pledged allegiance to when I signed on the dotted line to become a member of the US Armed Forces. I did not pledge allegiance to any individual man, or group of individuals. I pledged to defend this Constitution to the best of my ability against enemies both foreign AND domestic. And I will continue to do so until the hour of my death. In essence, as a Patriotic American I will always stand to defend the ideals set forth in that document. And will swear allegiance to the flag for which it stands. but I will swear allegiance to no man and to no group of individuals.

Your country in its present form is a 'young' country, whilst we have had a Monarchy since at least the 900s. You like us here, have had the trauma's of a civil war.

We have a Sovereign who is above politics but is loved for that reason. She is and continues to be a stabilising force on the politicians and they do consult her and ask her advice and act with her consent under the Royal Prerogative. Law within the UK is dealt with under the Crown and not the government, as a case is brought as Regina vs xxxxx, whilst the government introduce law via Parliament, the judiciary like the police is politically independent.

I too, have sworn an Oath of Allegiance which I still consider binding, whilst we may have slightly different perceptions that in the US, you swear to the Constitution, whilst in the UK it is personified in Her Majesty.

We are closer than cousins, more half brother and sister, just have one different parent. I salute you Sir.

G&T ice n slice
24th Sep 2013, 17:29
Check the oaths of the armed forces (etc) of most Latin American countries ...
They pretty well all swear to "uphold the constitution" or whatever.

Then check the number of golpes... from memory Venezuela actualy had more golpes than elections up to about 1958 when good ol' PJ was sent on his way with half the contents of the reserve bank.

Good man PJ, second only to Gomez

rgbrock1
24th Sep 2013, 17:31
And I, air pig, return the salute sir.

con-pilot
24th Sep 2013, 18:18
There is a huge difference between deploying National Guardsmen in a state and deploying regular Army troops onto American soil. The latter, to my knowledge, has never been done. And god help us all if it ever does happen.

Sadly it has, I'll just use the occasions since World War Two. Eisenhower ordered the 101st Airborne into Little Rock in 1957 when the Governor of Arkansas order the Arkansas National Guard to prevent the Little Rock 9 from being allowed to enroll in the University of Arkansas by a US Supreme Court order.

The then governor of Arkansas, forgot his name now started with an 'F', order the Arkansas National Guard unit to block the enrollment, Eisenhower requested a meeting with the governor, but the governor refused to meet with the President. Upon hearing about the National Guard being used to block a decision by the Supreme Court, Eisenhower nationalized the Arkansas National Guard, ordered them to stand down and sent in the 101st Airborne to enforce his order to the Guard and to carry out the decision of the Supreme Court. The moral of this story is, one did not screw around with Eisenhower.

Lyndon Johnson ordered the 82nd Airborne into Detriot to end the race riot in 1967. Johnson used the Insurrection Act of 1807 to justify his use of US Military forces on US soil with regard to civil matters.

When James Meredith attempted to enroll at Ole' Miss, Kennedy placed units of the US Army on alert, however, due to the incrediable courage of the US Marshal Deputies assigned to protect Meredith, no US Military units, except for the US Air Force to transport additional US Deputies, were used.

One of the proudest moments of the US Marshal Service.

U.S. Marshals Service, History, The U.S. Marshals and the Integration of the University of Mississippi (http://www.usmarshals.gov/history/miss/02.htm)

wings folded
24th Sep 2013, 18:44
con pilot

You have in the past been more than a little critical of some of my posts, but I am asking you here for a very sincere purpose. I know next to nothing about the US Marshall service, and my hintrenet searches do not really help.

I detect that you have a certain knowledge/experience thereof, and would really welcome an explanation from someone who knows of what he talks.

Are you feeling generous towards a European who would really like to know better? If not, no bad feelings.

rgbrock1
24th Sep 2013, 19:04
con:

Thanks for that bit of history. I was unaware or had forgotten about those deployments.

racedo
24th Sep 2013, 19:45
U.S. Marshals Service, History, The U.S. Marshals and the Integration of the University of Mississippi (http://www.usmarshals.gov/history/miss/02.htm)

They clearly had Cojones of steel................

rgbrock1
24th Sep 2013, 19:52
racedo wrote:

United States Army Rangers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Rangers)

They clearly had Cojones of steel

There, I fixed the first part for you racedo. :}

Just kidding con. I have the utmost respect for the Marshals Service. :ok:

racedo
24th Sep 2013, 19:55
RGB

Rangers would not have stayed still (in circumstances not such a bad thing) which makes Marshalls even braver because they really had hands tied behind their backs.

con-pilot
24th Sep 2013, 23:14
WF

Are you feeling generous towards a European who would really like to know better? If not, no bad feelings.

First off, I zero animosity or even mild hard feeling toward you or about you. I don't take much here very seriously here in JB and you have never been insulting, as others have and I enjoy our little disagreements. I also believe that we could have a few beers together and have a good time.

Now, about the US Marshal Service, it spelled with one 'L' by the way, got in trouble when I first went to work for the Marshal Service when I spelled it with two 'L's, they have no sense of humor about such things. Now, like you, I didn't have a clue about the Marshal Service when I was hired. All I knew about it was what I had seen on western TV shows and movies about the old West. To be honest I didn't know that there were any US Marshals anymore, I thought that the FBI had replaced them.

After I started working with the Service I learned a lot more, some very surprising facts, mostly all good.

I'm a bit limited for time at this moment, but will be able to take more time later this evening and hopefully be able to answer your questions.

Till later, cheers.

wings folded
25th Sep 2013, 15:25
Thanks, con pilot.

I will spare your time, for I have been doing follow up searches, and now know a little more than I did before about your service.

I also reckon that we could perhaps have had a beer or two and maybe some distilled beer while we yarn about this and that, but I can't quite see how; the nearest I got to your location was Omaha which is a step or two away from you. You were closer when you were in Ireland, but you never picked up the phone.

I crossed the border into Iowa when I was in Omaha, to buy a lottery ticket. I do not like gambling, but it was the most exciting thing on offer. I did not win.

I did see a dog cross the street in Omaha, from my hotel window, and was spellbound by the experience. Otherwise I would have been reading the laundry instructions on my shirts.

(I hope you are not originally from Omaha!)

rgbrock1
25th Sep 2013, 16:43
wings wrote:

I did see a dog cross the street in Omaha, from my hotel window, and was spellbound by the experience.

You should have been sympathetic toward the dog and not spellbound by the experience. Why? Because that dog probably wound up as "beef fried rice" in the Peking Duck Chinese restaurant down the road. :}

wings folded
25th Sep 2013, 18:04
rgb

No such rezzie down the road, but my hosts took me for a steak dinner in the middle of nowhere (Nebraska after all) where upon arrival they told the patron to marinate a piece of beef in distilled beer while we imbibed several soothing precursors to a dinner which was sublime to say the least.

And to think that some folk think I am anti American. The beef was sublime. The chips (you know what I mean) were sublime. The beef was the best I have eaten.

The folk in the rezzie were "plain" (you know I mean that in a good sense!).

I came away from Omaha deeply puzzled, but contented. Journey home was shite because of WX factors and distance involved, and to learn my mother had died while I was away, but Nebraskans struck me as nice folk.

rgbrock1
25th Sep 2013, 18:07
wings:

You learned, then, why "Omaha Steaks" are some of the best available in the U.S. You can even order steaks for delivery to your home, fresh from Omaha Nebraska - the Cornhusker state.

wings folded
25th Sep 2013, 18:10
not sure I can here, rgb

rgbrock1
25th Sep 2013, 18:14
wings:

Nope, you can't unfortunately. I just checked Omaha Steaks web site which had this to say about the matter:

"Due to import/export restrictions, we are unable to ship our products outside the United States, Canada, Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands."

Maybe you can move to Puerto Rico then and become an English Puerto Rican. Donde esta uste?

wings folded
25th Sep 2013, 18:17
seems like a lot of bother for a decent stake. we have pretty good ones here too.

rgbrock1
25th Sep 2013, 18:40
This is true, wings, this is true. I ate many a steak when I spent some time in England. (Usually when visiting my then Scouser girlfriend who then became the Mrs., who then became the Ex-Mrs, who then became The Bitch.)

But, yes, plenty of good eatin' steaks over yonder. I don't like to eat stakes though. I tend to get some wood splinters lodged in my lips when I try. You do eat stakes though? Are you a vampire? :eek:

wings folded
25th Sep 2013, 19:04
OK, Ok Steak then.

happy now?

rgbrock1
25th Sep 2013, 19:08
Yes, Mr. Pedantic is happy now. :ok::}:E

Ancient Observer
25th Sep 2013, 21:05
Kelvin,
as a well behaved protester in Grosvenor Sq in '68, I have to say that if the army had turned up, I think my Dad (LRDG, WW2) would have been persuaded to support the protesters.
The 68 protests had SFA to do with the UK army.