2023考研英語閱讀平息暴亂
Policing the mobs
平息暴亂
AFTER five days of spreading Saturnalian anarchy on the streets of English cities, the disgustand anger felt for the rioters was accompanied by growing dismay at the failure of the police toget on top of the violent thuggery in some places. In violated towns and cities, there wasangry incomprehension at the apparent willingness of armoured police to stand back whileshops were pillaged and torched by marauding youths.
混亂狂歡般在英國數(shù)座城市蔓延了五天之后，人們對混亂制造者感到憎惡和氣憤之余，也開始對個別地區(qū)警方無力控制暴亂局勢感到失望。某些騷亂城鎮(zhèn)，暴亂的年輕人對店鋪瘋狂地砸搶燒，而開著裝甲車的警察分明就是束手旁觀，這讓人們感到氣憤與無法理解。
A poll conducted by YouGov for the Sun newspaper reflected the widespread belief that thepolice had got their tactics wrong. Of those questioned, 90% favoured the use of watercannon; 78% tear gas; 72% Tasers ; 65% plastic bullets; 33% evenwanted the police to use live ammunition against the looters. And 77% wanted the army to bedeployed.
《太陽報》發(fā)布了調(diào)查機構(gòu)優(yōu)戈夫進行的一項民意調(diào)查，調(diào)查結(jié)果顯示，人們普遍認為警方處理暴亂時策略失當。被調(diào)查者中，90%認為應(yīng)使用高壓水槍，78%贊成使用催淚彈，72%贊成泰瑟槍，65%贊成塑料子彈，33%甚至認為警方應(yīng)該荷槍實彈制止暴亂。另外，有77%希望調(diào)用軍隊。
The criticism of the police is understandable, but is it justified? Most experts doubt whetherthe use of traditional riot-control weapons would have made much difference this week.Although water cannon and tear gas can be effective in getting a large mob to disperse froma particular area, or in allowing the police to buy distance or hold ground, they areindiscriminate and fairly clumsy. Tasers are not a public-order weaponthey cannot be firedinto crowdsbut a non-lethal method of individual incapacitation.
人們對警方批評可以理解，但這對警方是否公平?多數(shù)專家認為即使本周暴亂中警方使用傳統(tǒng)抗暴手段也不會起太大作用。雖然高壓水槍和催淚彈可以驅(qū)散某一場所的大批暴動者，可以讓暴動者稍微退后或者讓警方守住陣地，但兩者都有可能傷及無辜，并且非常笨重。泰瑟槍不能用來對付大片人群，因而不是用來維護公共秩序的工具，只是對付個別歹徒的非致命性武器。
Martin Innes, of the Universities Police ScienceInstitute at Cardiff University, says that watercannon would not be much use against the kind offluid, highly mobile satellite groups that the policehave faced. Both he and Peter Waddington, a formerpoliceman and now an authority on crowd controlat Wolverhampton University, are sceptical aboutplastic bullets . Mr Waddington says that the trouble withbaton rounds, which travel at nearly twice the speedof a cricket ball delivered by a fast bowler, is thatthey can be dodged, leaving them to smash into other people. Hit an 11-year-old girl in thehead, he says, and there is all hell to pay.
卡迪夫大學警務(wù)調(diào)查及培訓組織的馬丁?因尼斯認為，警方面對的暴動人群不固定地點，不停流動，呈衛(wèi)星狀，高壓水槍不會其多大作用。彼得?沃丁頓原來擔任警察，現(xiàn)在是伍爾弗漢普頓大學公眾秩序控制方面的專家。他和馬丁對塑料子彈的作用均持懷疑態(tài)度。沃丁頓認為，防暴子彈問題在于其速度僅為一個板球手快速投球速度的兩倍，子彈能夠躲開，有可能射到其他人。他說：有個11歲的小女孩就被誤傷到頭部，警察有的賠了。
Both water cannon and baton rounds have now been made available to the police, but theyhave shown little appetite for employing either. They have, however, started to make greateruse of armoured vehicles to break up crowds. As for calling on the army for help, that issomething that the police, politicians and the army itself regard as almost unimaginable.
如今警方已獲準使用高壓水槍和防暴子彈，但警方似乎并沒怎么打算使用，反而開始越來越多地使用裝甲車來驅(qū)散人群。至于尋求軍方援助，警方、政客們甚至軍方都覺得是不可想象的。
But if the police are right to be cautious over the use of crowd-control weapons, they seem tohave been slow to react in other ways. Mike Waldren, a retired chief superintendent whoformerly ran Londons firearms unit, blames senior officers at Scotland Yard, fearful of beingcharged with overreacting, for hobbling commanders on the ground. According to somereports, riot police had initially been ordered to stand and observe rather than confrontrioters. Mr Innes says that, with a few exceptions , there is now a generation of police leaders whose only experience of public-order problems involves football hooliganism and planned political demonstrations that turnviolent.
不過，即使警方對于選擇何種武器控制暴亂人群的謹慎態(tài)度是正確的，他們在其他方面的反應(yīng)也還是遲鈍了些。現(xiàn)已退休的倫敦槍支庫前負責人麥克?沃德仁譴責倫敦警察廳高層警官因為怕被指責反應(yīng)過激而限制了現(xiàn)場警察的防暴行動。有些報道稱，警察一開始接到是暫不行動，觀察事態(tài)的命令而不是讓他們制止暴動。因尼斯說，除了少數(shù)幾個警長外，現(xiàn)在的警官所遇到過的公共秩序問題只不過是像足球流氓行為和本應(yīng)有序的政治游行中發(fā)生的暴力事件而已。
In their defence, this weeks disturbances were of anew, if not wholly unexpected, kind. The polices oldtactical manual is based on two principles that weresuddenly irrelevant. The first is the assumptionthat rioters want to attack the police themselves. Itmakes things a lot easier if you know that they willbe where you are. The second is that the mainobjective is to control ground rather than people.But now, Mr Innes points out, the police have to findflash mobs who use social media to gather andgrab loot in one place, disperse, then meetsomewhere else: You have to follow them, harry them and channel them away.
但話又說回來，本周暴動即便不是完全出乎意料，其類型也是前所未有的。警方原來的抗暴策略是建立在兩點原則之上的，而現(xiàn)在這兩點突然不適用了。第一，警方設(shè)想暴亂者的攻擊目標是警察本身。若你在哪暴動者就會在哪，那就好辦多了。第二，警察主要任務(wù)是守住陣地而非控制騷亂人群。因尼斯指出，現(xiàn)在暴亂者利用社交媒體聚集人群，在一處砸搶之后馬上分散，再到另一處聚集，警方必須找到這些快閃暴眾。你得跟著他們，阻止他們，然后將其疏散。
The problem with that approach is that when looters are chased, they split up and policeresources are dissipated. Even if officers catch and arrest one , they might only be able to charge him with a minordisorder offence.
這種方法的問題在于，暴徒被追趕時會分散，警力也隨之分散。即使警察逮到暴動者，并將其拘留，也只能給其定個擾亂社會治安的小罪。
Mr Waddington thinks that the police may have been right to rely mostly on CCTV cameras andtheir own photographers to gather evidence, with the aim of nabbing culprits later in their ownhomes with the stolen goods in their possession. As long as rioters are part of a street mobthey feel strong and invulnerable. Once individuals are arrested in large numbers , powerful peer networks and thegroupthink that goes with them can be broken.
沃丁頓認為，警方主要依靠閉路電視攝像和警署攝影師來采集證據(jù)也許是正確的，這樣可以隨后在暴動者家中將其逮捕，并連同搶劫來的物品一起繳獲。暴動者在一大群人中會覺得自己實力強大，一旦有大批人一個個被逮捕，原本強大的團體連同集體盲目看法都會崩潰。
If that is right, the rioting is unlikely to be stamped out by rounding up the feral mobs andgiving them a good hiding, popular though that might be. Rather the key is to demonstratethrough the courts that their behaviour brings with it serious and long-term personalconsequences.
如果以上言之有理，對這些肆無忌憚的暴動者僅通過逮捕拘留來讓他們改過是很難平息暴動的盡管這種看法非常普遍。相反，應(yīng)讓法院告訴他們，其行為情節(jié)非常嚴重，會給個人帶來長遠不利影響，這才是解決問題的關(guān)鍵。
Policing the mobs
平息暴亂
AFTER five days of spreading Saturnalian anarchy on the streets of English cities, the disgustand anger felt for the rioters was accompanied by growing dismay at the failure of the police toget on top of the violent thuggery in some places. In violated towns and cities, there wasangry incomprehension at the apparent willingness of armoured police to stand back whileshops were pillaged and torched by marauding youths.
混亂狂歡般在英國數(shù)座城市蔓延了五天之后，人們對混亂制造者感到憎惡和氣憤之余，也開始對個別地區(qū)警方無力控制暴亂局勢感到失望。某些騷亂城鎮(zhèn)，暴亂的年輕人對店鋪瘋狂地砸搶燒，而開著裝甲車的警察分明就是束手旁觀，這讓人們感到氣憤與無法理解。
A poll conducted by YouGov for the Sun newspaper reflected the widespread belief that thepolice had got their tactics wrong. Of those questioned, 90% favoured the use of watercannon; 78% tear gas; 72% Tasers ; 65% plastic bullets; 33% evenwanted the police to use live ammunition against the looters. And 77% wanted the army to bedeployed.
《太陽報》發(fā)布了調(diào)查機構(gòu)優(yōu)戈夫進行的一項民意調(diào)查，調(diào)查結(jié)果顯示，人們普遍認為警方處理暴亂時策略失當。被調(diào)查者中，90%認為應(yīng)使用高壓水槍，78%贊成使用催淚彈，72%贊成泰瑟槍，65%贊成塑料子彈，33%甚至認為警方應(yīng)該荷槍實彈制止暴亂。另外，有77%希望調(diào)用軍隊。
The criticism of the police is understandable, but is it justified? Most experts doubt whetherthe use of traditional riot-control weapons would have made much difference this week.Although water cannon and tear gas can be effective in getting a large mob to disperse froma particular area, or in allowing the police to buy distance or hold ground, they areindiscriminate and fairly clumsy. Tasers are not a public-order weaponthey cannot be firedinto crowdsbut a non-lethal method of individual incapacitation.
人們對警方批評可以理解，但這對警方是否公平?多數(shù)專家認為即使本周暴亂中警方使用傳統(tǒng)抗暴手段也不會起太大作用。雖然高壓水槍和催淚彈可以驅(qū)散某一場所的大批暴動者，可以讓暴動者稍微退后或者讓警方守住陣地，但兩者都有可能傷及無辜，并且非常笨重。泰瑟槍不能用來對付大片人群，因而不是用來維護公共秩序的工具，只是對付個別歹徒的非致命性武器。
Martin Innes, of the Universities Police ScienceInstitute at Cardiff University, says that watercannon would not be much use against the kind offluid, highly mobile satellite groups that the policehave faced. Both he and Peter Waddington, a formerpoliceman and now an authority on crowd controlat Wolverhampton University, are sceptical aboutplastic bullets . Mr Waddington says that the trouble withbaton rounds, which travel at nearly twice the speedof a cricket ball delivered by a fast bowler, is thatthey can be dodged, leaving them to smash into other people. Hit an 11-year-old girl in thehead, he says, and there is all hell to pay.
卡迪夫大學警務(wù)調(diào)查及培訓組織的馬丁?因尼斯認為，警方面對的暴動人群不固定地點，不停流動，呈衛(wèi)星狀，高壓水槍不會其多大作用。彼得?沃丁頓原來擔任警察，現(xiàn)在是伍爾弗漢普頓大學公眾秩序控制方面的專家。他和馬丁對塑料子彈的作用均持懷疑態(tài)度。沃丁頓認為，防暴子彈問題在于其速度僅為一個板球手快速投球速度的兩倍，子彈能夠躲開，有可能射到其他人。他說：有個11歲的小女孩就被誤傷到頭部，警察有的賠了。
Both water cannon and baton rounds have now been made available to the police, but theyhave shown little appetite for employing either. They have, however, started to make greateruse of armoured vehicles to break up crowds. As for calling on the army for help, that issomething that the police, politicians and the army itself regard as almost unimaginable.
如今警方已獲準使用高壓水槍和防暴子彈，但警方似乎并沒怎么打算使用，反而開始越來越多地使用裝甲車來驅(qū)散人群。至于尋求軍方援助，警方、政客們甚至軍方都覺得是不可想象的。
But if the police are right to be cautious over the use of crowd-control weapons, they seem tohave been slow to react in other ways. Mike Waldren, a retired chief superintendent whoformerly ran Londons firearms unit, blames senior officers at Scotland Yard, fearful of beingcharged with overreacting, for hobbling commanders on the ground. According to somereports, riot police had initially been ordered to stand and observe rather than confrontrioters. Mr Innes says that, with a few exceptions , there is now a generation of police leaders whose only experience of public-order problems involves football hooliganism and planned political demonstrations that turnviolent.
不過，即使警方對于選擇何種武器控制暴亂人群的謹慎態(tài)度是正確的，他們在其他方面的反應(yīng)也還是遲鈍了些。現(xiàn)已退休的倫敦槍支庫前負責人麥克?沃德仁譴責倫敦警察廳高層警官因為怕被指責反應(yīng)過激而限制了現(xiàn)場警察的防暴行動。有些報道稱，警察一開始接到是暫不行動，觀察事態(tài)的命令而不是讓他們制止暴動。因尼斯說，除了少數(shù)幾個警長外，現(xiàn)在的警官所遇到過的公共秩序問題只不過是像足球流氓行為和本應(yīng)有序的政治游行中發(fā)生的暴力事件而已。
In their defence, this weeks disturbances were of anew, if not wholly unexpected, kind. The polices oldtactical manual is based on two principles that weresuddenly irrelevant. The first is the assumptionthat rioters want to attack the police themselves. Itmakes things a lot easier if you know that they willbe where you are. The second is that the mainobjective is to control ground rather than people.But now, Mr Innes points out, the police have to findflash mobs who use social media to gather andgrab loot in one place, disperse, then meetsomewhere else: You have to follow them, harry them and channel them away.
但話又說回來，本周暴動即便不是完全出乎意料，其類型也是前所未有的。警方原來的抗暴策略是建立在兩點原則之上的，而現(xiàn)在這兩點突然不適用了。第一，警方設(shè)想暴亂者的攻擊目標是警察本身。若你在哪暴動者就會在哪，那就好辦多了。第二，警察主要任務(wù)是守住陣地而非控制騷亂人群。因尼斯指出，現(xiàn)在暴亂者利用社交媒體聚集人群，在一處砸搶之后馬上分散，再到另一處聚集，警方必須找到這些快閃暴眾。你得跟著他們，阻止他們，然后將其疏散。
The problem with that approach is that when looters are chased, they split up and policeresources are dissipated. Even if officers catch and arrest one , they might only be able to charge him with a minordisorder offence.
這種方法的問題在于，暴徒被追趕時會分散，警力也隨之分散。即使警察逮到暴動者，并將其拘留，也只能給其定個擾亂社會治安的小罪。
Mr Waddington thinks that the police may have been right to rely mostly on CCTV cameras andtheir own photographers to gather evidence, with the aim of nabbing culprits later in their ownhomes with the stolen goods in their possession. As long as rioters are part of a street mobthey feel strong and invulnerable. Once individuals are arrested in large numbers , powerful peer networks and thegroupthink that goes with them can be broken.
沃丁頓認為，警方主要依靠閉路電視攝像和警署攝影師來采集證據(jù)也許是正確的，這樣可以隨后在暴動者家中將其逮捕，并連同搶劫來的物品一起繳獲。暴動者在一大群人中會覺得自己實力強大，一旦有大批人一個個被逮捕，原本強大的團體連同集體盲目看法都會崩潰。
If that is right, the rioting is unlikely to be stamped out by rounding up the feral mobs andgiving them a good hiding, popular though that might be. Rather the key is to demonstratethrough the courts that their behaviour brings with it serious and long-term personalconsequences.
如果以上言之有理，對這些肆無忌憚的暴動者僅通過逮捕拘留來讓他們改過是很難平息暴動的盡管這種看法非常普遍。相反，應(yīng)讓法院告訴他們，其行為情節(jié)非常嚴重，會給個人帶來長遠不利影響，這才是解決問題的關(guān)鍵。
