Absolutely correct to say they couldn't have prevented what happened today. My initial post speculated that had those two monsters decided to carry on their murderous spree that it was twenty minutes before a policeman with any means of stopping them appeared on the scene. I think the public deserve more protection than is currently being afforded.
Armed police officers are the norm in practically every other country on earth. Are we so different that it can't be made to work or is everywhere else that much worse than here ?
Because we bend over for the pc brigade spouting their human rights nonsense.
No. It's because we're British and we're proud of the fact that our Police Officers in general aren't armed.
And, even after today, there is no real reason why every Police Officer in the UK should be armed.
Absolutely correct to say they couldn't have prevented what happened today. My initial post speculated that had those two monsters decided to carry on their murderous spree that it was twenty minutes before a policeman with any means of stopping them appeared on the scene. I think the public deserve more protection than is currently being afforded.
Got ya, sorry didn't grasp the original point.
I still don't think the answer is arming but perhaps an increase in rapid response teams (Trojan ?). A major incident in London should have an armed response time of way, way less than 20 mins and I'd imagine if that's what happened today it would contravene whatever guaranteed response time is implemented for rapid response.
How would armed police have prevented today's atrocity?
Did I say it would have? As dowman says, this isn't the 50's. Liberal attempts at stopping tooled up nutters is putting officers at risk. The streets are a war zone BFR and the police have to be properly equiped to deal with it.
I see it's the fault of the "Liberals"...and our streets are not a "war zone". They are incredibly safe to walk down, not totally safe, but arming the police would not make them safer.
Most nations around the world arm their police as a matter of routine - but did arming the US police for example prevent the Boston marathon bombers? Or stop Timothy McVeigh?
We have policing by consent in this nation and have to be careful when we tip the balance against that. This principle relies on our acceptance that we need to have a police force. If you routinely arm the police you won't necessarily prevent crime but you will make the police an arm of the state rather than a necessary arm of society.
Have a read of the thread on the police cock-up/conspiracy over Hillsborough and say the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, or the guy walking along with a chair leg in a carrier bag.
Then you will appreciate that the police are not immune to mistakes - sometimes tragic and self-inflicted mistakes.
Having unarmed police means we have a police service in the UK as opposed to a police force.
I agree with your point about timing but people have nowhere near enough faith in the police to arm them all. Maybe just increase the amount of armed officers
Armed police officers are the norm in practically every other country on earth. Are we so different that it can't be made to work or is everywhere else that much worse than here ?
Because we bend over for the pc brigade spouting their human rights nonsense.
No. It's because we're British and we're proud of the fact that our Police Officers in general aren't armed.
And, even after today, there is no real reason why every Police Officer in the UK should be armed.
Really. It's not something I'm proud of. I feel sorry for our OB who are going into the trenches armed with a truncheon and a pair of cuffs.
How would armed police have prevented today's atrocity?
Did I say it would have? As dowman says, this isn't the 50's. Liberal attempts at stopping tooled up nutters is putting officers at risk. The streets are a war zone BFR and the police have to be properly equiped to deal with it.
I see it's the fault of the "Liberals"...and our streets are not a "war zone". They are incredibly safe to walk down, not totally safe, but arming the police would not make them safer.
Most nations around the world arm their police as a matter of routine - but did arming the US police for example prevent the Boston marathon bombers? Or stop Timothy McVeigh?
We have policing by consent in this nation and have to be careful when we tip the balance against that. This principle relies on our acceptance that we need to have a police force. If you routinely arm the police you won't necessarily prevent crime but you will make the police an arm of the state rather than a necessary arm of society.
Have a read of the thread on the police cock-up/conspiracy over Hillsborough and say the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, or the guy walking along with a chair leg in a carrier bag.
Then you will appreciate that the police are not immune to mistakes - sometimes tragic and self-inflicted mistakes.
Having unarmed police means we have a police service in the UK as opposed to a police force.
Yes or no BFR, do you agree with the police shooting the two killers today?
Armed police officers are the norm in practically every other country on earth. Are we so different that it can't be made to work or is everywhere else that much worse than here ?
Because we bend over for the pc brigade spouting their human rights nonsense.
No. It's because we're British and we're proud of the fact that our Police Officers in general aren't armed.
And, even after today, there is no real reason why every Police Officer in the UK should be armed.
Really. It's not something I'm proud of. I feel sorry for our OB who are going into the trenches armed with a truncheon and a pair of cuffs.
"Going into the trenches"? FFS. They're not 'fighting the Boche'.
99% of Police work doesn't require the use of arms - so why arm them?
Armed police officers are the norm in practically every other country on earth. Are we so different that it can't be made to work or is everywhere else that much worse than here ?
Because we bend over for the pc brigade spouting their human rights nonsense.
No. It's because we're British and we're proud of the fact that our Police Officers in general aren't armed.
And, even after today, there is no real reason why every Police Officer in the UK should be armed.
Really. It's not something I'm proud of. I feel sorry for our OB who are going into the trenches armed with a truncheon and a pair of cuffs.
"Going into the trenches"? FFS. They're not 'fighting the Boche'.
99% of Police work doesn't require the use of arms - so why arm them?
Figure of speech Addickted. Your second point makes no sense.
Armed police officers are the norm in practically every other country on earth. Are we so different that it can't be made to work or is everywhere else that much worse than here ?
Because we bend over for the pc brigade spouting their human rights nonsense.
No. It's because we're British and we're proud of the fact that our Police Officers in general aren't armed.
And, even after today, there is no real reason why every Police Officer in the UK should be armed.
Really. It's not something I'm proud of. I feel sorry for our OB who are going into the trenches armed with a truncheon and a pair of cuffs.
"Going into the trenches"? FFS. They're not 'fighting the Boche'.
99% of Police work doesn't require the use of arms - so why arm them?
Figure of speech Addickted. Your second point makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense. Arm the Police, then the criminals and terrorists and noisy neighbours arm thenselves as well.
Nothing I have ever read has persuaded me that our Police Service should be armed. And 80% of the nations Police Officers agree with that.
Armed police officers are the norm in practically every other country on earth. Are we so different that it can't be made to work or is everywhere else that much worse than here ?
Because we bend over for the pc brigade spouting their human rights nonsense.
No. It's because we're British and we're proud of the fact that our Police Officers in general aren't armed.
And, even after today, there is no real reason why every Police Officer in the UK should be armed.
Really. It's not something I'm proud of. I feel sorry for our OB who are going into the trenches armed with a truncheon and a pair of cuffs.
"Going into the trenches"? FFS. They're not 'fighting the Boche'.
99% of Police work doesn't require the use of arms - so why arm them?
Figure of speech Addickted. Your second point makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense. Arm the Police, then the criminals and terrorists and noisy neighbours arm thenselves as well.
Nothing I have ever read has persuaded me that our Police Service should be armed. And 80% of the nations Police Officers agree with that.
Totally disagree but you're entitled to your opinion as am I.
Armed police officers are the norm in practically every other country on earth. Are we so different that it can't be made to work or is everywhere else that much worse than here ?
Because we bend over for the pc brigade spouting their human rights nonsense.
No. It's because we're British and we're proud of the fact that our Police Officers in general aren't armed.
And, even after today, there is no real reason why every Police Officer in the UK should be armed.
Really. It's not something I'm proud of. I feel sorry for our OB who are going into the trenches armed with a truncheon and a pair of cuffs.
"Going into the trenches"? FFS. They're not 'fighting the Boche'.
99% of Police work doesn't require the use of arms - so why arm them?
Figure of speech Addickted. Your second point makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense. Arm the Police, then the criminals and terrorists and noisy neighbours arm thenselves as well.
Nothing I have ever read has persuaded me that our Police Service should be armed. And 80% of the nations Police Officers agree with that.
I'm not entirely sure that your last point is up to date. I thought that the Police Federation last year was saying that the majority of officers now recognise that they do not have the tools required to do the job and wanted arming routinely to be considered.
How would armed police have prevented today's atrocity?
Did I say it would have? As dowman says, this isn't the 50's. Liberal attempts at stopping tooled up nutters is putting officers at risk. The streets are a war zone BFR and the police have to be properly equiped to deal with it.
I see it's the fault of the "Liberals"...and our streets are not a "war zone". They are incredibly safe to walk down, not totally safe, but arming the police would not make them safer.
Most nations around the world arm their police as a matter of routine - but did arming the US police for example prevent the Boston marathon bombers? Or stop Timothy McVeigh?
We have policing by consent in this nation and have to be careful when we tip the balance against that. This principle relies on our acceptance that we need to have a police force. If you routinely arm the police you won't necessarily prevent crime but you will make the police an arm of the state rather than a necessary arm of society.
Have a read of the thread on the police cock-up/conspiracy over Hillsborough and say the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, or the guy walking along with a chair leg in a carrier bag.
Then you will appreciate that the police are not immune to mistakes - sometimes tragic and self-inflicted mistakes.
Having unarmed police means we have a police service in the UK as opposed to a police force.
Yes or no BFR, do you agree with the police shooting the two killers today?
On the scant information available I have no problem with the action that the police took.
Their actions appeared to be within the terms/powers allowed to them by PACE. Bear in mind that one of the reasons why PACE was introduced was a consequence to the Met (and other police forces) being allowed powers under the "sus laws" which lead to a break down in police/community relations and that was one of the causes of the Brixton/Toxteth etc rioting in 1981 (you might want to read the Scarman report into the riots). Another consequence of the Scarman report was the necessity to "community police" and that is police by trust and popular consent and to build a relationship with the communities they serve. Give the police too much power - whether it is to stop and search on little evidence or use just more force and you break that trust down.
Power must always be exercised sparingly - often it is the threat of force that has more of an effect than it's actual use.
As much as it may stick in the throat, it makes sense to keep him alive, so they can interrogate him and discover whether this just the work of a couple of lone nutters or something bigger.
Huh. Was watching NBC News here in the US and during their report my father asked if London cops were armed. Instinctively said yes. (Of course, it's hard to imagine police not being armed, but just a difference in culture, I suppose.)
My sister happens to be an armed Britsh police officer. She works for a force where all officers are armed as a matter of course. They cannot become officers there unless they pass firearms training. Here's a story which goes some way towards explaining why having armed police officers is not necessarily a good idea. My sister is driving at night and following a stolen vehicle. Some other officers have placed a stinger device across the road up ahead. The stolen vehicle skids to a halt. My sister pulls up behind him and her colleague, in his excitement to get to the driver of the stolen vehicle, jumps out of the police car and trips over the door sill. Unfortunately, he hasn't got his gun on safety, so he accidently fires a shot which ricohets around the inside of the car. No one was hit but my sister still has eardrum issues. Meanwhile, the driver of the stolen vehicle is legging it across a field, the officers manning the stinger hear the gunshot and assume the suspect is firing at them. All hell lets loose with the poor bugger doing a runner becoming a moving target for some very jumpy police officers. Fortunately they all miss and the petrified suspect gives himself up. Arming officers doesn't always make a positive contribution to public safety.
Comments
And, even after today, there is no real reason why every Police Officer in the UK should be armed.
I still don't think the answer is arming but perhaps an increase in rapid response teams (Trojan ?). A major incident in London should have an armed response time of way, way less than 20 mins and I'd imagine if that's what happened today it would contravene whatever guaranteed response time is implemented for rapid response.
It's ironic then that we now have a police service but George Dixon joined a Police Force !
Sometimes it's difficult to tell when the winds blowing so hard.
It's a Yes and a No.
Here's a story which goes some way towards explaining why having armed police officers is not necessarily a good idea.
My sister is driving at night and following a stolen vehicle. Some other officers have placed a stinger device across the road up ahead. The stolen vehicle skids to a halt. My sister pulls up behind him and her colleague, in his excitement to get to the driver of the stolen vehicle, jumps out of the police car and trips over the door sill. Unfortunately, he hasn't got his gun on safety, so he accidently fires a shot which ricohets around the inside of the car. No one was hit but my sister still has eardrum issues.
Meanwhile, the driver of the stolen vehicle is legging it across a field, the officers manning the stinger hear the gunshot and assume the suspect is firing at them. All hell lets loose with the poor bugger doing a runner becoming a moving target for some very jumpy police officers. Fortunately they all miss and the petrified suspect gives himself up.
Arming officers doesn't always make a positive contribution to public safety.