Attacks in London

[Fish]

I have a different view on the subject and I am making it. BIM and Yourself are at will to disagree and post alternative views. I think it's unfair to suggest I have not backed up my view (It's not a demand by the way)My view may not satisfy you but that's not a problem to me as once again you are entitled to it. I seem to be experiencing Forum members taking the view that it's wrong to disagree with something even if you are doing your best to be polite when doing it.

But there comes a time when you just have to accept that both parties, and probably most on here simply disagree with your opinion on it so agree to disagree and don't drag it out more than it needs to be which will kill the thread!

The areas you link to in Birmingham which I know very well have armed police not just as a response unit, they are pretty much the fabric of the area in slightly different marked vehicles identifying them as carrying firearms and can be seen all the time, it would be pointless having the same armed officers in and around Solihull, so a fully armed police force is just not practicable, it can however be deployed in high risk areas, which it already is, and as I mentioned very early in the thread, when out in London at night you see many officers by their specific marked vehicles wearing side arms just out on patrol, so they are matched to the areas that could cause concern to offer more visible confidence, I wouldn't want to see them everywhere as I think it would actually cause the opposite effect and cause concern and worry!

Like any issue or problem we address, or attempt to address, it should be aimed at the source and root problem, you don't knee jerk and arm everyone which will have little or no impact or even stop any future attacks!

I've lived all over the world and a lot in the European countries you mention and if terrorists want to attack them, they will, no amount of armed officers will stop them, they don't consider risk as they are prepared to die for their warped cause!

 

[SocketRocket]

But there comes a time when you just have to accept that both parties, and probably most on here simply disagree with your opinion on it so agree to disagree and don't drag it out more than it needs to be which will kill the thread!

The areas you link to in Birmingham which I know very well have armed police not just as a response unit, they are pretty much the fabric of the area in slightly different marked vehicles identifying them as carrying firearms and can be seen all the time, it would be pointless having the same armed officers in and around Solihull, so a fully armed police force is just not practicable, it can however be deployed in high risk areas, which it already is, and as I mentioned very early in the thread, when out in London at night you see many officers by their specific marked vehicles wearing side arms just out on patrol, so they are matched to the areas that could cause concern to offer more visible confidence, I wouldn't want to see them everywhere as I think it would actually cause the opposite effect and cause concern and worry!

Like any issue or problem we address, or attempt to address, it should be aimed at the source and root problem, you don't knee jerk and arm everyone which will have little or no impact or even stop any future attacks!

I've lived all over the world and a lot in the European countries you mention and if terrorists want to attack them, they will, no amount of armed officers will stop them, they don't consider risk as they are prepared to die for their warped cause!

Fair enough. As you said I have made my point so will now leave it at that other than to say that It was put to me of being 'out of my depth' earlier on the thread when I tried to finish the debate.

 

[Blue in Munich]

I don't need personal experience to form a view on an issue,

Indeed you don't, but I'd probably be inclined to have more time for your view if it was based on some experience of the subject being discussed.

I seem to be experiencing Forum members taking the view that it's wrong to disagree with something even if you are doing your best to be polite when doing it.

What was wrong was not disagreeing, it was not providing some sound basis or debate for that disagreement.

Nobody is saying it's wrong to disagree, but instead of answering the replies (as you've failed to do to Phil here) you're making out you're being picked on!

Spot on Paul.

Fair enough. As you said I have made my point so will now leave it at that other than to say that It was put to me of being 'out of my depth' earlier on the thread when I tried to finish the debate.

Er, no it wasn't; it was put to you that you were out of your depth when you chose to play the "petty insults" card to avoid debate rather than respond to the points raised in my post, whether or not you liked the style of it. And considering your signature, is it not a little rich to be complaining about people throwing insults around?

Some years ago, I was posted to drive a Borough Commander around for the day. Having seen press reports & comments on the officer, and having seen one of his recent decisions and vehemently disagreeing with it, it wasn't a posting I looked forward to. From his rank, he could have been high & mighty but he wasn't. He was happy to discuss & explain his viewpoint and happy to accept mine, agreeing with to some extent and understanding the concerns I raised but being happy to explain his reasoning. I still didn't agree with the decision but I understood the reasons why he had made it, respected the reasoning and accepted the decision because he explained it, and came away with a greater respect for both the rank and the man. One of the best days at work that I've had. Perhaps if your posting style was more akin to this Borough Commander's attitude rather than the high & mighty approach that it has come across as to me in this and other threads then the debate might improve and you'd get more of the respect you feel you view deserves.

As far as the guns issue goes, looking back over my service I can't think of many situations where one would have helped, but I can think of plenty where it was potentially a huge liability. The sidearm is only of any use if you can see the issue coming, have time to draw it, issue the relevant warnings and then fire; as I posted previously, that was rarely the issue. I'd suggest that knowing how the judges of hindsight would work in any inquiry after the use of a firearm, there would be a marked reluctance on the part of a number of officers to draw the weapon in the first place, making its value dubious at best. For the vast majority of officers, a CS spray and a friction lock baton are more than sufficient to protect themselves & the public. If we are to roll out more personal protection then it should be Tasers, not firearms.

If we do need more firearms available to the police, and I accept that may be necessary in the modern age, then it should be with properly trained dedicated squads, not every serving officer. One of the great things about the Met was the variety of specialist posts meaning that practically any shaped peg could find a similarly shaped hole to fit into, resulting in happier and better performing officers. A far better method that hammering every shaped peg into the one shaped hole, as the mass issue of firearms would to some degree do. Whilst the days of Dixon of Dock Green may be far behind us, I would far prefer the force that polices me to aspire to that sort of policing than the shoot first, ask questions later approach. I believe that it attracts a much more suitable individual to the role, and that it will be a sad day if we issue everybody with firearms simply because everyone else does it. The reason that British policing used to be respected the world over is precisely because we didn't do the same as everybody else.

 

[drdel]

Fair enough. As you said I have made my point so will now leave it at that other than to say that It was put to me of being 'out of my depth' earlier on the thread when I tried to finish the debate.

I, for one, agree with many of SR's statements and I fail to see why he's getting fried for expressing them.

The truth is that there are areas in the UK where the Police will not go: why? This is a total 'cop-out' as it means some people are held account whereas others who are within groups in a no-go-area aren't.

While arming the Police may not be the whole answer it can be part of a solution that should be considered. It should be possible to have a rational debate. Just because some-one isn't a member of a 'force' doesn't devalue their contribution. In fact sometimes an external , unconstrained opinion provides insight.

Were officers armed the response to this type of threat (and many others) can then be immediate and, as we know, in such situations reaction time is absolutely critical to containment.

 

[SocketRocket]

Indeed you don't, but I'd probably be inclined to have more time for your view if it was based on some experience of the subject being discussed.


What was wrong was not disagreeing, it was not providing some sound basis or debate for that disagreement.



Spot on Paul.



Er, no it wasn't; it was put to you that you were out of your depth when you chose to play the "petty insults" card to avoid debate rather than respond to the points raised in my post, whether or not you liked the style of it. And considering your signature, is it not a little rich to be complaining about people throwing insults around?

Some years ago, I was posted to drive a Borough Commander around for the day. Having seen press reports & comments on the officer, and having seen one of his recent decisions and vehemently disagreeing with it, it wasn't a posting I looked forward to. From his rank, he could have been high & mighty but he wasn't. He was happy to discuss & explain his viewpoint and happy to accept mine, agreeing with to some extent and understanding the concerns I raised but being happy to explain his reasoning. I still didn't agree with the decision but I understood the reasons why he had made it, respected the reasoning and accepted the decision because he explained it, and came away with a greater respect for both the rank and the man. One of the best days at work that I've had. Perhaps if your posting style was more akin to this Borough Commander's attitude rather than the high & mighty approach that it has come across as to me in this and other threads then the debate might improve and you'd get more of the respect you feel you view deserves.

As far as the guns issue goes, looking back over my service I can't think of many situations where one would have helped, but I can think of plenty where it was potentially a huge liability. The sidearm is only of any use if you can see the issue coming, have time to draw it, issue the relevant warnings and then fire; as I posted previously, that was rarely the issue. I'd suggest that knowing how the judges of hindsight would work in any inquiry after the use of a firearm, there would be a marked reluctance on the part of a number of officers to draw the weapon in the first place, making its value dubious at best. For the vast majority of officers, a CS spray and a friction lock baton are more than sufficient to protect themselves & the public. If we are to roll out more personal protection then it should be Tasers, not firearms.

If we do need more firearms available to the police, and I accept that may be necessary in the modern age, then it should be with properly trained dedicated squads, not every serving officer. One of the great things about the Met was the variety of specialist posts meaning that practically any shaped peg could find a similarly shaped hole to fit into, resulting in happier and better performing officers. A far better method that hammering every shaped peg into the one shaped hole, as the mass issue of firearms would to some degree do. Whilst the days of Dixon of Dock Green may be far behind us, I would far prefer the force that polices me to aspire to that sort of policing than the shoot first, ask questions later approach. I believe that it attracts a much more suitable individual to the role, and that it will be a sad day if we issue everybody with firearms simply because everyone else does it. The reason that British policing used to be respected the world over is precisely because we didn't do the same as everybody else.

Australia and Canada have based their Policing on our system but have decided to arm their Policemen without due concern but New Zealand remain unarmed.

Anyhow, I appear to have outstayed my time on this subject so respectfully will leave it there. Thank you for your opinion.

 

[Blue in Munich]

I, for one, agree with many of SR's statements and I fail to see why he's getting fried for expressing them.

The truth is that there are areas in the UK where the Police will not go: why? This is a total 'cop-out' as it means some people are held account whereas others who are within groups in a no-go-area aren't.

While arming the Police may not be the whole answer it can be part of a solution that should be considered. It should be possible to have a rational debate. Just because some-one isn't a member of a 'force' doesn't devalue their contribution. In fact sometimes an external , unconstrained opinion provides insight.

Were officers armed the response to this type of threat (and many others) can then be immediate and, as we know, in such situations reaction time is absolutely critical to containment.

I don't believe he's being fried for expressing them; I believe the flak he is taking is because he fails to respond to direct questions or explain his logic, but simply keeps repeating the mantra that they do it abroad therefore we need to do it here without providing any other justification, and his posts come across as high-handed as a consequence. I'd fully agree with your point that sometimes a view from outside can see areas overlooked by those inside, it can be the most insightful form of criticism but that view from the outside needs to be explained and debated, which I don't see happening here.

When undertaking an advanced driving course, one of the requirements was to provide a commentary so that the instructor & the examiner knew the logic behind the decisions and that the student was doing the right thing for the right reasons, or had the right reasons but was coming to the wrong conclusion, or was doing the right thing but was coming to that conclusion for the wrong reasons. It either reinforced that the student had grasped the concept and was applying it properly or highlighted the areas that needed to be worked on. That's not happening here; we're being given a conclusion by someone with limited if any experience in the field, a conclusion which some of us with greater experience in the matter disagree, but not the explanation to have that rational debate, hence the flak.

 

[PhilTheFragger]

Steady on BIM, you're sounding all rational :rofl:

 

[Blue in Munich]

Steady on BIM, you're sounding all rational :rofl:

Why is it always the moderators that lower the tone on here…………. :angry: :ears: :cheers:

 

[SocketRocket]

I don't believe he's being fried for expressing them; I believe the flak he is taking is because he fails to respond to direct questions or explain his logic, but simply keeps repeating the mantra that they do it abroad therefore we need to do it here without providing any other justification, and his posts come across as high-handed as a consequence. I'd fully agree with your point that sometimes a view from outside can see areas overlooked by those inside, it can be the most insightful form of criticism but that view from the outside needs to be explained and debated, which I don't see happening here.

When undertaking an advanced driving course, one of the requirements was to provide a commentary so that the instructor & the examiner knew the logic behind the decisions and that the student was doing the right thing for the right reasons, or had the right reasons but was coming to the wrong conclusion, or was doing the right thing but was coming to that conclusion for the wrong reasons. It either reinforced that the student had grasped the concept and was applying it properly or highlighted the areas that needed to be worked on. That's not happening here; we're being given a conclusion by someone with limited if any experience in the field, a conclusion which some of us with greater experience in the matter disagree, but not the explanation to have that rational debate, hence the flak.

I wanted to leave the debate as it was but if you must continue to make these assertions then I must respond. I did explain quite clearly what had formed my opinion on Police being armed and it's wrong for you to suggest otherwise. I accept you may have been or are in the Police but that doesnt give you the right to suggest I dont have the wherewithal to form my own opinion. I think that kind of attitude is elitist and bigoted. How can you suggest I have not answered questions, I may decide not to keep repeating my answers but I have made a good effort to support my views.

 

[drdel]

I was an advisor to a Force on their driver training. Some of the commentary was horrendous (from instructors !) so you picked a bad example.

As for questioning SR'S reference to overseas forces. If they are irrelevant why do we spend so much with foreign visits and exchange programmes.

Anyway this is diverting the thread from the heinous attack the consequences of which were mitigated by an armed officer on the spot: preventing the need to wait for a armed team!

 

[Blue in Munich]

I wanted to leave the debate as it was but if you must continue to make these assertions then I must respond. I did explain quite clearly what had formed my opinion on Police being armed and it's wrong for you to suggest otherwise. I accept you may have been or are in the Police but that doesnt give you the right to suggest I dont have the wherewithal to form my own opinion. I think that kind of attitude is elitist and bigoted. How can you suggest I have not answered questions, I may decide not to keep repeating my answers but I have made a good effort to support my views.

I've quoted a number of your posts below. None have had text edited out, but I have highlighted some text below;

Arm all Police.

The dead Policeman was not armed, if he was then he may still be alive. That would have been good enough reason.

What is then? One Policeman may still be alive today if he had been armed, is that not enough!

So why do Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, France, Spain et al arm their Police. Are they somehow different people opr more civilised

I repeat to you what I have said to others. Look at the Police in other European Countries who are armed. Are our police somehow less capable than them of being armed. If you had a gun and someone was about to stab you would you defend yourself? I know what I would do.

Tash. If Bobbies are armed then that's part of the job, as i have been saying most European countries arm their police and dont have problems with recruiting. If the poor Policeman who died today had been armed then their would probably have been a different outcome. We are not living in the days of John Peel anymore and need to face up to the reality of whats happening out there.

If it's part of the job you do it or dont do the job.

Thats a pretty poor post. I am suggesting that if we changed our policy then Policemen would not be left in such vulnerable situations. To suggest that this is disrespectful to him is not necessary and wrong.

Is that the case in most European countries?

I just dont subscribe to this type of argument. As I keep saying, most European Countries have armed Police, we are not talking about special response Officers armed to the teeth with weapons but your normal Bobby carrying a pistol. Why do people think it wouldn't work in the UK and that the training would be difficult or many would refuse. Why doesn't Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, France, Spain and so on have problems with doing this but somehow it would be a big problem in the UK, surely if carrying a weapon was part of the job then they would just get on and do it or someone else would. Regarding the truck in Germany that drove through the Market I believe it was stopped by police shooting through the windows.

It's a different world now than the those of John Peel and Dixon of Dock Green, many people are carrying guns, it's rife with young people in gangs and drug dealers, hardly a day goes by in Birmingham or London without someone using a gun. If someone is coming at a Policeman with a weapon then the best defense is to be armed, OK sometimes it may not make a difference but the chances are that it will. Taking the other argument against that arming Police will make more criminals carry guns, where is the evidence for this again in other European countries, it's not there. As for not trusting the Police to carry guns, well I just despair at that one.

That to me is repeating the that they do it abroad therefore we need to do it here. You are not providing any explanation to justify your viewpoint but challenging others to prove why they consider it wrong. I think that more than covers where you haven't answered questions or made an effort to justify your views, you've simply posted a few links.

I haven't suggested that you don't have the wherewithal to form your own opinion; what I have suggested is that without knowing the full ins & outs that the job entails that your opinion as to whether there is a need to arm all officers full time carries less weight than that of someone who has; big difference. My post to drdel clearly accepts that outside views can be very useful, provided there is an explanation of the logic and that you haven't provided. The elitist & bigoted comment is nothing more than a poor attempt at deflection when the post you quote actually accepts the validity of external critique.

I find it quite ironic, given your aversion to Europe in another thread, is that the only reason you seem to be able to find to justify arming all police is that it is the done thing in Europe……..

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I wanted to leave the debate as it was but if you must continue to make these assertions then I must respond. I did explain quite clearly what had formed my opinion on Police being armed and it's wrong for you to suggest otherwise. I accept you may have been or are in the Police but that doesnt give you the right to suggest I dont have the wherewithal to form my own opinion. I think that kind of attitude is elitist and bigoted. How can you suggest I have not answered questions, I may decide not to keep repeating my answers but I have made a good effort to support my views.

Ok can you answer this

When I said that the country isn't that dangerous a place to justify armed police you used the following article about the level of police recorded homicides on the increase

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/21/england-wales-homicides-rise-knife-gun-crime

But if you read the article at the end it shows that in 2016 there was just over 500 but in 2003 there was over 1000 - so actually it had dropped dramatically

You have also used articles from areas like Birmingham , London , Manchester etc who already have armed response units - so the areas that do have issues with possible firearms already have in place police with armed response

So the next question is - why does my local town police force need to be armed ? Why do the Motorway police need to be armed ?

And please are you able to provide a reason different than - "other countries have armed police"

 

[clubchamp98]

My fear of arming all officers is
If all officers were armed the Crims would then arm themselves as standard practice because it's the only way to get away from the police!
You would see gun fights every day like in the USA and in doing so lots more accidents.
Was a bit suprissed officers in parliament are not armed as it's an obvious target.
This leads to another thread about cost of modernising parliament building.
Build a new chamber somewhere else with security as the main thing this would cost less and make the safety of MPs and staff/ police the main priority.
Just use old building for the tourists.

 

[Blue in Munich]

I was an advisor to a Force on their driver training. Some of the commentary was horrendous (from instructors !) so you picked a bad example.

As for questioning SR'S reference to overseas forces. If they are irrelevant why do we spend so much with foreign visits and exchange programmes.

Anyway this is diverting the thread from the heinous attack the consequences of which were mitigated by an armed officer on the spot: preventing the need to wait for a armed team!

Have I picked a bad example; or have you seen a bad example of a sound practice? The instructor that I had was good, used it well and 20+ years on I still remember it. There is no reason why we can't both be right in this instance.

I did not say they were irrelevant; I said that just because they do it doesn't mean it is the right thing for us. Maybe the reason for the foreign visits is to check that it is still the case? Or liaison visits given that crime has a very different face these days and is much more international, thus a need to share best practice? I'm not saying we can't learn from studying other force practices, just that the fact that they do it is not in itself sufficient justification.

I do not dispute that an armed officer in the right place stopped this; what I am disputing is that the right place for a firearm is on the hip of every police officer in the country; I have no argument against the right firearm in the hands of the right officer with the right training in the right location.

 

[drdel]

Have I picked a bad example; or have you seen a bad example of a sound practice? The instructor that I had was good, used it well and 20+ years on I still remember it. There is no reason why we can't both be right in this instance.

I did not say they were irrelevant; I said that just because they do it doesn't mean it is the right thing for us. Maybe the reason for the foreign visits is to check that it is still the case? Or liaison visits given that crime has a very different face these days and is much more international, thus a need to share best practice? I'm not saying we can't learn from studying other force practices, just that the fact that they do it is not in itself sufficient justification.

I do not dispute that an armed officer in the right place stopped this; what I am disputing is that the right place for a firearm is on the hip of every police officer in the country; I have no argument against the right firearm in the hands of the right officer with the right training in the right location.

I'm sure your 20:20 insight will give you sufficient advance warning of where the next right place and right time will be.

You have just made the point against yourself. Rapid reason teams are an expense and inadequate means of provided cover as any military strategies will confirm: especially in assymetric operations.

I will leave you to your views as there is no basis for agreement and the thread is descending and a detraction from the event.

 

[SocketRocket]

I've quoted a number of your posts below. None have had text edited out, but I have highlighted some text below;





















That to me is repeating the that they do it abroad therefore we need to do it here. You are not providing any explanation to justify your viewpoint but challenging others to prove why they consider it wrong. I think that more than covers where you haven't answered questions or made an effort to justify your views, you've simply posted a few links.

I haven't suggested that you don't have the wherewithal to form your own opinion; what I have suggested is that without knowing the full ins & outs that the job entails that your opinion as to whether there is a need to arm all officers full time carries less weight than that of someone who has; big difference. My post to drdel clearly accepts that outside views can be very useful, provided there is an explanation of the logic and that you haven't provided. The elitist & bigoted comment is nothing more than a poor attempt at deflection when the post you quote actually accepts the validity of external critique.

I find it quite ironic, given your aversion to Europe in another thread, is that the only reason you seem to be able to find to justify arming all police is that it is the done thing in Europe……..

I have no aversion to Europe, it's the EU I have an aversion to, do you know the difference? I do have a fairly extensive experience of working and living in Europe and especially Germany where I have some very good friends. My experience while there is that the police being armed works well and gives the public some reassurance that they are in a position to give a very rapid response to threats of violence, much better than the time it would take to summon and deploy an armed response unit. There are obviously situations where such a unit would be better but not in all cases.

 

[Blue in Munich]

I'm sure your 20:20 insight will give you sufficient advance warning of where the next right place and right time will be.

You have just made the point against yourself. Rapid reason teams are an expense and inadequate means of provided cover as any military strategies will confirm: especially in assymetric operations.

I will leave you to your views as there is no basis for agreement and the thread is descending and a detraction from the event.

Unfortunate that you've chosen to sink to sarcasm because you're normally better than that. I've never argued against fixed posts, I just feel that the answer, if we require more armed officers, is properly trained ones strategically placed and deployed as required rather than a sidearm on every man jack, the majority of whom don't want them and would be reluctant to use them. And it doesn't matter how well you arm and train officers, they still need the time to react in order to use that weapon. And if all officers are armed and one does go down, that firearm is then in the hands of the opposition…..

 

[SocketRocket]

Genuine question. We train Police Officers to use Tazers, is it more difficult to train them to use a sidearm? I had training in the use of small arms in the Navy and it seemed straight forward enough.

 

[Foxholer]

Genuine question. We train Police Officers to use Tazers, is it more difficult to train them to use a sidearm? I had training in the use of small arms in the Navy and it seemed straight forward enough.

Given that Taser training is for immobilisation, as opposed to 'elimination', I believe that Police training will be significantly different!

Armed Forces training is all about elimination of the threat, so is a completely different - and simpler - training regime!

 

[Hobbit]

I have no aversion to Europe, it's the EU I have an aversion to, do you know the difference? I do have a fairly extensive experience of working and living in Europe and especially Germany where I have some very good friends. My experience while there is that the police being armed works well and gives the public some reassurance that they are in a position to give a very rapid response to threats of violence, much better than the time it would take to summon and deploy an armed response unit. There are obviously situations where such a unit would be better but not in all cases.

I wouldn't be that reassured to see the Police armed for the simple reason I can't remember the last time I saw a bobby on the beat.

By all means protect obvious targets, like airports, but what's the point of giving every Policeman a gun? I'd rather see the money spent on getting more Police presence out on the streets.