ARmy Rumour SErvice

**Boumer** · 05-05-2012, 16:20

Originally Posted by The_Seagull

Or, better yet, someone else's epaulettes. It's always handy to have someone on the team that has a similar helmet number too. Those stickers come loose very easily.

Sent from my iPhone using ARRSE

What no-one do the brown gloves anymore?

**Drlligaf** · 05-05-2012, 16:43

Originally Posted by dingerr

Wow three whole pallets for a force covering a populace of several million.

Will the whole populace be rioting or is it more a case of once several chavs have been shot, the rest will get the message and dissappear?

**PnGu** · 05-05-2012, 17:01

Dey wil c it on twitta, innit

#splatteredchavs

**Yokel** · 05-05-2012, 17:02

Originally Posted by Boumer

You'll have a gell-tex yellow jacket.

They solve everything don't they? Or so the bosses seem to think. And are bullet/bomb-proof.

The Chain of Command want Service personnel to wear uniform.

**Boumer** · 05-05-2012, 17:34

Originally Posted by Yokel

The Chain of Command want Service personnel to wear uniform.

Apologies, I thought the post was referring to peelers.

I do apologise for the mistake.

**Cutaway** · 05-05-2012, 17:37

Originally Posted by Werewolf

Originally Posted by Pigshyt_Freeman

Not being hard enough on the rioters in the hope that they content themselves with attacking property and civilians, and don't turn on the police. It was a phrase employed by Churchill to describe the mentality and futility of appeasement.

While I agree the performance of the police during last year's riots left a great deal to be desired, it must be remembered that it was often not the choice of the blokes on the ground. Senior officers were far too afraid of A)being seen as heavy-handed and B)being blamed if a copper or, even worse from their perspective, civilian or scumbag was injured.

The Police are by their very nature civilians.

This isn't pedantry, the distinction between military and policing forces, (sorry, services,) is important.

Originally Posted by Werewolf

One can use a different quote, this time from World War I: "Lions led by donkeys."

Crimean, but let's not be picky.

**Boumer** · 05-05-2012, 17:55

Originally Posted by Cutaway

The Police are by their very nature civilians.

This isn't pedantry, the distinction between military and policing forces, (sorry, services,) is important.

Totally true, which is why I prefer to say MoP (Member of the Public), widespread saying certainly in the Met.

(Quick story, used to have a Sgt we all called Terry-after Terry Fuckwitt, not the Taliban-who once got on the radio saying "A Mrs Mop has called in to complain about youths in the street", his finest moment was asking "What time does the 24 hour-shop shut?" on the main working channel. He's now an Inspector, last I heard).

**Pigshyt_Freeman** · 05-05-2012, 18:08

Originally Posted by Cutaway

The Police are by their very nature civilians.

This isn't pedantry, the distinction between military and policing forces, (sorry, services,) is important.

In theory, yes. In practice, I'm not so sure that that remains the case. As an organisation, the police seem to see the partisan enforcement of the will of the state, as of at least equal importance to impartial enforcement of the law.

**Cutaway** · 05-05-2012, 21:10

Originally Posted by Pigshyt_Freeman

In theory, yes. In practice, I'm not so sure that that remains the case. As an organisation, the police seem to see the partisan enforcement of the will of the state, as of at least equal importance to impartial enforcement of the law.

As the parliament of the state make the rules and we allegedly control the makeup of that parliament then it's business as usual.
Should members of the force be found to transgress laws to the benefit of members of the parliament it's good old-fashioned police corruption.
If as an organisation it is violating legislation then we should be looking into all of the adjoining institutions - ACPO, IPCC, CPA, GPA, JPA, MWAP/BAWP, NARPO, etc., not to mention the Home Office.
(Best avoid the NBPA)

Personally I think you're correct in as much as some senior offrs are more into personal enrichment, (pecuniarily or politically,) than they are into policing for the benefit of the general populace, but that brings us back to corruption and ACPO.

Or have I misunderstood your comment ?

**Boumer** · 05-05-2012, 21:32

Originally Posted by Pigshyt_Freeman

In theory, yes. In practice, I'm not so sure that that remains the case. As an organisation, the police seem to see the partisan enforcement of the will of the state, as of at least equal importance to impartial enforcement of the law.

Certainly, it was bashed into me that as an independent Crown Servant I was liable for my actions, and that ultimately I would have to justify myself to a court (although for civil stuf the Commissioner or Chief Constable has vicarious liability).

Not quite sure what is being taught on the new "distance learning" package that seems to have come for for probationary constables.

But (at the risk of sounding like a broken record) with increasing privatisation and the agenda of conformity that is being pushed in with the Winsor reforms, I fear the concerns raised by other ARRSE members are justified.

Sorry to get off the baton rounds concept, but back on:

Here's a scenario. An Inspector on the plot gets authority from the AC (or God or whoever has to give authority) to fire baton rounds. So, on the high street when they are formed up with brick and bottles and petrol bombs coming down-you now have a threat to life.

The Inspector authorises the baton gunner to fire at a man throwing a pertol bomb.

It hits the target (or worse misses and hits another who may or may not be involved in crime, but perhaps not lobbing petrol bombs), who promptly falls over and cracks his head on the pavement and dies.

What do you think is going to happen next? I reckon the baton gunner gets nicked.

The Inspector might, I doubt the AC (or God) would be treated in such terms, though they authorised the use of force.

PC with the baton guns probably gets villified for a couple of years and may or may not stand trial.

Hmmm?

But this is where I come back to my "individual liability under criminal law". Which is right and proper.

I'm not bashing peelers here (though I might be having a go out the lack of support from seniors putting the juniors in impossible positions), but I think that is how it would play out. And if I am thinking it, I can't be the only one surely?