• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

Police "Will have to quadruple Armed Response Units".

#1
According to Ian Blair, one of the effects of the Met losing the Health and Safety case is that UK police will have to increase the number of Armed Officers by 400% to ensure there is enough armed coppers to cover/respond to any potential operation in the future.

The problem is: where are the extra officers going to come from? There are barely enough to go around as it is without hundreds more being moved from "normal" policing to Armed Response.

The other problem, of course, is that not all police officers are capable of carrying out Armed duties. Indeed, many would not want to. Police officers are not obligated under the terms of their contracts to carry firearms. One cannot simply draft them into new Armed units.

Any ideas?
 
#3
Trick said:
Ex-Squaddies?
Something Ian Blair himself put forward a couple of years ago; recruit directly into Armed Response Units. Suitible recruits - for example ex-Squaddies - would be selected and trained to carry out armed duties ONLY. They would not do "normal" policing.

Not a popular idea among serving police officers, but I fail to see an alternative; the recruits have to come from somewhere and the police service(s) are stretched to breaking point already.

While I have no respect for Ian Blair, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
 
#5
Let's not assume that Ian Blair has got this right. He has form and is known to shoot from the lip. Frankly the man has zero credibility in my view and this is another example of his diversionary tactics. Why does he say this? What's his rationale, his justification?

And the terrifying prospect of yet more cops wandering aroung the streets carrying lethal weaponry immediately raises the likelihood of more innocent or 'accidental' deaths. It's a simple enough calculation.

Does Ian Blair seriously believe that each and every one of these officers is well enough trained and motivated to stalk around our streets whilst ensuring complete public safety? Would he personally be prepared to take real responsibility for this move? Very unlikely.

No, this is just yet another piece of Blair ARRSE covering. And you can guarantee that he'll be picking up his £25k bonus, unlike his Deputy who has had the grace and sense to refuse his bonus.
 
#6
FrankCastle said:
According to Ian Blair, one of the effects of the Met losing the Health and Safety case is that UK police will have to increase the number of Armed Officers by 400% to ensure there is enough armed coppers to cover/respond to any potential operation in the future.

The problem is: .
...and thast before the polis really start getting stuck into the "realistic imitation Firearm" paranoia. That will see an armed response unit called out to every kid with a water-pistol, let alone the walts with their air-soft kit. This from the "Gun Control Network"" for October...Telegraph, 9 October 2007

A police officer asked an eight-year-old boy to destroy his plastic toy gun after he was told it was an imitation firearm. The boy was threatened with arrest until his step-father snapped the gun in half. The incident took place outside the boy's home in Pinehurst in Swindon.
 
#7
Good. It'll mean more armed police on the streets and whether they [the police] like it or not, it's a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

Tazers? F*ck tazers, get guns.
 
#8
Something seperate from the police, then? A seperate National(as opposed to regional)Agency? Something like the German GSG9 or French GIGN but on a much bigger scale.

Problem is, it would cost a lot of money. So I'm not going to hold my breath...
 
#9
Unsworth said:
And the terrifying prospect of yet more cops wandering aroung the streets carrying lethal weaponry immediately raises the likelihood of more innocent or 'accidental' deaths. It's a simple enough calculation.

Does Ian Blair seriously believe that each and every one of these officers is well enough trained and motivated to stalk around our streets whilst ensuring complete public safety? Would he personally be prepared to take real responsibility for this move? Very unlikely.
If the police officers had the same training and refresher training as soldiers then why should it be an issue?

PSNI are armed - does that make them more prone to shooting people?

I think that if the Met set up a new unit that did armed response only and allowed it to specifically recruit from soldiers leaving the Armed Forces, it would be a very full unit very quickly.
 
#10
Not so much of a problem for the Met. They would just offer further financial incentives and poach officers from surrounding Forces as they do at the moment. Not that I could blame any officer from surrounding Forces who is attracted by a very large increase in salary.
 
#11
Unsworth said:
Let's not assume that Ian Blair has got this right. He has form and is known to shoot from the lip. Frankly the man has zero credibility in my view and this is another example of his diversionary tactics. Why does he say this? What's his rationale, his justification?

And the terrifying prospect of yet more cops wandering aroung the streets carrying lethal weaponry immediately raises the likelihood of more innocent or 'accidental' deaths. It's a simple enough calculation.

Does Ian Blair seriously believe that each and every one of these officers is well enough trained and motivated to stalk around our streets whilst ensuring complete public safety? Would he personally be prepared to take real responsibility for this move? Very unlikely.

No, this is just yet another piece of Blair ARRSE covering. And you can guarantee that he'll be picking up his £25k bonus, unlike his Deputy who has had the grace and sense to refuse his bonus.
Why was the Brazillian (sorry i can only remember his initials JC and i'm to tired to find out his name) not safely stopped outside his flat? Because CO19 couldn't get there on time. Why couldn't they? Because they were stretched to thin i.e. lack of numbers. They couldn't deal with a large number of operations. It looks like this is a bigger threat to the public, rather than police with guns (although i do agree that not all cops should be armed).

Personally I don't think Blair should resign. I'm sick of the scapegoat culture that exists in this culture. Yes, in most cases there is someone to blaim, and in those cases there head should roll if need be. However not all c0ck ups are due to one person, and IMO this is one of those c0ck ups.
 
#12
How about move towards getting rid of the fallacy that being armed means you aren't policing by consent. Move progressively to an all armed police force. Start with all recruits and volunteers from now on and go from there.

PSNI Chief Constable made the point recently when he refused to consider disarming his force pointing out that the reason so few of them get stabbed slashed and shot in their day to day duty is they are armed.

Home office doesn't have any unarmed forces anymore, just an armed force that sadly arrives too late at times to help some people and their fellow police.

There is no way police in Australia, the Netherlands, Germany, Canada or any other modern western nation would expect their officers to tackle armed offenders and alarm calls unarmed. Its ridiculous. These nations still have no problem policing by consent. They don't shoot more people because of being armed. The training and requal programs are not arduous, the PSNI (and all the myriad of police forces throughout Europe) have shown that.

The police have an obligation to get on with it and stop bitching that they don't want to carry a weapon because it will 'alienate them from the pubic'. Doesn't seem to happen when they are strolling around estates with MP7s etc...
 
#14
longwayhome said:
How about move towards getting rid of the fallacy that being armed means you aren't policing by consent. Move progressively to an all armed police force. Start with all recruits and volunteers from now on and go from there.

PSNI Chief Constable made the point recently when he refused to consider disarming his force pointing out that the reason so few of them get stabbed slashed and shot in their day to day duty is they are armed.

Home office doesn't have any unarmed forces anymore, just an armed force that sadly arrives too late at times to help some people and their fellow police.

There is no way police in Australia, the Netherlands, Germany, Canada or any other modern western nation would expect their officers to tackle armed offenders and alarm calls unarmed. Its ridiculous. These nations still have no problem policing by consent. They don't shoot more people because of being armed. The training and requal programs are not arduous, the PSNI (and all the myriad of police forces throughout Europe) have shown that.

The police have an obligation to get on with it and stop bitching that they don't want to carry a weapon because it will 'alienate them from the pubic'. Doesn't seem to happen when they are strolling around estates with MP7s etc...
Do you not have a fear that arming the police will cause more criminals to arm themselves?
 
#16
Trick said:
Do you not have a fear that arming the police will cause more criminals to arm themselves?
What? As opposed to now? Its not been the experience in any country that has a fully armed police force. I've not read any research that supports this reason for not arming.

Anyone else read anything different?

There are already enough weapons on the streets as it is. Each year police die at the hands of offenders armed with knives, machetes, revolvers, pistols, shotguns and worse.

Within a week of being on patrol in Australia a criminal my brother was chasing pulled an edged weapon on his partner and him (a common occurence in the UK sadly too). Did he and his partner draw their baton or spray to deal with it? Did they f*ck.. They did what they were trained to do. Get distance draw their Glocks and demand the armed suspect drop his knife. Funny enough he sh*t himself at the sight of the two very large barrels facing him and immediately discarded the weapon and was taken into custody. Job done. Why do we shy away from this in the UK? Whats the problem?
 
#17
JUst look at Germany. Cops armed to the teeth, but they're not being drawn into gun fights every day. Can't see anything in the argument that armed police will draw armed criminals onto the street.
 
#20
Fallschirmjager said:
Have glocks got 'very large' barrels then?
Mate when you're looking at the business end of it apparently they ALL have very large barrels! In this case the are .40 cal... Standard Aus round with the exception of counter terror (although they may have changed over) as at the time I left they were using 9mm Para.
 

Latest Threads