Should British Police be armed as standard 2018?

Should British police be routinely armed?

  • Yes

    Votes: 53 39.3%
  • No

    Votes: 82 60.7%

  • Total voters
    135
Forgive my ignorance. I thought any officer who wished to carry a firearm, no matter their role, had to pass the AFO course. Hence, "Authorised Firearms Officer" included coppers would not carry a firearm day to day, but had to be trained how to do so should the need arise.

in your opinion, should non-ARV officers be allowed to carry firearms, would they need to go through the AFO course or would there be a different training course? And I'm referring to already serving officers rather than, as you suggest, new recruits who's contracts state they must be prepared to carry firearms and who will be trained to do so as part of their basic policing course.
Read and digest, this is probably the way it would work UK wide if introduced.

https://www.psni.police.uk/globalas...manual/chapter_9_-_police_use_of_firearms.pdf
 
after the incident that saw a female police officer very nearly kicked under the wheels of a moving bus.
she was never in any danger of being run over by the bus.

unfortunately policing means having a dust up with those that don't consent to be arrestted, hence formerly having height requirements ect...

I have no prolem with arming the police but I know they will **** up & shoot the public & then lie about it after the event
 
An old mate of mine is/was an AFO,he is not currently on firearms.
He once told me (quote),the average copper is s**t scared of guns.
What he meant was in the context of routine arming of the police,which the average cop is opposed to.
He is ex RMP,if that is relevant.
 
An old mate of mine is/was an AFO,he is not currently on firearms.
He once told me (quote),the average copper is s**t scared of guns.
What he meant was in the context of routine arming of the police,which the average cop is opposed to.
He is ex RMP,if that is relevant.
Currently Armed Officers have a vested interest in keeping firearms as a specialist role. This is because it allows them to be kept in reserve and not have to actually do any routine policing which is difficult, boring and gets you in a lot of grief.

Once the mystery has gone and it’s just routine as it is in 99% of the rest of the world, they might actually have to be cops and do some police work. In the meantime, they convince everyone that it’s too specialist and they have to be free just in case.
 
Currently Armed Officers have a vested interest in keeping firearms as a specialist role. This is because it allows them to be kept in reserve and not have to actually do any routine policing which is difficult, boring and gets you in a lot of grief.

Once the mystery has gone and it’s just routine as it is in 99% of the rest of the world, they might actually have to be cops and do some police work. In the meantime, they convince everyone that it’s too specialist and they have to be free just in case.
Cutting, and oh so true!
 
Once the mystery has gone and it’s just routine as it is in 99% of the rest of the world, they might actually have to be cops and do some police work. In the meantime, they convince everyone that it’s too specialist and they have to be free just in case.
And that will be the end of the plaintive call over the working channel, "Can we have a local unit to deal please".

The despairing cry of the Armed Officer who has some routine policing to do.

My personal favourite was after an entry for a guy with a knife, the ARV crew called up 'for a local unit to deal' with the suspect. Control room asked "Has he been arrested?", and the reply was "No, I have detained him but not arrested him".....


Hmmmmmmm.... good luck at court running that one.
 
Forgive my ignorance. I thought any officer who wished to carry a firearm, no matter their role, had to pass the AFO course. Hence, "Authorised Firearms Officer" included coppers would not carry a firearm day to day, but had to be trained how to do so should the need arise.
To give an example, many moons ago I applied to Heathrow BOCU to get on the CID and qualify as a detective.

All was fine until I was told that I would also have to do the AFO course. Why would I need to be doing that was my polite reply? Well, it's just that all officers at the airport are AFO's so they can be turned out if needs be (even the crime wing).

I politely withdrew my application. When I was asked why, I repeated my opinions about being armed which led to a chuckle from the personnel officer I was dealing with. I was told it's just normally the other way around, people applied to Heathrow to get AFO trained and then go elsewhere. I was determined to become a DC and then do fun stuff. I later did not apply for other posts as a DC due to the requirement to train as an AFO simply to carry a weapon for personal self-defence; such was my lack of confidence in the guvnors.

Probably all changed now, but I was initially attracted due to the the large number of fraud investigations at the Airport BOCU.

It's all relative really, I would imagine routine arming would be comparatively more difficult now that you have a service full of people who drink pints of milk and were raised on "Police: Now" shortened entry courses.
 
And that will be the end of the plaintive call over the working channel, "Can we have a local unit to deal please".

The despairing cry of the Armed Officer who has some routine policing to do.

My personal favourite was after an entry for a guy with a knife, the ARV crew called up 'for a local unit to deal' with the suspect. Control room asked "Has he been arrested?", and the reply was "No, I have detained him but not arrested him".....


Hmmmmmmm.... good luck at court running that one.
Good old magical powers of.....detention
 
Arm them. Get on with it. PSNI have a good model for qualification and ticket upkeep.

Cops don't want to be armed? Since when did people care what cops want. Only because it supports someone else's narrative.

Those that never intend to draw them know who they are. In the same way that various equipment isn't used because of personal preference or confidence.

Droves of officers won't fail the course deliberately and the team officers who have the most pressing need followed by other frontline units will pass. They'll just get on with it. If it makes people feel better wait until an officer is out of their probation so they've built up some experience with the day to day. Just like things like search and driving with the flashy woo woo's

In fact, there's a national shortage of detectives, make them exempt. If you don't want to carry a gun, become a detective. Solve two problems.
 
What people forget is that most of us don't actually live in inner city sink estates or crime hotspots so the routine arming of all coppers would be wholly inappropriate most of the time.

I found myself in the queue at a Tesco in North Dorset a few months ago directly behind a uniformed copper with a sidearm on his belt waiting to pay for the crisps and sandwiches he was buying for him and his mate who was double parked outside in the patrol car.

Absolutely horrendous, and from the looks being exchanged between fellow shoppers people were very shocked and annoyed by it.

The only thing the Bill have ever needed a gun for in these parts was at least a decade ago when they were called on to shoot a cow that escaped from the cattle market and went on the rampage in the surrounding streets.

It has to be on an 'as required ' basis only with with most coppers routinely unarmed.
 
Can't think of a single incidence of such off the top of my head. Sounds like the answer to a question no -one's asked.*

*Except on here where it's asked with tedious regularity.
Rozzers in rural areas in the UK don't need firearms. The locals have more than enough :)
 
In fact, there's a national shortage of detectives, make them exempt. If you don't want to carry a gun, become a detective. Solve two problems.
Well, there may be a case for starting with the CID.

After all, AGS is a routinely unarmed service - but I believe all their detectives are armed?

A mate was transferring to NZ, and whilst they have the firearms in the back of the car - their CID were armed, or so he was told which put him off.
 
What people forget is that most of us don't actually live in inner city sink estates or crime hotspots so the routine arming of all coppers would be wholly inappropriate most of the time.

I found myself in the queue at a Tesco in North Dorset a few months ago directly behind a uniformed copper with a sidearm on his belt waiting to pay for the crisps and sandwiches he was buying for him and his mate who was double parked outside in the patrol car.

Absolutely horrendous, and from the looks being exchanged between fellow shoppers people were very shocked and annoyed by it.

The only thing the Bill have ever needed a gun for in these parts was at least a decade ago when they were called on to shoot a cow that escaped from the cattle market and went on the rampage in the surrounding streets.

It has to be on an 'as required ' basis only with with most coppers routinely unarmed.
Yes, you are probably right. Hungerford, Dunblane and Whitehaven were just blips, nothing like that could happen in a rural area again.
 
Well, there may be a case for starting with the CID.

After all, AGS is a routinely unarmed service - but I believe all their detectives are armed?

A mate was transferring to NZ, and whilst they have the firearms in the back of the car - their CID were armed, or so he was told which put him off.
I think the difference is what a detective does there vs here. The terrorist and OCG threat is a big chunk of their work and they're out and about alot based on geography so it makes sense. I see the typical DC here doing something quite different. Like not knowing where their BA or CS are for example.

Hence I see it differently (but yes I thought AGS detectives were routinely armed too)
 
Yes, you are probably right. Hungerford, Dunblane and Whitehaven were just blips, nothing like that could happen in a rural area again.
Exactly. Also looking at that unit probably the armed cover for....sigh, quite a bit area.

And more to the point how does the OP know what the need was, as required in their model? Answer is they don't.

This is why the planning is done by people who know what the intelligence picture is. Namely not the people in the queue for chips.
 
This is why the planning is done by people who know what the intelligence picture is. Namely not the people in the queue for chips.
Well, it would be.

Except that Sir Tom Winsor stripped away "back office staff". You know, intelligence analysts, support staff like that and experienced cops in intelligence roles.

Still, you can do more with less and all that.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top