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

ugly

LE
Moderator
knife crime is up, and on the up, but who takes a gun to a knife fight, tasers do the job just fine. Anyway, just look what happens to officers who shoot someone dead in the uk, hung out to dry, scapegoat, patsy....
Name one, just one as opposed to civilians doing the same?
 
Are we all missing the point that in Britain were policed by consent not by force? The whole legal landscape would have to change to support this, even if we did want it.
 
The rest of the world Arms it’s police as a matter of routine with very little issues. Time we did. As I’ve always said, it’s a 5 year thing to effectively establish it, let’s not leave it until it’s too late and we are playing catch up.
 
The rest of the world Arms it’s police as a matter of routine with very little issues. Time we did. As I’ve always said, it’s a 5 year thing to effectively establish it, let’s not leave it until it’s too late and we are playing catch up.
Im pretty sure the USA has some issues.
 
Are we all missing the point that in Britain were policed by consent not by force? The whole legal landscape would have to change to support this, even if we did want it.
I sense the irony is strong here!

Surely if we are governed by consent then too, and our lords and masters do not require the overwhelming firepower display outside Parliament and through the Westminster area...

And on a serious note, no legislation needs changing.

The lawful power for force is at S3 Criminal Law act 1967. It allows for force from handcuffs, baton strikes, lethal use of firearms and (I have on some authority) was the law quoted for the power for the RAF to shoot down a hostile aircraft over the UK should another 9/11 scenario occur.

Law is not the issue.

Will is the issue.

Plus the lack of morale fibre to admit the wheel has come off and TJF. But if you don't have to live in the real world, and our politicians do not; who give a damn.
 
Im pretty sure the USA has some issues.
Does it actually have a problem, or is it a politically driven media hyped problem?

Given the number of firearms in circulation and the level of high end crime, I would like to see the actual statistics that show whether it is higher or lower.

A few high profile incidents don’t necessarily indicate that it is better or worse than anywhere else.

I would prefer to compare ourselves with other European or Antipedian countries.
 
My vote is no.
I reckon it should be up to each Officer individually, and then after having received training obviously.
One good reason for this is that there are perfectly good police men and women out there, who didn't join up with the intention of shooting people, and don't have it in themselves to do it.
That person carrying a gun is now a liability.
 
Are we all missing the point that in Britain were policed by consent not by force? The whole legal landscape would have to change to support this, even if we did want it.
Which is fine, until consent is withdrawn. We have now reached a point where the head of the Police Federation has admitted officers may have to let violent criminals go free in certain situations if members of the public are unwilling to help arrest them. He said this after the incident that saw a female police officer very nearly kicked under the wheels of a moving bus.

There is a significant minority of people who do not consent to being policed. Who see a copper as just another victim. Who regard the social contract most people abide by with utter contempt. And such people will only yield to greater force. Or to quote Blackboard Monitor Vimes,

Policing by Consent was all very well, but you had to hit the buggers until they stopped moving first.
 
My vote is no.
I reckon it should be up to each Officer individually, and then after having received training obviously.
One good reason for this is that there are perfectly good police men and women out there, who didn't join up with the intention of shooting people, and don't have it in themselves to do it.
That person carrying a gun is now a liability.
Agreed. Many otherwise exemplary officers either do not wish to carry firearms or are unsuited to carrying out that kind of police work, and it would be deeply counterproductive to force them to do so.

However, any officer should be allowed to apply for the AFO course and, if they pass, carry a firearm as part of their normal duties.
 
My vote is no.
I reckon it should be up to each Officer individually, and then after having received training obviously.
One good reason for this is that there are perfectly good police men and women out there, who didn't join up with the intention of shooting people, and don't have it in themselves to do it.
That person carrying a gun is now a liability.
That’s why it’s a 5 year process to start phasing it in. New joiners sign to agree and current serving are selected and trained with a long term plan to make it routine. Those that don’t want to are employed in non confrontational roles.

It will take some time but 99% of the world think it’s a no brainer.
 
Which is fine, until consent is withdrawn. We have now reached a point where the head of the Police Federation has admitted officers may have to let violent criminals go free in certain situations if members of the public are unwilling to help arrest them. He said this after the incident that saw a female police officer very nearly kicked under the wheels of a moving bus.

There is a significant minority of people who do not consent to being policed. Who see a copper as just another victim. Who regard the social contract most people abide by with utter contempt. And such people will only yield to greater force. Or to quote Blackboard Monitor Vimes,

Policing by Consent was all very well, but you had to hit the buggers until they stopped moving first.
The Head of The Met Police Federation not The National Head.
 
Agreed. Many otherwise exemplary officers either do not wish to carry firearms or are unsuited to carrying out that kind of police work, and it would be deeply counterproductive to force them to do so.

However, any officer should be allowed to apply for the AFO course and, if they pass, carry a firearm as part of their normal duties.
It’s not necessarily a different type of Policing, we are not talking about ARV or SFO, we are talking about normal cops having a pistol to use if required whilst they do their normal jobs. Just like the rest of the world.
 
Agreed. Many otherwise exemplary officers either do not wish to carry firearms or are unsuited to carrying out that kind of police work, and it would be deeply counterproductive to force them to do so.

However, any officer should be allowed to apply for the AFO course and, if they pass, carry a firearm as part of their normal duties.
The AFO/ARV is not for routine policing, it is for specialist Firearms roles.
 
How long do we allow things to deteriorate before we start the process of routine arming, bearing in mind the process will take some years?

Are things going to improve to such an extent that Police Officers can safely work and protect the public with a small tin stick and 6 seconds of spray.
 
The AFO/ARV is not for routine policing, it is for specialist Firearms roles.
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.
 
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 their be a different course?
An AFO is someone who generally requires to be armed but is static or on foot, such as an armed officer at an airport or outside an embassy or Downing Street. An armed guard. An ARV is a vehicle borne firearms officer who deploys to appropriate incidents and can carry out hard stops or house clearances etc. SFO/CTSFO are more specialist.

A normal frontline officer cannot just complete any of the above courses just to have a weapon on them.

I’m suggesting a bespoke course that allows frontline officers to carry and use a pistol on duty to defend themselves and the public in spontaneous incidents that they come across during day to day duties. Nothing pre planned or specialist.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top