Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by jonwilly, Feb 12, 2006.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
No mention of 'type' being purchased, but at Â£3 million a pop it doesn't sound like new machinery.
New life for the hooligans A109 fleet, perhaps?
That'll put the wind up 'em.
You gotta love the obligatory inclusion of the peacenik and the ex-military. People should remember that however gucci and warry the Met becomes it's still got the same people in charge and its people who discriminate not kit. The choppers just expand the capabilities of an already under-pressure force.
While I'll agree with your point about the Met being under pressure, I just wonder what form the proposed expansion of capability they are after will take. I believe the Met have a number of sensor-equipped aircraft, but how often do they envisage rapelling into Brixton High Street?
Or has Sir Ian been discussing the expansion of his helicopter fleet with his contacts inthe US? The air ambulance in the Capital struggles to find suitable landing sites; how much quicker will armed response teams be able to get into position by air compared to the current arrangement?
No idea, but the idea of them fast roping onto an open topped bus full of Japenese tourists does make me giggle
I'm sure that there are a number of former military pilots now in the civvy world with experience of the techniques. Let's hope that the response times are not equivalent to those of the Puma drivers we all came to know and admire.
The question in my mind is why are the police duplicating the role of the people we already have trained as expert counter terrorist forces in the armed forces. The armed forces at least have the opportunity to train constantly, and as we know training is essential if we are to avoid massive fcukups.
The task of the police is to protect the civilian population against crime and disorder, not to be the action man jumping from helicopters into crowded city streets. The police record on defeating crime is appaling, and they should concentrate on that as the task that they are being very highly paid to do.
Although the police don't shoot people very often, they have a bad record of killing seemingly harmless or innocent people!
They are either soldiers or policemen and to try to both will end up in innocent people being killed.
This is the job of a professional counter terrorist force and not that of a policeman.
So terrorism is not a crime? and who to deal with the increasingly violent and well armed Turkish and Balkan crime gangs many of whom are ex-military with war experience? This just gives us the extra option of fast rope access to roof tops. I take it that the SAS are putting themselves up for every crack house raid in East London? No? point taken then.
Surely under the current regime the job of the Met (as seen from the other side of the world) is to:
Announce they have terrorism under control,
Announce the underground problem is failure of a transformer,
Announce they have sucessfully shot a terrorist.
Waste of money for a chopper, get a model and spend the money on a spin bLair.
Not suggesting at all that terrorism is not a crime, but it is a fact that It requires a different approach from that we take today. No fleet of helicopter gunships could have prevented the London bombings by Al Quaeda or the IRA. What I am suggesting is that it needs a dedicated highly trained force of anti terrorist forces, whether they come from the Armed Forces or the Police doesn't matter.
The best way to defeat terrorism is with intelligence gathering and sophisticated guesswork.
It is just a fact that the Police have recently done a pretty abysmal job against crime and disorder, and will in all likelihood fail against terrorism. It needs a proper focus to defeat terrorism, a focus I suspect, the likes of the current head of the Metropolitan Police is incapable of providing.
Defeating terrorism will never be achieved with Political Interference.
Don't knock it, they'll be hiring ex-AAC drivers at 50K a pop plus shift allowances plus pension. They'll be needing, what, at least six.
Oh, and Bob, wind it in mate.
Not saying I disagree with you, Bob - but what's the alternative? A you proposing a "Third Force" or what?
Werewolf, yes there needs to be something dedicated to disrupting these elements in our society which use terror or fear as a weapon. The drug cartels of London's east end are as much terrorist gangs as the IRA/UVF. They rely on fear to be allowed to carry out their trade. In the same way as the extreme muslims gain control of their mosques.
The only way to beat them is to play the same game with them, and turn the tables against them. They know that if they instil the fear, their existence is not threatened by the powers of law and order, and that if they are caught the maximum they can expect is a couple of years in prison. The risks are minimal but gains are great for these gangs. Meanwhile society pays with the remnants of the gang wars littering our street and invariably innocent bystanders get caught up and injured or even killed.
It is not something that our current day police policy is able to cope with, particularly with the political control and Politically Correct policing that is carried out today.
It is a fact that in the fight against the IRA it was subversive military operations against them that brought them almost to the surrender table. At the time (1995/1996) they were losing so many volunteers it was hard for them to operate. It was acts by politicians of total political foolishness to let them walk away, and have them in a position where they now call the shots.
And for Vegetious - no I'll not wind it in - I am putting forward views in a discussion. You can either agree or disagree!
Who said it would? Three helos to move firearms teams about is a modest aquisition by the largest urban police service in the world, it's The Sunday Times that is talking it up into some new radical sign of a new era of CT by police.
Which we have. As we all know, civilian police can bid for SF. Not that aren't quite busy elsewhere at the moment, eh?
Guesswork? Hey, I feel much better now.
Sorry to correct your Peter Hitchens-level of knowledge there, but the police do a pretty OK job against crime and disorder. They've also done pretty well against terrorism. What was it the IRA used to say? "We only need to be lucky once; you need to be lucky all the time."
The lead agency in the UK responsible for CT is, guess what? NOT THE POLICE.
If the police do a "pretty good job" dealing with crime, how ccome violent crime go up almost every year? Why did the police, along with the spooks, conclude there was no threat of a terrorist attack on the UK just a couple of months before 7/7? Why has the compensation for officers injured in the line of duty risen by 900% in Scotland alone? Why did the police get s""t on from a great height by just about every newspaper and politician in the country over it's handling of the demonstrations by muslim extremeists? Why do thousands of people feel so little faith in the police that they either suffer in silence or take the law into their own hands rather than contact the police?
I accept that our police do a hard job to the best of their abilities. It's just that there best is not good enough too many times.
Message to all police officers: YOU work for US. We pay your wages. Which means we get to criticise you anytime we feel you're not pulling your weight.
PS: Largest urban force in the world? I thought that was the NYPD.
Separate names with a comma.