kdubya Posted June 18, 2012 Report Share Posted June 18, 2012 People are claiming that the standard of our police is so bad compared to other countries where there police routinely carry arms that they could not be trusted with them what a load of clap trap I for one would have no problems with them all being armed. good for you, you have them then, personally I would not give them a catapult. KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted June 18, 2012 Report Share Posted June 18, 2012 Most I suspect have little/no knowledge of Uk training/standards , at least the Police/Military have structured training before they carry unlike the majority of civilian shooters . their "structured training and standards" came in really useful for Jean Charles de Menezes KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zulu Posted June 18, 2012 Report Share Posted June 18, 2012 good for you, you have them then, personally I would not give them a catapult. KW Who is going to respond to armed incidents in the UK if the Police were not armed and not considered suitable ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pat 1 Posted June 18, 2012 Report Share Posted June 18, 2012 No civilian police force should be armed unless the civilian population is armed. A police constable has a right to defend himself and so should the civilian population.Crime in America is much lower than here especially in the open carry states,wonder why?. If you note I have given the police their proper title,constable, not officer which seems to be in vogue of late. Now an armed junta,well thats another matter. I hope the people in the uk dont allow their police to be armed as there is nothing worse looking than a couple of gunslinger lookalikes arresting someones child for kicking a football on the road or some poor drunk urinating up a back alley in the middle of the night. The modern day policeman is not competant to carry a batton never meaning a gun. If they posessed at least a smidging of commom sence then that would be another matter. But why arm them sure the might of the British army and air force and navy are setting up in london for the olympics,there will not be a pickpocket or thug for miles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
four-wheel-drive Posted June 18, 2012 Report Share Posted June 18, 2012 good for you, you have them then, personally I would not give them a catapult. KW This is the part that really makes me laugh to get in the army and get your hands on all sorts of weapons for the most part all that you need is to be young and breathing. To get in to the police is not that simple some years ago I had a friend in his twenty's he had quite a skilled job he did a five year apprenticeship for but could not get in to the police because his spelling was not to good in every other way he would have been really good but they would not have him. How dos that work then I am not knocking the army guy but it is harder to join the police but then you are not thought by many to be good enough to be in charge of a gun. One could also make up a good argument from this that half of us should not be allowed to go walking about the fields with a shot gun in our hands are we any safer than a policeman. :hmm: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greymaster Posted June 18, 2012 Report Share Posted June 18, 2012 People are claiming that the standard of our police is so bad compared to other countries where there police routinely carry arms that they could not be trusted with them what a load of clap trap I for one would have no problems with them all being armed. Police officer Simon Harwood hit newspaper vendor Ian Tomlinson with a baton and shoved him to the ground in a "gratuitous act of aggression" because his "blood was up", a court heard today. - Daily Telegraph about the copper accused of killing Ian Tomlinson. I suppose they could be trained to shoot the public in the back provide the victim is innocent and has his hands in his pockets and is heading home in a peaceful manner. Ask them to face down rioters and petrol bombs and they would probably lose it and fire indiscrminantly at those without hands in pockets and looking them in the eye. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diceman Posted June 18, 2012 Report Share Posted June 18, 2012 (edited) just shows your general lack of interest in politics.....un-fortunately i am not allowed to be a member of a political party.......but i email them regularly and ask questions regarding how certain matters affect me......including speaking to the UKIP representative for my area.......they have a lot of figures of how much we pay the EU to be a member and the fine for not arming police is one of them. Huh? You make a statement, I am interested, I ask for more info and you have a dig by telling me that shows my general lack of interest in politics? And even though I have googled and looked on the UKIP website I still can't find anything about this? Do you have a source? Edited June 18, 2012 by Diceman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) This is the part that really makes me laugh to get in the army and get your hands on all sorts of weapons for the most part all that you need is to be young and breathing. To get in to the police is not that simple some years ago I had a friend in his twenty's he had quite a skilled job he did a five year apprenticeship for but could not get in to the police because his spelling was not to good in every other way he would have been really good but they would not have him. How dos that work then I am not knocking the army guy but it is harder to join the police but then you are not thought by many to be good enough to be in charge of a gun. One could also make up a good argument from this that half of us should not be allowed to go walking about the fields with a shot gun in our hands are we any safer than a policeman. :hmm: I take it from your post you have never been in the forces? Any old scrote CANNOT get in (once upon a time maybe... about the same time the local bobby could give you a clout round the ear for being cheeky!) Selection is quite rigorous. The police selection is more rigorous, A police constable needs to be able to use his own judgement, make his own decisions and think on his feet, sometimes in very challenging circumstances.... Armed Police even more so.. I'm not saying soldiers don't have to but... on the battlefield it is more than likely a unit will know what they are walking into or at least be prepared for the possibility of an engagement.. a Constable doesn't know what he is going to be dealing with most of the time and quite often will be doing it alone! Your average squaddie is not allowed to roam the streets with weaponry of any kind. Weapons are issued under very strict control and whilst armed, said squaddie will be under direct supervision/control of an NCO who will be under supervision from a higher ranking NCO who will be under supervision of an officer yadda yadda... you get the picture... Most of the decisions (not all) a squadie needs to make will be made for him (or her) by someone else. A completely different set of circumstances. Just because a squaddie might have access to state of the art military kit does not mean he needs to be the most intellectually savvi. As to your comment re spelling... A squaddie isn't likely (although it is possible) to be required to produce reports and statements of a quality and legibility required to present before a judge and jury and secure a conviction... damned right a police force should require a certain level of literacy from it's entrants! Edited June 19, 2012 by Vipa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Scholl Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 Yes, it's time for the UK to arm its police officers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) their "structured training and standards" came in really useful for Jean Charles de Menezes KW The main difference here is you can name the mistakes that have been made they are so infrequent. Some are more excuse able than others as the simple facts are if the police ate to carry and use guns there will be accidents. I can't imagine why they want to do the job bearing in mind the trial by media that goes on every time they make an incorrect call. One thing I don't believe is any of the police involved pulled the trigger knowing he was innocent. If you look at the number of incidents met police firearms officers go to versus the number of times shots are fired its a tiny percentage the threat is enough. The status quo is about right enough are armed to show a presence, we really don't need a setup like the USA Edited June 19, 2012 by al4x Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compo90 Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 Huh? You make a statement, I am interested, I ask for more info and you have a dig by telling me that shows my general lack of interest in politics? And even though I have googled and looked on the UKIP website I still can't find anything about this? Do you have a source? sorry i quoted what i was told by a prospective ukip MP........perhaps it isn't open source info. But there is a clause in the eu, i was told (again we only know anything we know because someone told us) that means that this country pays a fine yearly to the eu not to arm its police. Huh? You make a statement, I am interested, I ask for more info and you have a dig by telling me that shows my general lack of interest in politics? And even though I have googled and looked on the UKIP website I still can't find anything about this? Do you have a source? sorry i quoted what i was told by a prospective ukip MP........perhaps it isn't open source info. But there is a clause in the eu, i was told (again we only know anything we know because someone told us) that means that this country pays a fine yearly to the eu not to arm its police. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 or maybe its because its bullocks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compo90 Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 or maybe its because its bullocks no i am going through all my old emails trying to find that....not in the habit of making facts like that up. unlike the rest of you who moan on here and in the pub......i actually email my mp to the point that i irritate him, i also email and ask the opinions of the opposition, i garner their opinions to form my opinion of who i should vote for......if we all did this perhaps things may be different here, perhaps we wouldn't have the hunting act......and all those issues that we all agree on would be fresh in the minds of the MP's who work for us but who you never tell or ask what you want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 no i am going through all my old emails trying to find that....not in the habit of making facts like that up. we are all waiting expectantly............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compo90 Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) one of the many reference documents and links i have, refers to this part of the eu security and border security policy, we fail to provide a RABIT team due to not having enough armed police we can send, this isn't the reference i was after, but it touches on it.....i will keep looking for you http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/free_movement_of_persons_asylum_immigration/l14124_en.htm as you can see the eu convention wants a united states of europe, as the eurocrats want, if you read the convention treaties you will see many references to police and armed forces being given language courses to aid their cross deployment...........in fact have we now no longer got effective aircraft carriers and will be sharing with the french? thats the master plan all along one european state, with cross deployable police and military.......... I will keep looking for the reference to the fine we pay every year for not having an armed police force, but we pay loads anyway to just be part of it Edited June 19, 2012 by compo90 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compo90 Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 this document makes many references to the eu "une armee" one army, one military and also has references to the eu constitution and the combined fight on terrorism and combined efforts against such including illegal arms dealing, human trafficking and lots more http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_146_fr.pdf still going through old emails and documents.......this isn't a recent thing the eu constitution on an armed eu police force was very old but the fine is still very real Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compo90 Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/capacitybuilding/police_en.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 not much sign of us being fined for not arming the police in any of them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 how do you guys and gals feel about our police being armed? Personaly i feel all or majority of them should be. Every day theres something on the news that realy gets my back up! Like these gangs of tenagers and men running around with semi automatic handguns and knives. And from what i can see no1 can stop them. If the police were armed and trained in to tackle these situations would england not be a safer place? Not a chance i can agree with that one. Training stds are too low and serious issues have been brought up with the way candidates are selected (military trainers brought in were horrified by the candidates attitudes). Following the Toxteth riots the Home office did a lot of research on the feasability of this and concluded it was i very poor idea. The police are actually most at danger from thier own guns. As for the low lifes there is a simple answer (lock them up for long terms earlier in thier careers of crime), has anyone else noticed how people can commit very serious crimes in our country and get off with suspended scentances etc? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compo90 Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 not much sign of us being fined for not arming the police in any of them as i said i have several years worth of old emails and documents archived, not very well i admit, and i have deleted some.........i was showing the political motives and want to make it one united state's and as such having one set of laws and one set of order, military and civilian police.....read the french text one that shows a lot of that, sadly i dont have that in english as it was written by a man at the belgian military academy, I am still looking. I may not find it and you can then say i am a liar as there is not a google link.....somethings are not all over google....but are real non the less, as i said if we all spoke regularly to our MP's about what bothers us and asked questions we would all know these things......e.g, the hunting act got passed simply because the anti hunt people attended every Mp surgery , they wrote letters, attended demo's, sent emails .....the labour party MP's suddenly thought there was a massive ground swell of public opinion against hunting and the act got passed, where as in reality it was a small but very vocal minority making it seem far bigger. politics in this country is corrupt and perverse we dont remind the MP's who they work for and things like this get swept under the carpet....best not to tell the population as they would demand we either issued firearms to the police or we come out of the expensive eu club Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greymaster Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 The main difference here is you can name the mistakes that have been made they are so infrequent. Some are more excuse able than others as the simple facts are if the police ate to carry and use guns there will be accidents. I can't imagine why they want to do the job bearing in mind the trial by media that goes on every time they make an incorrect call. One thing I don't believe is any of the police involved pulled the trigger knowing he was innocent. If you look at the number of incidents met police firearms officers go to versus the number of times shots are fired its a tiny percentage the threat is enough. The status quo is about right enough are armed to show a presence, we really don't need a setup like the USA Of course he was innocent. We all are until convicted by a jury. Liberty and freedom relies upon judicial sanction on guilt established by due process, in open court, facing your accusers and examination of evidence. Summary execution by panicky plods is not due process. Geez, recall the plod who was shot by a colleague in a training class. And recall the picture of the specially trained plods arsing about with a gun pointing it at the backside of a colleague. And the Met Plods who shot a carpenter carrying a table leg in his holdhall. If these are the elite armed police teams, imagine the carnage arming the remaining buffoons out there. Britain would be less safe with an armed police force. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compo90 Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 And the Met Plods who shot a carpenter carrying a table leg in his holdhall. do you mean Harry Stanley? the man who sat in a pub and told a small crowd he had a sawn off shotgun in his bag and then showed them a carrier bag wrapped around a chair leg but insisted it was a shotgun and didn't unwrap the carrier bag, then put it back in his holdall and left......one of the crowd rang the old bill, when the two armed officers tried to stop him he pulled the carrier bag wrapped chair leg out and levelled it at the officers as you would a shotgun shooting from the hip. I wonder why he got shot? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 Of course he was innocent. We all are until convicted by a jury. Liberty and freedom relies upon judicial sanction on guilt established by due process, in open court, facing your accusers and examination of evidence. Summary execution by panicky plods is not due process. Geez, recall the plod who was shot by a colleague in a training class. And recall the picture of the specially trained plods arsing about with a gun pointing it at the backside of a colleague. And the Met Plods who shot a carpenter carrying a table leg in his holdhall. If these are the elite armed police teams, imagine the carnage arming the remaining buffoons out there. Britain would be less safe with an armed police force. put like that its hard to argue but in the first case in proper context yes there was panic a week before we had had a somewhat serious terrorist incident in London. They made the wrong call in the circumstances and will be haunted by it forever, the risk free option was to find all the facts double and triple check let him get on the train and maybe intercept at the next stop. Had he actually been who they thought he was and blown the train up there would have been a serious backlash so there was no winning in the situation. As for the drunk with the table leg they responded to a call about bloke with a firearm in a bag, said drunk bloke didn't put it down and waved it at them. Now any country with armed police I would expect them all to make the same call and shoot, in that case I seem to remember it wasn't just one of the officers who did but both. Its what ****** me off about this country most so many armchair experts so fast to condemn in retrospect but with no comprehension of the facts available at the time or why the decision to shoot was made. Then the guys get tried by the media and even when cleared people still claim they were guilty of in effect murder as I assume you're suggesting they knew it was a table leg and were just being trigger happy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compo90 Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 found this from UKIP, about the hidden costs , i believe that the fine i mention is in amongst those costs. 3.9 Hidden Costs The last edition of this booklet in 2008 contained a section on ‘Hidden Costs’. It is known that amounts of monies additional to the budget contributions are paid to the EU to fund EU and EU related projects, e.g. the Galileo Satellite System etc. An estimate for these amounts was arrived at using the discrepancies between the published UK Government current account balance with the EU institutions and the official transactions with EU institutions. In 2008 we estimated the discrepancy as £3 billion per annum. The current discrepancies are estimated at an average of £3.258 billion per annum (2010). However extracting definitive information from the Government to identity these funds has proved impossible even for sitting MPs, such as Austin Mitchell who asked specific questions on this issue. While we believe that additional sums of money are being paid to the EU in the region of over £3 billion per annum we cannot definitively identify the exact amounts and purposes; therefore for this edition we have decided to leave this estimated expenditure out of our final calculations. This is a subject that needs to be returned to in the future. It will prove extremely difficult to identify every EU project that we help to fund outside of the budget contributions and the amounts, but we can be sure it is very significant amounts of money. as i said they dont share what will bite them hard......still looking as i said for many years i have asked awkward questions and have had many different kinds of replies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nial Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 Being armed might have stopped this young peeler from being possibly crippled.... http://inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/in-the-hands-of-the-darkest-most-cynical-and-sinister-devils/ "Police were called in the early hours of 12 March 2011 to reports of a man being chased by a group of youths who were armed with a knife on Hemlock Road, in the W12 area. On arrival officers found a man being assaulted, who they attempted to help at which point they were set upon by a number of men including the three convicted men. PC Tucker was kicked, punched and thrown across a front garden where he hit his head and was knocked unconscious. PC Guillibaud called for urgent assistance and more officers arrived. They were forced to use CS spray to stop the violence and defend themselves." "Michael Luke and Paul Luke were sentenced to 12 months each for affray. James King was sentenced to 18 months for affray and actual bodily harm against 27-year-old PC Sean Tucker. They all pleaded guilty to the offences on Tuesday 8 May at the same court." "He’s had surgery, needed an artificial ligament, still isn’t back to full duties but they charged with ABH?! 18 months (probably serving 6 or 7) is hardly a deterrent for a mob attacking police and hospitalising (and possibly permanently crippling) a young officer." When the courts are handing out 'punishment' like that it's no wonder they're losing the 'respect' of the criminal underclass. Nial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.