we ought to wait until we hear fom Tac or another British citizen. We don'y always get the facts otherwise.

quote:

Originally posted by LtJL:
we ought to wait until we hear fom Tac or another British citizen. We don'y always get the facts otherwise.

Wait for what about what exactly?

quote:

Officers themselves must also be assured that if they use their weapon correctly, they will have the backing of not just the police, but also the Independent Police Complaints Commission, media, courts and government.

We could use a little of this in the US too.

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:

quote:

A lot of UK officers would decline a firearm

I call this BS

Sad to say, it's not.

In a recent survey carried out in the AOR of the Metropolitan Police - ie, Greater London excepting the City of London, a separate organisation -

Quote -


http://metfed.org.uk/news?id=7185

Results also show that the largest number of respondents - 43.6% - believe there “should be more specialist firearms officers in the Metropolitan Police Service but not all officers should be routinely armed.”

Other results in the survey show:

• 57% of officers who responded said they would be prepared to carry a gun if the Commissioner and the Home Secretary made a decision that all MPS officers should routinely carry a firearm whilst on duty.

• A little over one in four respondents (26%) said that they believe all police officers should be routinely armed.

• 12% of officers surveyed said under no circumstances would they carry a firearm whilst on duty.

• 8.2% of respondents said they would resign from the MPS rather than accept an order to routinely carry a firearm whilst on duty. 86.5% said they would not.

Just to reiterate - in UK, policing is carried out by consent of the public, nit by any kind of paramilitary gendarmerie - this might help to understand it better -

Qhote - However, for the benefit of the OP [an American querent], it’s worth going back to the original concept framed by Sir Robert Peel (1788–1850) of the Metropolitan Police as ‘civilians in uniform’ rather than ‘gendarmes’ ie., a branch of the military. It’s because of Peel’s great initiative that British police are known as ‘Bobbies’ or ‘Peelers’: Peel felt that unarmed officers recruited from the London working class would have a much better insight into the day-to-day world of the communities they were policing and with much less chance of the civilian deaths that had happened when the military was called in to deal with disturbances. That said, nobody in past generations who had found themselves on the wrong end of a police baton, been stepped on by a police horse, or chucked down the stairs of a police station would have had any reason to regard policing in London, Manchester, Liverpool or Glasgow as anything less than extremely robust.

Today, much has changed, and British police, from the highest to the lowest rank, fully understand that effective policing is only possible with the consent of the community: even so, police are still officers of the Civil Power and are obliged to act firmly and effectively when civil order (the Queen’s Peace) is threatened or the law is being broken.

End quote.

tac

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by LtJL:
we ought to wait until we hear fom Tac or another British citizen. We don'y always get the facts otherwise.

Wait for what about what exactly?

To be advised of the truth, rather than the usual shite that gets slung around whenever self-defence in UK is being discussed.

However, if the crap is what you want to read, please carry on reading it to your heart's content.

Those who want to read the skinny know where to look.

tac

Nigel Farage's radio show, topic: The Nigel Farage Show: Should all our police be armed? Live LBC - 5th June 2017

Rather fascinating listening to callers on this topic.



https://youtu.be/tzJZneZ6pB0

Why don't they at least carry Tasers?

Police in the US also work at the consent of, and are recruited from, the citizenry. A police officer is an employee of that city's own government, which is itself an independent governing entity.

The city government is run by the city council, each member of which is elected by the citizens of that city. The city government is not a part of, or beholden to the state or federal government.

Every officer is hired as a civilian employee, trained, and then armed. Many are even required to purchase thier own firearm and ammunition locally. It can, has, and will likely always be done this way. Even the smallest town police departments have 100% of thier officers armed, and at a cost of $0.00 to the city government.

It's easy to accomplish, just add the following blurb to your help wanted ad:

Police officer wanted, must provide your own gun and handcuffs.

I've worked for agencies that provide everything, and for agencies that even made me buy my own police radio.

I couldn't imagine trying to do the job unarmed.

If the local shitheads knew we were unarmed, our presence would deter nothing. They'd likely start robbing us too!

In the U.S. we recruit and select officers with the view that they will all be armed. That is taken into consideration in the recruitment and screening process. The UK has been hiring officers for many years who were never expected to be armed-it wasn't part of the deal, and it wasn't factored into hiring decisions. If they choose to arm all their officers it will take a generation to get it done due to the enormous cultural shift that must occur in police services. You can't just bring everybody in for a class and hand them a gun-many would not be suited. From my time working with UK officers when I was stationed there I know this discussion has been going on in police circles for many years and it seemed the consensus was the realities of a violent world would ultimately push them in that direction.

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:

quote:

A lot of UK officers would decline a firearm

I call this BS

Unfortunately, it's true. It isn't just the culture of the country, the culture of the policing is different there too. A couple years ago I spent some time in the U.K. and got to spend quite a bit of time with some active and retired officers. As a retired LEO myself, I was quite surprised to learn that officers there are expected to just "cope" with attacks which clearly involve levels of force capable of causing death or great bodily injury. An officer described to me how firebombs (Molotov Cocktails) are frequently thrown at officers during "civil disturbances", and personnel are directed to shelter behind shields. Third degree burns cause excruciating, disabling, and potentially deadly injuries.

I described how I'd used pepper spray while off-duty during an encounter with a strong arm robbery suspect in one incident and during another situation where I'd observed and arrested an escapee from our jail that had tried to carjack a motorist that was stopped behind my car. The husband and wife couple of English cops I was speaking with were somewhat aghast that I'd taken action (instead of flight). When the female officer asked her high ranking husband if they could even carry OC while off-duty, he admitted that he didn't know!

They've imported a massive population of Muslims.

They may have, without realizing it, 'diversified' themselves out of the Mayberry style of community policing.

I'm wondering if there's a plan to deal with what's coming.

Just wondering to myself what frequency would push the Brits to change thier voting habits. Or for that matter, what frequency would it take here I wonder.

If it averages 1 terrorist attack per month, perhaps 1 per week or even one per day.

With a Muslim population high enough, it's not farfetched to think it could get that bad, or worse.

quote:

Originally posted by HayesGreener:
In the U.S. we recruit and select officers with the view that they will all be armed. That is taken into consideration in the recruitment and screening process. The UK has been hiring officers for many years who were never expected to be armed-it wasn't part of the deal, and it wasn't factored into hiring decisions. If they choose to arm all their officers it will take a generation to get it done due to the enormous cultural shift that must occur in police services. You can't just bring everybody in for a class and hand them a gun-many would not be suited. From my time working with UK officers when I was stationed there I know this discussion has been going on in police circles for many years and it seemed the consensus was the realities of a violent world would ultimately push them in that direction.

Good post, Sir. Thank you.

tac

tacfoley...great insight...thank you for posting. If I may parse your post

quote:

• 12% of officers surveyed said under no circumstances would they carry a firearm whilst on duty.
• 8.2% of respondents said they would resign from the MPS rather than accept an order to routinely carry a firearm whilst on duty.

Sounds like 20% need to find other jobs, or use the saving to purchase firearms, ammo, and training for the 80% who want to toe the blue line.

quote:

Just to reiterate - in UK, policing is carried out by consent of the public, nit by any kind of paramilitary gendarmerie - this might help to understand it better - - However, for the benefit of the OP [an American querent], it’s worth going back to the original concept framed by Sir Robert Peel (1788–1850) of the Metropolitan Police as ‘civilians in uniform’ rather than ‘gendarmes’ ie., a branch of the military. It’s because of Peel’s great initiative that British police are known as ‘Bobbies’ or ‘Peelers’: Peel felt that unarmed officers recruited from the London working class would have a much better insight into the day-to-day world of the communities they were policing and with much less chance of the civilian deaths that had happened when the military was called in to deal with disturbances. That said, nobody in past generations who had found themselves on the wrong end of a police baton, been stepped on by a police horse, or chucked down the stairs of a police station would have had any reason to regard policing in London, Manchester, Liverpool or Glasgow as anything less than extremely robust. Today, much has changed, and British police, from the highest to the lowest rank, fully understand that effective policing is only possible with the consent of the community: even so, police are still officers of the Civil Power and are obliged to act firmly and effectively when civil order (the Queen’s Peace) is threatened or the law is being broken.

Concur with all of this. The only problem is, there is an invading insurgency of "immigrants" who do not wish to be policed by people different from themselves and have laws enforced against them they do not agree with--but wish to implement laws from the country where they left. Sounds like you need to bring back those police officers who operated in Northern Ireland during "The Troubles" to weed out the insurgency in the greater UK--probably starting with the mayor of London and his staff/sympathizers.

quote:

Sounds like 20% need to find other jobs, or use the saving to purchase firearms, ammo, and training for the 80% who want to toe the blue line.

SigGuy - ain't never going to happen.

Why?

a. You cannot purchase any kind of firearm for another person. Look up straw purchase. In any case, the law requires YOU, the FAC holder, to be personally responsible for the secure safekeeping of that firearm.

b. Why, you may well ask? Well, because YOU alone are the person authorised under the Firearms Act of 1968 [Amended 1988 and 1997] to acquire and possess said firearm, and that's not all.

c. Here in yUK there are just FOUR legal 'Good reasons' for acquiring and possessing ANY firearm.

i. Target shooting.

ii. Live game shooting - called 'stalking' here in yUK - deer, hogs - eatable game stuff.

iii. Pest control - game conservancy - keepering/culling, game management.

iv. Humane destruction - veterinarians of large animals only need apply.

That's it.

Self defence, on mainland yUK, is NOT a 'good reason' to acquire and possess ANY kind of firearm. The hoops needed to be jumped through before you can even APPLY for a Firearms Certificate [FAC] are enough to weed out any potential illegal applications. In any case, making a false declaration in order to obtain a firearm is a serious criminal offence, attracting a five-year stretch. Not, as I noted, you get that far anyhow. The completed FAC application form is a 'sworn document, made under the same terms as an oath in court. Getting an FAC under false pretexts just could not happen here.

Northern Ireland is different - there are around 3000 CCW there with handguns provided by the government for self-protection. You probably don't have to ask why.

tac

I'm sorry, tac...I was not clear. I meant the POLICE should take that savings and purchase firearms/training/ammo for their police officers.

It is really great to have a very knowledgeable person on United Kingdom firearms laws and policies on Sigforum.

Thanks Tac!

Tac, I'm not trying to get into an argument with you over UK arming policies, but why couldn't Parliament change the law as it applies to police in the U.K.?

I can understand the thing about keeping firearms secure when not in use/on-duty, but what about a central armory in each station house for issue and turn-in of weapons at beginning and end of shift? I was in the USAF as a Security Police Officer (Captain, commanding officer of my unit) and that's what we did.

Prior to shift and roll call, on-coming personnel would present their weapons issue card to Armory personnel, proceed to clearing barrel for loading, and then holster the handgun or sling the rifle over shoulder and then proceed to the posting location. Reverse the procedures for going off-duty. This would keep weapons secure and out of the hands of the general populace.

I agree, it would seem that a long-term change of mindset about arming of police with a corresponding change in attitude to the population about its police will be necessary for this.

Tac, I'm not trying to get into an argument with you over UK arming policies, but why couldn't Parliament change the law as it applies to police in the U.K.?

Because parliament does not have the WILL to do it.

There ARE police in the UK who are routinely armed 24/7 - the Police Service of Northern Ireland has never NOT been armed since it was the Royal Irish Constabulary in 1922.

There ARE UK-mainland police who are routinely armed - go to any major train station, or any airport, and you'll see them there. Ministry of Defence police, guarding the numerous high-value military locations, are routinely armed, too.

BUT, the officer on the beat does not WANT to be armed - see my post on the subject.

Parliament cannot coerce any police officer to carry a firearm, unless ALL police forces are REQUIRED to be routinely armed, and just ain't going to happen.

I can understand the thing about keeping firearms secure when not in use/on-duty, but what about a central armory in each station house for issue and turn-in of weapons at beginning and end of shift? I was in the USAF as a Security Police Officer (Captain, commanding officer of my unit) and that's what we did.

That is exactly what happens here, too.

Prior to shift and roll call, on-coming personnel would present their weapons issue card to Armory personnel, proceed to clearing barrel for loading, and then holster the handgun or sling the rifle over shoulder and then proceed to the posting location. Reverse the procedures for going off-duty. This would keep weapons secure and out of the hands of the general populace.

So does this happen here. Here in UK, each tactical support vehicle has a built-in armoury that you'd be proud to own. Each and every police force has a TFU, tactical firearms unit, just like your SWAT team, and looking JUST like your SWAT teams. There are also the recently-formed specialist firearms support units, as seen at the scene of the Westminster attack - they are trained by the UKSF.

I agree, it would seem that a long-term change of mindset about arming of police with a corresponding change in attitude to the population about its police will be necessary for this.

Yes.

tac

quote:

Originally posted by SIGguy229:
I'm sorry, tac...I was not clear. I meant the POLICE should take that savings and purchase firearms/training/ammo for their police officers.

Not necessary. My local county police HQ has over two hundred handguns and sixty rifles/carbines of one kind or another. Plus baton-round launchers and other non-lethal or less-than-lethal items.

tac

quote:

Firearms Act of 1968 [Amended 1988 and 1997] to acquire and possess said firearm, and that's not all...

...Here in yUK there are just FOUR legal 'Good reasons' for acquiring and possessing ANY firearm.

i. Target shooting.

ii. Live game shooting - called 'stalking' here in yUK - deer, hogs - eatable game stuff.

iii. Pest control - game conservancy - keepering/culling, game management.

iv. Humane destruction - veterinarians of large animals only need apply.

That's it.

Self defence, on mainland yUK, is NOT a 'good reason' to acquire and possess ANY kind of firearm

Until the good people of the UK wake up and amend the above again to include a 5th good reason that explicitly allows for the use of a firearm in Self Defense, without the obligation to retreat, and without fear of legal consequences, the terrorists will continue to attack again, and again, and again, knowing the entire country is an enormous soft target, and the citizens are left to deal with the consequences.

How many needlessly dead Brits and UK citizens will it take?

quote:

Ireland is different - there are around 3000 CCW there with handguns provided by the government for self-protection. You probably don't have to ask why.

This part is doubly ridiculous, and clear evidence of how severely the UK government and its voters underestimate the enemy that is Islamic terrorists. It's sad, really.