[Will21st]

Originally Posted by Chris

Good afternoon Will.

Good afternoon Chris. Neck wound in and please accept my apologies.

Originally Posted by Chris

And on that subject - I have not insinuated anything about your understanding of 'policing by consent'. You yourself said in an earlier post that you 'don't get it'. Perhaps you would like to clarify that statement. In the absence of any clarification, I think it's quite reasonable for me to reply with the working assumption that when someone says 'policing by consent', you in fact 'don't get it'. It's not rocket science.

'Policing by consent' doesn't just apply to UK police.... those rules are quite simply applicable to other countries as well.At least the ones I've lived in.

'I don't get it' is referring to how anyone can assume that 'policing by consent' means 'unarmed police' ?
Sure the police shouldn't go overboard,but an appropriate response is necessary,and police need the right tools for the job.Sometimes that is a firearm,unfortunately.

Originally Posted by Chris

Both you and Daniel have made constant references to various foreign police forces and protest that they don't turn into oppressive maniacs just because they have guns. Frankly, I don't care what they do or do not do. My sole concern is the UK, because that's where I live.

Yes,and maybe the UK needs to learn a thing or two from others? Cause quite frankly,British policing isn't what it used to be,sadly.

By the way,do you realise that german policing was actually modelled on British policing?

Originally Posted by Chris

You refer to the tools necessary to do the job, rarely required but good to have when the time comes. My view, as one who consents to being policed, is that lethal firearms are so rarely required that the streets are safer if they are not being carried about in numbers. I've come across statistics for the number of officers shot with their own weapons in various other places online over the past couple of days. I suspect you have too, so I'm not proposing to go digging for them again now.

You consent to being policed,correct. The **** in custody doesn't. Full Stop. He has a firearm and a grenade. So,how should police respond? As rare as these instances may be,a gun is just another tool in the arsenal.

By the way,do you actually consent to telescope sticks and pepper spray or whatever it is our cops have to make do with? Those tools are also used on those who don't 'consent' to their being policed.

Originally Posted by Chris

Further, with reference to your German anecdote yesterday, I like living in a society where lethal force cannot be applied, or threatened, where there is not reasonable excuse to do so. I don't care whether that's how they do it in Germany. It's not how we do it here. And, though it has been said over and over again this week, no amount of firepower would have prevented the ambush which resulted in the deaths of the two PCs this week. Whatever routine arming *might* be a solution for, it *isn't* a solution to the kind of situation that we witnessed this week.

Ok,so continental police just shoot anyone,do they? Serious question.
Also,how do you know that 'no amount of firepower' would have saved the WPC's? You do realise a taser was found lying on the ground? You can't win a firefight with a taser.... but you can win it with a Glock,especially when it's two against one. Of course we don't know the injuries they sustained through the grenade. So it is all speculation.
What isn't speculation however is that Derek Bird shot 9 more people after being confronted by unarmed police. No ARV in sight...

Originally Posted by Chris

Gunchester, I expect, is so called for the same reason as Shottingham gained that nickname a few years ago. It's a specific place with a specific problem. Increased use of armed patrols, plus other tactics I'm not qualified to speculate about, might well address this specific issue in these specific places. Routine arming of the police, which by definition would include foot patrols in leafy suburbia and the outlying villages as well as the problem zones, would not solve the problem.

What I was getting at was the irony that British cities gained those nicknames when apparently British criminals don't use guns cause the police don't have them.... not the case,I think.
I know that Manchester and Nottingham's gun culture is very much prohibition related and will not dwell further on the issue.

Originally Posted by Chris

Unarmed police who have access to firearms units where required is as far as I'm concerned a far more intelligent response to the question of where, when and how lethal force should be available to the police. It might not be as straightforward as simply giving every officer a gun, but it is safer.

Your 'intelligent' response is in fact unworkable and costs lives. The question of 'where,when and how' lethal force should be available to police is sometimes a decision that needs to be made in seconds....
see the WPC's shooing , Derek Bird, the recent example of cops being mauled by a dog in London and many others as situations where a sidearm is needed there and then,not some commander in a control room somewhere taking precious minutes to decide while police officers lives are on the line.

I see your points but unfortunately they are invalid to me. In fact I don't really see where your concerns come from other than never having been exposed to an armed police force over a reasonable period of time.
I've had both and my conclusion is that British policing is outdated and not fit for purpose. I just think it's incredible that even the corpses of police and public alike are not sufficient to sway those who make the decisions....

Let's see how many more have to die.... after all it took a fair few stabbings before stab vests were issued,I just pray to god that not many more police will have to die before we 'consent' to give our boys and girls the tools they need to police the UK effectively.