Policing London - a call to arms?

[bignumber5]

Over the recent times of increased violent street crime, the police have taken a lot of flak for the stop-and-search approach, mostly because of targeting young black males almost exclusively. But a major complain seems to be that when an individual is anything less than 100% cooperative, the back-up of a dozen or more officers can be needed as there is then the issue of the safety of the officers as well as the potential severity of the incident. The major complaint of bystanders and community members in the dispatches special on monday night was that this was an unnecessary amount of resources for searching 2 kids, who turned out to be carrying nothing more harmful than a small bag of cannabis.

The program then showed us the approach of the Police in Chicago, who, immediately after an incident, flood the area with a visible Police presence to assure the residents of the area who had nothing to do with it that they don't need to hide in their homes from the gangs. They stopped any likely looking gang members (bandanas etc) but working as pairs of officers, rather than the displayed UK incidence of 12 officers to search 2 teenagers.

In asking why the American Police are able to do this so much more efficiently without large numbers of supporting officers but whilst maintaining their own personal safety, the fact that they are armed cannot be ignored.

So the inevitable question is:

Should the Police in the UK be armed?

For the record, my own opinion on this is still a resounding "NO", violence begets violence and all that, but I found myself asking the question.

Discuss?

[Keef]

No, there are too many police who love the whole power thing, think it would be a disaster.

Asked a Police Officer just recently why he signed up, and he replied "for the action". Oh dear.

[david_carnell]

I agree with Keef.

I don't trust some of them with a baton let alone a gun.

[bignumber5]

Indeed.

News this morning had Brooke Kinsella (of eastenders fame and cousin of the late Ben Kinsella) suggesting that the answer is to bring back national service, that way young people would understand the damage that a weapon can do and not embark upon the macho quest with firearms on the street, as well as the discipline and sense of purpose...

[Moos]

I'm well in favour of national service. But before you shout at me, in the community service model. In Germany where they still have national service (for young men only), you can opt out of the joining-the-army bit and do community service. Someone I know was an assistant teacher at a school for disabled children for 18 months (you have to go longer if you don't pick up a rifle) and said he learned more doing that than he had in any other 18 months of his life.

Community based national service for young men and young women would be a huge learning opportunity for all, and a useful provision of cheap labour for the State.

[Keef]

I just want Bad lads army back on telly! Great viewing with a beer and a nice joint! >:D

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

You're so right Keef, I loved that too. Beef or pork?

[Ant]

Spot of lamb would be very welcome. Pass the mint sauce.

[mockney piers]

The evidence in the States doesn't really support the whole National Service'll learn 'em thing.

There they've drastically reduced some of the bars to entry in the military to address the recruitment crisis; most notable tattoos, most particularly gang tattoos.

These guys are going off to war, and far from goign "ooh, that's what it's really about, I'll behave myself" they actually return, well versed in squad tactics, fire suppression, able to shoot straight and being cool under fire.

Quite often they also have managed to smuggle a whole load of confiscated weapons.

All told, bad idea, bad idea.

Police armed? I'm against the bobby on the beat having a gun, but seeing as the majority of patrol cars have firearms in them, the debate is somewhat moot.

[Horsebox]

mockney piers Wrote:

> Police armed? I'm against the bobby on the beat

> having a gun, but seeing as the majority of patrol

> cars have firearms in them, the debate is somewhat

> moot.

Mockney, where did you get this from? I'm quite sure that the majority of patrol vehicles do not have firearms in them.

Not having a go, like, just genuinely surprised to hear this.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

I know from experience that there are several ARV (armed response vehicles) at Peckham Police Station. Not sure if every jam sandwich carries them.

[mockney piers]

I can't back this up, just a police man I knew a few years back telling me we'd be very surprised by the number of guns out there. He put the figure of potentially armed police at 40%ish, though he did assure me they're in secure boxes and there are a million forms to fill if you open them.

I can quite imagine his 40% was a finger in the air though.

Any policemen on here care to tell us what the reality is?

[Rico]

I don't like the idea of police carrying guns. But if I were a cop in these parts, I would be quite frightened going into estates late at night to handle a disturbance armed only with a stick.

I don't know what the right answer is really.

[david_carnell]

The problem with arming police is that it ups the ante.

If you think the gun problem is bad now, equipping police with guns as standard will, imo, make things a lot worse. Criminals will then see guns as a necessity because without them they stand little chance of evading the police.

Currently, I imagine, that only a real hardcore use guns. With armed police I should think every petty crim will view a gun as a requirement.

[snoozequeen1]

We've been showing psychotic violence as titillation and entertainment to children since the 1970s. There are huge numbers of kids who are brought up by the TV.

What they see isn't in any other context, this is their world - we all know that much of the current generation apes everything they have seen on US TV, to the extent that it has changed our language and social mores to a significant extent.

Another major change that took place at exactly the same time in the early 70s was the dropping of any regular teaching, for a huge chunk of the population, about morals.

I'm not religious myself but I see this: for generations children went to Sunday school every week, and they were taught boiled-down rules from thousands of years of experience: do not kill, treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, human life is sacred.

We haven't done a very good job of replacing this with any secular moral horizons. All we teach them is greed, self, acquisition, aggression, appearance, money defines entirely what you are.

The "in your face" aggression that people complain of is the result of the second generation brought up in this mental world, coming up to adulthood. The memory of a society with other values is fading or gone.

We can hardly expect the police to solve this, can we? If you use drugs, your kids will use them too. Buying and using cocaine and then wheeler dealing to get your children into the local C of E school so they don't have to mix with the children of addicts and dealers is more than a little pathetic.

[Huguenot]

Tend to agree with you SQ - there's a lot of double-think on this issue.

On the one hand there's people like me making a career out of the fact that a tiny nuance in an advertisement will change people's buying behaviour for life.

On the other hand you've got film-makers and games designers telling us that blowing people's brains out and raping prostitutes for fun on screen hundreds of times a day isn't going to tarnish little Jimmy's psyche.

It's just not plausible is it?

[Horsebox]

Mockney, I'm very interested in chucking in my (hopefully) factual 2pence on this but am in the process of packing for a holiday and so time is limited.

I will add this:

There are 10 armed commands in the Met Police, including CO19 (who are responsible for the ARVs as mentioned above), SO15 (anti terrorism officers but most definitely NOT all armed), Diplomatic Protection Group (DPG, the ones that buzz around town in the Red cars), Royalty Protection (many have concealed weapons), Airport security officers plus the various Specialist Crime Directorate officers (again not all of whom are armed).

AFAIK, officers wishing to work in an armed role have to go through a very tough training / fitness /assessment regime before being accepted into the role. Once in the role and fulfilling their duties, they are then "armed" as a matter of course and until they transfer out and into a non-firearms role.

As for the "weapons in boxes and paperwork if you open them" goes, this sounds like the process of old, whereby weapons were kept at the local nick and each job would be judged on it's merit and the firearms issued accordingly.

I think that your copper mate may have been bigging it up a bit, so to speak (although I will happily eat humble pie if wrong).

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

"Specialist Crime Directorate officers" - does this mean the Sweeney still ride the mean streets?

[mockney piers]

Horsebox, cheers for that, always nice to hear from someone who sounds like they know what they're talking about.