Guns of Brixton, Haringey and Tottenham: routine armed patrols

[PacificOcean]

why can't law-abiding people carry telescopic batons and gans of CS gas? If these things "escalate" situations, and don't make us safer, why is it OK and necessary for the police to carry them?

I've not read the whole thread, so am going to wade in feet first here, but for the same reason that fireworks should be banned.

I have just had some wankers thinking it hilarious to throw a rocket at my dog to see her reaction. What has she done to hurt them?

Never underestimate the general stupidity of the Great British Public.

Least the Police have some semblance of due caution. Not that they should be trusted either, but a free for all?

 

[8den]

If you're unarmed, taking on someone with a knife isn't much better. (Of course, as any martial artist will tell you, it's best not to have to take them on at all.) Leaving guns aside, why can't law-abiding people carry telescopic batons and gans of CS gas? If these things "escalate" situations, and don't make us safer, why is it OK and necessary for the police to carry them?

Because the Police are there to enforce to law. That's idiocy what next? Why isn't everyone allowed to flash sirens and run red lights when we're in a hurry.

For those who haven't seen it, I'd recommend watching The Lady Vanishes (1938 version). The end demonstrates a very different attitude to armed self-defence, which is also an analogy to disarmament and appeasement. Effective defense rests on your opponent recognising your willingness to attack. Easy targets make violence more likely. What applies on a national scale also applies to an individual one.

Everything you needed to know about self defence you can learn from a Pre war Hitchcock movie.

Up next childcare tips from "Whatever happened to Baby Jane".

 

[Azrael]

I've not read the whole thread, so am going to wade in feet first here, but for the same reason that fireworks should be banned.

I have just had some wankers thinking it hilarious to throw a rocket at my dog to see her reaction. What has she done to hurt them?

Never underestimate the general stupidity of the Great British Public.

Least the Police have some semblance of due caution. Not that they should be trusted either, but a free for all?

Since I specified law-abiding people, I wasn't suggesting a free for all. No one with a conviction for an indictable or violent offence should be allowed to carry weapons. (America bans felons from bearing arms.) We could insist that anyone who wanted to carry weapons go on a training course. Criminals simply ignore the law and carry weapons regardless. The only people "banned" from carrying weapons are those who choose to obey the law, who aren't the problem.

Your opinion on fireworks rests on the same logic as banning guns, and is equally ineffective. Selfish thugs will always find a means to make life miserable. They'll probably buy illegal fireworks, and if they don't, employ some other innocuous object. Why should we all be punished for the actions of criminals?

The answer isn't to get guns, knives or fireworks off the street. It's to get thugs off the street, by gaoling and reforming them so they are no longer thugs when they're released.

Because the Police are there to enforce to law. That's idiocy what next? Why isn't everyone allowed to flash sirens and run red lights when we're in a hurry.

The law is supposed to be common property. For a long time, the police were seen as citizens in uniform. Instead of a gendarmerie with special powers, they were merely people we hired to enforce full time duties and powers that belonged to everyone. Check out the Royal Commission on Police Powers and Procedure, from 1928-9.

Everything you needed to know about self defence you can learn from a Pre war Hitchcock movie.

Up next childcare tips from "Whatever happened to Baby Jane".

I was using it to highlight a shift in cultural attitudes, and to show that the right to bear arms isn't some loopy American idea, but something that British people understood until relatively recently.

 

[8den]

Since I specified law-abiding people, I wasn't suggesting a free for all. No one with a conviction for an indictable or violent offence should be allowed to carry weapons. (America bans felons from bearing arms.) We could insist that anyone who wanted to carry weapons go on a training course. Criminals simply ignore the law and carry weapons regardless. The only people "banned" from carrying weapons are those who choose to obey the law, who aren't the problem.

Alternatively, you could just do your own self defence course.

The answer isn't to get guns, knives or fireworks off the street. It's to get thugs off the street, by gaoling and reforming them so they are no longer thugs when they're released.

And when that doesn't work?

The law is supposed to be common property. For a long time, the police were seen as citizens in uniform. Instead of a gendarmerie with special powers, they were merely people we hired to enforce full time duties and powers that belonged to everyone. Check out the Royal Commission on Police Powers and Procedure, from 1928-9.

For the longest time women couldn't vote. Firefighters didn't vote, and you we had the death penalty.

I was using it to highlight a shift in cultural attitudes, and to show that the right to bear arms isn't some loopy American idea, but something that British people understood until relatively recently.

So?

 

[tarannau]

what you can do though is get on the radio and have snap ambush set up though
I'm sure CO19 have a much more pc name for it.
where basically the armed bad guys end up facing lots of black clad coppers with lots and lots of guns.
then given the choice go out in a blaze of glory or surrender.
Most crims tend to surrender faced with overwhelming firepower.

I suspect that you were probably fapping away furiously whilst trying to type that one handed.

You're a silly fellow with strange fantasies.

 

[tarannau]

So why not acknowledge the true facts instead of implying it was something it very much wasn't ...

There is a right and proper debate to be had about how the police carried out armed operations in those days (which has changed beyond recognition, partially as a result of that particular case). There is no debate to be had at all about their right to be there making the enquiries they were and carrying firearms for their own protection. None whatsoever.

Yes, there are different procedures now, but the DeMenezes affair just shows how little has come to change in actuality when it comes to identifying people and making snap decisions under stress. Just as Cherry Groce was shot in her own bed, a victim of unpunished incompetence and panicked stupidity, so was the DeMenezes affair horribly bad handled and bungled by trigger-happy, poor communicating goons.

I'll admit to knowing Michael Groce pretty well and count him as a friend. The whole idea that it's much better now and that it's water under the bridge seems slightly insulting. As does the idea that we should feel safer, in bed (and of the wrong gender or race) or not, with armed officers roaming around.

 

[Roadkill]

If you're unarmed, taking on someone with a knife isn't much better. (Of course, as any martial artist will tell you, it's best not to have to take them on at all.) Leaving guns aside, why can't law-abiding people carry telescopic batons and gans of CS gas? If these things "escalate" situations, and don't make us safer, why is it OK and necessary for the police to carry them?

Because part of the police's job involves wading into some fairly nasty situations and having to subdue some fairly heavy violence. I'm quite happy for them to be given tools most of us can't carry to do that more effectively, provided they're used proportionately and under proper control, and any misuse is clamped down on firmly.

You have to be hardened to rob people to begin with. There's degrees, but it's random where the criminal sits on the scale, and the most sensible course of action is not to put yourself in the position where you have to find out.

I disagree with the first sentence. Sure, some people who go out robbing are 'hardened' but some are just desperate, or simply stupid. In any case, trying to put myself in their shoes for a minute, I suspect that if I thought there was a chance any potential victim would be carrying a weapon for self-defence, my response would be to try and lay hands on a still more lethal weapon, and I'd be readier to use it. That's really what I mean by escalation.

For those who haven't seen it, I'd recommend watching The Lady Vanishes (1938 version). The end demonstrates a very different attitude to armed self-defence, which is also an analogy to disarmament and appeasement. Effective defense rests on your opponent recognising your willingness to attack. Easy targets make violence more likely. What applies on a national scale also applies to an individual one.

The Lady Vanishes is a great film - although I've not seen it for years - but I'm not convinced by it as an example in this particular argument. Sure, more armed people knocking about might deter some from committing robberies, but for those really determined to do so I think it'd just make them more ruthless.

In any case, much as it's logical to suggest that easy targets make violence more likely it isn't always true. Your point about it applying on a national scale is a very fair one, but it cuts the other way too: arms races don't cause wars but they can certainly contribute to them. Similarly, I don't believe the presence or absence of guns is in itself a determinant of how violent a society is, but it certainly has the potential to make existing problems worse.

 

[Azrael]

And when [reforming thugs] doesn't work?

We have to lock them back up again. Banning them from owning weapons is pointless, since they just ignore the law.

For the longest time women couldn't vote. Firefighters didn't vote, and you we had the death penalty.

Ignoring an argument's merits and trying to slander it by association speaks highly for its strength.

 

[Azrael]

Because part of the police's job involves wading into some fairly nasty situations and having to subdue some fairly heavy violence.

Ordinary people have to deal with fairly heavy violence if they're mugged. What moral principle does the disparity between police and public rest on?

I disagree with the first sentence [about criminals being hardened].

If you rob people on a regular basis, you must be inured to suffering, or not care.

In isolation, the right to bear arms might lead to more criminals tooling up. (Although it'll likely deter others.) That's why it needs to be combined with severe punishment for anyone who commits murder in furtherance of crime.

Criminals calculate risks, to varying degrees. As you say, you must be "really determined" to rob people with the ability to gun you down. Those who are so determined are likely ruthless enough to carry weapons regardless. What disincentive is there to do so now? A marginally higher sentence in a heated warehouse full of drugs and people who "respect" you? Acceptable risk in making the robbery easier.

Arms races usually occur because one nation wants to dominate other nations. Canada has no need to enter an arms race with the USA. Focussing on the weapons distracts from the real issue of human intent. How I wish the likes of Ms McCartney would read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest this point.

 

[detective-boy]

The whole idea that it's much better now and that it's water under the bridge seems slightly insulting.

The whole idea that it will ever be possible to deal with armed criminals, in ill-defined and fluid situations, with less than perfect information without there being significant scope for mistake seems slightly deranged.

You want perfection, you want a guarantee that no mistake will ever be made again. That simply ain't going to happen in the real world. End of.

 

[8den]

We have to lock them back up again. Banning them from owning weapons is pointless, since they just ignore the law.

So for what crimes do you suggest locking people up in this manner.

Ignoring an argument's merits and trying to slander it by association speaks highly for its strength.

Whatever you need to make yourself feel good about your arguments. Just because the police were once seen one way is not a compelling argument to return to that.

Ordinary people have to deal with fairly heavy violence if they're mugged. What moral principle does the disparity between police and public rest on?

My Wife has had extensive Krav Maga training. It's generally considered to be the most violent and practical martial art.

If mugged she recommends throwing your wallet away and running in the opposite direction.

As to your suggestion that everyone should have training, sorry most people aren't emotionally equipped to be able to mentally prepare themselves to go from walking down the street, to getting mugged, they cannot switch into a aggressive mental state.

Apparently most rapists caught within 24hrs of the attack, nearly always have scratches around their eyes and face. However if the woman had the foresight to gouge the attackers eyes out (something very easy to do) the attack would have ended. Most people don't have it in them to commit serious violence.

 

[Roadkill]

Ordinary people have to deal with fairly heavy violence if they're mugged. What moral principle does the disparity between police and public rest on?

Most of us aren't expected to do it routinely, and most of us would run away if possible, whereas we expect police officers not to.

If you rob people on a regular basis, you must be inured to suffering, or not care.

In isolation, the right to bear arms might lead to more criminals tooling up. (Although it'll likely deter others.) That's why it needs to be combined with severe punishment for anyone who commits murder in furtherance of crime.

Criminals calculate risks, to varying degrees. As you say, you must be "really determined" to rob people with the ability to gun you down. Those who are so determined are likely ruthless enough to carry weapons regardless. What disincentive is there to do so now? A marginally higher sentence in a heated warehouse full of drugs and people who "respect" you? Acceptable risk in making the robbery easier.

I don't disagree about tougher sentences for those who commit murder (or violence short of it) in furtherance of crime. Obviously that doesn't include the death penalty, but I'm not about to argue against tougher sentences where appropriate (they're not always, but that's another debate). The other way of increasing the risk to those who do commit robberies is just to increase the detection rate, since there's a fair bit fo evidence to suggest that far more pertinent a deterrent than the possible sentence for crime - any crime - is an increased likelihood of being caught.

Arms races usually occur because one nation wants to dominate other nations. Canada has no need to enter an arms race with the USA. Focussing on the weapons distracts from the real issue of human intent. How I wish the likes of Ms McCartney would read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest this point.

Again, I don't disagree: intent is everything, and that applies on a personal level as well as a national one. It'd be foolish to ignore the weapons altogether though.

As I said above, I'm not wedded to gun control as a point of principle: it's just pragmatism. I don't think there'd be any great gain from loosening the gun laws and it could exacerbate existing problems of violence and high street crime.

 

[tarannau]

The whole idea that it will ever be possible to deal with armed criminals, in ill-defined and fluid situations, with less than perfect information without there being significant scope for mistake seems slightly deranged.

You want perfection, you want a guarantee that no mistake will ever be made again. That simply ain't going to happen in the real world. End of.

My standards are set slightly lower in fact. Trivial matters such as not shooting someone of the wrong sex whilst they're in bed. Or, for example, not panicking and shooting someone a different ethnicity and appearance to your suspect after a bungled operation. Not perfection by any means.

You trying to stick words in my mouth and signing off with patronising, dismissive 'end of' type wisecracks hardly fills me with joy either. You're an unpleasantly blinkered, aggressive poster with a penchant for misrepresenting others.

 

[Azrael]

My Wife has had extensive Krav Maga training. It's generally considered to be the most violent and practical martial art.

If mugged she recommends throwing your wallet away and running in the opposite direction.

Giving Mr Robber a loud message that crime not only pays, but is painless. Receiving a can of mace and beating with an ASP gives him a different message. Why should we be expected to appease to common thugs in this way? Surrender is guaranteed to escalate their career of choice.

(This isn't a universal rule amongst martial artists. My Aikido sensi was all for fleeing attackers, but certainly wasn't in favour of giving into them as a first resort. As he pointed out, once you've surrendered your wallet, you've signalled that you're unwilling to fight. Violent men despise weakness. If Mr Thug is so minded, compliance makes further violence more likely, not less.)

How do you have a clue about a population's emotional ability? Even if you're right, the minority who are able to adapt should have the right to do so. The fear that a victim might be armed and dangerous is even more important than their ability to actualise that fear.

I wasn't saying that policing by consent is good because it's old, but because of its merits. My point was that its vintage isn't a mark against it.

I don't disagree about tougher sentences for those who commit murder (or violence short of it) in furtherance of crime. Obviously that doesn't include the death penalty, but I'm not about to argue against tougher sentences where appropriate (they're not always, but that's another debate). The other way of increasing the risk to those who do commit robberies is just to increase the detection rate, since there's a fair bit fo evidence to suggest that far more pertinent a deterrent than the possible sentence for crime - any crime - is an increased likelihood of being caught.

Agreed. Which is why I support beat policing. Surely armed patrols increase the risk of detection, if only in the criminals' own mind.

My support for the right to bear arms is also rooted in pragmatism, but also the principle that the state should be our servant, not our master. England of 50+ years ago was clearly different, but I believe there are general and timeless principles of defence and deterrence that apply. If concealed carry hasn't led to a rise in crime in Florida, I don't see why it should in England. Reintroducing this old English principle would help take us away from a society that appeases the violent and the selfish, on a mass scale.

 

[Roadkill]

Agreed. Which is why I support beat policing. Surely armed patrols increase the risk of perception, if only in the criminals' own mind.

My support for the right to bear arms is also rooted in pragmatism, but also the principle that the state should be our servant, not our master. England of 50+ years ago was clearly different, but I believe there are general and timeless principles of defence and deterrence that apply. If concealed carry hasn't led to a rise in crime in Florida, I don't see why it should in England. Reintroducing this old English principle would help take us away from a society that appeases the violent and the selfish, on a mass scale.

Beat policing is a slightly separate - and well worn! - debate, but suffice to say, armed patrols in some areas are only likely to move the problem around. The obvious response to that is that the police should routinely be armed everywhere, but that is something I'd rather not see. If people were allowed to carry guns, however, I think popular pressure for routine arming of the police would become irresistible. Again, this is the escalation argument. At present, only a minority of criminals carry guns, and only a minority of police. It's not an ideal situation, but it's a tolerable one and the alternatives, although potentially better, are also potentially worse.

As for the state being servant rather than master I agree with you in principle, but the reality is that the state will always command greater means of violence than the people. Unless everyone has their own nuclear bomb, that is. It strikes me as rather unrealistic to suggest that the right to bear arms effects any great change in the relationship between society and state.

 

[Azrael]

If people were allowed to carry guns, however, I think popular pressure for routine arming of the police would become irresistible. Again, this is the escalation argument.

But this is the opposite of the situation in 19th and early 20th century England, where the law-abiding were free to bear arms. We boast of our (increasingly fictional) unarmed police, but forget that they patrolled an armed population. Take examples like the Edwardian Tottenham Outrage, where the police borrowed guns off the public, and encouraged subjects to help them shoot the criminals!

In this England, law-abiding people and police were on the same side, and shared a common purpose. No dictatorship or tyranny is eager to arm its population.

I don't believe there is any clear principle of escalation. Nor is brute force the answer. Society must encourage the exercise of conscience.

It's of course survivalist nonsense to suggest that the state can be defeated by private gun ownership. That's what laws are for. More pertinent is that a state that trusts its people respects their right to carry sidearms. It's indicative of the relationship between the two, a matter of degree. Right now the state despises the public, and doesn't trust them with so much as a locking penknife.

And you're right to say that partial patrolling just displaces the problem. We must return to comprehensive beat policing. I'd rather they weren't armed, but until criminals are too afraid or restrained to attack them, they might have to be.

 

[Roadkill]

But this is the opposite of the situation in 19th and early 20th century England, where the law-abiding were free to bear arms. We boast of our (increasingly fictional) unarmed police, but forget that they patrolled an armed population. Take examples like the Edwardian Tottenham Outrage, where the police borrowed guns off the public, and encouraged subjects to help them shoot the criminals!

In this England, law-abiding people and police were on the same side, and shared a common purpose. No dictatorship or tyranny is eager to arm its population.

I don't think our unarmed police are any more fictional than they were, to be honest. As I said in my first post on this thread, there were occasions on which Victorian constables carried guns. There were no dedicated firearms units and often no special training in using guns was given. I think the situation today, with firearms confined to a small number of specially trained officers, is preferable.

I'm also not convinced by the rather cosy view of the relationship between police and society. There was a huge and sometimes acrimonious debate about the police, what they were for and in some cases whether a standing police force was even necessary or desirable, and the question wasn't really settled until well into the second half of the century. Prior to that - and occasionally after - there were plenty of law-abiding middle class folk who saw in the police worrying echoes of the French gendarmerie, and coppers were not infrequently unwelcome in working class areas, an attitude shared by the law-abiding and not alike. No wonder, given that police methods in such areas could be - and still can on occasion - less than gentle, polite or even legal. In fact, one thing that's struck me recently (I've just finished Clive Emsley's rather interesting history of the police) is how little attitudes towards the police have changed. Some sections of society regard them with suspicion or animosity; others think they're a wonderful thing and want their powers extended. 'Twas ever thus - well, for a century and a half, anyway, despite the fact that over the last century the police have become increasingly divorced from local control and more resemblant of a single state police force along continental lines.

I don't believe there is any clear principle of escalation. Nor is brute force the answer. Society must encourage the exercise of conscience.

No, I don't think there's a clear or universal principle either. I just think it can and does happen, but it's not solely dependent on the presence or absence of weapons: there are all sorts of other factors as well.

It's of course survivalist nonsense to suggest that the state can be defeated by private gun ownership. That's what laws are for. More pertinent is that a state that trusts its people respects their right to carry sidearms. It's indicative of the relationship between the two, a matter of degree. Right now the state despises the public, and doesn't trust them with so much as a locking penknife

I take your point about the symbolic value, but we're hedging around a rather wider question of the relationship between individual and state. If you're going to assert that the state is over-powerful, overly intrusive, contemptuous of individual privacy and autonomy and passes all sorts of niggling (and often trivial) legislation that introduces rafts of bans, controls and so on that we'd be better off without then go ahead: I'd be the last to disagree! However, within that wider debate you place more emphasis on the matter of weapons than I do, and on that we'll have to agree to differ.

And with that I'm going to bow out of this discussion, at least for now, since a) my dinner's nearly ready, and b) I've done none of the work I wanted to get done this evening.

 

[lang rabbie]

Haven't had a chance to wade through the postings from usual suspects, but it has now finally (and belatedly) been confirmed by the Met that these patrols will not be "routine" but only for "intelligence-based" specific exercises requested as a result of Operation Trident etc. investigations.

 

[8den]

Giving Mr Robber a loud message that crime not only pays, but is painless. Receiving a can of mace and beating with an ASP gives him a different message. Why should we be expected to appease to common thugs in this way? Surrender is guaranteed to escalate their career of choice.

There is a different argument(s)

1) If a proportion of the UK population is carrying concealed weapons. And the penalties for a criminal carrying an illegal weapon are harsh. Why won't violent criminals just commit pre emptive violence? I mean if the putative penalties are so harsh in your world, and your mugger is willing and able to commit violence, why don't they just stab their victim, and then take the wallet. Sod threats. It'll be easier to steal the wallet of a guy or girl bleeding then one with a knife at someone's throat.

2) If you carry a concealed weapon, you have to accept that the weapon could be taken from you, used against you or others.

(This isn't a universal rule amongst martial artists. My Aikido sensi was all for fleeing attackers, but certainly wasn't in favour of giving into them as a first resort.

I'm really not interested in a pissing contest between who's martial arts is harder. I will say this Aikido is a Japanese martial art developed by Morihei Ueshiba as a synthesis of his martial studies, philosophy, and religious beliefs. Krav Maga was designed by Jewish resistance members, to kill or incapacitate Nazis during the second world war.

Aikido is a grappling martial art, designed to deflect an opponents energy and strength. Krav Maga is about avoiding a fight as a priority. But when you are left with no choice it's going on the attack intensely, without mercy and inflicting the maximum amount of damage in the shortest period of time. Ripping off ears, eye gouging etc. I sincerely doubt your Aikido instructor trained you to not just attack your opponent's larynx with your teeth, while growling like a dog, and ripping with your teeth, in order to terrify, and incapacitate. Your Aikido instructor probably never taught you to continue attacking a prone opponent, including a stab technique designed to shatter an ankle bone, (best go for the ankle, if you kick the head you could kill them and get down for manslaughter) no one ever ran after anyone with a shattered ankle.

As he pointed out, once you've surrendered your wallet, you've signalled that you're unwilling to fight. Violent men despise weakness. If Mr Thug is so minded, compliance makes further violence more likely, not less.)

How do you have a clue about a population's emotional ability?

I'm now going to explain how you're contradicting yourself


Firstly you're giving me a lecturer on the emotional insight you have to every mugger, yet within a breath you're asking me about my insight into the population of this country.

My argument is that there are tens of millions of people in this country yet only tens of thousands of us with violent crime convictions. Have you ever met anyone who's never been involved in an encounter with a random act of senseless violence? Well all have met this in our lives, and the vast vast majority of us shy away from violence.

Secondly your argument about violent men, "despising weakness".
Many muggers are primarily out there because of need and greed. I call it the smack and crystal argument. An addict who just wants money will take the wallet and run. An mugger who wants violence, will not be appeased by a anything you do, they will actively look for an excuse.

Even if you're right, the minority who are able to adapt should have the right to do so. The fear that a victim might be armed and dangerous is even more important than their ability to actualise that fear.

Again if the putative prison sentences you mention aren't a deterrent,
why would the off chance the person you are trying to mug may have a non lethal weapon, may have the chance to use it be a deterrent.

Incidentally what's your reaction when a "trained" member of the public uses their pepper spray in a domestic abuse case? Or a some drunk "trained" membed of the public pulls his extentable baton in a bar fight and leaves a guy in a coma?

I wasn't saying that policing by consent is good because it's old, but because of its merits. My point was that its vintage isn't a mark against it.

And its not a ringing endorsement for it, now either?

Agreed. Which is why I support beat policing. Surely armed patrols increase the risk of detection, if only in the criminals' own mind.

Statistics show Bobbies on beat are a nice PR move but rarly actively come across crime in progress.

My support for the right to bear arms is also rooted in pragmatism, but also the principle that the state should be our servant, not our master. England of 50+ years ago was clearly different, but I believe there are general and timeless principles of defence and deterrence that apply. If concealed carry hasn't led to a rise in crime in Florida, I don't see why it should in England. Reintroducing this old English principle would help take us away from a society that appeases the violent and the selfish, on a mass scale.

Your Florida statistics are at best misleading.

 

[8den]

But this is the opposite of the situation in 19th and early 20th century England, where the law-abiding were free to bear arms. We boast of our (increasingly fictional) unarmed police, but forget that they patrolled an armed population. Take examples like the Edwardian Tottenham Outrage, where the police borrowed guns off the public, and encouraged subjects to help them shoot the criminals!
.

Are you really trying to suggest that the police should get the people to shoot at criminals.

During the Siege of Sidney St, Churchill took personal command, should Alan Johnson do the same?

 

[Pickman's model]

Like ... er ... Pickman's model is a cunt? That sort of thing, eh?

you've never grasped the difference between a belief and a fact, have you?

 

[likesfish]

Are you really trying to suggest that the police should get the people to shoot at criminals.

During the Siege of Sidney St, Churchill took personal command, should Alan Johnson do the same?

might be entertaining

 

[detective-boy]

You're an unpleasantly blinkered, aggressive poster with a penchant for misrepresenting others.

And you're a naive fool with a penchant for wanting the moon on a stick.

 

[winjer]

Haven't had a chance to wade through the postings from usual suspects, but it has now finally (and belatedly) been confirmed by the Met that these patrols will not be "routine" but only for "intelligence-based" specific exercises requested as a result of Operation Trident etc. investigations.

The Times reports this somewhat differently, although possibly it just depends which Met faction is giving the briefing.

Furious' Met chief abandons plan for armed patrols

Scotland Yard has abandoned plans for armed foot patrols and marksmen on motorbikes in gun crime hotspots in the face of mounting political criticism.

Sir Paul Stephenson, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, was forced to withdraw the proposal before a meeting of his police authority on Thursday, where he would have faced fierce criticism.

The plan to deploy armed officers on the beat as a response to rising gun crime in the capital was announced last week when Sir Paul was out of the country.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6892355.ece

 

[8den]

The Times reports this somewhat differently, although possibly it just depends which Met faction is giving the briefing.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6892355.ece

I think this is nothing short of once again the Met fucking up the PR war. Theres a compelling argument for armed patrols in this area. The level of gun violence in say tottenham was unacceptable. One guy was gunned down at the Roundway, and a girl was killed last year in the Swan. Both gun deaths, both with 50 meters of each other and about 250 meters of a police station.

What happened is the story broke, the met couldn't control it, and tried to spin it in the Sundays and just couldn't manage it.

No one was shot by the police, and the area can be fucking nuts, so armed patrols doesn't not make sense, it's just badly handled by PR.

 

[detective-boy]

I think this is nothing short of once again the Met fucking up the PR war.

The "PR war" should be entirely irrelevant. IF there are sound reasons for deploying these officers in this way for an operational reason, they should be deployed and fuck the media / political fallout. IF there are not, they should not.

There is no fucking way that this decision should be affected by what happens or does not happen in terms of the reaction of Fleet Street, City Hall and / or Westminster.

If Stephenson has changed his mind because of the media / political shite then I fear it is yet more indication that he is simply not up to the job ...

(I was at a function two weeks ago when he spoke ... and he was still doing the "I'm just a simple country copper from Lancashire, I can't believe I'm here as the top cop in London, with all it's bright lights and everything" schtick ... valid for about ten minutes after his appointment but he's been in charge a fucking year now, best he get's round to actually doing something ...)

 

[Pickman's model]

he could vet his invite list with more care in future.

 

[8den]

The "PR war" should be entirely irrelevant. IF there are sound reasons for deploying these officers in this way for an operational reason, they should be deployed and fuck the media / political fallout. IF there are not, they should not.

There is no fucking way that this decision should be affected by what happens or does not happen in terms of the reaction of Fleet Street, City Hall and / or Westminster.

If Stephenson has changed his mind because of the media / political shite then I fear it is yet more indication that he is simply not up to the job ...

(I was at a function two weeks ago when he spoke ... and he was still doing the "I'm just a simple country copper from Lancashire, I can't believe I'm here as the top cop in London, with all it's bright lights and everything" schtick ... valid for about ten minutes after his appointment but he's been in charge a fucking year now, best he get's round to actually doing something ...)

While we both known this, we also know that policing doesn't work that way anymore, particularly armed police.

I don't know much about policing but I know a little bit about journalism, and the piece in this Sunday's observer was chocked filled with details that hadn't appeared before, and it struck me a a met dept desperately releasing a massive flow of information to justify their actions.

It was a piece with a huge amount of current facts without little depth. For example lurid details of the hit and run at the roundway in tottenham, a follow up paragraph could have pointed out the gunning down in the Swan last year of a girl. And two stabbing deaths on that stretch of road again within the year.

I'm not saying it's all relevant, but the article screamed to me of damage control, that this police operation went out quietly, got exposed, and then the met PR office went into damage control, fed some stories to friendly journalists, but didn't feed in enough background information.

The observer piece made several contradictory claims (that heroin was the big problem, then cannabis) brought in Afghanistan, and didn't make a widespread point, It talked about Kurdish and Turkish gangsters but ignored the fact that there is enormous cultural animosity between the two groups.

I'm not saying this isn't the Met's fault and not the journalist's but trying to make out Turkish gangsters as the new yardies in a weekend is a fucking disaster.

 

[detective-boy]

... and then the met PR office went into damage control ...

... I'm not saying this isn't the Met's fault and not the journalist's but trying to make out Turkish gangsters as the new yardies in a weekend is a fucking disaster.

The point is that the media, and how it reports things, should be absolutely secondary to operational policing needs. Yes, the police media department should be concerned about how things are being reported and should (with operational officers) think things through proactively - how are they going to play, what level of detail / background is needed, when should we do this, etc., etc. - but they will never manage to avoid the media (often prodded by some politician or pressure group with an axe to grind) going off on some random flight of fancy.

But, and this is an absolute, operational decisions should never be influenced by "How will this play in the media?" or "Oh my God, it's all kicked off, we can't do that". That is when "without fear of favour" kicks in.

We have sadly reached the point where the tail is wagging the dog ... and that is not good for anyone.

(And the Turks being the "new Yardies" is nothing new at all - they have been a very significant, violent part of organised crime for at least 20 years. It appears that some new, younger generation gangsters have more of a penchant for street shoot-outs than their predecessors though ... Just because the media have only just caught up with it doesn't mean no-one else had.)

 

[William of Walworth]

I've skimmed sections of this thread, and I appreciate there are various different strands going on within it ...

But when I see someone arguing or affecting to argue for citizens 'rights' to go armed (aka 'gun freedom' ) and also arguing, or 'arguing' that with great vociferousness and articulacy but also immense speciousness, leaps of logic, and misapplication/selective application of 'facts' ...

... then I've been reminded of an old, very long and thankfully long dead thread on a similar subject

And retire, because anyone who wants 'gun freedom' for all in the UK is a deranged fucking lunatic and I've now got far better things to do than to get tied up with them again.

I've done my time and burnt my fingers. No more.