Does it worry you that police officers in the UK are increasingly carrying firearms?
+15
Heretic
tlttf
boatlady
Dan Fante
buckspygmy
Bellatori
Phil Hornby
Ivan
astradt1
jackthelad
oftenwrong
keenobserver1
bobby
Shirina
Stox 16
19 posters
:: Other Matters :: Law And Order
Page 4 of 4
Page 4 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Does it worry you that police officers in the UK are increasingly carrying firearms?
First topic message reminder :
I Have become quite worried by the fact that UK police officers being issued firearms due to the increasingly violent nature of crime they are having to face today, but what is the true the costs of such a measure to our society? is this a road we should be going down at all? if not what should we do instead?
I Have become quite worried by the fact that UK police officers being issued firearms due to the increasingly violent nature of crime they are having to face today, but what is the true the costs of such a measure to our society? is this a road we should be going down at all? if not what should we do instead?
Stox 16- Posts : 1064
Join date : 2011-12-18
Age : 64
Location : Suffolk in the UK
Re: Does it worry you that police officers in the UK are increasingly carrying firearms?
Redflag,
In light of events, I imagine it is pretty clear why the question was being asked, and in what context.
In light of events, I imagine it is pretty clear why the question was being asked, and in what context.
sickchip- Posts : 1152
Join date : 2011-10-11
Re: Does it worry you that police officers in the UK are increasingly carrying firearms?
Tories always believe in shooting to kill - that way you never have to get involved in any nasty old bureaucratic red tape about justice, truth or the like.
Penderyn- Deactivated
- Posts : 833
Join date : 2011-12-11
Location : Cymru
Re: Does it worry you that police officers in the UK are increasingly carrying firearms?
Let’s see what Jeremy Corbyn actually said in answer to a question from Laura Kuenssberg:-
“I’m not happy with the shoot-to-kill policy in general – I think that is quite dangerous and I think it can often be counterproductive. I think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons where they can, there are various degrees of doing things as we know. But the idea you end up with a war on the streets is not a good thing. Surely you have to work to try and prevent these things happening. That’s got to be the priority.”
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/17/hilary-benn-jeremy-corbyn-shoot-to-kill
One of his aides has clarified that he is not opposed to shoot-to-kill in all cases and he was “committed to what the existing law is – that any armed action by the police has to be proportionate to the threat … That is always the test that is put when it comes to any incident when police kill anyone.”
Clearly it would be absurd, when a terrorist is emptying an automatic weapon into a crowd, to expect police or soldiers to grab a megaphone and shout: “Would you mind putting that gun down, old chap? It would be beastly if someone got hurt”. However, I guess it depends on exactly what a ‘shoot to kill’ policy means. When an attack is ongoing, it’s stating the obvious to say that the terrorists must be taken out to prevent them killing any more people, and I doubt if Corbyn has any problem with that. If, on the other hand, someone is carrying a gun, is not about to fire it and is not pointing it at anybody, then they should at least be given the chance to drop their weapon and surrender, and that’s probably what happens most of the time.
From what I know of Jeremy Corbyn, he thinks that wherever possible terrorists should be captured and face due process under the law. He believes that we should be better than these ISIS maniacs and not act as judge, jury and executioner as they do. But of course it wasn’t practical to arrest either Osama bin Laden or Mohammed Emwazi. The danger for Corbyn is that the voters, concerned for their safety, will perceive, rightly or wrongly, that he is ‘soft’ on security, and you can be sure that the BBC and various right-wing newspapers will do all they can to reinforce that perception.
“I’m not happy with the shoot-to-kill policy in general – I think that is quite dangerous and I think it can often be counterproductive. I think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons where they can, there are various degrees of doing things as we know. But the idea you end up with a war on the streets is not a good thing. Surely you have to work to try and prevent these things happening. That’s got to be the priority.”
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/17/hilary-benn-jeremy-corbyn-shoot-to-kill
One of his aides has clarified that he is not opposed to shoot-to-kill in all cases and he was “committed to what the existing law is – that any armed action by the police has to be proportionate to the threat … That is always the test that is put when it comes to any incident when police kill anyone.”
Clearly it would be absurd, when a terrorist is emptying an automatic weapon into a crowd, to expect police or soldiers to grab a megaphone and shout: “Would you mind putting that gun down, old chap? It would be beastly if someone got hurt”. However, I guess it depends on exactly what a ‘shoot to kill’ policy means. When an attack is ongoing, it’s stating the obvious to say that the terrorists must be taken out to prevent them killing any more people, and I doubt if Corbyn has any problem with that. If, on the other hand, someone is carrying a gun, is not about to fire it and is not pointing it at anybody, then they should at least be given the chance to drop their weapon and surrender, and that’s probably what happens most of the time.
From what I know of Jeremy Corbyn, he thinks that wherever possible terrorists should be captured and face due process under the law. He believes that we should be better than these ISIS maniacs and not act as judge, jury and executioner as they do. But of course it wasn’t practical to arrest either Osama bin Laden or Mohammed Emwazi. The danger for Corbyn is that the voters, concerned for their safety, will perceive, rightly or wrongly, that he is ‘soft’ on security, and you can be sure that the BBC and various right-wing newspapers will do all they can to reinforce that perception.
Re: Does it worry you that police officers in the UK are increasingly carrying firearms?
That seems exactly right to me - once upon a long time ago, I had a job that entailed making decisions about the occasional deprivation of civil liberties.
Although I operated under advice from expert sources and within a legal framework, the final decision was mine alone - and if necessary I had to be ready to defend the decision in a court of law - that's the way it has to be if you are licensed on behalf of the state to deprive citizens of any of their rights.
Although I operated under advice from expert sources and within a legal framework, the final decision was mine alone - and if necessary I had to be ready to defend the decision in a court of law - that's the way it has to be if you are licensed on behalf of the state to deprive citizens of any of their rights.
boatlady- Former Moderator
- Posts : 3832
Join date : 2012-08-24
Location : Norfolk
Re: Does it worry you that police officers in the UK are increasingly carrying firearms?
My own reflections include the fact that I was very reassured to see police officers carrying weapons at the England-v-France football match at Wembley last night. Everyone to whom I spoke felt the same.
The 'kit' that police customarily carry, or to which they have ready access, has to be proportionate to what they are called upon to do to uphold the law and protect citizens. If that means being permanently in possession of a firearm on the streets then that is what should happen, although I would prefer that life was such that such a provision was never necessary...
The 'kit' that police customarily carry, or to which they have ready access, has to be proportionate to what they are called upon to do to uphold the law and protect citizens. If that means being permanently in possession of a firearm on the streets then that is what should happen, although I would prefer that life was such that such a provision was never necessary...
Phil Hornby- Blogger
- Posts : 4002
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Drifting on Easy Street
Re: Does it worry you that police officers in the UK are increasingly carrying firearms?
Although Aneurin Bevan opposed high expenditure on defence and nuclear power, his speech at the 1957 Labour party conference was very controversial as he ridiculed the idea of nuclear disarmament.
“But if you carry this resolution and follow out all its implications — and do not run away from it — you will send a British Foreign Secretary, whoever he may be, naked into the conference chamber. … And you call that statesmanship? I call it an emotional spasm.”
"Being sent naked .." is a phrase that might be applied to any Law Officer sent out into today's streets without what Crime Fiction writers describe as an "equaliser".
oftenwrong- Sage
- Posts : 12062
Join date : 2011-10-08
Re: Does it worry you that police officers in the UK are increasingly carrying firearms?
The so called “shoot to kill” policy doesn’t really exist. As has already been said, if an armed police officer or soldier is either been given the go ahead to use firearms or take it upon themselves to use them to defend themselves from imminent danger, they will never be given the order “shoot to kill” as any shot other than restraining fire made by our police or military services will be a shot to kill.
You can not give a copper or soldier the order to only wound, that is strictly for Hollywood. Just say such stupid orders were given and those who defend us try to just wound his target, the target may well be in a position to still shoot or press a remote button to detonate a bomb. Not only that many aimed shots to wound will miss the smaller target of an arm or leg than the torso or head again giving time to get shot yourself.
As soon as a situation requires the use of firearms it will automatically be with lethal intent.
You can not give a copper or soldier the order to only wound, that is strictly for Hollywood. Just say such stupid orders were given and those who defend us try to just wound his target, the target may well be in a position to still shoot or press a remote button to detonate a bomb. Not only that many aimed shots to wound will miss the smaller target of an arm or leg than the torso or head again giving time to get shot yourself.
As soon as a situation requires the use of firearms it will automatically be with lethal intent.
bobby- Posts : 1939
Join date : 2011-11-18
Re: Does it worry you that police officers in the UK are increasingly carrying firearms?
Absolutely correct, Bobby. You bark very well. In Edinburgh Airport recently I was pleased to see policemen carrying guns. I would be rather upset if, when they were called to use them, they wasted their ammunition merely wounding. Those who oppose arming our police could perhaps take themselves off to a small island and live like Trappist monks, saying nothing. We'd be safer and happier.
marcolucco- Posts : 256
Join date : 2015-11-06
Who goes there - Friend or Foe?
sickchip wrote:I think Corbyn has made a terrible error with his comments regarding 'shoot to kill'. In the context of terrorists roaming British streets gunning innocent people down, it is a bizarre statement from Corbyn; and I'm afraid is one that will drastically weaken his, and Labour's, chances at the next election.
Abstract opinion is all very well in a debating society, but arming servants of the State must presume that in certain circumstances their weapons may be used with fatal consequences.
Concerned citizens are entitled to have views on that, and the refreshing honesty of Mr Corbyn in expressing his misgivings should be appreciated for what it is.
Does anybody really think it is better to have Leaders who mould their personal beliefs for popular consumption?
oftenwrong- Sage
- Posts : 12062
Join date : 2011-10-08
Re: Does it worry you that police officers in the UK are increasingly carrying firearms?
All opinion is abstract, oftenwrong. If expressing one's opinion, however bizarre, is to be commended, we are fortunate that Mr. Corbyn isn't a believer in human sacrifice.
As for weapons being used to kill, that, presumably, is their main purpose. Those who advocate that we should arm the police to protect us from terrorists are surely not thinking that guns will be used only to start off marathons. Concerned citizens can have views on whatever they want provided they don't interfere with measures designed to keep us alive.
We have a very rough idea from which section of the population terrorists spring; it says a lot about our British way of thinking that we don't conduct thorough searches in that area - with or without guns. I wonder what would happen if Mr Corbyn's refreshing honesty extended to expressing an opinion on this delicate subject.
As for weapons being used to kill, that, presumably, is their main purpose. Those who advocate that we should arm the police to protect us from terrorists are surely not thinking that guns will be used only to start off marathons. Concerned citizens can have views on whatever they want provided they don't interfere with measures designed to keep us alive.
We have a very rough idea from which section of the population terrorists spring; it says a lot about our British way of thinking that we don't conduct thorough searches in that area - with or without guns. I wonder what would happen if Mr Corbyn's refreshing honesty extended to expressing an opinion on this delicate subject.
marcolucco- Posts : 256
Join date : 2015-11-06
The Troubles
marcolucco wrote:All opinion is abstract, oftenwrong. ....
ab·stract
adj.
1. Considered apart from concrete existence: an abstract concept.
2. Impersonal, as in attitude or views.
Strongly held personal views presumably therefore excluded.
....We have a very rough idea from which section of the population terrorists spring ....
We can't keep blaming the Irish for everything, marco.
oftenwrong- Sage
- Posts : 12062
Join date : 2011-10-08
Re: Does it worry you that police officers in the UK are increasingly carrying firearms?
Very good, oftenwrong - and this perfectly illustrates your tautology. Give instruction to a wise man!oftenwrong wrote:ab·stract
adj.
1. Considered apart from concrete existence: an abstract concept.
2. Impersonal, as in attitude or views.
"We can't keep blaming the Irish for everything, marco."
Well we CAN, oftenwrong and do. Gladstone's mission was to "pacify" Ireland but he never did. Arming our police to take on the Irish may not be a good idea - especially as I have Irish relatives. No, we must chercher la femme elsewhere, my friend.
marcolucco- Posts : 256
Join date : 2015-11-06
Re: Does it worry you that police officers in the UK are increasingly carrying firearms?
French!
And me just having bought that Latin dictionary...
And me just having bought that Latin dictionary...
Phil Hornby- Blogger
- Posts : 4002
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Drifting on Easy Street
oftenwrong- Sage
- Posts : 12062
Join date : 2011-10-08
Re: Does it worry you that police officers in the UK are increasingly carrying firearms?
" Thongs just get more and more bewolderong..."
Phil Hornby- Blogger
- Posts : 4002
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Drifting on Easy Street
Re: Does it worry you that police officers in the UK are increasingly carrying firearms?
Phil wrote: And me just having bought that Latin dictionary.
You will need it for your pluperfect subjunctives. I bet the moronic Cameron possesses at least one Lewis and Short. Perhaps you should have bought an Arabic dictionary as well to cater for the welcome influx of tourists from Angela's extended Germany. Cameron, moron that he is, foolishly avoided the able-bodied, youthful, male refugees, preferring those who didn't have the cash to cross the Med. What's the man thinking of?
marcolucco- Posts : 256
Join date : 2015-11-06
Page 4 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Similar topics
» Favourite 'tweets'
» Cameron's 2-strike law will mean police & public lives lost, and £billions more cost
» "People say we need religion, when what they really mean is we need police"
» A lesson from the 1919 Liverpool police strike
» Deficit is excuse for the Tories to cut jobs
» Cameron's 2-strike law will mean police & public lives lost, and £billions more cost
» "People say we need religion, when what they really mean is we need police"
» A lesson from the 1919 Liverpool police strike
» Deficit is excuse for the Tories to cut jobs
:: Other Matters :: Law And Order
Page 4 of 4
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum