Well, what do you think now?
On Wednesday, more than a year on from the incident, the CPS announced it had authorised a murder charge to be issued against a police officer who is only being identified as Officer NX121. Protests from his colleagues, which the Met said has 'increased over the past 48 hours', is said to have left London with a 'skeleton' of armed police, causing panic among Met chiefs.You can't force police to carry guns; they are volunteers. And if you fail to support them they will withdraw that goodwill.
'Hundreds of Authorised Firearms Officers on the MO19 command have handed in their blue tickets,' the source told The Sun.
'They are angry and upset. Their families are worried and therefore they do not believe they are in the right frame of mind to carry a firearm.'
The source suggested that officers are taking time away to determine whether they can continue a job which could be life-changing if they become involved in a shooting.
That's the thing with goodwill - it has to come from both sides to work/
Do they get paid extra to be firearms officers? Police shouldn't carry guns in the UK, we have (or should have) the Army for that. Criminals carrying firearms should get an automatic death penalty on conviction.
ReplyDeleteThese police are interfering in the judicial process, which carries jail time.
OK, the guy shot was probably no loss to society, but we can't have police who shoot first.
Incidentally, why NX...? Negro Executioner?
The word ‘unarmed’ appears frequently in current press coverage; I’d have thought that a moving Audi Q8, weighing over 2 metric tonnes, could be reasonably considered to be a formidable weapon, especially from the point of view of someone on foot in its immediate vicinity.
ReplyDeleteI understand the hitting a policeman with a car is deemed 'Assault with a deadly weapon'.
ReplyDeleteIt was a mistake to arm plod in the first place. Whenever a military response is required, the military should be called. I would be reluctant to hand out sharp pencils to the likes of WPC Jaded et al.
ReplyDelete"a moving Audi Q8, weighing over 2 metric tonnes, could be reasonably considered to be a formidable weapon"
ReplyDeleteTroops in Ireland were not allowed to shoot at cars being driven at them when they were manning road blocks, on the grounds that they could jump out of the way.
"Police shouldn't carry guns in the UK, we have (or should have) the Army for that."
ReplyDeleteNo, that is not why we have an army.
"These police are interfering in the judicial process, which carries jail time."
Individuals declining to be armed is "interfering in the judicial process"? What planet are you on?
Instances of murder, blackmail and puerile petulance were extremely hard to foresee, eh?
ReplyDelete" but we can't have police who shoot first."
ReplyDeleteWhat a stupid post and a comment. What if someone grabs a 4-year old in a shopping centre and holds a gun to the child's head? Wait for that criminal to shoot first?
Police and Public should be subject to the same laws. If the Police want to be held to another standard, No unless the new standard applies to us as well.
ReplyDeleteI’m completely behind these officers handing their guns back. It’s about time.
ReplyDeleteLast night there should have been ten armed vehicles on patrol in London each carrying three officers . They only managed to fill one car .
If this spreads and the diplomatic protection group join in ,then parliament will shut and the politicians and royal family will be trapped in their homes . That will get their attention.
Jaded
"What a stupid post and a comment"
ReplyDeleteAlmost as stupid as the whine you get "Couldn't they have just wounded him?"
They are trained at the taxpayers expense to carry guns and they are paid for it. If one of them shoots an unarmed man without good reason he has committed murder. No, we don';t yet know whether that has happened here. That's what the trial will be about. If you're saying you don't want a trial, you're saying you don't want to know the answer to that question. Well, I do, for obvious reasons. Now explain why you don't.
ReplyDeleteA long story about police volunteering for skills .
ReplyDeleteFrom 2008 to 2010 I was based at Lewisham and we were a very effective pro active team of one Sergeant and six PCs. We had a lot of arrests and we patrolled in a long wheel based Mercedes carrier . To drive this you need to pass a weeks course at Hendon.
One day we took a call to a pub fight in Lewisham high street . That street is buses only with cameras . Our driver ,called Jason ,obviously set the camera off. Usually what happens is that the council sees it’s a police vehicle ( or ambulance fire engine etc) and cancel the ticket. However this one slipped through the net and Jason got an email saying he was being fined £60. He appealed and gave the council the reference number of the call he was attending. The council passed it to a senior officer at Lewisham to verify . He decided to be a hard arse and said Jason had to pay. He came to our office to tell him .Jason stood up and tore in half his police driving licence ( a piece of card with your driving skills and renewal data) and said “ I refuse to drive “ . The Chief Inspector was then told by our team Sergeant that Jason was the only one qualified to drive the carrier. Backtracking quickly the CI asked one of us to attend a course to drive . We all refused .
For six months that 40 grand vehicle sat in the yard at Catford gathering dust until a new pc arrived who could drive it. Our arrest figures plummeted as we went out on foot .
Moral of this story is that we volunteer for courses like driving and firearms and cannot get forced to do it. Also there is no extra pay to gain extra skills, every Constable is on the same basic pay dependent on his length of service.
Jaded
@ WPC Jaded
ReplyDeleteWhat the likes of you are seeking is the power of terror, ala Noam Chomsky. A coerced guarantee from a browbeaten government, that the likes of you can murder unarmed civilians with impunity.
What you deserve is a prod from an umbrella. One tipped with a polonium isotope.
John Tee, does the Tee stand for Twat? Police who shoot first run the risk of killing innocent people. What about the Brazilian Electrician?
ReplyDeleteJaded (are you also John Twat?) - the trial establishes the facts. Personally, I hope that the judge finds the policeman Not Guilty, but going on a form of strike while a trial is anticipated or is happening is interfering with the judicial process. I thought that you were a copper - obviously one who doesn't know the law.
@ Anon 10:00
ReplyDeleteThe sharp wit and surgical precision of your posts is entertaining, Sir. Yes, Jaded is inclined to endorse her puerile comments using an alias... 'John Tee' in this weary example.
"John Tee, does the Tee stand for Twat? Police who shoot first run the risk of killing innocent people. What about the Brazilian Electrician?"
ReplyDeletePolice who shoot second end up dead.
And no, Jaded and I are not the same person. It is quite possible for more than one person to disagree with you and your ilk.
"Police shouldn't carry guns in the UK"
ReplyDeleteWhy not? Who else should - we can't rely on the army, that's nonsense.
"...but we can't have police who shoot first."
As is that. I absolutely want them to shoot first!
"The word ‘unarmed’ appears frequently in current press coverage..."
Yes, I noticed that. Obviously press shorthand for 'not carrying a gun', but gives the totally wrong impression of the threat he posed when he refused to obey commands.
"Troops in Ireland were not allowed to shoot at cars being driven at them when they were manning road blocks, on the grounds that they could jump out of the way."
And that was stupid then. And should be considered stupid now.
"Police and Public should be subject to the same laws. If the Police want to be held to another standard, No unless the new standard applies to us as well."
But that ignores the fact of their role. I'm not asked to put myself in the firing line. They are. And they should be supported in doing so.
"Almost as stupid as the whine you get "Couldn't they have just wounded him?""
Oh, I love to see that one. It's on a par with - when a dog attacking someone is shot - 'Couldn't they have used a tranquiliser gun?'
"If one of them shoots an unarmed man without good reason he has committed murder. No, we don';t yet know whether that has happened here. That's what the trial will be about."
ReplyDeleteWe don't need an expensive trial to know that, though, do we?
"Backtracking quickly the CI asked one of us to attend a course to drive . We all refused."
Excellent! I'm really surprised it's taken so long for the firearms cops to stand up for themselves in a similar fashion.
"Police who shoot first run the risk of killing innocent people. What about the Brazilian Electrician?"
That was a failure of intelligence, not a failure of the men pulling the trigger.
"Police who shoot second end up dead."
Spot on!
No snickering at the back if you can see JuLiaM playing effeuiller la Marguerite with plod.
ReplyDelete