I’d suggest 15-20% of response officers should be trained to AFO standard (3 week course, vs the 13 week ARVO course) and have sidearms available in a vehicle safe until deployment authorised.
This debate was going on when I joined in 1977. It comes around every few years and it is no closer to being resolved now as it was then. Neither the left nor right have articulated clearly what they would do. My opinion is that all the steps the police have taken over the years with regard to firearms and public order have been largely reactive, e.g the adoption (reluctantly) of riot shields in the late 70's and the equally reluctant adoption of riot helmets and coveralls and the introduction of ARV's. Both left and right commentators have accused the policing of 'gearing up to wage war on the public' but being a wibbly victim pays does it not?
Anyone remember the furore when the first officers armed with MP5's appeared at Heathrow? That was in response to a particular threat and the Japanese Red Armed had attacked Vienna airport at the behest of the PLO. It was obvious that an AK47 would outrange a S&W Mod 10. You would have thought the world had ended judging from the papers.
For what it's worth I favour more devolvement of ARV's out to BOCU's (or whatever they're called this week). The main troubles are likely to come with provision of ranges and training areas. Procurement of extra firearms won't be a problem. Glock and H&K would ramp up production quite happily I'm sure.
Response should also be seen as a speciality rather than a punishment but I see trouble ahead for the MPS with inexperienced response officers lead by equally inexperienced supervisors.
It will be a problem to soothe the egos of those in specialised departments with these changes but it can be done. I believe a major problem is that people in specialised departments in the MPS tend to gold plate everything and say 'only we can do this'.
The British Public and the media/political class are squeamish/hypocritical about police use of force. I'm not surprised officers are reluctant to use force when they know they will be subjected to the TMO and an often disproportionate investigation by the IOPC. The IOPC would do well to be acquainted with a quote by an American Sociologist, Egon Bittner who said that many examples of police use of force are a 'twenty foot jump over a five foot ditch', that is a police officer will invariably deal with a threat of difficulty with more force and counter threat than needed. He also said that was how he would react and how anyone acting as a police officer would act as you don't know what you are facing.
Anyhow, the future is looking even more interesting is it not?
I completely agree Boris, especially about the empires who jealously guard their turf. A pistol is a relatively simple piece of kit. It isn't a large hadron collider.
Your question about do senior officers caring is interesting. I was a superintendent and I certainly cared, the operational armed officers were my responsibility! Did others care? Again yes, Chief officers knew that they would be held to account if firearms were deployed and used, the legal ramifications were not lost on them.
Should all officers carry a firearm, no. As you point out many have no requirement and others would be plain dangerous to their colleagues let alone the public. I was involved in the Taser roll out and this was/is a game changer.
The way in which the media, IOPC and chattering classes analyse and criticise all aspects of policing means that only the most professional officers will survive unscathed.
I retired in 2010 so things may be different now……
Generally speaking, when I mention 'senior' I'm referring to NPCC ranks (i.e. the people who can realistically drive change). They might superficially 'care' in much the same way one might care for an elderly second-uncle. But they don't care enough to risk the next rank or KPM by voicing non-Blob opinions on officer safety and crime in general. Which is why OST in the UK police remains suboptimal. In that context, I stand by my comments.
I recognise your description of a superficially caring senior officer, even they have a sense of self preservation, if only to get the next rank, gong etc….
I agree regarding OST, the ‘skills’ taught did not survive the first physical confrontation 😂‼️
I remember doing that OST session on techniques for disarming a gunman and honestly answering the question ‘what would you do in this situation?’ with ‘probably either freeze or shit myself’.
I always felt OST missed the easy win of training basic skills and, most importantly equipping officers with knowledge of use of force law AND skills in writing up use of force.
Today is start of new regime when Chief Constables can sack cops. I'm sure employment lawyers up and down the land are waiting for appeals. Another policing national disgrace.
Okay, let's run with that. It's a perfectly reasonable position (I don't agree - yet - but still). What sort of time-frame do you envisage, and what would you do with serving officers unprepared or unable to pass the necessary training to carry a firearm?
What recruit training time do European forces allocate? I'd suggest two or three weeks at the end of the initial course; no reason the Met should require any longer. A refresher shoot every 6 to 12 months seems to work OK for them. If they can load, fire a magazine into a Figure 11 at 25 yards, and make safe that's them covered.
Serving Officers can either go desk bound, which I don't agree with, suck it up, or put in their papers. Ditto Refusers - it's a condition of continued employment.
I personally wouldn't want to live in a country policed that way, for a variety of reasons (the cultural shift to an armed police service would take a solid decade to bed in, plus we'd lose thousands of specialist officers who don't really need to carry). The UK isn't an armed society in the way other European countries are (our firearms laws are stricter). That leaves knives and other weapons, which I would suggest can be managed in the way I describe in my article.
I'm a small 'c' conservative on lots of things - which means I look to why we got to a certain point and try to conserve what works. There are plenty of positives in having a largely unarmed police service rather than a gendarmerie, but of course that might change. Personally, I'm on the fighting a rear-guard action side of the house.
The hellscape that is France, or Norway, or Sweden? The UK is an armed society only it has been so managed that it's mostly the bad guys that have the weapons.
If you really want to facilitate these refuseniks then they can finish out their service unarmed but blocked for promotion or transfer.
Okay, we'll agree to disagree. Have a good one. All of those countries, by the way, have a shed-load of armed and violent crime. Especially Sweden at the moment.
Not sure that France is a hellscape … certainly wasn’t the last time I was there in January; but your mileage may vary.
I think universal provision of Taser on response, plus a 15-20% access to AFO level is affordable and realistic.
The flip side is that even with a modest expansion of armed policing there will be an increase in use of force investigations; loss of or mishandling of police firearms, potential self harm and the reaction of criminality which may well be to make more use if weaponry.
The law of unintended consequences will kick in to some tune with this.
I totally agree with you, those officers at Hainault were total bloody heroes!
As a left hander my OST training was done incredibly slowly (thank you Scotty, one of our brilliant trainers who could show me the left handed techniques).
Most violent confrontations I got involved with as operational, front- line most of my career, involved some hairy moments followed by the involvement of the Metropolitan Police clog dancing team. I do recall biting someone on the arm once, my restraining him turned into him squeezing my hands (two cops v one meaty scrote in that fight). My bite did make him let go - didn't draw blood - and he did end up in a cell.
Generally, when asked I always explain my technique for restraint was to push suspects onto the ground and sit/kneel/keep them there until the afore mentioned clog dancing team arrived to rescue me.
I recall the disarming armed suspects training too - wtf? The trainer (Scotty appears here again) did say it was LOB but they had to teach it. I remember the bottom line being 'Don't try this, if anyone points a gun at you, run away and hide'.
The crux of my view on this blog is - YES, make response Teams a specialism and PAY THEM MORE MONEY! I also agree with having ARV's on borough/division - or whatever they are called now - AND locally qualified BRONZE/SILVER command trained. Actually when I left there had to be a firearms command trained duty officer on duty 24/7 but that needs to be practiced too.
I cannot see the Home Sec, the left-wing London Mayor or the Commish being prepared to arm every cop, easier for them to mumble platitudes and go to funerals.
The Met Police continues - sadly - to be lions led by donkeys.
I have said for many years that every officer should have taser (see pp. 132 https://shorturl.at/DJ479) I agree that we probably neither need nor want a fully armed force but tasers and the confidence to be able to use them without reams of paperwork and a lengthy inquiry is what officers need, in my not so humble but Strawberry Mivvi opinion.
Now twenty years ago I spent a lot of time as a "ride along" or civilian observer with several US police departments, both urban e.g. Detroit, suburban e.g. Orange County, California and rural-suburban in Montana. Every single officer found it hard then to believe in the UK (except Northern Ireland) every day policing could be done unarmed - with a lethal weapon. They warned me that "everything changes when you carry a gun". Not only can you fine and jail the public, you can kill them. You keep your distance from people and become suspicious of everyone. Times have changed now, especially for the MPS, I still - now as a member of the public - do not want to see all patrolling police officers armed with a firearm. All who are prepared to carry Taser fine. More full trained ARV officers yes.
Good proposals.
I’d suggest 15-20% of response officers should be trained to AFO standard (3 week course, vs the 13 week ARVO course) and have sidearms available in a vehicle safe until deployment authorised.
Enhanced pay also. And likewise for ARVOs
This debate was going on when I joined in 1977. It comes around every few years and it is no closer to being resolved now as it was then. Neither the left nor right have articulated clearly what they would do. My opinion is that all the steps the police have taken over the years with regard to firearms and public order have been largely reactive, e.g the adoption (reluctantly) of riot shields in the late 70's and the equally reluctant adoption of riot helmets and coveralls and the introduction of ARV's. Both left and right commentators have accused the policing of 'gearing up to wage war on the public' but being a wibbly victim pays does it not?
Anyone remember the furore when the first officers armed with MP5's appeared at Heathrow? That was in response to a particular threat and the Japanese Red Armed had attacked Vienna airport at the behest of the PLO. It was obvious that an AK47 would outrange a S&W Mod 10. You would have thought the world had ended judging from the papers.
For what it's worth I favour more devolvement of ARV's out to BOCU's (or whatever they're called this week). The main troubles are likely to come with provision of ranges and training areas. Procurement of extra firearms won't be a problem. Glock and H&K would ramp up production quite happily I'm sure.
Response should also be seen as a speciality rather than a punishment but I see trouble ahead for the MPS with inexperienced response officers lead by equally inexperienced supervisors.
It will be a problem to soothe the egos of those in specialised departments with these changes but it can be done. I believe a major problem is that people in specialised departments in the MPS tend to gold plate everything and say 'only we can do this'.
The British Public and the media/political class are squeamish/hypocritical about police use of force. I'm not surprised officers are reluctant to use force when they know they will be subjected to the TMO and an often disproportionate investigation by the IOPC. The IOPC would do well to be acquainted with a quote by an American Sociologist, Egon Bittner who said that many examples of police use of force are a 'twenty foot jump over a five foot ditch', that is a police officer will invariably deal with a threat of difficulty with more force and counter threat than needed. He also said that was how he would react and how anyone acting as a police officer would act as you don't know what you are facing.
Anyhow, the future is looking even more interesting is it not?
I completely agree Boris, especially about the empires who jealously guard their turf. A pistol is a relatively simple piece of kit. It isn't a large hadron collider.
Your question about do senior officers caring is interesting. I was a superintendent and I certainly cared, the operational armed officers were my responsibility! Did others care? Again yes, Chief officers knew that they would be held to account if firearms were deployed and used, the legal ramifications were not lost on them.
Should all officers carry a firearm, no. As you point out many have no requirement and others would be plain dangerous to their colleagues let alone the public. I was involved in the Taser roll out and this was/is a game changer.
The way in which the media, IOPC and chattering classes analyse and criticise all aspects of policing means that only the most professional officers will survive unscathed.
I retired in 2010 so things may be different now……
Generally speaking, when I mention 'senior' I'm referring to NPCC ranks (i.e. the people who can realistically drive change). They might superficially 'care' in much the same way one might care for an elderly second-uncle. But they don't care enough to risk the next rank or KPM by voicing non-Blob opinions on officer safety and crime in general. Which is why OST in the UK police remains suboptimal. In that context, I stand by my comments.
I recognise your description of a superficially caring senior officer, even they have a sense of self preservation, if only to get the next rank, gong etc….
I agree regarding OST, the ‘skills’ taught did not survive the first physical confrontation 😂‼️
Thanks again Dom for serving up more food for thought. For what it’s worth, my thinking aligns closely with yours.
Cheers, PB!
I remember doing that OST session on techniques for disarming a gunman and honestly answering the question ‘what would you do in this situation?’ with ‘probably either freeze or shit myself’.
I always felt OST missed the easy win of training basic skills and, most importantly equipping officers with knowledge of use of force law AND skills in writing up use of force.
Today is start of new regime when Chief Constables can sack cops. I'm sure employment lawyers up and down the land are waiting for appeals. Another policing national disgrace.
Every Met officer should carry a pistol on duty. Other countries manage it without a fit of the vapours, or "But we're British" bollocks.
Okay, let's run with that. It's a perfectly reasonable position (I don't agree - yet - but still). What sort of time-frame do you envisage, and what would you do with serving officers unprepared or unable to pass the necessary training to carry a firearm?
Retire them off. Luke Patten did in NI. Ruc or psni? Take the money.
What recruit training time do European forces allocate? I'd suggest two or three weeks at the end of the initial course; no reason the Met should require any longer. A refresher shoot every 6 to 12 months seems to work OK for them. If they can load, fire a magazine into a Figure 11 at 25 yards, and make safe that's them covered.
Serving Officers can either go desk bound, which I don't agree with, suck it up, or put in their papers. Ditto Refusers - it's a condition of continued employment.
I personally wouldn't want to live in a country policed that way, for a variety of reasons (the cultural shift to an armed police service would take a solid decade to bed in, plus we'd lose thousands of specialist officers who don't really need to carry). The UK isn't an armed society in the way other European countries are (our firearms laws are stricter). That leaves knives and other weapons, which I would suggest can be managed in the way I describe in my article.
I'm a small 'c' conservative on lots of things - which means I look to why we got to a certain point and try to conserve what works. There are plenty of positives in having a largely unarmed police service rather than a gendarmerie, but of course that might change. Personally, I'm on the fighting a rear-guard action side of the house.
The hellscape that is France, or Norway, or Sweden? The UK is an armed society only it has been so managed that it's mostly the bad guys that have the weapons.
If you really want to facilitate these refuseniks then they can finish out their service unarmed but blocked for promotion or transfer.
Okay, we'll agree to disagree. Have a good one. All of those countries, by the way, have a shed-load of armed and violent crime. Especially Sweden at the moment.
Not sure that France is a hellscape … certainly wasn’t the last time I was there in January; but your mileage may vary.
I think universal provision of Taser on response, plus a 15-20% access to AFO level is affordable and realistic.
The flip side is that even with a modest expansion of armed policing there will be an increase in use of force investigations; loss of or mishandling of police firearms, potential self harm and the reaction of criminality which may well be to make more use if weaponry.
The law of unintended consequences will kick in to some tune with this.
Dominic,
I totally agree with you, those officers at Hainault were total bloody heroes!
As a left hander my OST training was done incredibly slowly (thank you Scotty, one of our brilliant trainers who could show me the left handed techniques).
Most violent confrontations I got involved with as operational, front- line most of my career, involved some hairy moments followed by the involvement of the Metropolitan Police clog dancing team. I do recall biting someone on the arm once, my restraining him turned into him squeezing my hands (two cops v one meaty scrote in that fight). My bite did make him let go - didn't draw blood - and he did end up in a cell.
Generally, when asked I always explain my technique for restraint was to push suspects onto the ground and sit/kneel/keep them there until the afore mentioned clog dancing team arrived to rescue me.
I recall the disarming armed suspects training too - wtf? The trainer (Scotty appears here again) did say it was LOB but they had to teach it. I remember the bottom line being 'Don't try this, if anyone points a gun at you, run away and hide'.
The crux of my view on this blog is - YES, make response Teams a specialism and PAY THEM MORE MONEY! I also agree with having ARV's on borough/division - or whatever they are called now - AND locally qualified BRONZE/SILVER command trained. Actually when I left there had to be a firearms command trained duty officer on duty 24/7 but that needs to be practiced too.
I cannot see the Home Sec, the left-wing London Mayor or the Commish being prepared to arm every cop, easier for them to mumble platitudes and go to funerals.
The Met Police continues - sadly - to be lions led by donkeys.
I have said for many years that every officer should have taser (see pp. 132 https://shorturl.at/DJ479) I agree that we probably neither need nor want a fully armed force but tasers and the confidence to be able to use them without reams of paperwork and a lengthy inquiry is what officers need, in my not so humble but Strawberry Mivvi opinion.
Now twenty years ago I spent a lot of time as a "ride along" or civilian observer with several US police departments, both urban e.g. Detroit, suburban e.g. Orange County, California and rural-suburban in Montana. Every single officer found it hard then to believe in the UK (except Northern Ireland) every day policing could be done unarmed - with a lethal weapon. They warned me that "everything changes when you carry a gun". Not only can you fine and jail the public, you can kill them. You keep your distance from people and become suspicious of everyone. Times have changed now, especially for the MPS, I still - now as a member of the public - do not want to see all patrolling police officers armed with a firearm. All who are prepared to carry Taser fine. More full trained ARV officers yes.