The Policeman's Blog

Kennesaw, GA did just this! And people weren't running around in the streets shooting each other.

Before anybody says "in Britain it would be different, people would run around shooting each other", you need to bear in mind two things: pre-1953 the usual "good reason" for ownership of a handgun was self defence, and pre-1920 there was no regulation on this at all, and carrying was reportedly quite common. The other thing to bear in mind is the corollary that if Brits cannot be trusted in this way, then Americans must be more trustworthy than Brits.
 

I think you're missing an obvious factor here.
The kind of weapons the public are entitled to hold should depend upon where they live. After all, there's little point in having a high velocity rifle if you live in a terraced street. Far better a Mach 10 or any other compact machine pistol which you can squirt from your front door. Save the long weapons for the country where there's lots of open space and everyone can fit them in their 4x4s.
 

I always liked Eddie Izzard's take on guns - permitting the use of World War Two field artillery instead of handguns...
 

Sorry to bring up the subject of Police forces in Europe - I appreciate that the UK is a reluctant member of both continent and union - but is it a fact that Police forces in the rest of said continent are allowed to carry weapons, on the basis that if they are confronted with a maniac (or some such description of a miscreant) brandishing a firearm they have a chance to: a. reason with this person on the basis that they too have a weapon, so do their mates and an entire bus of Police heading there right now and to please reconsider their actions since in the long term its just not worth it and the likelihood that if they do not put down the weapon there will be not even a short term future for them; b. use excessive force if necessary to protect the public and makes the streets that little bit safer; c. generally maintain the rule of law by the fact that no sane person would challenge an officer of the law when they are brandishing the finest firearm the respective country can produce.

Compare this situation with the UK that still feels it necessary to arm the Police force with day-glo jackets that provide excellent targets; an extendable stick to swat bullets in mid air; a neatly crafted word of hope from the home office that the Police are doing an excellent job and what about joining the armed forces since they too get the same treatment for about the same, or less, pay (the exception being that the army doesn't yet have day-glo jackets).

Maybe the only answer would be to put the home secretary on the streets for a year or so prior to taking office to give a perspective of the true situation. I expect the government would go through a lot of home secretaries, which would not necessarily be a bad thing.
 

The reluctance of people to step in is due to the lack of protection the law would afford decent people. The youth hitting the granny, why shouldn't someone be able to step in and stop him using whatever force they deemed necessary?. The fact that if they were injured helping out, the person who injured them will only get community service and a small fine does not help. Even the Police are shying away from using force due to the mindset of the liberal minority who bleet on when they believe peoples human rights are infringed ( Taser, why not ). What about the Granny?.
 

Instead of arming the British public why not employ a system of taxation that enable the creation of a body charged with keeping the peace, preventing crimes against people and property and to maintain a sense of balance and justice within the community. Although this body would be expensive the public wouldn’t mind because they would be provided with the reassurance that should things go wrong they could call a simple number and within minutes they would have well trained, compassionate yet impartial professionals tending to their request. That way people wouldn’t need guns to protect themselves, they would feel safe; they would live in an environment where bad people go to prison.

… Oh wait.
 

For those that are worried about the responsibilty of armed private citizens, how about a phased re-introduction? The first act could allow concealed-carry of handguns only for members of society who have already demonstrated a superlative level of responsibility (e.g. has advanced qualifications and clean driving licence and an unblemished professional career).

Only a small number would take this up, but I bet even this would have a detterent effect, as a perp could never be sure their respectable intended target wasn't armed.

As the public got used to the idea and the crime rate fell, the responsibity threshold would be gradually reduced.
 

I posted the below comment last week on your no helmets on mopeds bit. It is equally relevant to this. Nice to know we can pre-empt the BBC.

As has already been said, a burglar cant sue a householder for being bitten by his dog, nor can a car or bike thief sue the police if they crash and cripple themselves. What surprises me is so many people choose to believe this. How many people have read the above posts and will be repeating them to friends and family. Its just not true. As for assaulting an intruder in your home, either in an attempt to arrest them or to defend your family against god knows what; the chances of being convicted if you acted in good faith are nil. (Tony Martin shot him whilst he was running away).
One of the reasons we are in such a mess is that people believe this tosh. Instead of teaching illegal drivers to read and write and car thieves to banger race, we should be telling law abiding people what they are allowed to do to defend hemseves. When they are approached by some aggressive drunk, do what we do, a solid shove in the chest to create distance, if that doesnt work the next stage, the same with ferral youths. When the youth makes the inevitable complaint,that "some geezer gripped me up, I wont im done" dont rush round and nick the man. See him, explain the offence you are investigating, caution them and listen to what they tell you. Write it up, CPS for an NFA, then file it, easier, quicker and fairer, these are he people we are meant to serve and protect. The best start is telling them they can fight back.

# posted by 9yrs to go : 11:14 PM
 

The orange vests are essential, you want your posse to be hard to see. I think the military should have to wear them at all times too.

If you do do that, please also allow Australia (where I live) to return the historical favour and start shipping our criminals to you folk for, ah, "education". Thanks ever so.
 

Not that I'd advocate being more like Switzerland in any respect, but....

All Swiss citizens (bar a few small groups) do national service and are in the army for a number of years. During that time they are trained to use weapons and have those weapons at home.

This does a few things:

1. Gives everyone a common sense of identity, thereby increasing social cohesion.
2. Dissuades anyone with anti-social tendencies from physical assault as everyone is trained in unarmed combat.
3. Only a mug is going to break into a home where the response would be armed (and once again trained).
 

Funny really. You can legaly own a firearm (shotgun)at the tender age of 17, yet I'm afraid you will have to wait until you are 18 before you can buy a firework! Daft really.

Hi Tech Copper
 

Texas is the state in the USA that comes closes to your dystopian view, and is also infamous for the highest murder and gun crime rate in a country where those rates are notoriously high already.

As for the gentleman that mentioned Switzerland, I lived there for 7 years and he's right, as far as he goes. The problem the Swiss have is a very high murder rate where the crime is carried out by the army issue weapon, usually some domestic dispute, and they Swiss are thinking of stopping the issuing of ammunition for people to keep at home.

How often are the police and the ambulance called to a domestic scene where a heated argument has ended in GBH because one party or the other found a kitchen knife close to hand. Now imagine that same situation if you had a gun close to hand.

I've no real objection to the police being armed, as long as the training is good, and is regularly refreshed. What I don't want to see is some kid in a pool of his own blood from 20 bullet holes because he was reaching for his wallet.
 

"the chances of being convicted if you acted in good faith are nil"

Well, tell Nicholas Tyers and his son that there's no problem. Yes, I suppose he didn't get convicted, he just got 6 months of hell and lost his business.

Reality : if you retaliate the cops hate it because you show them up. Why does Tony Martin get support ? Is it because he's nice ? Or because he shot a pikey running away ? No, he gets support because living round here you know *exactly* what the problem is and *exactly* what the Police & CPS do about it.
 

I am a strong supporter of the UK police, but one thing that is true concerning this issue is that this really does undermine public trust in the police and criminal justice system. And if you are a true 'peeler' (see his principles!) then you know that public approval is the very foundation of our form of policing.

So, if you are the (hopefully rare) police officer who thinks that charging someone who is simply defending themselves against an attacker is a good idea, then you are playing a part in undermining your own position. That is, unless you want a different type of policing in the UK- perhaps something along the lines of 'policing' in China...
 

I'm opposed to the general arming of the public since it seems to me that we don't really want to live in a society where most people have easy access to firearms. it may sound appealing especially to someone who hase just been robbed but all the evidence would seem it indicate that whle easy access to guns may make it easier to for people to fight back it breeds more crime not less.
Routine arming of the police is a different matter of course and there is a case for that as well as one for better non-lethal arming with such things as tasers etc. I quite like the idea of a weaponised cattle prod myself for controlling the chav population.
However as I understand it the main complaint of the officers posting to this forum, is not the lack of a suitable weapon for smacking miscreants around the head with but the three dozen forms in triplicate you have to fill in after the event? Surely shooting them through the head would generate far more paperwork?
Anon 12.07
The case of Nicholas Tyers is not as clear cut as it seems, whilst most people might sympathise with him including me. He grabbed this youth off the street the next day not at the time the little yob broke his window. There is only his word (accepted by the court) that he wasn't planning on taking this kid around the back of the shop for a good kicking. Presumably you think it's acceptable for two grown men to grab a twelve year old boy off the streets?
 

I don't doubt. My experience however, and that of many other people in my line of work, is that the Police will believe literally *any* story when it comes to children.

An aquaintance of mine was accused of shooting a child with a shotgun at point blank range and hitting him. The boy claimed that his thick woolly jumper protected him from any harm.

Neither the Police nor the CPS think this implausible.
 

I dislike being asked the question of would I call the police. After having to once, I wouldnt again.

How bad is that!
 

I'd like to think that if I saw an old lady being assaulted by a youth I would intervene. However, uppermost in my mind would be the thought that he's probably carrying a knife which he wouldn't hesitate to use.
As for the 'you wouldn't get convicted for self-defence' argument... Maybe not, but you'd probably still be charged and have to go through the whole process, with the accompanying pressures on family, job etc. All because someone broke into your house. It's probably easier to let them take what they want and not fight back.
 

I totally agree with what is beng said, however as a serving soldier i have been treated to at least two months of traning in order to handle all the weapons that my regiment uses in a correct and save manner. The pubkic should be allowed Hand guns but not assault rifles. can you imagine a group of civis walking abouut with the amazing new SA80 A2 or the LSW. Murder rates would increase sharply. However a Hand Gun is a effective weapon at short range, say too stop someone from mugging you, or breaking into your house. We have to blame not only Blairs government but also Majors, for banning hand guns in the first place.
 

Anonymous : 12:40 PM:

Your facts about Texas are way, way off the mark.

The Murder Capitol of the USA is none other than Washington DC. It has for all intents and purposes been illegal to posses any firearm there since 1976 (I think). The laws there are stricter than they are in th UK in many ways.

I also note you chose Texas. Why not choose New Hampshire which has the largest per captia ownership rate of firearms in the US and is the third safest state with a very low crime rate.

Of course, to expect one to use actual facts rather than shrilling is too much to ask.

Earl Harding.
 

********************************

Im sorry, im going to have to disagree with:
"posted by shiny : 1:36 PM"
The public dont give a monkey's if we are armed or not, its the GOVERNMENT who dont want to look bad when police start shooting people. thats it. simple as.

I work in peckham, south east london. Im unarmed (like lots of you) but still have to deal with the worst people in society. Only this weekend we have had one stabbing (resulting in death) and two shootings (one dead, one injured). I presonally have pulled a handgun out of the waistband of a robber, and i know many of my colleagues who have had guns pointed at them (never makes it to the news) and even been shot at (again, doesnt make it to the news for some reason...)

Image is everything. We have to wear V=neck jumpers and a tie because of the image it portrays. We wear a beat helmet (Image) and as for yellow jackets - Its so that the public (and criminals) can see us. deter crime and reassure the public...

I would much rather nick criminals, not show them where i am so they can go somewhere else and rob someone.

And (nearly there...) i, like many of my colleagues, would much rather be armed. Not so that we can act like we're at the ok-corral, but so that when we do have a gun pointed at us, we can make a decision to engage or run away, instead of being forced to run.

There... rant over.... im done. Thanks.

*******************************8
 

Anon 3.15, your head is full of magic son. The very thought of the genaral public armed in any way is terrifying. The thought of you being armed with a handgun even more so. Remember after you leave the army (if you aren't medically discharged into the NHS first)you have many years of rocking backwards and forwards in a dark room stroking your "Weapon" before you snap and kill your family, like all the other "vets".

Any hoo back on earth, as a member of an armed UK Police service I have to say carrying the superb Glock 17 does make me feel safe at work, but there is SOOOOO much to consider when discussing this issue. I have summarised the most important points thus:

1. Guns bad
2. Public (and ex-squaddies) mentally unstable.
3. Public plus guns = ALMIGHTY SHIT STORM...
 

As it happens, I put up a petition on Number Ten Downing Street's website demanding lawful citizen access to handguns, specifically for the purpose of preventing crime and, if necessary, perforating criminals.

feel free to assist...

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Legal-Handguns/
 

Yellow jackets don't deter crime. It's purely PR (the only growth area in the Police !).

What deters crime is the knowledge that you are likely to get caught.
 

Anon said that the police will believe anything from children.

This is a disturbing report to that effect.

http://www.bnp.org.uk/
reg_showarticle.php?contentID=1911

The main concerns appear to be as follows:

1. Police have repeatedly failed to respond to residents' concerns about vandalism by gangs of local yobs.

2. Police believed the yob detained, rather than the residents - surprising in that I always understood that the police always knew the identities of local miscreants, e.g. teenage TWOCers etc.

3. Police let the yobs go but arrested a resident, entered a private home without the owner's permission* and threatened other residents with mass arrest if they did not disperse.

*This also happened to one of my colleagues. He lives within the jurisdiction of another force - the one made famous for a time by a certain Ray 'Robocop' Mallon.

4. Police have repeatedly failed to respond to local concerns about potentially dangerous individuals at large, e.g. a known child molester loitering near school gates.

The overriding concern of the report is that the police are now too institutionally politicised to enable officers to do their job effectively.

I can't vouch independently for the veracity of the report but for obvious reasons, the source would be unwise to fabricate or distort anything.

Have others had similar experiences?
 

Sweetiemice,

I personally don't think it would be a good idea for members of the public to carry guns. While I believe in certain countries such as Canada (?) member of the public handle weapons responsibly, in other countries there is less responsibility. I personally think that it would be best to keep the current gun status-quo (on balance).

Frankly, I think that a lot of people would be fine with them, but I just wouldn't want a bunch of chavs shooting my local neighborhood to pieces...

As far as your points are concerned:

"1. Guns bad
2. Public (and ex-squaddies) mentally unstable.
3. Public plus guns = ALMIGHTY SHIT STORM..."

Now, assuming your post was tongue-in-cheek, let me add another 'tongue in cheek' point or two to your list:

4. Armed police- *occasionally* behave like they are in the wildwest (think Jean Charles De Menezes)

5. Much as I respect the vast majority of UK police officers, I would must rather trust a squaddie with a gun, given the incidents involving *certain* members of police armed units.

Also, I remember reading the account of a member of the SAS in the Times who had had quite a lot of contact with armed police units, and to paraphrase, said that the units in question were given to sometimes handling their weapons is a very unprofessional, even casual manner...
 

Just seen the CCTV and you have to admire the shopkeepers. Just a shame the 1st one didn't shoot the robber!! Preferably in the spine, although scum like that don't tend to have a backbone do they?
 

In Texas, there was a horrible massacre in a restaurant by a person armed with a pistol who shot at will the unarmed patrons. One patron watched her parents murdered before her eyes. She had a legal handgun in her automobile, which she left there because to carry it in her purse into the restaurant was at that time illegal. She testified before the Texas legislature that while the perpetrator was near her, reloading his weapon, she could have shot him dead and saved several lives. The legislature passed a concealed carry law, which the Texas governor (Anne Richards) vetoed. This was one factor in the defeat of Richards by her successor, George W. Bush. You may have heard of him.
 

It must make you boys in blue feel all warm inside knowing that Tony McNulty is the Police Minister.He was after all at Immigration previously, reassuring the British public that only 13000 Polish immigrants would come to Britain.He was only out by about 400,000 so give the bloke a chance!He was shifted so he would not have to answer any awkward questions.A sacking was probably in order but the government is so short of talent that he was foisted on the Police Service.He did not even have to move desks apparently.
 

Anonymous at 5.01pm- thanks for reminding us of the wonderful achievements of Mr.McKnucklehead.

I think what some people say about Mr.K is outrageous! So, he made a *tiny* (as you say, 400k) mistake about immigrant numbers. So, he says that we should all jump up and down in response to someone attacking a little old lady, etc, etc.

Anyway, I think he is a fine and upstanding person, who would, given his proven level of competence, make a fine supermarket shelf-stacker or similar- assuming that is, that they didn't mind him stacking bread with bog roll and beans with bleach.

(How the heck did this buffoon manage to become a minister?!).
 

To answer the two questions;
1) I'd never call the Cops - any of us in the job know how pointless that would be.
2)Don't look, walk away and please don't jump up & down....people may think you're a politician.

As for letting the great unwashed arm themselves - top idea. We'll be permanently station based then (with lots of nice tea) - remember the ACPO guidence for dealing with firearms situations;
“Run away, find something solid to hide behind, don’t put yourself in danger, call for back-up (always 2 hrs away!)” ... As I said - we're useless at real situations - but we can all fill in the forms afterwards!
 

Here are a couple of extra points. I am not aiming to make the definitive case for private gun ownership but I believe that the following should be taken into consideration by 'responsible' government, if that's not a contradiction in terms these days.

For the record, I don't own a firearm, never have and am not likely to in the foreseeable future.

However, it has been said that "If guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have the guns."

On the 8th of August 1996, 5 months after Dunblane, the then President of the Association of Chief Police Officers said in a letter to The Times that:

"96% of firearms used in crimes have never been licensed."

Which reinforces the initial quote. I suspect that outlawing privately owned firearms basically does little more than put the general public at greater risk. Because it is very likely that if chavs want guns, they will get them by the same quick and easy dishonest methods that they employ to acquire everything else.

But if home owners have their own weapons (securely concealed out of reach of house-breakers), said chavs (and house breakers) might be much more reluctant to invade your premises than otherwise, at least as and when you are at home.

(Especially if the law allows you to blow away a hooded and balaclava-ed intruder into your place of residence with impunity, particularly after dark.)

That said, Hamilton's firearms were all legally owned but it appears that he was a known risk and his firearms certificate was renewed by a senior police officer against the advice of police colleagues. Maybe Hamilton and the officer concerned were members of the same Lodge.

Further to the kind of tragedy reported in the Texas case, I have always wondered if Michael Ryan, the Hungerford killer, August 19th 1987, could have been stopped in his tracks by a 'responsible' armed citizen or law enforcement officer before inflicting 15 deaths and as many injured.

Evidence in support of this possibility comes from a South African newsletter called Signposts, Vol. 12, No. 5, 1993. It was reprinted in the December 1996 issue of a British Christian newsletter called Christian Voice*.

*CV's National Director, Stephen Green, was arrested by the South Wales Police 'Minorities Support Unit' on September 3rd 2006 for distributing Gospel tracts at a sodomite ('gay') 'Mardi Gras.' Green was subsequently released without charge. I guess most folks would support the creation of a 'Majorities Support Unit' within the police.

However, this is the incident that took place in SA:

"St James' Church, Cape Town, on 25th July 1993. Five black terrorists from the Anzanian Peoples' Liberation Army burst into the inter-racial church during the evening service. One began spraying bullets around from an automatic weapon. Two others lobbed grenades into the church. The gunmen were unprepared for what happened next.

"As soon as he realised what was happening, Charl (25) drew the .38 Special revolver he now carries constantly as a result of the violence which is escalating throughout South Africa. His first shot struck the front wall of the church, above the gunman. Clutching the gun with both hands, Charl took careful aim and fired again. This time the terrorists retreated as the two grenades exploded. 11 people died in the attack, and 36 were injured, 11 of these seriously. If that young man had not been armed, and had not retaliated, the terrorists would have reloaded and moved down the pews, killing as they went. Hundreds would have died."

I guess it depends on whether or not Britain is perceived to be sliding into an anarchical South African situation.

I suspect it is. Government policy with respect to privately owned firearms should therefore take this into account.
 

OOOOh, you are awful.....but I like you!

I'd never call the old bill, because the times I have called them (VICTIM: burglary, crim dam to car - all four tyres slashed outsiude house, assault, and as a witness countless times) I've received a dreadful service - even when I have dropped it in the conversation that I am in the job. Waste of time.

Anything McNumpty says is hilarious for all the wrong reasons, and I still cannot understand why this imbecile is a government minister.

Meanwhile I laughed my socks off about the Daily Mail's story about the Muslim Ossifer from the MET who refused to shake Sir Ian (beardy lefty totalitarian twat) Bliar's hands before Xmas. What really made me howl was how they tried to paint her as an outsider becasue she 'prayed, while her colleagues on the course [cycling course] "played football in the park"!!!!! On any other occasion it would be a headline "COP'S PLAY FOOTBALL IN PARK WHILE SOCIETY IS AFLAME" (or something similar). Get me on that course NOW!
Give me a gun ASAP - I'm tired of using my imaginary one all the time! and that's just when I'm out shopping watching the local white trash knuckle draggers try on yet another pair of Classics.
 

Don't arm the brits they might deal with the terrorists. The IRA are the only force who should be armed... oh they are.
 

999 Call 1 - Road rage, another motorist has blocked the road and is about to give someon a serious kicking after trying to run them off the road for a mile.

999 Call 2 - Domestic in the street. The female is using her car horn to summon help from anyone while the male kicks the hell out the car. He moves, she drives on, he sprints after her.

999 Call 3 - Fight in street. Female is bleeding from face and the son is going after someone who may have done it - or could just be the first unlucky guy he thumps into.

999 Call 4 - More fighting in the street.

999 Call 5 - Female kicking off at male, male has been smacked in the mouth by the female. Male calls the police to remove the woman so it doesn't go any further, as in he uses his power to throw her down the stairs and out the door.

Non-999 call - Kids p*ssing off a electric sub station into the adjacent street, drinking, smashing bottles.


Only one of the above brought a police response, that's call 5 after 2 hours and I live in a low crime area of the coutry. So if I see a granny being beaten in the street what do I do? Jump up and down while calling the police? You're 'avin a giraffe, right? Reality is that all the cops are either filling in forms or already on immediate shouts. I would like to think that I would go over and sort the scumbag out. Enough to stop him but not enough that the jury would feel sorry for him. But would I? The police will not arrive to back me up, the eventual arrest of the KNOWN scumbag will simply lead to a fine by a judge who's too scared to fill up another prison. Ths scumbag will then be straight back out doing the same to another granny. In the meantime I've spent 3 hours giving a statement, many days off work to attend court, the granny's in hospital and will die of unrelated causes in weeks (which sadly does happen - healthy old person gets robbed and then for no reason dies soon after), 12 members of the public stop their lives and work to be paid for by the taxman (us), multiple police officers tied up in court for days which leaves even fewer to respond to 999 calls ... bla bla bla.

We don't need guns. We need a working police force and a legal system that deals with the scumbags harshly and productively. Lock them up until they're of use to society, re-educate them, detox them and every time they recommit they go straight back in but with an extra year for every offence they've ever committed.
 

"I can’t see much point in petty legal distinctions between automatic, military, sniper, hunting, fully-automatic, large calibre or machine guns"

I'll take a Barratt XM500 then please. It will clearly enable me to protect my property long before any potential miscreant has chance to get near it (and purely coincidentally keep going at lethal energies for quite some way beyond the intended target).

Given that we require proof of competence (ha!) before we allow people to use equipment that can result in death and/or serious injury as an unintended byproduct of its actual purpose, the idea of giving your regular customers uncontrolled access to lethal force is a little worrying don't you think?. Are you looking to relieve the boredom of house calls perhaps?

That said, I think individuals should be legally 'encouraged' to use whatever means are at their disposal to 'discourage' those attempting to violate their property or person. It might make things a lot worse in some instances but it will prevent a lot of other potential offenses. This will never show up in the statistics used by the ambitious (poilticians in suits and uniforms) to justify thier own publicity seeking actions of course, but there you go...
 

When deciding whether or not to assist an elderly lady being asaulted the only thing to consider is how large the assailant is. This posting column is starting to read like the Daily Bloody Mail.
Think of everyone you know who isnt a criminal, then ask yourself howmany of these who live close to you, you would like to have unlimited access to big nasty guns.
MOP, how many of the fights in the street involved the same family, how often have they responded and been told to go away cos she loves him now.
If their not comming to them perhaps they were dealing with more deserving folk. If they had dealt with your calls they would have had to ignore another. Quarts and pint pots
 

"I have always wondered if Michael Ryan, the Hungerford killer, August 19th 1987, could have been stopped in his tracks by a 'responsible' armed citizen or law enforcement officer before inflicting 15 deaths and as many injured."

I'm not that acqainted with the entire events but I understand that fairly early into the excitement, someone reversed their car AWAY from him while he was reloading.

Such a shame they didn't just run him down with it instead...

~katie
 

To anon at 7:16 PM, please re-read what I said. I have not attacked the police - I said they probably didn't attend because they're either doing paper work or already on a shout. Not sure how that counts as being an anti-police comment?

"how many of the fights in the street involved the same family?"

...none. All incidents involved different people. The road rage was not a domestic. The bloke chucking a woman out was after meeting on a night out - again never been to before. The guy who was off to deck someone for hitting his mum - again, he's going off to deck someone who's probably got nothing to do with the incident as she's battered and probably smack herself into a wall, not a fist. The kids are something which should be sorted out, we have neighbourhood policing etc, so where's the neighbourhood policing team to respond to them?

"If their not comming to them perhaps they were dealing with more deserving folk."

...we're in agreement, which is wrong. No 999 call should ever go unmanned, apart from the stupid ones about cats and children calling about not getting desert. My point therefore backed up by yourself. When I call the police they are already attending something more deserving. So when I call the police to help the granny do I make a judgement call on whether the police have a more deserving shout or do I help her?

"When deciding whether or not to assist an elderly lady being asaulted the only thing to consider is how large the assailant is"

... if my gran was kicked to deaf with a crowd watching because no one felt big enough to do something then I'd be mad at every one of them. There are grannies out there who have beaten robbers off younger folk by using their shopping and umbrellas, mums with babies in prams have done the same ... I've stepped in before when at least 5 others stood within metres watching and not one assisted, I've also been on the receiving end and others have just watched. Too many people complain about how society is falling apart yet when it comes to it they fuel it by turning a blind eye to save their own rump.
 

"....I'm not that acqainted with the entire events but I understand that fairly early into the excitement, someone reversed their car AWAY from him while he was reloading.

Such a shame they didn't just run him down with it instead..."

Katie, Katie, Katie, Katie...dear, oh dear- that person obviously considered that they would have been charged with reckless endangerment (at best), or murder of an misunderstood madman with an AK47 (at worst) had they run him over.

Have you learnt nothing about the rights of the criminal taking precedence over the rights of the so-called 'victim' -the criminal is a victim too, you know!

(I shall go away now, and gnash my teeth until my gums bleed)
 

Unfortunately, Canada has seen quite a surge of gun violence of late; It appears to be primarily (but not entirely)with illegal, unregistered handguns brought up from the US and put to use by people who take life guidance from rap lyrics.

One of the things that I think has allowed Canada in the past at least to have high levels of gun ownership and yet low levels of gun crime is that the vats majority of guns are regarded as tools rather than weapons. Hunting rifles and shotguns tend to be regarded for their intended purpose for the most part rather than a means to settle disputes...

An armed society may not always be a polite society, as is sometimes said, but a polite society can easily be an armed society.
 

Katie said:

"Such a shame they didn't just run him down with it instead..."

Now you are talking about something much more dangerous than firearms, at least statistically.

If motor vehicles are not banned, why should privately owned firearms be?
 

MOP, I appreciate your frustration and appologise if my remarks seemed uncaring. However how long do you think it should take the police to turn up. I think the public have expectations based on TV programmes where everything is sorted in 30mins. This viewpoint is reinforced by Govt ministers telling people to call the police rather than resolve it themselves as if there was a box full of coppers just round the corner waiting to be opened when someone dials 999, which is what the average donkey with a sense of outrage and a mobile phone seems to believe, even more so when they have been drinking, often the call they make is exaggerated to gain a response.
Unfortunately until we are allowed to tell people to grow up and sort their sad little lives out and not to bother us again, we can't concentrate on important matters.
The police love it when a member of the public does our job in our absence. Why shouldn't they, Mr McK was basically just too gutless to say anything contentious incase it comes back and bites him, hence the absolutely ridiculous response he gave. He must think there are boxes of coppers on every corner too.
Anyone watching the programme will see him and his advice as what they are, beneath contempt.
If you do what you think is right, it probably will be and you will get our support.
Any officer can tell you of numerous occasions when the public have assisted them in detaining people often at risk to themselves, however this only normally results in a letter of thanks from the local Superintendant, not half a mile of collumn inches in the daily blurb.
 

Going back to the comment at the top about burglars not being able to sue householders if they are injured whilst in someones's house - I believe in civil law they CAN.

In civil law householders have a duty to of care to all visitors, even even to 'uninvited' visitors.

How else do the parents of kids injured on building sites and railways get to sue those respective companies?

My law course was some years ago admittedly (in the 1990s) but I don't believe this has changed - although i am sure someone will be along to quote the correct law at me if indeed this has changed (and I do hope it has!)
 

Bigbruv,

As with all my posts you have quite rightly observed the large amounts of tongue in my cheek. My point is simple, I agree that certain people can handle guns responsibly while others don't. The fact remains that if there aren't any guns in the public domain (commercially available) then they can't fall into the hands of the looneys.

Regarding your added points, theres no doubt units will make mistakes, however as far as armed Police units go, the PSNI have the "HMSU" tactical unit who are, frankly, the best armed Police unit in the world and are recognised as so. What happened to Jean Charles was regrettable and thankfully extremely rare.

Point five is where I take exception- squaddies handling weapons responsibily- Google "Bloody sunday, Londonderry 1972" and have a geeze. Squaddies are robots, kill that, run over there, dig a hole etc. They are not trained to think independently as firearms officers must be and so are useless carrying out their role in a domestic civilian arena.
 

"as if there was a box full of coppers just round the corner waiting to be opened when someone dials 999"

.... if only that was an option on the council tax bill to tick. Would you like:
A) Another recycling box
B) A youth shelter
C) A skate park
D) A box full of response coppers around the corner.

Oh yes!

Who do I make the cheque out to and where do I send it?
 

Sweetiemice-

It is quite interesting that you (correctly) make the point that:

"...theres no doubt units will make mistakes", and "...what happened to Jean Charles was regrettable and thankfully **extremely rare**" in defence of police armed units.

But then you quote a (obviously horrendous) example of an army unit getting out of control **35** years ago in order to illustrate that the army can't be trusted with guns!!!!

That did make me laugh!
 

ever wonder why the Swiss crime rate is so low?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
 

Tony McNulty. Now I know the true defintion of a serial masturbator
 

Panorama has just this minute finished, and I just don't know what DC is going on about.

Mr.Knucklehead completely reassured me, and I will henceforth jump up and down and flap my arms like a demented chicken in the event of a little old lady being beaten to death in front of me in the street.

I am not sure that it will help the little old lady, but the perpetrators will probably leave me alone as they'll think that I am a complete lunatic!
 

after watching panorama tonight, i cant help wondering that if those scumbags got a "three-strikes and your out" rule, with the third strike being put up against a wall and shot, then maybe, just maybe, anti-social behaviour would suddenly evaporate overnight.

just a thought.
 

McNulty is a dribbling, vacuous idiot spouting the party line like a simple robot. And Panorama just proved it. Proof positive that natural syupidity will always triumph over artificial intelligence.
I do love the line from the MOP "Leave it to the police, they're trained for it" Oh, the irony! Must've been busy with paperwork the day they ran the "dealing with venomous little school age terrorists in the local community" course.
 

i can see the tabloid headlines:

"Labour's crime solution - Jump up and down"
 

Guns and civilians.....
I wouldn't give guns to half the officers that have passed to be firearms carriers !!!! The "gung ho" matcho attitude reminds me of a bunch of cowboys.
Mr McNulty.....does he not realise what a prize prat he sounds to anyone with half an idea of the real world! - this man needs to spend a week working evening/nights on the front line in any Police Force. Then he may get a glimpse of what he is talking about....

As for handguns...banning them in the UK means only the criminals and the IRA have them - so we are safe then !!
 

My advice to anyone would be to sell your house, pack a toothbrush and move to Spain. Forget about this s***t country that we've sold off.
 

If you did go with a general rearming of the populace I'm sure you'd find:

1) The thugs now all have guns (rather than just most of them)

2) Quite a number of British subjects are totally unsuited to having a gun despite any attempts at training

3) Many people would be accidentally shot and a fair number of them would be good, innocent victims.

4) Many people would be intentionally shot and while many of them would be good, innocent victims quite a number would other thugs.

5) After a few months things would settle down and life would go on - but an overall quieter, more respectful life.

Part of this would be Darwin in action.

So yes, it would involve pain, hardship, and suffering. Needless death and injury too.

The question is would it involve more of this than the current course, especially over say, the next 10 years? The spread of 'shall issue' concealed carry in the U.S.A. seems to argue in favor of your idea - it really does show that most people are good and more guns does equal less crime.
 

"As for handguns...banning them in the UK means only the criminals and the IRA have them - so we are safe then !!
9:44 PM "

and all the UDA types that are now living in England. add to that the Russian mafia, the Serbs, Kosovan gangs, the Jamaican Yardies, Columbians....

everyone except the law abiding British native. agree with the previous poster - sell up and move to Switzerland if you can afford it. failing that, Spain.
 

kcsteve -> the "three strikes and your out" rule seems to have worked in California.

as in - on your third shoplifting offense you go down for 30 years. yeah - that trivial.

but do you hear of gang warfare in L.A. nowadays like what you heard in the 80s and 90s?

in california at least, what seems to have happened is that they've literally put everyone with a criminal bent into prison - for a very very long time.
 

Josephine Public reckons the Police Force should be armed with guns, even taking into account all the ususal stuff about how the guns would get, via bent coppers, into the wrong hands, it ups the ante, crims would always go out armed etc etc.

Of course, this would only be sensible if the Police were actually allowed to discharge them without a 12 month suspension and al public enquiry every time some lowlife scum got shot.
 

Im still undecided as to whether giving weapons to Joe Public is a good idea licensed that is, even though if they want them they can already get them as above criminal gangs, mafia, triads, terrorists etc are armed.

Would we have the situation of a 14yr old victim of bullying taking his dads magnum into school and letting loose as has happened in the US or the inquisitive child in the house finding the key to the gun rack, playing cowboys and indians with it killing their sibling.
Or as stated somewhere above the domestic could go another step with dead partner and an armed seige.

Yes I understand that the crim might think twice about robbing the local store or your house just in case you are armed but then it might up the ante where they are always carrying guns - this leads to a fully armed police force which I dont want to be part of.

TASER now thats a different question I have had a briefing on that recently and would happily have that. I could give the crim 50,000volts for 5 to 35secs and do no permenant harm where as one bullet could end life and unfortunately I have an overriding conscience and couldnt live with myself.

I still dont know, if I had the right training and its life or death maybe I could kill someone, wow what a thought and I dont mean that in a good way.

Maybe I will just jump up and down clapping my hands to distract the next armed person I come across!

Mr MCNUMPTY you are such an a**e!




http://bigfellainblue.blogspot.com/
 

Ignore the above spelling gaffs please Im tired and didnt use the spell checker.

Goodnight.


http://bigfellainblue.blogspot.com/
 

Judge,

Im lucky to get crims with 50 strikes to go to prison let alone 3 strikes!!
 

"Would we have the situation of a 14yr old victim of bullying taking his dads magnum into school "

true - but we never hear of the crimes being stopped or the lives saved just because a law abiding citizen was armed and was able to deter a criminal attack/burglary...

and we never hear of the potential crimes stopped because the criminal knew that the homeowner was armed.
 

Handguns, Rifles? Let’s hear no more of this namby-pamby talk.

For my own self defence, I have recently purchased a 1936 German naval gun from ebay, which has an 18 inch diameter barrel. Some back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that it should be enough to put Billy Burglar into Low Earth orbit where he belongs.

Mind you, the half tonne shell took Mrs Chalk ages to load and as the gun is 66 feet long we do have to leave the patio doors open, which I suppose is a security issue.

Nevertheless, safe in the knowledge that we can breach 14 inches of steel armour at a range of 8 miles, we both sleep soundly at night.

Regards
Frank Chalk
 

"Ignore the above spelling gaffs please Im tired and didnt use the spell checker."

Oh God, please let's not have another outbreak of pendantry...

Instead let us all luxuriate in the fact that, however rushed or just plain bad our grammar/vocab is, it still a whole lot better than that of some of our lords and masters (Prescott!):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Om1WkSTufJg

I still can't decipher what he's saying- can anyone help?!
 

"Im lucky to get crims with 50 strikes to go to prison let alone 3 strikes!!"

why is that the case?

is it because previous crimes are not taken into consideration and that each crime is looked on individually? is that the current situation with the law?

just curious as i'm not a copper. (i'm just a Judge from Mega City One)
 

And, wouldn't you know it, (at least) one typo creeps in!

"Oh God, please let's not have another outbreak of pendantry...".

I meant, of course, 'pedantry' (I think!)...
 

Judge,

I have a few crims on my patch with at least 60-70 convictions against them but they are still walking the streets and I am still nicking them.

This can mean only one thing - the court - either they have the best solicitor us taxpayers can provide free of service or CPS keep messing up or sorry Judge its your brethren not being hard enough.
 

I've always thought that a more apt motto for my force [rather than some Latin that noone understands] would be 'Don't call us, we'll only make things worse and you'll regret it tomorrow.'As regards police with guns, in the current climate it's a waste of time. As I understand it in my force their policy is that it is preferable for an unarmed officer to be injured/killed than for an armed officer to shoot somebody before their briefing,risk assesment,RV point,TA/ silver commander,negotiator etc. is in place. We need to have 'Castle Doctrine' incorporated into UK law allowing the householder the presumption that anyone using force to enter their property is intent on causing them harm and allowing the ownership and use of firearms to defend property. As it stands the only people in this country with unhindered access and use of firearms are criminals and terrorists.
 

well its a serious question BigFella - and we civvies would love to know the answer.

if you could find out, then you'd be doing us all a favour.
 

There are people with 50 or so convictions walking about. They are normaly shoplifters who do an occasional burglary or robbery, it's not unusual for them to get the odd 3 month sentence a couple of times a year for nicking a packet of meat from Tescos.
Even so they will occasionally get some sort of community order, I believe this is some sort of Blackadder logic along the lines of "It hasn't worked on the other twenty three times you were given it, so it should this time."
They know they wont go to prison every time and this encourages them to take the risk. When they do see chokey looming they take a great deal of interest in rehabilitation orders and will tell you they need help to come to terms with their offending/addiction cycle. I've thought long and hard and just cant see what the solution might be, although I sometimes think it's staring me in the face.
 

PC-DC, You were right when you said that it could be worse and this post just proves it. If you all want this country to decend into violence, anarchy and civil war, then arm yourselves for the destruction of mankind. The thought of some of the REAL "nutjobs" out there having guns really is scary. If there are cops who want this sort of thing, then the Bishop of York was right. We are moving towards a police state and Orwell's Animal Farm is happening. This is NOT GOOD. Stuff the gun culture, LEGALISE POT, TUNE IN, TURN ON, DROP OUT [and stick a flower up yer bum!]....And if you're listening Tony Blair - by next week please. hugs X

003 Kickassrebel
 

Oh yes, now I know what to do, as my advancing years may make me a target for feral yoof n yobs. I shall act like a demented wild woman, screaming, shouting and swearing at them, whilst I wave my arms in the air. That should distract them long enough for me to give at least one of them a swift kick in the nuts. Then I'll call the police so they can arrest me and take me to a place of safety. A nice padded room with cups of tea and telly and everything. McNutly for PM!

003 kickassrebel
 

...I was a peace officer in California for 32 years. Things are different here...VERY different. All the cops carry guns, and many citizens are also authorized to carry concealed weapons. It was my experience that there are very few really bad folks willing to risk death by gunfire. A survey of incarcerated felons found that they feared homeowners much more than police. All but exfelons and lunatics may possess weapons in their homes or businesses without permit. I've visited England and can see no real difference in the intelligence or trustworthyness of it's citizens from those here. I have to wonder where you got offtrack and went so wrong. I read that your 1920's ban on firearm possession was occasioned by an attempt to control the IRA. If so...it didn't work. Until your folks take personal responsibility for their own survival, nothing good will come of crime control. You can hire all the cops you like, self defense from imminent danger can only be accomplished by the public. Cops just take reports and clean up the mess as they can.

....Dave D. Dorris, California.
 

Time for a little counterpoint. McNulty's an idiot, but the thing is, where I live, his advice works. Of course, the issue is that I happen to live in Massachusetts, and when (not if, I've done this) I show a mobile phone and threaten to call the cops, my threat is met with the dirtbags backing away.

Why it works in Massachusetts and has no hope of working in Britain, well, I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader, but with a hint: McNulty doesn't run the Massachusetts police forces.
 

He said:
Texas is the state in the USA that comes closes to your dystopian view, and is also infamous for the highest murder and gun crime rate in a country where those rates are notoriously high already.

YMM responds:

The loosest gun laws in the US are actually the state of Vermont. Under Vermont law, any person may carry pretty much anything, openly or concealed, with no license required. Vermont typically has the lowest per-capita violent crime rate of the fifty states. When they don't, they're second place behind North Dakota, which also has fairly permissive gun laws.

Our experience has been that high levels of violent crime typically occur in areas where gun laws are particularly restrictive: DC (as mentioned above), Chicago, New York City, Los Angeles, etc.

Stoatman: Kennesaw passed its ordinance back in the 1980's. They've had a low-crime two decades since then, but they were a relatively low-crime area before the ordinance as well.

A year or so ago, a couple of teenagers broke into an old man's house. The old man had a felony conviction (armed robbery, back when I was a child) and so it was illegal for him to own or possess a firearm. As a result, he ended up wrapping a golf club around one of the intruders and calling us.

When I got there, the fine human being in question wanted the old man arrested. "He hit me with a golf club and I didn't do nothing to him!" Nothing? "I didn't bring a gun or nothing with me!" And so he just went looking for two kids to hit with a golf club inside his own house?

In Colorado, the law is quite clearly on the good guys side, at least as far as self-protection goes.
 

"Any officer can tell you of numerous occasions when the public have assisted them in detaining people often at risk to themselves, however this only normally results in a letter of thanks from the local Superintendant, not half a mile of collumn inches in the daily blurb."

And that's fine. The problem is when there is no officer about (which is virtually all the time where I live, even in the local city).

The *reality* is if you "detain" someone they will try to turn it back on you if they have their wits about them. At best this becomes a "you drop your claim I'll drop mine" scenario (2 admin. det. I wonder ?). At worst they don't bother with the scote and go after you.

This is about 10 times worse if the scrote is a "child" (normally a 13+ yob)

This is irrespective of anything. If the chav as 20 ASBOs and a Criminal Record the size of an Encylopedia and an extensive history of telling lies, and the adult has a spotless record and is a pillar of the community, or "service" currently believes the chav (presumably in an attempt to show off how liberal it is)

I don't know why anyone is at all surprised about the feral chav children that run riot all over the place. for all the talk about parents, schools, poverty and all else, the one single worst contributory factor is the behaviour of the Police Service, Courts and CPS.

Not only do they basically refuse to do anything at all (even when a BiB catches a chav red handed - 18 months for killing someone ?) they actively persecute those who do try to do anything. Consistently.
 

The Panorama programe shows armed robberies , getting into a gunfight when you havn't got one is in the hands of the gods, getting involved in a grapple/fight is another matter , it's a fact that you should not start any conflict you can't physically win very quickly .Even the heavy weight champion of the world will have trouble with two track suited chavs.it's not Hollywood, all you can say is its with the person in the incident and it's always a split second decision.
Not everyone is a potential hero ,like not everyone will play football for England.
We don't need guns in the UK , but nasty sharp ,electrical prod type things might not go amiss
 

A split issue, on the one hand the lack of resources to enable attendance of scenes (Thorough reorginisation of procedures required and police given the opportunity to police for once).

On the other hand the consideration of public / police self defense.
Whilst supportive of peoples rights to defend themselves (and having been at the pointy end of a few nasty barstewards on occasion) I think there is a line to draw between unarmed and armed with a gun.

There are many different methods for self defense which give the opportunity to incapacitate the offender whilst not so likely to result in a death. There ought be a balance sought between the two.

I only hope that there is never a situation where one of McNulty's loved ones is under attack in public and a witness stands by jumping up and down whilst they are beaten, sadly, as always this is the point at which policies are rethought.

Don't get me wrong - I am sure that these are not the thoughts and opinions of Mr McNulty - He is simply doing what he is paid to do in re-iterating the party line. In reality things don't always work the way he suggested.

'J
 

I've heard a rumour that something interesting might be happening with Taser in the UK shortly. Anyone else heard anything?
 

Bigbruv,
Not sure I follow your logic. I see what the Paras did 35 years ago as entirely relevant, the Army were brought in to support the Police in Northern Ireland and post Bloody Sunday rarely fired a shot because of the bad PR. The Army were, as recently as last year, used as cannon fodder during serious disturbances beacuse they could be relied upon to stand still while bricks were bouncing off them. This gave the highly specialised Police units time and cover to move strategically, engage gunmen with live fire and contain the worst of the violence. Something the army could not do without the use of "Long range artillery".
As a result no civillian children were shot in the back. I will take the peeler with the gun any day. Northern Ireland is a case study in what to do and what not to do when discussing guns in a UK society.
 

Ladies and Gents, after reading these comments I can't begin to tell you how pleased I am to have done my 30 and got out. I joined in 1976 when we actually had a purpose. When I retired last year the emphasis was on wringing the living daylights out of decent law abiding citizens who tax, register and insure their cars, who pay extortionate amounts of income tax and form what we laughingly call the 'silent majority'. The real scumbags are generally left to their own devices - they're too much trouble, 'resource intensive' and bugger up the figures. Hats off to those of you with decades of this to look forward to. Where did it all go wrong?
 

guns. cleanse the gene-pool. all for it!
 

It went wrong when the Police changed focus.

Ya know, I always thought the Police consisted of : the Boys in Blue, your 'classic' coppers who did the response stuff, and Detective types who came in to try to solve more serious crimes.

Then above that you'd have the Sarges who'd manage the shifts, Inspectors who managed the whole thing, and Chief Supers at the top of the tree making policy.

But that seems to be about 2% of the people who work for the Police these days :(

The answer, to me, as a non Police person, seems simple.

Everyone, and I mean everyone (bar very specialised things like forensics), is a Police Officer first, and any specialism is a secondary interest.

So, you might be the Hate Crimes person, but you are still a standard cop like everyone else.

Rationalise all the paperwork ; the requirement for most of it will disappear when all the non job people are converted back to proper Police work, as to justify their own existence they manufacture bureaucracy.

Most of it can be done by cheap admin staff under the guidance of those coppers who are hors de combat for some reason, or close to retirement (these latter can use their experience in dispatch)

Get rid of the CPS and make their work a part of the Police (even if it is a specialist job) so they aren't pulling in opposite directions towards different targets.

and I'd also go for some form of elected Chief Constable.
 

Is there any reason wht off duty cops do noy carry there baton, CS and handcuffs off duty. Just a quetsion.
 

Sweetiemice,

In fact, I was having a chuckle at the logic in one of your previous posts- ie. that police can be trusted with guns because mistakes are rare, but that soldiers cannot be trusted with guns because they make rare mistakes :)

Anyway, I personally have great respect for 99.9% of both our armed forces and police, hence my objection to your (admittedly tongue in cheek) attempt to paint squaddies as lunatics...

As to more nuanced arguements about the pros and cons of members of the public/ex-squaddies/police having guns, as I previously mentioned, I think that the majority of the public would be fine with them- I'd just be worried about the chavs!
 

...........meanwhile, did I hear Tariq Ghaffur (Top Muslim Cop) actually say he wanted a discussion 'around' the use of foreign police officers and troops in the UK during the 2012 Olympic Farce? And not just near the events! think of the training for 16+1 Stop Forms, how to teach English to pikeys etc etc.
I laughed at the Greens MPA member who said it was another bonkers idea from the MET. With pillocks like Gaffer running the show, don't expect too much support for real and proper debates.
 

The debate over this seems over, but I'd also like to mention that Texas has a huge and famously porous border with Mexico. Illegal immigration and drug trafficking top the list of criminal violations there, with rumors of incursion by the Mexican Military, which is famous for corruption, helping with crime from the Mexican side. The Average American hates it but we're ignored by the press, the government, and industry. The left wants the criminal votes, the right wants the cheap labor, and the press wants to show us the unwashed poor and then point at ME and tell me I'm heartless.
 

I have never felt more in danger of being shot at, than my two years in the province with your erstwhile Northern Irish colleagues, the RUC as was.
And they were forever shooting each other or their wives/girlfriends with their PPW's.....

That MacDuffer you have calling the shots at the Home Office at the moment. I suspect he is hanging out of Tony or his wife.....why else would he be a member of parliament!!
I read the interview transcript...how utterly typical of someone so removed from society.

Hurry up, arm us so we can take Westminster by storm, hang all the 'career' MP's and bring some order to our once fair land.

Ex Job
Tue 6 Feb 06
 

(Posted under my real handle)
I have never felt more in danger of being shot at, than my two years in the province with your erstwhile Northern Irish colleagues, the RUC as was.
And they were forever shooting each other or their wives/girlfriends with their PPW's.....

That MacDuffer you have calling the shots at the Home Office at the moment. I suspect he is hanging out of Tony or his wife.....why else would he be a member of parliament!!
I read the interview transcript...how utterly typical of someone so removed from society.

Hurry up, arm us so we can take Westminster by storm, hang all the 'career' MP's and bring some order to our once fair land.

Ex Job
Tue 6 Feb 06
 

"...hang all the 'career' MP's and bring some order to our once fair land."

Actually, that's a good point about career MPs- I despise the whole lot of them.

They have no sense of the concerns of real people, and just focus on how to spin and win votes. There are always one or two exceptions, but I think that they really do distort our democracy and are the very type of MP *most* responsible for passing the type of hair-brained laws that we have seen too much of in recent years.

I don't think it would be a bad idea if, in order to qualify as a prospective MP, you had to have ten years of real-world job experience (and being a political aide, 'think-tank' wonk, or House of Commons researcher, etc, wouldn't count)...
 

Bigbruv,

I'm with you now. Singing off the same hymn sheet so to speak, or filling in the same form 57/19(b)-AA(7)-38/36a.....
 

Talking of health and safety, which we weren't, given the ridiculous amount of nonsense that we all (police included) have to put up with from the HSE, it was good to see today that a health and safety expert has been fined and banned from driving for using an electric shaver while driving:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/6335491.stm

What was really amazing about this story is that the bloke in question had worked on accident investigations with police.

Apparently, he was "looking in the rear-view mirror to shave", and "leaning across the car at an awkward angle so he could see past a dozen mannequins he had stored in the back of his car".

Now that's what I call health and safety!

Shame he wasn't jailed, really. Jail's the best place for all HS experts, in my opinion...
 

No Go Britain?

based on the responses sent in, it seems as if all of Britain is turning into a big no-go area.
 

I have a new election slogan for New Labour to replace,'Tough on crime,tough on the causes of crime'.I think it more actually reflects reality.It's quite simple-'Soft On Crime'.
 

If you see an old lady being set upon and do nothing, then for the rest of your life you'd better hold your manhood cheap.

If you're the type of copper who would use this to get an easy conviction on the old lady's saviour then you should hold your manhood even cheaper!
 

"If you see an old lady being set upon and do nothing, then for the rest of your life you'd better hold your manhood cheap.

If you're the type of copper who would use this to get an easy conviction on the old lady's saviour then you should hold your manhood even cheaper!"


Given my weak bladder, I have to 'hold my manhood' more often than I would like. But I am not sure if that is, therefore, considered 'cheap' or 'cheaper'...Please advise.

Sorry, am I getting confused?
 

The Bias Against Guns

See the above book at http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/WEBSITE/WWW/WEBPAGES/showbook.php?id=0895261146

Summary:

States which have allowed "concealed carry" of handguns have experienced a fall/no increase of crime.

Only roughly 5% of "concealed carry" citizens permitted to do so actually "carry".

Most situations of citizens defending themselves by drawing but not discharging/shooting someone are not reported by the media.

A large section of the book is US government statistics/ references – no need to trust the author.

“We” all have access to chainsaws, hammers, and kitchen knives. Do “We” cut, hammer, or stab on an unreasonable basis?

Level the playing field. “We” will be as responsible with guns as “We” are with chainsaws, hammers and kitchen knives.
 

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

1. McNulty is a spineless coward. "Jump up and down" indeed - where was he when the testicles were handed out? Given that he's a NuLabour moron, he was probably designing an 18-page testicle requisition form, and so missed the deadline.

Let's make one thing clear. If the vertebrates amongst us see a yob mugging an old lady, we will intervene to protect the old lady. Yes, it's quite possible that we will get hurt. That happens sometimes.

Of course, the likely result is that we will be arrested by one of DC's colleagues - either the jobsworth sort who really do believe all that guff about the police being some kind of superior class, or by a decent copper who is forced to follow rules and procedures. That is unfortunate.

Incidently, I will happily support the right of the police to routinely carry firearms on the day that they happily support my right, as an honest citizen, to carry firearms. But not before then.
 

Just been looking through the above link to the no go britain entry on the bbc site. There are two really striking things. (1) Trivial problems are being classed as a no-go area (2) There's a lot of moaning but after getting bored of reading post after post I didn't find anyone who had done something about it.

To me, a no go area is somewhere even the police won't go, not somewhere where there's bars and people p*ssing in the street. Yeah that ain't nice, but it's hardly drive by city.

I think the saying goes, put up or shut up. Lobby parliament for a change in the law, get out and do something to improve your neighbourhood, give time to assist the police. I'm volunteering my time to become a special. I pay a hell of a lot of taxed but I'm not putting my feet up and saying someone needs to do something about this. IF enough people did do something we wouldn't be in the state we're in. The reason it's dangerous to challenge kids is that no other b*gger backs you up. Confront a group of kids and get a kicking for it, half a dozen people will ring the police and maybe even video it on their mobile - but the chances of someone actually backing you up is slim.

Us British citizens have a lot to complain about, but stop moaning and do something about it!
 

I can't read 101 comments to see if tis is there already but I fully agree with arming the public. Keep current laws etc (was it reasonable that you shot them dead? Yes, take a medal; no, take a life sentence) but my argument is the sarff london kiddies might think twice about "popping a cap" if they know that the honest upright and trained citizenry around them can shoot back faster and better. Ps murder laws do NOT apply when you persist in driving in the middle lane of a motorway.
 

This may help a bit – I am ex Brit Police now living in Texas. I have a CCL (Concealed Carry License). I do generally carry where permitted, as there are still some restrictions on various places, i.e. gambling, and that serve alcohol etc.
I have drawn it once and it defused the situation quite quickly, myself and my wife were being threatened, and in fear of bodily harm, it was a group of way younger kids relying on numbers to intimidate; and in my mind possibly worse – it stopped the situation, made people see sense and all was over; possibly a few folks threw their teddy bears in the corner because they couldn’t be all macho, but no one got hurt and at the end of the day all was well. Immediately after it was safe I called 911 and reported the situation, as well as the fact I had a CCL and had drawn my weapon. I was effectively told ‘good job’.
To all those that worry about arming the general public in the UK – I would too – if it includes all. All those without any convictions, that are of good character etc - sure – go ahead – make sure they have good instruction on how to use them and to be safe, because lets face it, they will not get that from their parents as its been gone so long in the UK its almost a lost thing. Forces kids would have a big advantage; Dad (or Mum) would pass down very good and safe rules involved when using, cleaning or handling a firearm.
At the end of the day they are a tool, and as dangerous as many things we encounter on a regular basis, with proper safety applied I see no issue. Its an emotive thing, that’s the problem.

ibrow
 

Many people would quite happily involve themselves, even at the risk of injury.

It's not the risk of injury that puts people off though. It's the likelihood that the Police will go after you if the scrote complains in any way.

The state does, at present, view the word of a teenage scrote with forty criminal convictions for dishonesty and an ASBO above that of a fifty year old who has never been in trouble in his life.

Anon (the would be Special) is correct about no other bu**er backing you up ; the bu**er in question is the Police Service.
 

... and this will be defended by some retard in a uniform going "oh, we can't ignore crime",

While the local population watch and think "you f---- ignored it when those chavs smashed my car up"
 

OK. You have sold me on it. Run for parliament on a re-arming the law abiding poluation (the criminals, are already armed and have no problem aquiring new ordinance as we all know)and I'll vote for you. Might as well have a level playing field. Phil A
 

Two points to make.

The first is that when handguns were available to the public, I believe that you generally had to be a member of a gun club for at least 6 months, be of good charactor and no criminal convictions, and have referneces from other members of said gun club. You also needed a secure strong box at home. You can then apply for a firearms licence from the Police. The member of public is then familiar with the weapons of his/her choice, more importantly is trained, and will in the main be responsible.

Secondly, I have a theory. If, on any estate, all the decent law abiding majority took a stand and siad "stop" to crime, it would virtually stop. IE; confronting the yobs, burglars etc... Yes I except that in the first instance, windows will be broken, poeple assualted, however if neighbour stands by neighbour, and the back up of the local community is there, there will be no where for the law breaking minority to go safely to break the laws of this land. However it relies on that trust of neighbour standing by neighbour. Its possible, but it has to start somewhere.

I am a firearms cop in a city termed as 'The Gun Capital of the UK', I would support arming the police routinly, even if it was just to equip every cop with a Tazer. I would also support the public being armed (along the above criteria), and this means only those that should have guns could get guns.

We as a nation often become too paranoid, which is why some hysteria is mentioned above. Yes I accept the very very minority of people will be irresponsible, but if crime were cut by half or more, then that would be worth it. We can't live in a perfect society unless we all submit to mind control and regime, and that, I think would be unacceptable.
Boy In Blue
 

"If, on any estate, all the decent law abiding majority took a stand and siad "stop" to crime, it would virtually stop. IE; confronting the yobs, burglars etc..."

Yes. And what would our reward be ? The yobs would claim they were pushed, shoved, assaulted even if they weren't. They aren't stupid, they know how the system works. "I'll get you done",

Guess who the "Service" would believe ?

Before you tell me this is a media myth, btw, I can tell you for an absolute fact through personal knowledge that it isn't.

It appears to be Police/CPS practice to pass any claim of "children" being assaulted through the system irrespective of the evidence.

The worst case I know of (of many) is Pamela Mitchelhill. The main defence witness was the person who was supposed to have been assaulted who (despite repeated pressure to do so in TEN interviews) refused to say she had been assaulted in any way whatsoever.
 

"...despite repeated pressure to do so in TEN interviews) refused to say she had been assaulted in any way whatsoever."

Ah, no, not ten times according to this article:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20031114/ai_n12722273

No, according to the article the child refused to say that she had been assaulted *eleven* times!


This actually goes to something I have said before- that is, this attempt to criminalize law-abiding members of the public, and shift the focus of the police from the criminal fraternity to the law-abiding really does have the potential to absolutely undermine the legitimacy of the police/cps/criminal justice system as a whole in the UK.

I must admit I do have a particular liking for Sir Robert Peel and his principles for policing. And for those who haven't seen them before, it is interesting to see that his principles *repeatedly* emphasize the need for the police to truly *represent* the public and also to have the public's *approval*:

"The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions."

"Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public."

"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."


Now, it is easy to offer up apocalyptic visions of the breakdown of policing in the UK. But if there is one thing that has the potential to bring about such a breakdown it is I think, as I have mentioned, the criminalization of the law-abiding general public- either through overzealous prosecution or even more surreptitiously via such things as the taking of DNA from those never having been charged much less found guilty of a crime.


So, as a strong supporter of the true 'Peeler' (I am hopeful that they still exist), I personally would say to any overzealous police out there that you sadly undermine your historically good relationship with the public at your own peril...
 

Come on, BigBruv, I expected more from you – a less general argument at least. You know where the problems lie…

…the criminalization of the law-abiding general public- either through overzealous prosecution – i.e. The CPS following Government guidelines

…or even more surreptitiously via such things as the taking of DNA from those never having been charged much less found guilty of a crime – i.e. a Government run policy.

Please don’t mistake Police ‘overzealousness’ with following the rules. Blame the right people. Those who seem to come forward and suggest the Police can decide whether to arrest/prosecute/charge are VERY, VERY, mistaken, and I wish they’d learn more about the way the Criminal Justice System works before posting inflammatory remarks on here. They no more make that decision than any civilian does.

Most of the Police who read and post on here know the truth, and also want what you want, but it’s a long way off.
 

Most of the Police who read and post on here know the truth, and also want what you want, but it’s a long way off.

Unfortunately, the police that the public see are represented by the shiny uniforms and polished shoes of whichever senior officer has given the most recent statement to the press along the lines of "we don't encourage the public to get involved - leave it to the professionals".
When someone gets killed, it gets changed to "We salute Mr. X's bravery, but don't encourage that kind of thing, as you'll only get killed like Mr. X."


That is the attitude that has to change.
 

"Please don’t mistake Police ‘overzealousness’ with following the rules. Blame the right people. Those who seem to come forward and suggest the Police can decide whether to arrest/prosecute/charge are VERY, VERY, mistaken, and I wish they’d learn more about the way the Criminal Justice System works before posting inflammatory remarks on here. They no more make that decision than any civilian does."


Yep, you're probably right- I deserved that, anon.

Note, however, that I was very careful in my (admittedly ill-considered and hasty) comment to direct it towards those few officers who may be more enthusiastic about said policies (or at least that was my intent).

Anyway, you're right- I despise some of the policies that you guys have to adhere to, and I snapped, and, er...posted in haste...

So, I am suitably chastised, and to any peelers who felt that I had tarred them incorrectly (definitely not my intent)- many apologies...


But, anon, as you correctly point out, the prime culprits are the politicians and cps. And for them and a *very few* police officers who **enthusiastically** (not reluctantly) adhere to said policies - unfortunately, no apologies.
 

Please don’t mistake Police ‘overzealousness’ with following the rules. Blame the right people. Those who seem to come forward and suggest the Police can decide whether to arrest/prosecute/charge are VERY, VERY, mistaken

What? Come on now, we've all heard stories or been personally aware of instances where police have decided AGAINST 'arresting/prosecuting/charging' yobs who've been commiting crimes, whether in their presence or not, and here you are spouting some bullshit that the police have NO scope to decide not to bring charges etc., that they are bound by 'rules'...

Either you are telling us that the 'rules' you refer to stipulate that the police must not, say, arrest some little yobbo slapping a bystander around, but those same rules say the police must arrest the bystander if he retaliates against the yob assaulting him, in which case I would ask you WHAT RULES ARE THOSE? Or, you would admit that there are no such rules, that the police have TOTAL discretion in whether or not to 'arrest/prosecute/charge', and their predilection for arresting law-abiding citizens who dare to retaliate against criminals is attributable to some other factor.

Either there are rules as I have described or there are NO rules. Answer, please.
 

Whose idea would it have been to interview the girl who Pamela Mitchelhill was supposed to have assaulted ELEVEN times ?

Who made the decision to repeatedly ignore the statement "No she didn't" ?

Yes, I know it's not the BiB, it's some bunch of Child Protection skivers. But it's not all the CPS either.
 

To answer the original question, I wouldn't call a copper as there is a bloody good chance one wouldn't turn up - H&S or some other reason.

What I would to is give the perp a bloody good hiding given the chance and leg it afterwards without leaving a forwarding name, address or mug shot. That seems to be the "wrong 'uns" modus operandi and it seems to work pretty well in most cases.

Scrap the police, spent the money on the miltary and give us guns - I'm a good shot and haven't shot anyone unintentionally yet.
 

I have to keep an FAC to own two AIR PISTOLS. Because another mess at the Home Office means they never discovered you can covert a Brocock air revolver into a live fire .22 weapon they have banned the sale of them completely, and all existing guns have to be on an FAC. Most scunbags can get a gun if they want anyway - why bother with a pokey .22 conversion? There were over 60 000 of these in the UK - and very few FACs have been applied for.

These things are SO dangerous that they might break the skin at 5 yards! I could do more damage to someone by throwing the thing at them, but no, they are BANNED. I cannot even sell or give them away, unlike a nice lethal shotgun or sniper`s rifle, such is the legal stupidity here.

As an ordinary civilian with weapons training, I want to be armed. We are not all the cavvy idiots that some police think we are. I shall not be voting for any party which does not repeal the Dunblane bans. It`s pathetic.
 

Funnily enough I posted something along these lines a while back.

http://ecparamedic.wordpress.com/2006/12/12/dirty-little-secret/

I'm an FAC holder and very much aware of my legal responsibilities.

People who use guns in the commission of crime are reliant on their being able to threaten members of the unarmed public who are more than unlikely to be able to defend themselves.

I have friends in the US living in areas where the CHL is having a positive effect on violent crime, scrotes don't like having the possibility of not having it all their own way.

We couldn't have that could we?
 

I'd just like some replies about my situation from the people who are against the legal carrying/possesion of firearms. I am a single man, who has no children. I have no criminal convictions and have held down the same fairly responsible job for over 25 years. I do not have a drug habit or any other condition that is likely to make me act in an irrational manner. Due to the hours that I work occasionally I have to walk home through an area of shall we say 'questionable' safety late at night. What logical arguments can you put forward that should stop me (or someone else in my situation) from carrying a two shot Derringer style pistol to protect my own life should someone attempt to attack me with lethal force? I'm just intrigued to know...
 

the usual arguaments are that you are safer in an unarmed society (as the criminals will obey the gun laws and disarm) or that the police/society will protect you somehow (and if this were true there wouldn't be any crime as the police would stop it), followed by something about you being more likely to shoot yourself with it and some nonsense about how uncivilized it is for people to carry weapons for self defence,
 

Ok, I'm a Texan, as in TEXAS. Yes I have a CHL (heck I teach the classes). I also teach a self defense class (unarmed combat).

I can't belive a high ranking official would basicly say to run in circles.. scream and shout (just like the nursery rhyme. Pretty sad. Hope he does not think that's the way to stop terrorist to. If he does, Rome just fell, if you know what I mean.
 

I'd just like some replies about my situation from the people who are against the legal carrying/possesion of firearms.

My guess is they'll all be some variation on the theme of, 'we are more comfortable with the thought of you suffering serious harm, possibly being killed, than we are with the thought of you owning guns to try to make sure you don't', or maybe they'll say something about how the yob's life is effectively more worthy of protection from you than yours is from him.

These people are sick, looking for rationality from them is a fool's errand.
 

Compare and contrast two 'have-a-go' incidents, both in my experience.

The 'right' way.
A scrote (career criminal, out on bail for multiple violent offences) attempted to mug my wife and myself, in broad daylight, with the threat of a concealed knife. According to the policeman who handled our case we did the 'right' thing (and I'm sure Tony McNulty would agree). We made a noisy fuss, shouted out, attracted the attention of passer-bys -- who dialled 999 -- and ran into a shop for help. Police arrived and, with us, caught said scrote five minutes later, where he was identified on the street by witnesses. In court, my wife and I -- being law-abiding citizens -- were very nervous (especially to be confronted by said scrote who we were told had been locked up in the interim) but were reduced to a state of horrified outrage when the scrote's lawyer accused us of being racist. His defence was that we were so freaked out by the sight of a black man (despite living in Brixton for 3 1/2 years) that we became completely hysterical when confronted by one.
The jury bought it. Scrote walked.

The 'wrong' way
Our next-door neighbour was mugged coming out of the newsagent. He responded to the "give me your effing money" by kicking his attacker very hard in the goolies. He stood there till the attacker crawled away, then went on about his business.

You tell me who did the right thing.
 

Having read all the comments from those who seem to think we are on the verge of a breakdown in civilization, I am surprised they have such knowledge of our towns and cities, if I were that frightened of 15 yr olds I would have locked myself in a deep dark bunker years ago.
The police eirher ignore all crime and the 80,000 toe rags in prison have been arrested by someone else, or the prison population is made up of law abiding citizens who have been banged up for defending themselves against marauding bands of armed chavs.
I think a sense of perspectve is required.
As for arming the public, reading the posts of some of the angry men sitting at their keyboards convinced we are living through Armageddon, convinces me that we would be opening the biggest can of worms since Pandoras box.
Stick to posing in front of the mirror and saying "Are you looking at me".
Alternatively take a wander down to you local pub and see how many times you dont get muggd.
Having said all that, that McNulty bloke has got to e one of the biggest tossers ever to have held ministerial office, and with Nulabour that is a hell of an achievement.
 

Arm the public!!. Wipe the rabid foam from your mouth.... I've just spent two days dealing with the massively over reacting public when there has been an inch of snow on the ground.....

Member of public... "QUICK, QUICK GET THE POLICE THERE ARE CHILDREN IN THE STREET THROWING SNOWBALLS AND ENJOYING THEMSELVES. IT MUST BE STOPPED, WHAT IS THE WORLD COMMING TO"...

Imagine if they were armed!...
"I HAD TO SHOOT YOUNG JOHNNY OFFICER, HE THREW A SMALL COMPACTED FROZEN WATER SPHERE WHICH LANDED WITHIN TWO FEET OF MY CAR, AND I DON'T LIKE THAT SINISTER LOOKING WHITE CHAP WITH A CARROT NOSE IN THAT FRONT GARDEN. HE'S WATCHING MY HOUSE. I THINK HE IS A TERRORIST".

I frankly don't trust Joe Public with soft furnishings. The average person's level of intelligence has been grossly over estimated. I find it is normally in inverse preportion to size / amout (lets say mass) of pets owned.

There would be an almighty bloodbath.
 

Drunk plod, you say "There would be an almighty bloodbath" like that's a bad thing?
 

"I frankly don't trust Joe Public with soft furnishings."

Given that the public are the police and the police are the public (oh, I do love Sir R.Peel), based on your logic, Drunk Plod, the police shouldn't be armed either. And some would point to an incident or two (involving both armed police *and* public) that would seem to suggest that keeping us all unarmed would be the best policy.

But, having said that, I personally would be willing to trust certain police officers with a selection of soft-furnishings, as long as they receive special training (possibly from leading interior decorators)...

I must admit to foaming at the mouth occasionally when I hear of the odd mistake by certain police officers (I hold my hands up!). When certain officers do make mistakes it is obviously not representative of the police force as a whole.

Now, to any officers who (I hope a small number), who having spent too many years dealing with, let's face it a lot of scumbags, and the occasional hysterical member of the public, have come to view the public as a whole in not too complimentary a fashion-- please don't characterize the whole of the public as loonies.

I am guessing that there are probably the same proportion of loonies in the both the public as a whole and the police force (a small proportion!).

I think most of us (hopefully) sane members of the public have very great difficulty remembering when we had any interaction whatsoever with the police (even living in London).

Having said all of that, I do concede your point about the average person's intelligence being roughly in inverse proportion to the number of pets owned.

And for the record, I have no pets...!
 

I'm halfway through Copperfield's book which I'm finding quite good. However, I am sick of his sneering at the 'underclass'. He likes to go on about how lazy they are, they get paid for being 'sick' or they don't pay for anything etc. While this may be true for some at the bottom of the British social class system it is also true for many of those at the top. I'm talking about the civil list, farming subsidies for wealthy landowners (the Duke of Westminister - Britain's richest man for several years running collects around £1000 per day) and not even subtle but blatant corruption amongst the ruling class. What jobs exactly does Copperfield suggest the uneducated, stigmatised underclass do? McDonald's? Does he realise that the jobs available to the 'underclass' pay so little and the employers expect so much (true hard labour)that prison is preferable.

Bev
 

The Duke of westminister wont nick your car or crap on your carpet after hes nicked your stereo. At least I dont think he will.
 

Wasting Police Time is a fab book - and has put me off joining the Police Force altogether...Well, the book PLUS the fact i've applied 20 times now but no go...i have 2 degrees, 2 years work experience, etc etc, i even tried pretending to be a black, one-legged lesbian - but i still didn't get in! I give up... (but enjoyed the book nonetheless!)
 

Well boo hoo for the 'underclass' then poor darlings shouldn't be expected to hold down a job like the rest of us. Whilst its said that there is a leisure class at both ends of the social spectrum, I cant see the Duke of Westminster or his muckers committing petty crime and causing misery to others can you? I could be wrong though perhaps he's out with his crew smoking the 'chronic' and tagging some shop innit.
 

"... the fact i've applied 20 times now but no go...i have 2 degrees, 2 years work experience, etc etc, i even tried pretending to be a black, one-legged lesbian - but i still didn't get in! I give up..."


But, did you tick the box on the application form saying, "I am willing to shake the hand of the Commissioner upon completion of my training"?
 

9 years to go:
Perhaps you could locate a medium, hold a seance and ask young Tom ap Rhys Pryce [insert name of choice, there are thousands to choose from] whether he'd like to have been armed when he was mugged and gratuitously stabbed to death a few yards from his home and died in a pool of his own blood and wedding plans?

The robbery rate in the Kensal Green (in the 12 months to November 2005) was 10 per 1,000. I left school a while ago, and my maths isn't that hot, but doesn't that mean you have a 1% chance of being a victim (and let's not forget that many victims don't report)?

Now, let's assume that many of the muggings are carried out by the same people.

Wouldn't it be nice - I mean, wouldn't it warm the cockles of your heart - to hear that a few of these scumbags had been blown away in the course of their business? And wouldn't it also mean a lot fewer victims?

To sneer at the public as wannabe Dirty Harrys is to forget one thing: it's the job of the police to protect them and we aren't doing that job. Ask Tom when you hold that seance.

Now, Bev. I have read WPT and I agree that DC is particularly scathing of the underclass. However, don't confuse 'underclass' with 'poor'. He has a lot of sympathy for the deserving poor - the elderly, the weak - whose lives are ruined by the underclass. in my experience, exactly 100% of police officers have sympathy for these types of people (as an aside, the majority, I'd say, of police officers are drawn from the working classes).

The underclass - my definition but I think also his, from reading the book - are not people who won't work because the pay is too low, they are people who won't work under any circumstances because they are lazy.

I mean, I've visited houses where there are several days' worth of dog mess ON THE CARPETS INSIDE THE HOUSE, where the kids are wearing filthy clothes and haven't been properly fed in days and where the occupants are in dressing gowns, drinking and smoking, at 3pm. This is not about pay rates. And these people call the police over the receipt of rude text messages from ex partners, and aggressively demad a quick response, and make complaints at the drop of a hat - this would wind anyone up, particularly when spending time dealing with this sort of thing means the police can't maintain a presence on the streets to deter people like the muderers of Tom ap Rhys Pryce (who I suppose only went out robbing and murdering because they hadn't been given 250k a year jobs in the City?).
 

Who does Bev thinks works at McDonalds, it is the kids that went to school and live in the same streets as the chav element. Its the fact that they actually work that stops them and any of the rest of us who do, being the underclass.
£200pw when your living at home with mum and dad, thing how much jewellery you could buy from Argos.
Might even set an example to their parents and encourage them to get of their backsides.
The tone of the posts may get a little brown rice and veggie today as most of the country's teachers seem to have taken the day off when faced with road verges with 2" of snow on them
 

"I mean, I've visited houses where there are several days' worth of dog mess ON THE CARPETS INSIDE THE HOUSE.."

Are you absolutely sure that was dog mess? Bag it up and get it down to the lab for analysis because I have a suspicion that you will find that the Duke Of W. has been up to his old tricks again.
 

bev - tell me you're joking?

you ask "What jobs exactly does Copperfield suggest the uneducated, stigmatised underclass do? McDonald's? "

well, yes. someone has to work in mcdonalds, and maccy ds is actually a pretty good employer - it offers poorly qualified people a chance to progress. my brother in law left school with nothing and is now an area manager.

it may very well be that you're better off on benefits than working; the answer might be to cut benefits.
at least kids working in maccy ds have self respect.

and let me turn your question round on you: what jobs would you like these stigmatised kids to do? fly your holiday plane? diagnose your illness? teach your kids?

i don't think it's 'stigmatising' them to say that mcdonalds is an aspiration.

i'm with you on landowner subsidies, mind, and also on the apalling lack of education in our schools. but that's a legacy of the left's PC interference with what was once the finest education system in the world - ironically the very people who have created the underclass are the ones who complain, with crocodile tears, about their being 'stigmatised.'
 

Taxi Driver, not Dirty Harry.
Iner City boy,
A few people are murdered, lets arm the entire law abiding population, cos of course the crims won't have guns then they will stop comitting crime. Sounds like an eminently well thought out argument. We will all be much safer. I have changed my mindset because of this reasoned argument which employed no cheep sentimentality whatsoever.
We can perhaps make a start by legalising butterfly knives and other similar weapons, only for the law abiding of coourse, because they never get drunk and stupid, or become prone to sudden outbursts of violence, as any policeman knows.
 

Is it just me or has anybody else seen the irony of closing schools due to snow as a safety measure for the parents on the school run?.

The first time that the 4x4 has may have actualy been of any use on the school run!!.
 

Off topic:

I read in the news today that controversy-mired Home Office officials and ministers have agreed to (real quote!): "exude pace and passion" as they work to end "weak" performance:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6343245.stm

Is it just me that is howling with laughter at that pathetic statement from a bunch of what could be *politely* termed 'incompetent t*rds'?

(And I am slightly concerned this new Home Office mission statement ['We exude pace and passion'] might be more suitable for a brothel).
 

9ytg, you're one of the examples of what I meant when I said people who oppose the public being armed are sick, sick in that they are more comfortable with members of the public being grieviously hurt than with them being able to ward off attackers.

You're a particularly nasty example, as you make it plain that you couldn't give two hoots about 'a few members of the public being murdered'. For you it's no justification for...the public doing what they can to ensure more members of the public are murdered. For you expressing a wish that members of the public should be able to keep themselves alive and well is 'cheap sentimentality'?

Are you a copper, 9ytg? And is your attitude indicative of your willingness to protect the public?
 

'Off topic'.As the Home Office has long been a dumping ground for left leaning arts graduates,can we really expect things to change any time soon?The answer is in the question.
 

If I wanted to join the Police (I don't, nothing personal), I'd claim to be bisexual.

Puts you in a minority group (more of one in fact) but you can have wife/children/girlfriends without a problem. "we have an open relationship".

Probably get an easy skive job as well :)
 

Talking of the Home Office, one problem might be that as Matthew Parris (former MP *and* civil servant) observes in the Times today regarding the civil service in general:

"...there is a culture there that sees the public as a damn nuisance. The culture is endemic and needs to be stamped on very hard indeed".

There also seems to be a complete lack of accountability. I am constantly amazed at what civil servants apparently get away with. Needless to say that in the private sector, particularly places like the City, people given to incompetence are shown the door very quickly indeed. In the civil service, it seems, they are able to get away with it.
 

Happy camper,
Yes I am, and as a police officer I only arrest people who defend themselves, and let all the yobs go. This is because I'm sick, dont care about the public and am on a fools errand.
You are obviously a sound and rational person, your open minded acceptance of other peoples viewpoinsts indicates to me you are the special type of person who's opinions are more important than the rest of us. Also you should be allowed to decide who can carry a gun with no risk.
What you need to do until the law changes is keep practicing in front of the mirror, remember "are you talking to me...."
 

9 years to go:
You should be a politico - you don't answer questions, and you throw mud instead.
Where was the cheap (not cheep) sentimentality in the inner city cop's argument?
It was a straightforward question: would the lad who was stabbed to death, and the thousands of other victims who you and your frankly useless comrades fail to protect each year, like to have been armed (I know there are lots of reasons why you're useless, and many of them are not your fault)?
The answer is YES.
Are the police protecting the thousands of people who are mugged eash year in Kensal Green and the rest of the UK?
The answer is NO.
I notice you don't quibble with the inner city cop's suggestion that you are sneering at the public - you just pick him up on film trivia. Well, who's a clever boy.
I don't think anyone on here has suggested wholesale arming of the public - just that decent, law abiding people, who pass tests and don't have criminal records, should have the option as a means of self-protection given that we have a weak, impotent and hamstrung police force 'protecting' us.
I sincerely - really sincerely - hope you get battered and robbed on the way home from the pub one night by a pair of scumbags who have the upper hand on you.
Do your nine years and get lost, eh.
cheers
Joe
 

to drunk plod ,why are you so miserable and aggressive? you have a well paid job which you choose to do and it cannot be as bad as you make out,it simply cant be
northern lass
 

To 9ytg: you said

-A few people are murdered, lets arm the entire law abiding population.-

A little over-reaction I think. No one is suggesting in their right mind that it become law that all members of the public carry firearms. Many would not want to. I would not want to under normal circumstances. BUT IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE THE CHOICE. But what is your problem with people owning a firearm and using it to defend thir own houses and property? We have had a spate of day time violent burglaries here in my home town, one of the many victims being a friend of mine, his wife and children, all beaten up in their own house by a bunch of scrotes and robbed.

"But then the criminals would be armed"

They are already.

The public could attend courses in firearm law and safety. The weapons could be licenced, with strict rules on losing said weapons if breaking the law in perhaps ANY way (inc a speeding ticket).

The ban on "handguns" (pistols please) has solved nothing. Those guns handed in were only for SPORTING purposes. The amount of gun crime has actually RISEN since. And the worst gun massacre ever I understand was in Burma when a COPPER went berserk with his gun and shot a load of civvies (you know - ordinary folk). So policemen can go la-la too! DISARM THEM ALL NOW! :)

Sure, you arrest all the criminals you can and do your best to get them locked up, and I am right behind you. I will ALWAYS help a bobby.

But it is increasingly obvious that you cannot protect us at all. Without a risk assessment first of course.

As for "a few people are murdered" I would like you to imagine how you would feel if you were visiting your mom, say, and a knock at the door revealed a scumbag with a large knife and a grudge against people keeping their own money, and stabs her in front of you. Would you like to have been armed then? Or are you going to jump up and down like a little girlie and shout a lot?

Personally I would like to perform some garbage disposal.

And one last shot (ho-hum) at those minority police who have a low view of all the public - it is your job to protect us, detect crime, and catch criminals, and ours to help you do your job. If that relationship breaks because of arrogance on EITHER side, we are in for a rocky road.

The Tories started this stupidity, and Nulabour have perpetuated it. A plague on both their houses.
 

"Where was the cheap (not cheep) sentimentality ..."

That is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put! (to quote W.Churchill). Please can we stick to the mockery, derision, insults, and possibly threats to burn-down each other's place of residence, and not resort to pedantry?

Personally, I think we should arm the entire chav underclass (but definitely not the worthy poor- many of us have been there!) with large-calibre weapons, lock them in an enclosed/bullet proof space, and don't let them out until they've used up all their ammo- all our problems solved!
 

To anonymous 6:49.
"I sincerely - really sincerely - hope you get battered and robbed on the way home from the pub one night by a pair of scumbags who have the upper hand on you.
Do your nine years and get lost, eh."
There was no need for that, really no need at all.
We all know the way to protect the public, it's what we want to do, but we need more officers and less "fluffy" rubbish that ties us up and ties our hands. We need politicians who have backbones.
I personally wouldn't wish being battered and robbed on anyone, (except perhaps those who partake in 'batterin' and robberin')
"Slinging mud" is one thing, but wishing that on 9yrs to go really sucks.

Benj
 

.If people without criminal records were permitted to be armed the first ones to apply would be criminals. You don't have to have a criminal record to be a criminal, you just have to be sure you're not caught. Because of the police habit of charging upright & honest members of society trying to defend their homes and families (because they're the easiest to get carreer boosting, statistic enhancing convictions on - not to mention overtime) will prevent those honest but wrongly convicted people from owning a weapon. But some unconvicted scum will have guns to terrorise the good people and police with.
It is impossible to vet people accurately.

Arming the police is an abhorrant idea. Policemen are human, they make mistakes. A wrongful conviction is common and tragic enough, but a wrongful shooting (as we've seen) is beyond tragidy and cannot be undone.
Stay with sticks and pepper spray.
 

Ooh dear,
John, the fact that a man being attacked would rather have a weapon is not a conclusive argument for legalising firearms.
As you are no doubt aware the police can not protect people all the time. Most people are murdered by family and aquaintances, in their homes, your sugestions here, let them have guns perhaps.
The cheep sentimentality is there, you shouldn't use cheap gibes at peoples spelling to make an argument (well, who's a clever boy.)
I thank you for your good wishes, you may not know me, but I have met you hundreds of times. The normal parting shot is "I hope you/a member of your family get cancer." Its an easy way of working out the sort of person yuo are dealing with. A scudding outside a pub isn't a novelty for the average copper.
I hope the patches fall off your corderoy jacket, your dandruffy unfashionably long hair goes grey and your glasses break.
To the other bloke anonymous who with his use of capitals I assume is happy wanderer, all right if someone was going to stab my nearest and dearest of course I would want a gun, there have been a number of times as a police officer where I wanted a gun, at least one where I would have shot someone. But that is still not an argument that convinces me that you and John should be allowed to walk the street with a loaded firearm.
Anyway, stop picking on me you two, talk to each other instead you have a lot in common.
 

Well, it looks like this debate will just run-and-run.

(You rum cove, DC!)

I think that most of us will have to agree to disagree. And the rest can agree to meet up after ten pints in a kebab shop for a 'ruck' tomorrow night...
 

Of course when I said John I meant Joe; thick copper.
 

Big Bruv,

this space can it have walls that riccochet the bullets for extra kills?? As with some of my customers they couldnt hit a cows arse with a banjo and some of them have similtaneous east/west facing eyes!!!!

As for other comments I can only speak for myself but believe I speak for fellow officers that we all try as much as we can to catch badduns but CPS/Courts let us down and if the public dont ehlp then the scum get off scotfree. I am for the Public if we can stop criminals countersuing - unfortunately we have to investigate every claim even if the other person has used reasonable force - again CPS/Courts need to look at this.
Crims seem to have more rights than victims!

I dont think at this point we should arm the public I would like to see what tests the US make their guncarrying public take and would want to know what percenatge licensed guns are used in unlawful kills/ find their way into crims hands.

I think more police should be armed and the restrictions brought down on the use even if we are just armed with tasers.

http://bigfellainblue.blogspot.com/
 

I'm not sure about the idea of handing out the guns to every tom, dick or harry the way it is in a lot of states in the US.
There is a good argument for an armed citizenry in a country were gun crime is fairly common, not so much were it is rare.
However, this country's attitude towards self defence in general is absurd. If I had to defend myself from someone bent on violence towards me, I frankly confess I would give him a damn good hiding and walk away without avoiding the police. I also carry what is considered an 'offensive weapon' over here (a kubaton keychain), although it is technically against the law, I weighed up the unlikely risk of being stopped and searched by the law and being given a slap on the wrist for possesing an offensive keyring, against being put in hospital, permanently injured, or worse. And I decided that on balance, it was better to break the law and have a better chance of being able to defend myself.
It's sad when we've come to a situation in this country were the police cannot be trusted to use common sense when dealing with criminals and the public, but no matter what the law says, I will do whatever I think it takes to defend myself and others. As the old saying goes, it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6...
 

To 9ytg:

-all right if someone was going to stab my nearest and dearest of course I would want a gun-

I rest my case, m`lud.

I am not Happy Wanderer, by the way.

I should also say that when pistols were legally held in the UK there was no bloodbath on a mass scale, and rifles and shotguns are still legally held in their thousands and we still have no civil war (though the damned country is pretty overdue for one IMHO - like the next ice age).

If people were allowed to use them for defence as well as sporting the police may have less crime to deal with. All of course, MHO.

Criminals could apply for licences too when pistols were allowed, so there would be no difference to the state then. Vetting is not totally waterproof but it seems to work for the Child Protection stupidity ie you can work with children because you havn`t been caught yet.
 

Anon, I agree to disagree, the poster before you made some very good points, well put.
I come from my experience, you from yours, I believe the public should be allowed to robustly defend themselves against any genuinely percieved threat. The law says they can. However due to the culture we now live in, perfectly demonstrated by Mr McNulty, the member of the public who steps in is in fear of getting into trouble. We need to educate people into what they can legally do, and more to the point, how to explain this to me or my colleagues when we come calling. The police have a number of factors they use to justify the use of force, these could equally be used by MOPs if they were tought how. Bouncers and store detectives do it. So can you. As you say only my opinion
 

aside from the automatic bit (restricted in the 1930s), DCs idea would only be changing things back to the early 1950s and before, where the murder rates and pretty much every other type of crime was far less common even with (or because) of the much higher levels of legal gun ownership and no laws against carrying "offensive" weapons

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man" Thomas Jefferson

If Jefferson was wrong then why has the disarmament of law abiding people in the name of public safety failed to decrease the crime rate?
 

The government doesn't want an armed populace because it wants to control the populace and that's harder to do if the populace is armed.
For the same reason it is creating a client state of welfare dependents and state employees (turkeys don't vote for Christmas).
It is destroying education, to remove or reduce our ability to recognise and respond to what is happening.
It has encouraged a 24 hour news media which is incapable of focusing on any issue in any depth for any time, and has fostered and promulgated the internet for the same reason - it is very hard to discern one important message in an electronic Tower of Babel.
At the same time it is running down the police (replacing them with CPSOs) to remove a potential sources of power and internal opposition.
Finally, it is doing the same with our armed forces, and is liaising with other European governments to creat a pan-European security force with no particular allegiance to any country: our last hope or revolution and freedom will be gone when this happens.
I forecast an EC force on the streets of a British city, at 'the invitation' of the nominal government, to 'keep order' and 'protect the citizens' against 'forces of internal insurrection', in the next 20-30 years.
I realise this sounds mildly paranoid (though i'm sure lots of Jewish people argued among themselves about Hitler's true intentions until it was too late), but it's the only cogent explanation I can come up with for what has been done in the UK in the last 30-40 years; most of it beggars belief if one attempts to apply logic, even through a Marxist looking glass.
So for that reason, if for no other, and if I still lived in Britain, I would like the right to bear arms.
 

Well what with everyone reciting their personal reasons for needing to be armed, particularly the brixton muggee.. Spare a thought for us community psychiatric nurses in brixton and peckham! We are also public slaves, sharing many of the same customers as the police and competely unprotected. Sympathies to the guy whose mugger got off because you are a racist -the worst type of scumbag of all (Blair et al. all the time)- But you see we psychiatirc staff must not protect ourselves because we are all 'inherently racist' accourding to our bosses in whitehall. After an incident some years ago where some nurses used c&r on some sectioned lunatic who was trying to kill them. They restrained him for 2 hours and sadly he died. As he was black an inquiry decided that they restrained him because, like brixton guy & wife, they freaked out at the sight of a black man. As a result we can no longer user c&r when being attacked. Insted we are trained in 'distraction techniqes'. One memorable nugget designed to save my life in the event of attack by some oversized psychotic is to stick my finger in his ear. Being 5"3 and female I will need to take extra care to ensure my small finger does not go too far into his ear and cause injury to this 'vulnerable adult'. Well thanks guys, I'll remember that next time Im doing a home visit in some hole in stockwell. Personally I think we should all have tazer guns that fire large doses of heavy sedatives... something very similar to those used by game keepers in safaris.. we could then safely haul them off to the padded cells without risk of me being killed, or -more importantly- him getting an injred ear.Because be assured, if this were to happen I will be disciplined and he will be compensated.
 

emigree does have a point.

the two primary sources of opposition (and both of whom are armed with weapons) to a totalitarian takeover would be the police and the army - as both are loyal to the Queen - not to politicians.

gettng back to the gun debate - it is quite interesting reading about
gun politics in Switzerland. Whats interesting about Switzerland and its gun laws is that every citizen is required to do the training - thereby creating a common "swiss" identity. they have multiple languages in that country (French,Italian, German and Romansch) and the Cantons have a lot of freedom - but the reason why that country doesnt fragment with the collective sense of being "Swiss" - and in order to defend that, you get gun training and are a member of the local milita.

i cant help wondering if the Swiss approach could be reused in Britain - what with all the woo-haa about "multiculturalism" , "ghettos" and "british identity"... you need to give people something to identify with.

Gun training and the creation of peoples militas would work. But then, this is just a pipe dream - we're a province of the EU now, so none of that will happen.
 

FreeRepublic article on Swiss gun ownership

ok, its freerepublic, so yes its biased. but it is fascinating reading , as it goes into depth about Swiss gun ownership and why its so prevalent in Switzerland.

trouble is, from reading it, it is apparent that we simply cannot introduce such laws overnight. the Swiss respeoct for weapons is ingrained in their culture and goes back to the 13th century.

try introducing those Swiss laws into chav scum land and you'll only end up with a bloodbath. but its doable - it'll take time , and lots of education, but it might be doable some day.
 

John, the fact that a man being attacked would rather have a weapon is not a conclusive argument for legalising firearms.

No, it's THE conclusive argument for re-legalizing firearms...why do you make it sound as if it's a case of 'it's just a case of him WANTING a gun' when in actually fact it's a case of 'his wellbeing is important and guns are important tools to protect his safety'? Why, because your attitude is, 'if he's in a situation where he needs a gun he can just die, can't he', Which is sick, and you are sick, for thinking along such lines.

You're the one who wants members of the public to be killed, beaten, raped, and abused by criminal scumbags, not me. There's no getting around it, you're a very sick puppy.
 

Woof woof
 

Arm the public tomorrow!

I must say, I am positively salivating at the thought of a bloodbath among the chav scum underclass of our country.....anything to thin out that part of the gene pool.

I doubt it would ever happen though. Tony's cronies have already permeated the legislature, judiciary and police force to such an extent, we all now live in fear of being stuck on for the unlawful possession of a crusty cheese sandwich...

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=27760&in_page_id=34

Come on, you must all have a stupid, toadying tosser like the arresting officer in the article above?
 

woof WOof
 

I've always thought the point of the endless stream of new laws and especially those that depend on things like "feelings" and "opinion" is simply to increase the power of the executive.

There's a rapidly increasing tendency for these to be used for convenience or political reasons "Bollocks to Blair".

It puts enormous power in the hands of those who decide whether to investigate or not.
 

Rampager, you have the logic, articulation and common sense of a 16 year old retard. I sleep in my bed safe in the knowledge people like you will never carry a gun in public, never decide policy, never have a position of responsibility.
Get your wee head checked out and go back to collecting comics, strutting about shopping centres on the days off from your pathetic job, pretending your something out of the Matrix...
Go on, quote another few obscure examples and rhyme off some rhetoric.
Tosser.
 

BigFella,

"...can it have walls that riccochet the bullets for extra kills??"
(for any that don't know what myself and BigFella are going on about, please see one of my previous posts).

Oh, yes! And mine fields, and....(better stop I am quivering with excitement like a human tuning fork).

Now, I understand that the idea of putting the entire chav underclass in a locked/enclosed space with high-calibre weapons might lead to some ethical and moral questions.

But before we decide whether or not to go ahead with the plan, consider that evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry of the London School of Economic believes that the human species will split and evolve into an upper class and a dim-witted underclass:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6057734.stm


Are you laughing along with me? I mean, "..*will* evolve"! Future tense! We all know that the split has happened already- just take a look at the picture in the story- the one of the right looks exactly like the majority of the mug-shots I saw on Crimewatch UK.

So, given that this evolutionary split has already occurred, we need not worry that we would be subjecting some of our own species to cruel treatment- no, we would merely be subjecting a distinct (chav) 'dim-whitted underclass' to cruel treatment.

I, for one, will sleep soundly.
 

A Marine sniper was recently interviewed and was asked "What do you feel when you shoot a terrorist?" He replied "Recoil". I would feel exactly the same way if I shot one of out local street robbing scumbags.
 

THIS IS WHY WE SHOULDNT ARM THE PUBLIC!

BBC News Bristol

Man jailed for '40p row' killing

Tribute to Barry Wilson, stabbed to death in Bristol
A man from Bristol has been found guilty of murdering his neighbour in a row over 40p.
Father-of-three Barry Wilson, 29, died from stab wounds to his neck and chest in May 2006.

Bristol Crown Court heard how he fought with neighbour Keith Hunt outside their homes in Knowle West during a dispute about buying drinks in a nearby bar.

Hunt, 31, was found guilty by a majority verdict and given life with a 15-year minimum recommendation

This is the link for the full story.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/6347439.stm
 

yes bigfella, just think if they had guns someone might have been shot!!!!!!!

do you think that all knives should be banned, considering how fast violent crime hasn't fallen due to the gun bans?
 

We are allowed to own guns (shotguns rifles etc) just as long as we don't tell the 'ahem' fuzz they're for sporting purposes, not self-defence. Personally, I can't think of a better reason for owning a gun than the reassurance that if someone wants to rape and murder you in your own home, you have the means of being able to stop them, but officialdom in this country has long ago decreed that the British Subject must be helpless and completely dependent upon the state for their safety and sustenence. An abominable principle in theory, even if it did work in practice (which it doesn't).
 

We are allowed to own guns (shotguns rifles etc) just as long as we don't tell the 'ahem' fuzz they're for sporting purposes, not self-defence. Personally, I can't think of a better reason for owning a gun than the reassurance that if someone wants to rape and murder you in your own home, you have the means of being able to stop them, but officialdom in this country has long ago decreed that the British Subject must be helpless and completely dependent upon the state for their safety and sustenence. An abominable principle in theory, even if it did work in practice (which it doesn't).
 

BigFellaInBlue, I can post 5, 10, 20, 100 stories that illustrate why the public should be armed and in fact I claim the story you posted as one of those cases.

Your 'point' that wanton violence is a reason why the public shouldn't be able to protect themselves against wanton violence is utterly nonsensical
 

I think not, but, the thought of being a fly on the wall when happy camper and one of his fellow travellers get involved in a bit of road rage, a boundary dispute or a row over whos round it is, almost makes me want to change my mind.
Are you talking to me ..... bang bang.
Darwinism in action, delicious.
 

9ytg if that happened in reality then wouldn't those 30 odd US states that brought in concealed carry permits have dramatic increases in murder rates rather than decreases?
the gun control groups claimed that there would be huge numbers of road rage incidents leading to blood on the streets, wild west shootouts as people murdered each other over nothing etc etc, none of which happened in any state

wouldn't the US murder rate have increased steadily over the past 15 years instead of dropping as 10s of millions of pistols and rifles were sold to the public?
why is Vermont about the safest state in the US given that any US citizen over 21 with no criminal record can buy and carry a gun legally with no permit required?
why have all of the gun bans and laws against carrying "offensive weapons" failed to reduce the murder rate and violent crime rates in the UK over the past 60 years? could it be that violent criminals don't obey the law and never have done, and that those of us with clean criminal records are far more likely to be a victim of crime and therefore us a weapon defensivly than commit a crime with one?
 

Mike,
Perhaps Vermont lets its population have guns because it is a relatively law abiding community, with few of the problems of inner city blight.
The rural farming community in this country have access to guns and have always had, again they are a relatively law abiding people with enough room to keep themselves to themselves.
I know that for every statistic there is a counter one, some places with long histories of blood feuds (Sicily)have liberal firearms laws but a high murder rate. Their guns dont protect them from the mafia.
Look at countries in the middle east and eastern Europe where the way to celebrate something is to empty your AK47 into the sky.What are their crime rates.
We dont live in Vermont and we dont live in the Mid East, some where in between.
You want the public to be armed basically so they can defend themselves against other members of the public.
When people quote the 20s and 30s and earlier times, one of the things that had an effect back then is that the only people who could afford a reliable firearm were the rich and predominantly law abiding. These were expensive items not available to the rest of us, once it started looking that way, and also with the number of suveniers from the trenches they became subject to licence.
How many people who are not burgling or robbing, are shot to death by legally held handguns every year in America, I dont know but I imagine it would be quite informative.
One of the problems with modern society is, we do not judge it just by our own experience but by what we see on television and in the papers, the poor chap who was previously mentioned as well as some other high profile cases are still rare enough to atract national press headlines. I doubt very much if anyone reading this blog lives in Mosside or Peckham.
Both of these areas are examples where there is a lot of gun crime. I do not think liberalising gun laws there is going to help anyone.
What we all want is special rules for us and people like us. Nice responsible people can have guns but naughty ones cant.
Unfortunately there is a very large proportion of the population who have a foot in both camps and there are some who move from camp to camp. There are a lot we just dont know. Think of every person you know without a criminal record. Then count how many you would not like having ready access to firearms if they lived in the same street as you and your family.
Weigh up the risks and see which you prefer.
 

Me again....law abiding (well, I do my best) member of the public with a dad who's a retired constable who put in 25 years.

Let's cut to the chase, shall we?

We don't need to arm ourselves (members of the public), what we NEED is the Government to stop tying the hands of the Police AND the general public, and start putting away people who commit crimes against society, so that they are FAIRLY punished for the crimes they commit.

The Government needs to STOP this liberalisation of the Law and inject some common sense.

The Law says you don't help yourself to other people's property. So, scumbags, stop taking it or suffer the consequences! The Law says it's wrong to attack someone or threaten them with violence. Well, scumbags, you try and attack someone and you get a pasting, think twice next time!

What we ALL need is the right to defend ourselves and our property when we assess the dangers for ourselves, at the time of the incident (reasonable force....so dubious a description). Yes, I fully appreciate from the point of view of frontline officers, that it's so hard to assess a situation when you arrive, as to who the TRULY guilty party is, and most likely, it's six of one and half a dozen of the other. I don't envy you in that position.

Whatever happened to COMMON SENSE?! If you break into a place you have no right to be in, and you get injured, or the property owner whacks you over the head with the nearest available object, then it's your fault. Wouldn't have happened if you weren't TRESPASSING, would it?

It still comes back to taking reponsibility for your own actions.....I've said it before and I'll say it again, "Do the crime, do the time", but if the Government SUPPORTED members of the public in their right to defend their homes, their families and their properties, we wouldn't even be discussing whether to give us guns or not. The options are already there, let's not go forwards and make new mistakes, let's rectify the one's we've made before, by giving control back to those who NEED it.

Incidentally, in the biker family I'm part of, once you're 18 and caught stealing, you get your fingers slammed in a door. Doesn't happen more than twice!

Big hugs to all the lads and lasses in that thin Blue line xxx
 

Think of every person you know without a criminal record. Then count how many you would not like having ready access to firearms if they lived in the same street as you and your family.

Well alright, I've thought about your question and of all the people I know whom I wouldn't like to see going around armed, my answer is 'very few'. Your answer may be completely different, but then again you're probably a copper, or more accurately in your case a bully in uniform, the fact that your social circle doesn't really reflect the country as a whole probably has some bearing on your attitude.

Let's see if you can make your next reply more puerile than the last one, OK?

Djelibeybi wrote:-

The Law says you don't help yourself to other people's property. So, scumbags, stop taking it or suffer the consequences! The Law says it's wrong to attack someone or threaten them with violence. Well, scumbags, you try and attack someone and you get a pasting, think twice next time!

More, the CPS, courts, even the police, really need to learn this, and to drop the 'criminals have human rights'...'using violence against crims is criminal itself'...'judge, jury, and executioner' rot, or if they won't, a serious clean-up of all those establishments needs to take place.

Sadly, it likely won't.
 

To #9yrs to go : 11:14 PM

The thing is, that doing it your way there would be an undetected crime to explain away. Far better to arrest the unsuspecting citizen, then you have a detection! Easy!


To # Anonymous : 3:15 PM
If you intervene to protect the little old lady, you are going to be arrested by the Police (probably with the old lady as well!), and will almost certainly be charged, or cautioned. You are the easy target; the ratbag is far more difficult. If you were a policeman, you would go for the easy target as well, it is only human nature.

To # Anonymous : 3:38 PM

You are so right, the government do not want you armed! They do not want to have the possibility of a armed Police revolt on their hands, as they continue with their plans of changing you into a pliable political tool.
 

Funny that this topic should come up - I was about to ask you everyday police folk why you appear to go completely ape when a member of the public does a bit of law enforcement even though you don't seem that keen to do it yourselves (or feel restrained from doing so)
 

9tyg sorry about the delay

I accept your point about vermont, it isn't very useful to just compare one place with another over a single year, but the US murder rate compared to ours has dropped from 8.7 times ours in 1981 to 3.5 times now, in which time the in the US tens millions of firearms have been sold and we have banned all of our pistols, semi auto rifle etc. Are you sure that we were right and they were wrong?

"What we all want is special rules for us and people like us. Nice responsible people can have guns but naughty ones cant."
you seem to assume that gun control has disarmed criminals, yet according to the independent there are 4 million firarms being held by criminals http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article310182.ece
so all gun control has achieved is the disarming of the "nice" people

are you sure about guns being very rare in the 30s and 40s? to quote Orwell "That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage
is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there". After all a guns have been mass produced since the mid 19th Century and are pretty simple devices and the term for cheap guns "saturday night specials" comes from the 1860s.

"One of the problems with modern society is, we do not judge it just by our own experience but by what we see on television and in the papers, the poor chap who was previously mentioned as well as some other high profile cases are still rare enough to atract national press headlines" I agree with that, which is part of the problem with gun control/additional restrictions on carry weapons etc as the public don't know/care whether similar measures have worked in the past and so the home secretary gets a nice headline of being "tough" on crime by punishing everyone who didn't do whatever crimes hit the headlines the week before while bringing in some other stupid policy unnoticed

"Both of these areas are examples where there is a lot of gun crime. I do not think liberalising gun laws there is going to help anyone." so we have lots of gun control, restrictions on carrying knives etc and have had for decades and the fact that violent criminals are well armed and willing to use force is evidence that gun control works????

"Think of every person you know without a criminal record. Then count how many you would not like having ready access to firearms if they lived in the same street as you and your family." These are the people who have been disarmed, yet they do have many lethal weapons at their disposal still knives, cars etc and so could commit murders if they wanted to, so whether or not they own guns doesn't bother me, and with the 3-4 millions illegal firarms don't you think they could get one illegally? If disarming these people worked then gun control and all of the other laws would have worked, wouldn't they? and the US/UK murder rates would have gone the other way in the past 20 years

my belief that gun control doesn't work is based on the increasing murder rates and violent crime rates here as we banned guns and the opposite in the US as a whole. If things were the other way then I would be agreeing with you that gun control works. What do you base your opinion on and what evidence would it take for you to reconsider?
 

Mike,
I think the big difference between us is our perception of crime and society.
I live in a relatively law abiding town, I have worked in rural areas, towns and cities but seem to spend the majority of my time in the not so nice areas.
I have lived in inner city areas in the past.
America did away with most of its liberal theories on criminal justice in the last 15 years. The result is a massivelyi ncreased prison population. All their crime rates have fallen, not just murder.
If I think of the dozen or so murders I have had direct involvement in, one involved a legally held firearm, of the rest, those that did not involve someone being beaten to death, all involved knives. In every case the victim was known to the offender.
In the other firearms deaths I have come accross, these have either been accidental or suicide involving legally held weapons. I am not using this as an argument to ban legally held guns by the way.
I dont work in some isolated middle England, like every where else in Britain we suffer from massive drugs problems and associated crime.
What it would take for me to reconsider, would be what I percieved as a threat to my personal safety, either at work or at home, where I believed I was under constant threat of assault and could not defend myself any other way, when going about some lawful business. There may be places in England like that, where walking through an area is to invite an inevitable assault. I think there always have been, but other than when working I would not go there.I also think these are the last places in the world where we would wish to arm the local populace.
There is nothing I wish to do that I am prevented from doing because of fear of assault. As I say if this ever changes then my view will change.
Criminals using live firearms against the law abiding are still a rarity although widely publicised, apart from the ARVs every police officer in this country goes about their job in whatever area unarmed, as we have recently seen some are shot to death, I do not think the risk of this justifies arming the police, nor the public. Are you really saying that you are in fear of assault on a constant basis or would you like the weapon on a just in case basis.
As for the number of illegally held weapons, the majority of these are held by otherwise law abiding people who rarely come to our attention. If there were 4 million active criminals using guns you would know about it.
I know there are a lot of nasty evil predatory people out there and life can bring some very unpleasant surprises our way, but all in all I would keep the status quo.
Thankyou for the discussion.

Happy camper and anon.
Yes I am a bully in uniform because I got picked on at school. Like all my colleagues I pick on the law abiding public because they are an easy target. That is why there are no robbers, rapists or violent thugs in prison.
In the eighties and nineties we picked on miners and if we couldn't find a real criminal we would just arrest an Irishman. Thats when I wasn't being Maggie Thatchers boot boy.
I do not like to brude so I will refer you to anon of 10:34am who said it much better than I could.
 

9ytg:

-As for the number of illegally held weapons, the majority of these are held by otherwise law abiding people who rarely come to our attention.-

Serious question - how do you know this?
 

Empirical evidence only, any firearms amnesty there are always a number of old ladies bringing in their husbands souveniers. Every so often there is a report in the paper re some nutter whose house contains enough munitions to start WW3, someone who hasnt normally come to notice. Ex firearms dealers with a few kept behind, also there were very lax procedures up until the law was changed a few years ago and quite a few people had shotguns not on their certificates. How many squaddies do you think brought one back from WW2 and all the other conflicts since. Where are they all?
I will also add that I have been involved in countless house searches over the years; criminals houses, finding a S1 firearm or shotgun is very rare. Stun guns and CS seem to be the things.
I have no statistics but I think if the baddies had 4 million of them we would come accross them a bit more often. Having said that I dont know where this 4 m figure came from. As I say, no evidence, just my opinion.
 

I think Britain may be the only country in the world so entranced with Western movies, they constantly apply the words 'cowboy' and 'John Wayne' to anything to do with guns.

Texas is one of the safest places to live in the world, because the citizenry is, for those who so choose to be, armed. You are allowed - nay, positively encouraged - to kill anyone who steps, univited (that's the clue-word) over your threshhold. It's better that way, because if you only shoot to wound, the perp can claim you invited him in. Dead perps are good perps.

How insulting that the British government thinks the population is so childish they would try to be "cowboys" or "John Wayne" (oh, the fantasies of Tony Blair! Who knows what lurks in this strange, fevered mind?)

People in most civilised countries have guns as a matter of choice. Only are the British forbidden the means to protect themselves and made dependent on a weak, servile-to-political-masters, police force. I would not return to Britain.

Blair & co have been on a 10-yr plan (sounds like the old Soviet 5-year plans, doesn't it?) to destablise our ancient Britain. Black is white. Day is night. "Britain is a young country," crowed Noddy, aka Emily, as the other boys at Fettes nicknamed him, who clearly loathed him, in a country full of pensioners and not terribly many young people. But Noddy wanted it so! And he wanted no guns! Guns are for naughty people, and Tony knows best! (Who can forget his impertinence ordering respected journalist Peter Hitchens to "sit down and stop being bad!" at a press conference?)

Until sanity and gun ownership are the norm, as they are in most countries, crime in Britain will continue to inch up with a nightmareish inexorability.
 

Wow, 9YTG, you don't even care about your own colleagues being killed and injured! I thought you might have a different set of rules for police, y'know, the police need protection but the public don't. It turns out you're just a complete nihilist.
 

I know that the blog has moved on but after being at the coal face for a few days I have just got to read the rest of what has been written and I would like to give my tuppen worth about guns.

I have been a Cop in a BCU with a high violent crime rate in a Northern English city for 6 years. I have spent my time in 24-7 policing and make on average about 100 arrests a year. In that time I have been involved in about 100+ house searches and 100+ PACE 1's a year. I HAVE NEVER FOUND NOR COME ACROSS AN ILLEGAL FIREARM. There has been one murder in my BCU in the last year involving a firearm (out of 6), there has been 1000's of other violent crimes. The only reason that there has not been 100's of murders involving Firearms is that there are not 1000's of firearms out there as they are not readily available to the public.

Any Cop who says otherwise is asking for a much more dangerous job which would involve many more deaths of our colleagues.

I believe that it all boils down to it being much, much easier to take a life with a firearm. It's literally life at the flick of a switch. Most of the Shi*e out there will happlily scrap with each other and / or innocent Joe public but most realise it takes alot more bottle, strength and determination to kill someone with a knife (despite what the media portrays). I have been to dozens of stabbings which have been committed by violent people where they have just had the bottle to stab the victim in the backside, arm, slash thier face or the victim has been able to fight them off without any fatal injury.This is much less likley to result in death or permanent paralysis.

However, give that Shi*e a gun which is the new "big boys" toy and makes them feel so much harder amongst thier scummy mates and what happens. They have the fight, start losing and what happens. Out come the gun, switch pulled, adversary dead. Easy as that. Especially after the regulation 2 bottles of Bella / 8 cans of lager.

It is all well and good saying it would only be Mr. Nice Guy who will be able to carry the gun for self defence. I've seen, spoken and fought Mr. Nice Guy on many an occassion when he has got tanked up after his father's funeral / found his wife cheating / on his Chrsitmas do when he is not used to drinking all day. He's been a right handfull and been a complete ar*ehole in drink. He's back to Mr. Nice Guy and all appologetic the next morning as he walks out the custody suite with a £80 FPN, torn clothes and a hangover. Give Mr. Nice Guy a 9mm when he is full of Fuel and its "You can't arrest me", "bang", dead cop, "bang, bang" No more Mr. Nice Guy.

Also look at the simple situation of Mr. Canny Body has a Shot gun in his house to prevent Burglary. It's all above board, certificates in place and locked in the gun cabinet. Who can fault him there?. He goes on his anual Hols to Spain and some scroat breaks in. Scroat has noticed that the car has been off the drive for a week and the curtains are shut. He's needs a hit of smack and there is not alot else in his mind but desperation. He finds the cabinet, finds the spare key in the desk drawer and nicks the gun. Selling it for £50, enough smack for a day or two. Gun is used in 3 armed PO robberies and the last one results in the cashier, who is armed and has a go back gets shot dead.

These are not fantastical stories. Just basic events that WOULD happen. Please MoP and Cop alike, take a rational look at the situation. We dont need guns.
Sorry for getting all serious.
 

"Also look at the simple situation of Mr. Canny Body has a Shot gun in his house to prevent Burglary. It's all above board, certificates in place and locked in the gun cabinet. Who can fault him there?. He goes on his anual Hols to Spain and some scroat breaks in. Scroat has noticed that the car has been off the drive for a week and the curtains are shut. He's needs a hit of smack and there is not alot else in his mind but desperation. He finds the cabinet, finds the spare key in the desk drawer and nicks the gun. Selling it for £50, enough smack for a day or two. Gun is used in 3 armed PO robberies and the last one results in the cashier, who is armed and has a go back gets shot dead. "

I know gun onwers who take bolts or firing pins on holiday with them rather than leave them at home whilst on ther holidays, plus they would not ever leave spare keys at home either.

So its morally more acceptable for a criminal to obatin a firearm from a man in a pub and shoot someone who's only option is to dial 999?
 

TO DRUNK PLOD @ 8.09pm.
Do not apologise for "getting serious" about the issue. Yours IS the most sane and convincing argument of all. Well said.
003 "loony" Kickassrebel
 

Honest question to drunk plod, why should I give a crap if police have a harder job?

The fact that the cops chase after criminals is a good reason to arm cops, but the criminals are the ones that come after us! And we are denied every protection. Thanks heaps for the lazy elitist tyranny.
 

Drunk Plod I agree just look at this mornings news from across the water a shoot up in a shopping mall and one in a business meeting!! The public dont need guns they do enough damage with knives/bats etc. The septics are too trigger happy and this would happen over here.
 

My names Gareth and i approve this post.
 

Blimey, it took a while to read through that lot. I live in Northern Ireland and here the police and the paramilit..sorry, GANGSTERS are armed. Some members of the public have legally held firearms, ususally .22 cal shorts and longs and shotguns. (FAC for airweapons since the 60s sometime I think). I have a spent crim conviction for possession of cannabis when I was young. This excludes me from ever getting a FAC. Which, for me, is crap as I am a good shot, having gone shooting as a youngster both shotgun and .22 rifle and pistol-25m target.

Any change in firearms law to permit CCW etc would exclude me even though I would be supportive of it.
 

Drunk Plod:

It is all well and good saying it would only be Mr. Nice Guy who will be able to carry the gun for self defence. I've seen, spoken and fought Mr. Nice Guy on many an occassion when he has got tanked up after his father's funeral / found his wife cheating / on his Chrsitmas do when he is not used to drinking all day. He's been a right handfull and been a complete ar*ehole in drink. He's back to Mr. Nice Guy and all appologetic the next morning as he walks out the custody suite with a £80 FPN, torn clothes and a hangover. Give Mr. Nice Guy a 9mm when he is full of Fuel and its "You can't arrest me", "bang", dead cop, "bang, bang" No more Mr. Nice Guy.


So here's the thing. Carrying a gun is a responsibility. One of the responsibilities that you have if you carry a gun is the responsibility to keep yourself in control at all times. This means not carrying when you're going out to get tanked up. If you are carrying a weapon, you have extra responsibilities to keep control of yourself that unarmed people don't have.

People have, by and large, managed to learn that it's not acceptable to drink and drive. The principle is the same.


If you draw your weapon, it must be for precisely one reason - that you have made a conscious decision that you need to kill someone. Under no other circumstances does the weapon leave the holster.

Of course, when confronted with your weapon, scumbag du jour might discover a pressing appointment with the other side of town, in which case you won't need to kill him any more.
 

I believe that it all boils down to it being much, much easier to take a life with a firearm. It's literally life at the flick of a switch.

Yes, that's the point.

Most of the Shi*e out there will happlily scrap with each other and / or innocent Joe public but most realise it takes alot more bottle, strength and determination to kill someone with a knife (despite what the media portrays).

And speaking as "innocent Joe Public", I have no desire at all to be scrapped with by any of the Sh*te. I have no desire to be stabbed, kicked to death, or just given a good beating, regardless of how much bottle and determination the "Sh*te" in question might have.

You, it would seem, would rather I was beaten up or killed by the "Sh*te" in question than was able to defend myself. I'd rather stay alive and well, thanks.
 

I've studied US crime for several years and have come to two conclusions:

1. US gun ownership means you trade a high rate of general crime and a low rate of murder for an elevated risk of murder and a low general crime rate.

2. Those who are murdered in the US are not nice people, in general. A friend of mine who examined the incidents left right and sideways found that "The most likely person to murder you in the US is your fellow drugs dealer."

Put these together and my conclusion is that a society is better off with the traditional English right to bear arms than it was before the nobs took our guns away from us because the working class couldn't be trusted. Reintroducing the right will be problematic, to say the least, but a Britain with guns will be better than one without.
 

One comment is the risk of children getting hold of guns and using them on others, suffering an accident or committing suicide.

While there is one it is about 1% of the risk of having a swimming pool (i.e. if you have a gun in your house and a swimming pool it is a hundred times more likely your kids will drown than shoot themselves
 

Are you really saying that you are in fear of assault on a constant basis or would you like the weapon on a just in case basis.

That's an interesting comment. I shouldn't think that anyone, except perhaps the boys and girls out in Iraq and some victims of domestic violence, is in fear of assault on a constant basis.

I have never been "in fear of assault", but obviously I've been in places where I was careful to be very aware of the people around me, and of which nearby objects could be used as weapons if I needed one.

If I carried a gun, I would expect to never have to even move my hand towards it. It would certainly be a "just in case" precaution.

I don't expect to die any time soon, either, but I still have life assurance to protect my family. I'd like to be able to protect their lives, too.
 

Kickassrebel:

The thought of some of the REAL "nutjobs" out there having guns really is scary. If there are cops who want this sort of thing, then the Bishop of York was right. We are moving towards a police state and Orwell's Animal Farm is happening.

Umm, no. A police state is when all the police have guns and run around terrorising the populace, who don't. When honest upstanding citizens habitually carry firearms, we call it "freedom".