• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

The behaviour of UK police officers.

Part of the reason why so many cops are unhappy, is the ironic reason, they know how bad the police are at investigating themselves. They will be worried that some senior cop drove the investigation to be a murder one, so they can prove to their next promotion panel that they are fighting the good fight of ridding the Met of unsuitable officers.

The other part is that their gang is falling apart. Two firearms cops are in prison for murder and rape. Female cops have successfully sued the police for discrimination during their time in firearms units. Their little macho world, where everyone has their backs and they can do and say pretty much anything, is ending.
 
Nessie said:
They are the ones who think they are part of a special, elite group of cops, who should be protected. It is the same mentality that resulted in the murderer Wayne Couzens and rapist David Carrick being protected for so long.

Those handing in their tickets (authorisation to carry a gun) are just the ones who really should not have a gun. This can be used to weed out the unsuitable cops.
Click to expand...

How dare they stop armed policemen from shooting dead a black man in his car or filthy foreigners leaping over ticket barriers.

They are taking away perks of the job.
 
BBC story

Suella Braverman has said armed police must not fear "ending up in the dock for carrying out their duties" after a marksman was charged with murder.

The home secretary ordered a review into armed policing after dozens of officers in London handed in their weapons, saying they were worried about the murder charge.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66906193
 
Andy_Ross said:
The MET do have a previous record of shooting unarmed men in cars, and once naked in bed, plus they shot a man on a tube train, he wasn't even the man they thought he was.
Click to expand...

Yes and look what happened to the career of the officer in charge of that operation
 
Andy_Ross said:
An increasing number of Metropolitan Police officers are stepping back from firearms duties after a marksman was charged with the murder of Chris Kaba.

The unarmed 24 year old died after he was shot by an officer in south London.

The officer, who has not been named, appeared in court on Thursday.

The Met said many armed officers were "worried" about how the decision impacts on them. Some firearms officers from other forces are to be deployed in London as a contingency measure.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66903749
Click to expand...

Well in that case they should be looking to get refresher training in how to properly carry out their duties then.
 
Andy_Ross said:
The MET do have a previous record of shooting unarmed men in cars, and once naked in bed, plus they shot a man on a tube train, he wasn't even the man they thought he was.
Click to expand...

And the person who ordered that last murder later became Met Commissioner. That's how deep the rot goes.
 
The Ministry of Defence is offering armed soldiers to support London police after dozens of Met officers handed in their weapons.

The MoD said it received a request - known as Military Aid to the Civil Authorities (MACA) - from the Home Office to "provide routine counter-terrorism contingency support to the Metropolitan Police, should it be needed".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66906201
 
Andy_Ross said:
The Ministry of Defence is offering armed soldiers to support London police after dozens of Met officers handed in their weapons.

The MoD said it received a request - known as Military Aid to the Civil Authorities (MACA) - from the Home Office to "provide routine counter-terrorism contingency support to the Metropolitan Police, should it be needed".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66906201
Click to expand...

Expect the remaining armed cops to be rounded up on terforism charges shortly after the army rolls in.
 
Another Tory first. The MOD putting armed police on to the streets of London
 
Andy_Ross said:
Another Tory first. The MOD putting armed police on to the streets of London
Click to expand...

But only because the Woke London Mayor insists on persecuting loyal police officers who are only doing their duty (and gunning down unarmed black men in dubious circumstances). :rolleyes:
 
Dave Rogers said:
In response, so far as I can tell, to about 3% of armed officers throwing a strop, a proportion it would seem simpler just to ignore.

Dave
Click to expand...

...except that the 3% are perfectly aligned with Conservative Party opinion - that the police should be allowed to do whatever they want, to whoever they want (as long as the "right" people aren't unduly troubled).

They see this as an opportunity to increase support in their gammon base.
 
Mojo said:
She thinks killing people is part of their duties?
Click to expand...

Why else are they armed?

The very fact offarming them implies that there may be cicumstances when they will be required to shoot and kill people - if not, then what point in arming the police at all?
 
Last edited:
Apparently the guy was a 'wrong un' with a previous record and the car was stolen.
He might have tried to run the cops down and that makes it a justifiable shooting.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Apparently the guy was a 'wrong un' with a previous record and the car was stolen.
He might have tried to run the cops down and that makes it a justifiable shooting.
Click to expand...

If that's the case, then you'd have thought that it would result in either the IOPC not recommending the case to the CPS for prosecution, the CPS not proceeding with the prosecution, or a Not Guilty verdict. This case has been through a couple of pretty serious gateways before resulting in actual charges.

Dave
 
Andy_Ross said:
Apparently the guy was a 'wrong un' with a previous record and the car was stolen.
He might have tried to run the cops down and that makes it a justifiable shooting.
Click to expand...

If he was a wrong-un why was he in the police force to begin with..... ;)
 
Dave Rogers said:
If that's the case, then you'd have thought that it would result in either the IOPC not recommending the case to the CPS for prosecution, the CPS not proceeding with the prosecution, or a Not Guilty verdict. This case has been through a couple of pretty serious gateways before resulting in actual charges.

Dave
Click to expand...

I think Andy_Ross forgot the /s at the end...
 
All the armed cops who have reacted by handing in their guns, because one of them has been charged with murder should consider that soldiers did not hand in their guns, when other soldiers have been charged with murder. Response police did not hand in their tasers and refuse to arrest people when a response cop was charged with the murder of Dalian Atkinson.

Baroness Casey called the Met firearms officers a clique, who thought themselves an elite and who carried an authority beyond their rank. This proves they think they are special, and somehow not to be held accountable as others are.

The cops who have handed in their tickets, should never be allowed to carry a gun again, and all should be investigated for attempting to pervert the course of justice, for what is a concerted attempt to stop the prosecution of one of their little group.
 
Nessie said:
All the armed cops who have reacted by handing in their guns, because one of them has been charged with murder should consider that soldiers did not hand in their guns, when other soldiers have been charged with murder. Response police did not hand in their tasers and refuse to arrest people when a response cop was charged with the murder of Dalian Atkinson.

Baroness Casey called the Met firearms officers a clique, who thought themselves an elite and who carried an authority beyond their rank. This proves they think they are special, and somehow not to be held accountable as others are.

The cops who have handed in their tickets, should never be allowed to carry a gun again, and all should be investigated for attempting to pervert the course of justice, for what is a concerted attempt to stop the prosecution of one of their little group.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree, and this seems obviously motivated by a desire to defend their own from rightful accountability than anything noble.

That said, you have to wonder whether individual cops should be so willing to take on the extra responsibility and risk of carrying guns in the UK. Assuming that they'll actually face serious consequences for bad shoots (which is a good thing), it really should make any reasonable person think twice if this is the kind of massively life changing responsibility they want to accept. A gun does have pretty special ability to turn a moment of poor judgement or poor temper in a stressful moment into a lifetime of punishment, and one might wonder if it's not worth it compared to being a normal, unarmed cop.
 
Last edited:
Andy_Ross said:
Another Tory first. The MOD putting armed police on to the streets of London
Click to expand...

Certainly not the first time it has happened. Also they are apparently not on the streets, and only as a rapid response to a terrorist threat, something they have been used for previously.
 
Nessie said:
All the armed cops who have reacted by handing in their guns, because one of them has been charged with murder should consider that soldiers did not hand in their guns, when other soldiers have been charged with murder. Response police did not hand in their tasers and refuse to arrest people when a response cop was charged with the murder of Dalian Atkinson.

Baroness Casey called the Met firearms officers a clique, who thought themselves an elite and who carried an authority beyond their rank. This proves they think they are special, and somehow not to be held accountable as others are.

The cops who have handed in their tickets, should never be allowed to carry a gun again, and all should be investigated for attempting to pervert the course of justice, for what is a concerted attempt to stop the prosecution of one of their little group.
Click to expand...

It seems to me to be a bit like toddlers having a tantrum.

We can't judge in the absence of the facts. Whast seems to be the case was the car stopped had been involved in a drive by shooting, so the police had a reasonable fear that those in the car might be armed. my guess is that they had a very short time to react between the siting of the car and it being stopped. Why the officer concerned fired a shot is unclear, it appears from what I have read to have been a single shot.
 
Nessie said:
All the armed cops who have reacted by handing in their guns, because one of them has been charged with murder should consider that soldiers did not hand in their guns, when other soldiers have been charged with murder. Response police did not hand in their tasers and refuse to arrest people when a response cop was charged with the murder of Dalian Atkinson.

Baroness Casey called the Met firearms officers a clique, who thought themselves an elite and who carried an authority beyond their rank. This proves they think they are special, and somehow not to be held accountable as others are.

The cops who have handed in their tickets, should never be allowed to carry a gun again, and all should be investigated for attempting to pervert the course of justice, for what is a concerted attempt to stop the prosecution of one of their little group.
Click to expand...

Soldiers join the army in the knowlege that they may be required to kill armed enemies in time of war under relatively clear terms of engagement and the only way to avoid that is to leave the army. As I understand it, armed police are volunteers who may have to kill civilians under far far less clear terms of engagement and if they consider those terms of engagement are insufficiently clear then they have the right to step down from armed duty.

Are they a Clique? No doubt - every organisation that takes on duties the hoi poloi are excluded from eventually end up a clique, including the entire police, fire and ambulance services, and the army, navy and air force.

Perverting the course of justice?

Bollocks

Do you think the investigators are really going to back down because of that?

And as to getting their tickets back, fine, don't allow it, but then, who are the police going to get into the armed sections? Are they going to assign coppers to firearms duty on the basis of NOT wanting to join? Sounds good, doesn't it, at least they'd not want to shoot anyone.;)
 
Planigale said:
This is untrue.
Click to expand...

The operation was ordered by "the Met's then Gold Commander, Cressida Dick". Killing the suspect was a likely outcome, but technically she didn't order him to be murdered. Are you happy with your technical triumph?
 
Last edited:
Nessie said:
The cops who have handed in their tickets, should never be allowed to carry a gun again, and all should be investigated for attempting to pervert the course of justice, for what is a concerted attempt to stop the prosecution of one of their little group.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't put it that strongly, but this whole affair does seem to be doing rather a good job of weeding out the sort of people who should never have been allowed to carry firearms in the first place. A sensible government would just let it play out on that basis. So we can be pretty sure that won't happen.

Dave
 
James O'Brien reposted
BBC Breaking News

@BBCBreaking
·
52m
London's Metropolitan Police says enough officers have returned to armed duties that it no longer needs Army support for counter-terrorism operations
Click to expand...


The whole thing is so over-dramatised, I suspect Nessie is right and that the guy's mates were kicking up a stink because they perceived themselves as entitled and should not need to be accountable. Enter Braverman, stage right, and anyone who doubted her incredible stupidity and incompetence in all matters, will have had that suspicion removed. Then there is some high-up legal boff saying people must stop discussing Russell Brand as it might prejudice any future investigation and result in contempt of court. Maybe she should tell Suella.

The thing is, no jury will ever convict a cop of shooting a 'suspected armed criminal' if he can claim he was just acting on 'trained reflex' and that he felt himself to be 'in danger' as of that moment. One can only imagine the panic is that he might have trouble proving that.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
...
That said, you have to wonder whether individual cops should be so willing to take on the extra responsibility and risk of carrying guns in the UK. Assuming that they'll actually face serious consequences for bad shoots ....
Click to expand...

That's the thing, whilst a cop who shoots does have their gun taken from them and is subject to an enquiry, they are also invariably exonerated at the end of that enquiry. This is the first time one has gone to trial, let alone for murder.

The police find excuses for bad shots, for example the death of Jean Charles de Menezes.
 
Planigale said:
This is untrue.
Click to expand...

She cleared the officers on the scene to shoot, despite neither she nor they had any evidence of danger and, if they were doing their jobs, plenty of evidence that they had targetted an innocent man. That is an order, so in matter of fact it is correct.
 
Lplus said:
Soldiers join the army in the knowlege that they may be required to kill armed enemies in time of war under relatively clear terms of engagement and the only way to avoid that is to leave the army. As I understand it, armed police are volunteers who may have to kill civilians under far far less clear terms of engagement and if they consider those terms of engagement are insufficiently clear then they have the right to step down from armed duty.
Click to expand...

The "terms of engagement" for police are detailed and clear and the training intensive and regular.

Are they a Clique? No doubt - every organisation that takes on duties the hoi poloi are excluded from eventually end up a clique, including the entire police, fire and ambulance services, and the army, navy and air force.
Click to expand...

They operate like a gang, described variously in the Casey Report as a clique, boys club, inner circle, spiders web, prestigious, elite.

Perverting the course of justice?

Bollocks

Do you think the investigators are really going to back down because of that?

And as to getting their tickets back, fine, don't allow it, but then, who are the police going to get into the armed sections? Are they going to assign coppers to firearms duty on the basis of NOT wanting to join? Sounds good, doesn't it, at least they'd not want to shoot anyone.;)
Click to expand...

Baroness Casey said

https://www.met.police.uk/SysSiteAs...ch-2023/baroness-casey-review-march-2023a.pdf

"This has led to a widely held view in the Command and in the rest of the Met that firearms officers ‘need to be allowed’ to bend or break the rules because they are volunteers who could at any point decide not to carry a firearm or ‘hand in their blue card’."

They wield influence and power by the threat of walking away. They were trying to influence the decision to charge and remand their colleague for murder. I agree the chances of that happening were nil, which probably explains why many appear to have returned to their duties. They were likely warned that even appearing to try and influence an ongoing court case is a dreadful look for the police and them in particular. Braverman is facing a lot of criticism for her intervention.
 
Nessie said:
The "terms of engagement" for police are detailed and clear and the training intensive and regular.



They operate like a gang, described variously in the Casey Report as a clique, boys club, inner circle, spiders web, prestigious, elite.



Baroness Casey said

https://www.met.police.uk/SysSiteAs...ch-2023/baroness-casey-review-march-2023a.pdf

"This has led to a widely held view in the Command and in the rest of the Met that firearms officers ‘need to be allowed’ to bend or break the rules because they are volunteers who could at any point decide not to carry a firearm or ‘hand in their blue card’."

They wield influence and power by the threat of walking away. They were trying to influence the decision to charge and remand their colleague for murder. I agree the chances of that happening were nil, which probably explains why many appear to have returned to their duties. They were likely warned that even appearing to try and influence an ongoing court case is a dreadful look for the police and them in particular. Braverman is facing a lot of criticism for her intervention.
Click to expand...

If the rules are clear and the training is intensive and regular, how come the armed police have apparently ended up as a shoot first gang?

And as to walking away, if the chances of their actions affecting the outcome are zero, then they don't wield any influence or power. The fact remains that they are volunteers and if they choose to walk for whatever reason then the Met needs to have a means in place to replace them, or give up arming the police.
 
Lplus said:
If the rules are clear and the training is intensive and regular, how come the armed police have apparently ended up as a shoot first gang?
.
Click to expand...

Because the MET is rotten to the core and has been for decades.
 
Nessie said:
Looks like there have been a few who have reconsidered! The Met have tweeted;

https://twitter.com/metpoliceuk/status/1706289367684124861

"UPDATE: The number of Met firearms officers who have returned to armed duties is now sufficient for us to no longer require the assistance of the Ministry of Defence for counterterrorism."
Click to expand...

It's upset some on the right.
A good number were waiting for the army to take to the streets and exterminate the undesirables
 
GlennB said:
The operation was ordered by "the Met's then Gold Commander, Cressida Dick". Killing the suspect was a likely outcome, but technically she didn't order him to be murdered. Are you happy with your technical triumph?
Click to expand...

I am happy to have corrected a falsehood. I disagree that killing the suspect was a likley outcome. Of many people under surveillance and including those subsequently arrested no others were shot, Menezes was clearly an outlier, and any rational person would conclude that merely being under surveillance does not mean that being killed is a likely outcome, but evidence would suggest is an unlikely outcome.

Remeber this was a surveillance operation, the police involved were supposed to attempt to apprehend the 'suspect', before he entered the (tube) train station. Cressida Dick's instructions were then that they could allow Menezes to "run on to Tube as [he was] not carrying anything". The officers who were under Dick's command attempted to physically restrain Menezes on the train. The firearms unit (not under Dick's command at that time) then shot Menezes.

On 13 October, the IPCC launched an investigation after a Metropolitan police surveillance officer named only as "Owen" admitted that he had altered evidence submitted to the inquest. The officer had deleted one of his own computer notes which quoted deputy assistant commissioner Cressida Dick as concluding that Menezes was not a security threat. The note said "CD – can run on to tube as not carrying anything".[94]

On 24 October the inquest heard that Menezes was initially not considered as a suspect, and that the police wanted unarmed officers to halt and question him in case he had information about the failed terrorist attack of 21 July 2005. Detective Sergeant Piers Dingemans and a four-man squad were tasked with stopping Menezes for intelligence purposes as he travelled to Stockwell station on a bus. Dingemans told the inquest that his car was behind the bus when he was stood down at 09:55, and said he thought this was because Menezes was then considered a suspect.[95]
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

So the evidence suggests that far from ordering him shot, Dick viwed Menezes as not being a threat and wanted an unarmed unit to aprehend him.

Clearly there were police failings, particularly in communication and intelligence. But it seems SO19 probably the unit involved in the above case may be a little to trigger happy. Some of the lessons supposed to have been learnt in the Menezes case, were probably not applied here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom