• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

One for Richard G

BillyTK said:

But that contravenes our self-evident, God-given human rights! :D

One of the things I find paradoxical about our "living constitution" business; on the one hand it's good that Parliament can overturn previous laws, or pass laws which are inconsistent with other laws, but I wonder about the legitimacy of such laws if there's the possibility that they might be overturned at a later date.
Click to expand...

I don't follow what you are getting at here Billy. I don't see what effect the ability to overturn a law would have on its legal standing. Could you elaborate a bit more on your concerns here?
 
Shaun from Scotland said:


I don't follow what you are getting at here Billy. I don't see what effect the ability to overturn a law would have on its legal standing. Could you elaborate a bit more on your concerns here?
Click to expand...
The legal standing of a law isn't an issue; as long as it's passed using the appropriate Parliamentary procedure then it's legal, and legally enforceable. My concern is about the legitimacy of any particular law, that it conforms to a particular set of just values, and that's the reason why we should follow it; not simply that it's a legal instrument and we'll be arrested if we don't.

For instance, all US legislation is (in theory) supposed to conform to the Constitution and is therefore just. We're kind of in a sticky situation that, with this living constitution thing, any law which is passed becomes part of the constitution and is therefore just, even if it's not–like the Poll Tax. Of course, Parliament is able to repeal that law, because of the principle that no government is necessarily bound by the legislation of any previous government. This, of course, is damn handy for repealing bad legislation. But if no government is bound by legislation, and if any or every law could potentially be overturned at a later date, then why should the people be bound by those laws? Where's the legitimacy of any law when we could potentially vote in a different government to overturn it? Am I simply being a whiny (small el) libertarian, or do I have a point here?
 
BillyTK said:

The legal standing of a law isn't an issue; as long as it's passed using the appropriate Parliamentary procedure then it's legal, and legally enforceable. My concern is about the legitimacy of any particular law, that it conforms to a particular set of just values, and that's the reason why we should follow it; not simply that it's a legal instrument and we'll be arrested if we don't.

For instance, all US legislation is (in theory) supposed to conform to the Constitution and is therefore just. We're kind of in a sticky situation that, with this living constitution thing, any law which is passed becomes part of the constitution and is therefore just, even if it's not–like the Poll Tax. Of course, Parliament is able to repeal that law, because of the principle that no government is necessarily bound by the legislation of any previous government. This, of course, is damn handy for repealing bad legislation. But if no government is bound by legislation, and if any or every law could potentially be overturned at a later date, then why should the people be bound by those laws? Where's the legitimacy of any law when we could potentially vote in a different government to overturn it? Am I simply being a whiny (small el) libertarian, or do I have a point here?
Click to expand...


I think your point is really more aimed at the legitimacy of any particular Government, rather than any laws which they may pass or repeal. I guess it goes down to the electoral process and the fact that they can be removed.

As regards being bound by those laws, I dont think the fact that any law can be repealed devalues its legitimacy. The main advantage of our system is its flexibility and its ability to respond to modern concerns and trends. Leaving aside wheteher it is right or not, the British parliamentary system is wary of making things like the US second amendment cast in stone for precisely this reason. Our entire tradition is based on being able to modify laws. I cant relly see why this would create a problem of legitimacy, given that the electoral system provides the checks and balances.

In short, it is one of the fundamental principles of our democracy. Any change would be a seismic shift in the way we do things. And that may not necessarily be for the better, given how important consensus and tradition is in our system.
 
"The British police are now, for the first time in their history, routinely armed."

"Oh deary me.........."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"The official figures show the number of occasions on which police officers have been deployed with guns has just about trebled in the last decade, from 3,722 in 1991 to 10,928 in 1998-99. This figure understates the truth, because it excludesofficers who now carry guns routinely, including not only VIP bodyguards but also the anti terrorist branch, the flying squad and fleets of armed response vehicles. Yet the figures on the number of standing authority guns are kept secret so as not to 'compromise police effectiveness'...."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4191040-103690,00.html

"Firearms
Firearms may only be issued to specially trained police officers known as Authorised Firearms Officers and only on the authority of a senior officer when: a police officer is likely to have to face someone who is armed or otherwise so dangerous that he could not safely be restrained without the use of firearms; for protection purposes; or for the destruction of dangerous animals.
Officers may fire weapons only as a last resort if they believe their or other lives are imminent danger. Each Authorised Firearms Officer is personally responsible for the decision to fire and may be required to justify this action "
http://www.police999.com/history/police08.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------

So which is it?

Are there now British police who are routinely armed (AFOs)?
Or are there NO British police who are AFOs?
Or some other explanation (AFOs have been around in the same numbers for decades, etc)?
 
crimresearch said:
So which is it?

Are there now British police who are routinely armed (AFOs)?
Or are there NO British police who are AFOs?
Or some other explanation (AFOs have been around in the same numbers for decades, etc)? [/B]
Click to expand...

There have ALWAYS been SOME British Police who are armed. However, the quote is clearly implying ALL British Police are routinely armed, and that this is a new development. Bunkum. This is not the case. You will never be pulled over for speeding and see a Police officer with a gun.

Armed response vehichles were first introduced in 1991 but selected armed police goes way back


Police in the noted crime blackspot of St Anns in Nottingham were routinely armed for a few months, but this practice has been discontinued.
 
That matches my assessment of the increased arming of British police in recent times.

If one wishes to take the term 'the British police' to always mean every single member of the organization, they are welcome to do so, although a more standard interpretation might be that the phrase is meant to distinguish *which* group of police has recently added firearms to their standard patrol equipment.
 
crimresearch said:
That matches my assessment of the increased arming of British police in recent times.

If one wishes to take the term 'the British police' to always mean every single member of the organization, they are welcome to do so, although a more standard interpretation might be that the phrase is meant to distinguish *which* group of police has recently added firearms to their standard patrol equipment.
Click to expand...


But a group of British Police have not "recently added firearms to their standard patrol equipment." ARV's go back to 1991, well before the 1997 FAA and there have always been armed police available if needed. ARV's are designed to be able to respond more rapidly than the previous arrangement whereby armed police where dispatched from a police station.
 
I understood that the ARV's were the old way, and increased AFOs were the new development, or recent increase.

So that does go back to my earlier question, is the specific idea that you were amused by, the one that there are now more individual AFOs certified than there were before?

As mentioned in the Guardian article, the police agencies refuse to give numbers by category, and lump all police fiream interactions together, whether flying sqauds, lockboxes in supervisor's vehicles, or individual officers carrying on duty.

And is your assessment based on appearances at your local level, or anecdotal reports, or do you have a reference?

thanks
 
crimresearch said:
I understood that the ARV's were the old way, and increased AFOs were the new development, or recent increase.

So that does go back to my earlier question, is the specific idea that you were amused by, the one that there are now more individual AFOs certified than there were before?

As mentioned in the Guardian article, the police agencies refuse to give numbers by category, and lump all police fiream interactions together, whether flying sqauds, lockboxes in supervisor's vehicles, or individual officers carrying on duty.

And is your assessment based on appearances at your local level, or anecdotal reports, or do you have a reference?

thanks
Click to expand...

No ARV's are still in use

The numbers of AFO's are actually down

As to whether or not my assesment is based on anecdotal evidence, read the "under strict guidelines" link to a PDF file in my previous post. Guns are not routine issue.

Which is the point about the Police being routinely armed. They are not. Read this
 
Well, with the Guardian apparently contradicting itself on the secrecy of the numbers of AFOs, I suspect that there is room, as with most statistics, for a variety of interpretations.

And the rigour of the training and requirements to carry a duty firearm is much less different between US and British police than you seem to believe (although stricter US training standards are a recently improved situation in many jurisdictions).

I will wager that the chances of encountering a British officer with a firearm has gone up since say, the 1950s, at which point in time the US police were pretty well invested in routine issue of fireams, and the bobbies stood in stark contrast (and not just to the US, the French, German, and Italian police have carried firearms for quite some time).
 
Re: Re: Re: One for Richard G

The Fool said:

Always remember...the answer to too many guns is more guns.
Click to expand...
In World War II, the answer to too many guns was more guns.
 
WildCat said:
Good thing that this woman was unarmed. Think how much worse it could have been!
Click to expand...

Leaving aside the whole issue of anecdotes, the article is pretty clear that the Police do not know what has happened here.

"She hadn't been identified by the Cook County medical examiner's office late Thursday, and the cause of death hadn't been determined."

"We had been looking for her since Monday. There was no activity in her car, and her cell phone was dead. We don't know what has happened yet,'' Franta said".

Could be murder. Could be suicide. At this stage, your comments about her being armed or not are speculation.
 
Shaun from Scotland said:


Leaving aside the whole issue of anecdotes, the article is pretty clear that the Police do not know what has happened here.

"She hadn't been identified by the Cook County medical examiner's office late Thursday, and the cause of death hadn't been determined."

"We had been looking for her since Monday. There was no activity in her car, and her cell phone was dead. We don't know what has happened yet,'' Franta said".

Could be murder. Could be suicide. At this stage, your comments about her being armed or not are speculation.
Click to expand...
But it's mighty suspicious. And this is a woman who would have been wise to be armed. She had a restraining order against her ex-husband (a police officer, BTW) and he had violated it before, beating her nearly to death according to her sister. (sorry, no link for this info - it was on the news last night)

Now she shows up dead, in an area she wouldn't normally be. Covered by a blanket. News video here, click on "body found".

I'll let you know when the autopsy is complete, and the cause of death officially determined.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom