British Police Get Battlefield Weapons

One things for sure. These 'brits' can't even trust their own officers much more themselves.

They don't want guns for themselves, and they don't even they want their law enforcement to have them as well. Then they say gun owners are paranoid yet they are so scared of each other having something 'dangerous'. Ironic.

Originally posted by GambitVII
One things for sure. These 'brits' can't even trust their own officers much more themselves.

They don't want guns for themselves, and they don't even they want their law enforcement to have them as well. Then they say gun owners are paranoid yet they are so scared of each other having something 'dangerous'. Ironic.

edit on 22-7-2012 by GambitVII because: (no reason given)

Our Police Force are a completely different mindset to the American's. (And most others too) Ours seem to have all been through some kind of mindwipe. They're trained to speak like aliens, in a contrived, flat tone, and use word combinations covertly pre-loaded with emotional aggregates. They're selected on their complete lack of empathy, and then trained to be immune from any emotional identification with the public. This does not engender a relationship that thrives upon trust between the public and the Police.

They are trained to maintain an exaggerated "Us and them" relationship with the public, and to take charge of any incident dealing with people in a disproportionately aggressive manner. When requesting people to disperse, or asking them for details,any questioning of their behaviour, or motives are met with repetition of the request, in a more aggressive manner. People mistrust them by default.

Whether on duty or not, the training stays. This makes interpersonal relationships outside of the Force a no-go area. The constantly suspicious manner doesn't come off with the uniform. They rarely socialise outside of the Police Force and to be frank, most of them are not very bright. The State doesn't want a Police Force to do much thinking. They are drilled to follow procedure at all times. Whenever challenged in their day to day dealings with people, they have a "procedure" to cover it.

People like to be Policed by people who are at least, the same species as them. By people from their own communities. By people whose presence inspires confidence and co-operation, rather than the mistrust and suspicion we Brits get from our Boys in blue.

No, the British people, as a rule do not trust the Police Force. And there's a very good reason for it. It's because they aren't trustworthy, either on a personal level, or as an institution. They are legally unaccountable to the Public as well. Any complaints, or investigations into their behaviour are dealt with by a body called the "Independent Police Complaints Commission" Sounds good so far. Until you realise that the IPCC are actually Policemen. They investigate themselves. That's even if they can be bothered.

They do not inspire confidence in any way. I've never seen any situation, where the Police have been called for one reason or another, that has been calmed down, or improved in any way by having them turn up. Any crime that was reported as happening, would be well over by the time they arrive. But they still like to come along anyway, and harass people with pointless questions, in a threatening manner.

I am not totally against the carrying of weapons. by the Police. But only to a proportionate response level. There is no situation, where a UK Policeman under the remit of "Policeman", needs to carry an Assault Rifle whilst on duty. There is no justification, or precedent to Arm them to this level.

When your Police Force are armed with Military weapons, and operate tactically in small specialised response teams, when dealing with their own Civilians, they cease to be a Police Force, and become an Army.

We already have an exceptionally well trained Army. We don't mobilise them to do Police work. That's not their job.
So why are we militarising our Policemen? . . . . . . Right. Because, if we asked the Army, to do what this Government seem to want the Police to be trained to do, there would be Civil War.

Self regulating specially trained Militia Units, armed with Assault Rifles, are not necessary to Police an unarmed populace. Unless they are expecting some kind of War, or Armed insurrection. If they are, then why don't they tell us? Why? Because we the people, are getting set up to be the "New Enemy". Domestic Terrorists..Just by default of being civilians.

If the Government don't trust the people, they should dissolve them, and elect a new people. Or something.

Originally posted by mkgandhas Disgusting.British police is preparing to murder its own people.

Oh for Christ's sake, get real will you?! Yours is a typical statement made by somebody who knows next to nothing about the subject matter and has nothing worthwhile to contribute to the discussion.

Originally posted by H1ght3chHippie
The grenade launcher attachment may be used to shoot 25mm tear gas grenade. I doubt they would equip police forces with frags ?

Yes, but when some incensed citizens take their toys from them, there's no guarantee that the grenade launcher would not be used with frags .... against the police. Opposing sides in civil wars are frequently aided by foreign powers ..... with weapons, intel, raw materials, troops, etc..

Try not to panic too much. The UK police are not arned.

When there is a need for them to field a weapon, they may as well use the best!

In the 15 years to 2010, 33 people were killed by UK police. This is hardly a trigger happy nation - two a year. It is around 400 a year in the US.

Regards

Well, all I can say is its about time.

Originally posted by jude11
Grenade launchers are not used to arrest a drunk driver...and a silencer? This one I can't even fathom.

Hey jude don't be afraid...

A grenade launcher can be used to launch CS gas canisters for riot control and or smoke to screen the movements of an assault team during a hostage rescue.

Silencers are used to silently remove the outer layers of security in a similar situation without alerting the inner perimeter of security to their demise thus saving the hostages from reprisal as the assault/rescue team advances to take them out in close quarters.

_________________________________________________

Now those are the legitimate reasons and purposes for the items in question. Do I think they have benign intent - no I do not. I think the governments of the world are losing control and they know it and are preparing.

That said, I actually think in the UK with all the damn surveillance you guys have going (every friggin corner FFS) on given the circumstances might actually be to your advantage in this case.

Surveillance works both ways and while it is easy for the government to suppress the feeds that makes any misuse suspicious most assuredly. A good Barrister could cite the lack of normally available feeds as evidence of a cover up should the police overstep their bounds.

Cheers.

Originally posted by jude11

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
this is the same britain with all the gun control laws?
and how often to the police run into heavily armed terrorists that need to be dealt with assault rifles with grenade launchers?

i can only see this is preparations for some kind of civil uprising or a coming war with high risk of land invasion and a military spread too thin
(or a weapons manufacturer/dealer with friends in high places who is using these connections to make a # load of money selling the british government equipment they dont need)

edit on 3-7-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)

Yup, same Britain.

I think they know what's coming...and it ain't terrorists but a right proper civil uprising.

Peace

I think you're spot on.

It's no coincidence that the police failed to deal with the August riots last year and "allowed" them to spiral out of control. If anyone has seen the documentary about it, and the seemingly deliberate way they ignored policing specific areas, they would know that this was allowed to continue to sway public opinion and accept internet monitoring and the militarization of our police.

This is a concerted effort to prepare the UK for an internal crisis, likely the results of the collapse of the € and/or the $.

I foresee that we'll have the following happen over the next couple of years...

Increased internet monitoring - social networks,
Arming of the police,
Increase in military presence/sites across the country,
Increase in medical staffing - specifically at emergency sites,
Prison site expansion,
Practice events for curfews,
Criminalization of all protesters,
Roll-out of the London metal "barricade" to other UK cities,
Increase in hard defenses for local government buildings and corporations - bollards and security gates etc...

Some of these things are already happening. It's reasonable that they would be looking at some of these things, but it also means that people should be watching the actions of their government and recognizing that they know things that we don't.

If your government is acting as though it is scared of something, the people should take note.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Lol at you Brits. How did you let it come to this? Can't scrap against an AR with a pool cue and a broken beer bottle, but if you managed to they'd probably just use cctv footage to pick you up later.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

THIS is the kind of person who wants to "scrap" with the police.....
Do think he'd have tried if he was going to have an "American" style confrontation?

www.dailymail.co.uk...

"lol" at us all you want......at least we know why airplanes dont have wind down windows

reply to post by jude11


I always wondered why the cops were unarmed, how can you keep peace?

if these weapons were for swat type units i could understand s.w.a.t. stands for special weapons and tactics.
assualt rifles with grenade launcher attachments a bit much now maybe one per unit dedicated cannister launcher.
and for hostage rescue scenarios in cqc i would use mp 5 by hk with sound suppressors .
now for everyday patrol car 2 service pistols and maybe a pump action shotgun. plus a shotgun that shoots bean bag rounds or taser darts for unruly crowds at pubs. but full auto assualt rifles with 40 mm grenade launchers no not for everyday cops

reply to post by jude11


Your title is misleading.......deliberately i guess to incite worry , fear and concern in the simple populations.....!?

If the MOD has put out tenders then the 'Civilian Police' DO NOT have weapons yet, as we speak and wouldn't have anyhow until 2014-15 at the earliest if true......!

The British Police (the Bobby on the beat) will probably never endorse the use of firearms..(unlike our American cousins) whom seem to demand them because of the civilian American attitude of self defense - therefore I need a gun........... I do recall at a police federation meeting in the UK, the overwhelming majority of Police (75% plus) DID NOT want to be armed..........

I think this tednder is more aimed at Military organisations (Army, RAF,Navy) for missions around the world (including the UK perhaps) and not the regular Police on the street.....

There are specific parts of the Police, SO19 and other firearms departments who deal with firearms.............. imagine those two unfortunate Policewomen up in Manchester a few weeks ago ''storming'' the house of a possible burglary armed with assault rifles ...? would it have made a difference to the outcome...............?

Sadly I think not because the Scumbag that killed those two would have done so anyway ....wether they did or did not have ''Military weapons''............

OP .............. stop scandle mongering and get your Title factually correct..............!

Regards

PDUK

guns, i wouldnt trust them to open a can of beans, never mind carrying guns.

the uk police arent armed and don't want to be armed.
the op is just recycling a non-story that they know nothing about.
complete with dramatic thread title.

I was chatting to a UK officer the other night, i asked him about the whole arming issue in regards to the female officers being shot the other night.

His exact words......"Very few of us want to be armed, you only have to see how many of the wrong people and own officers get shot over in the US."

CX.

On one hand we have those who say it has been a long time coming, especially after the events of a few weeks ago with the small arms and grenade attack on the two femal officers in Manchester. That the police are ill-equipped to deal with the threats that a lot of criminals now pose, therefore they cannot protect the public, etc.

On the other hand are those who are against arming the police. From those who say it takes away the approachable image of the British Bobby, to the more... Well let's say more 'colourful' theories of Stasi style hit squads and body counts to rival even the most violent action movie.

I believe that the police in Britain should be armed. The threats faced these days from, terrorism, petty criminals arming themselves for whatever reason and so on mean the police are on the back foot before they even start. Fire arms are a tool, nothing more. With the right training and maintenance of standards, the police can use them effectively and safely.
Should they be armed with 'military style assault rifles'? Not all of them, that's the remit of the SFOs/ARVs etc. But they should have access to them if the threat warrants it, maybe in the boot of the patrol car in secure fittings, but still easily accessible by the crew. On the grenade launcher point, I agree that that's maybe excessive. But like others have said, they'd more than likely be used to fire CS, stun and other non-lethal ordnance. To maybe fit them to their rifles... No, they have no need, but should have the option as you can't anticipate everything.
Rules of engagement, there's another one that gets people assuming that the police will shoot everyone for looking at them funny. They won't. They operate strict RoE. But they can defend themselves and the public if they feel threatened or get shot at first. To clarify what that means, if an armed police officer is shot at, they've identified the shooter, then they can return appropriate fire at the shooter: aimed single shots. If they believe, and this is the thing that gets the conspiracy theorists going all "They operate a shoot to kill policy!", if they genuinely believe there is a threat, then they can react in an appropriate manner. They just need to justify their actions. Let me give you an example...
You're in a bar. A bloke starts getting in your face for no reason and he's getting quite aggressive. He goes to hit you. Can you hit him back? Of course. He's attacked you and you're perfectly entitled to defend yourself.
Now let's look at the same scenario in a slightly different light. The same guy is getting in your face and again is quite aggressive towards you. You're spidey senses are going and you think it could go kinetic. Can you hit him first? Yes you can. Why? Because he's acting in a threatening manner. You don't know if he will hit you, but you don't know he won't either. You can land the first blow and still claim self defence because you genuinely believed he was going to hit you at some point and you were defending yourself appropriately. Who in their right mind just wants to get hit? Now transfer that to the police confronting a criminal/suspect in the street. It's the same principle. Just with guns. If people still want to claim it's 'shoot to kill' and another example of the police 'murdering innocent people' then crack on. It's a free country. But you're wrong.
To cast some light on past incidents where the police have shot people, they posed a threat in some form or another and the police genuinely (there's that word again) believed they were a lethal threat. Yes there have been incidents where the police were found to have been negligent, but no system is perfect. As long as they react to the threat they face in a proffessional manner then people should leave them alone and let them get on with it. Let the IPCC deal with the few unprofessional incidents according to the law.
Now to the bit about criminals attacking officers to get their guns (another argument put forward by the anti-gun lobby). When the two WPCs were ambushed in Manchester, they were obviously un armed. Would being armed have saved them? Probably not. But we'll never know. It's the old "take a gun into an ambush situation and you might die. Go on to the same situation un armed and you WILL die". Bit of a no brainer, that one.
Now I'm a serving soldier (currently serving in Afghanistan). We operate under card Alpha, defensive RoE. We have offensive ones too, but we are restricted in how they are used. How does it cross over to the police? We all have the right to defend ourselves. The police not only have to defend themselves, but the public too. They can't do that much these days with a little stick and some CS. They have to move with the times. The criminals have/are arming themselves. The police should too. It's all about escalation of force. The police are way behind on that front I'm afraid. And the longer they sall, the more officers will be killed as a result of being out-gunned.

Originally posted by jude11
Give someone a gun and they'll shoot at a target. Give someone an assault weapon and the target just isn't as satisfying IMO.

Yeah, nothing like an uneducated blanket statement to make yourself sound foolish.