Armed police at Liv Street this evening

[ExRes]

Personally I've lived in the Gatwick area virtually my whole life, both before and since the Police were armed, I have never once felt uncomfortable with their presence, if they were to become unarmed then I would, in the world we live in today, feel very uncomfortable indeed

 

[sbt]

I thought the UK police carried a "civilian" version of the MP5?

Some parts of some forces do, for some tasks.

The only thing that makes them 'Civilian' is that they don't have the Full Auto setting. They are the weapon most people will be familiar with as they are used by the Metropolitan Police on most guarding duties and as a general purpose long-barrelled weapon. Its by no means the only weapon the Met have access to, for example they use Sniper Rifles when required.

Weapons differ on a force by force and task by task basis. For example the Ministry of Defence Police use the standard UK military Assault Rifle, the SA80 L85A2 - which I believe may be an exception to the 'no Full Auto' rule generally followed, even though using full auto, even in military combat, is extremely rare.

 

[GB]

How often have police needed to use them at a station or airport
It seems to me that making the traveling public unconfortable is not worth it
I am not likely to be shot as I always pay the correct fare but I do not like to feel stalked by gun tooting coppers
I think the police need to have relaxition training I was at Buckingham Palace and went to ask a copper what regiment the guards were they were wearing blue burries, this copper went into panic mode he shouted stand back back off I do not think I look too dangerous I am 66 white but do have a grey beard---------Over reattion I will not try to speak to a copper again !!

Armed police have been a regular sight at airports for years without anyone batting an eyelid, why get all worked up over armed police at railway stations?

And its not about how often they have actually used them in the past its about having them in place if and when its needed...or would you prefer xxx delay while the officers travel to their police station to gear up and then make their way to the incident?

 

[sbt]

How often have police needed to use them at a station or airport
It seems to me that making the traveling public unconfortable is not worth it
I am not likely to be shot as I always pay the correct fare but I do not like to feel stalked by gun tooting coppers
I think the police need to have relaxition training I was at Buckingham Palace and went to ask a copper what regiment the guards were they were wearing blue burries, this copper went into panic mode he shouted stand back back off I do not think I look too dangerous I am 66 white but do have a grey beard---------Over reattion I will not try to speak to a copper again !!

Relevant attacks (casualty figures exclude perpetrators):

Lod (Tel Aviv) Airport, 1972, 26 dead, 80 wounded. Attack halted by Armed Police.
Paris-Orly Airport, 1978, 1 dead (a policeman), 3 wounded. Attack halted by Armed Police.
Esenboga International (Ankara), 9 dead, 72 wounded. Attack halted by armed Security Forces.
Vienna Airport, 1985, 3 dead, 39 wounded. Attack halted by Armed Police.
Rome Airport, 1985, 16 dead, 99 wounded. Attack halted by Armed Police.
Los Angeles Airport, 2002, 2 dead, 4 wounded. The single attacker was halted by two Security Guards, one armed, one unarmed.
Chhatrapati Shivaji Railway Station, Bombay, 2008, 58 dead, 104 injured. No intervention until the attack was over. 5 police officers, in addtion to the figures above, were killed trying to stop the perpetrators outside the station. Just two men were responsible. Attacks elsewhere brought the toll to 164 dead and at least 308 wounded.
Kunming (China) Railway Station, 2014, 28 dead, 118 wounded. Attack was carried out by 8 men with knives. Police not on scene but halted the attack once they arrived.

With regard to your encounter with the armed policeman. The Lod Airport attackers were Japanese, Nicky Reilly (failed Exeter attack, 2008) is a westerner, as is Richard Reid (failed 'Shoe Bomb' attack, 2001). Oh, and you seem to forget that Radical Muslims are not the only terrorists around, there is the small matter of Dissident Irish Republican terrorism and a few other sources beside, including people like David Copeland who come right out of left field.

By the way, people guarding things don't like being distracted, their job is to be watching for threats, not acting as an enquiry service. Neither do people carrying weapons like people coming close enough to seize their gun, either in order to prevent them using it or in order to get hold of it an use it. No doubt he would have been the usual friendly Copper once he had finished the job and locked away his gun, but in the meantime he was in a high threat environment and had a job to do.

 

[LateThanNever]

Armed police have been a regular sight at airports for years without anyone batting an eyelid, why get all worked up over armed police at railway stations?

And its not about how often they have actually used them in the past its about having them in place if and when its needed...or would you prefer xxx delay while the officers travel to their police station to gear up and then make their way to the incident?

Airports are areas where there have been problems in the past and it isn't the right decision there either! But the only railway stations where there have been problems are precisely the ones that are not protected! If they don't use these armaments then put them away!

Relevant attacks (casualty figures exclude perpetrators):

Lod (Tel Aviv) Airport, 1972, 26 dead, 80 wounded. Attack halted by Armed Police.
Paris-Orly Airport, 1978, 1 dead (a policeman), 3 wounded. Attack halted by Armed Police.
Esenboga International (Ankara), 9 dead, 72 wounded. Attack halted by armed Security Forces.
Vienna Airport, 1985, 3 dead, 39 wounded. Attack halted by Armed Police.
Rome Airport, 1985, 16 dead, 99 wounded. Attack halted by Armed Police.
Los Angeles Airport, 2002, 2 dead, 4 wounded. The single attacker was halted by two Security Guards, one armed, one unarmed.
Chhatrapati Shivaji Railway Station, Bombay, 2008, 58 dead, 104 injured. No intervention until the attack was over. 5 police officers, in addtion to the figures above, were killed trying to stop the perpetrators outside the station. Just two men were responsible. Attacks elsewhere brought the toll to 164 dead and at least 308 wounded.
Kunming (China) Railway Station, 2014, 28 dead, 118 wounded. Attack was carried out by 8 men with knives. Police not on scene but halted the attack once they arrived.

With regard to your encounter with the armed policeman. The Lod Airport attackers were Japanese, Nicky Reilly (failed Exeter attack, 2008) is a westerner, as is Richard Reid (failed 'Shoe Bomb' attack, 2001). Oh, and you seem to forget that Radical Muslims are not the only terrorists around, there is the small matter of Dissident Irish Republican terrorism and a few other sources beside, including people like David Copeland who come right out of left field.

By the way, people guarding things don't like being distracted, their job is to be watching for threats, not acting as an enquiry service. Neither do people carrying weapons like people coming close enough to seize their gun, either in order to prevent them using it or in order to get hold of it an use it. No doubt he would have been the usual friendly Copper once he had finished the job and locked away his gun, but in the meantime he was in a high threat environment and had a job to do.

Well you heard it here first - Buck House is a "high threat environment"!! Ironically the BTP video linked to above actually shows a member of the public speaking to the armed police so presumably, they at least, are up for being asked the time or whatever.

The atrocities itemised above are all outside the UK and all the countries have an all armed police service. Apart, that is, from the Exeter bomber where there is no evidence that machine gun toting policeman either on casual walkabout, or resting their armaments on the table over a 'Giraffe' coffee, would have had any beneficial effect whatsoever.

Nobody is proposing that Police should not have access to arms but we don't want them on public display. It is a useless show which does neither the Police or the Country any good.

It seems to me that making the traveling public uncomfortable is not worth it

Quite! It is all very well for a Gendarme (which even translates as a man at arms) to be well armed but The British Police are not military and their connection to the public is all they have - and boy do they need it now - so if, as everyone seems to agree this gun toting is a show of deterrent force, it would in fact be in their greater interest to emphasise being approachable rather than powerful.

 

[jon0844]

I am not likely to be shot as I always pay the correct fare.

I wasn't aware the train operators were stepping up their action against fare evaders. Not before time though!

 

[sonorguy]

Some parts of some forces do, for some tasks.

The only thing that makes them 'Civilian' is that they don't have the Full Auto setting. They are the weapon most people will be familiar with as they are used by the Metropolitan Police on most guarding duties and as a general purpose long-barrelled weapon. Its by no means the only weapon the Met have access to, for example they use Sniper Rifles when required.

Weapons differ on a force by force and task by task basis. For example the Ministry of Defence Police use the standard UK military Assault Rifle, the SA80 L85A2 - which I believe may be an exception to the 'no Full Auto' rule generally followed, even though using full auto, even in military combat, is extremely rare.

The only time I've fired an SA80 (of either variety) on full auto is at the end of an exercise to use up remaining ammo on a range. It's a useful for junior soldiers as a lesson on why you don't use full auto when you look at the pattern of shots on the target.

Far better bits of kit for the SF role!

 

[colchesterken]

I would comment on sbt reply, that if police guarding things are so tense and on sush a short fuse that they see everyone as a threat, that could be a problem they may act on impulse rather than weighing up the risk
Ask mr De Menesez and the chap from Hackney who was shot dead when carrying a table leg in a binliner..( no comment on why he was carrying a table leg in a binliner )

It also bothers me how people are dressing up they look like storm troopers, I was in a hotel last week when about 8 border force people came down to breakfast they were dressed all in black and looked threatrening....I believe there were problems in the 1940 s with troops dressed in black getting out of hand....Is it because I am getting old

 

[Lockwood]

I am not likely to be shot as I always pay the correct fare

Wow. Just wow.

There's a thread I'd like to see in "Disputes & Prosecutions"
"I tapped in with my younger brother's Oyster Card instead of mine, so I was travelling on the wrong ticket. I then got mowed down by a policeman with a machine gun. I know I was in the wrong and should have checked my ticket. What can I do, because I don't want a criminal record. Can I settle this out of court?"

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I believe there were problems in the 1940 s with troops dressed in black getting out of hand....Is it because I am getting old

Godwins Law. You lose.

 

[GB]

Airports are areas where there have been problems in the past and it isn't the right decision there either!

You say airports have had problems in the past yet still say its not right for armed patrols there? What does it take in your mind to have armed patrols?

But the only railway stations where there have been problems are precisely the ones that are not protected!

Which stations are these? The Police can't cover all areas all the time.

If they don't use these armaments then put them away!

Put them away where? Its kind of hard to conceal an SMG don't you think? Ill ask again, do you think they should be locked away in some police station somewhere only to be brought out after an incident?

Nobody is proposing that Police should not have access to arms but we don't want them on public display.

We? I think you should be speaking for yourself as I have absolutely no problem with armed patrols or them having their firearms on show.

It is a useless show which does neither the Police or the Country any good.

Why is it useless if it acts as a deterrent for crime?

 

[LateThanNever]

Why is it useless if it acts as a deterrent for crime?

In summary there is no evidence that overtly arming the police with SMGs acts as a deterrent.
There is evidence that it alienates significant members of the public (including for example Andrew Mitchell who was prevented from exiting Downing Street by a small gate because of security!)
So why do it?
It is playing to the gallery.
There are gun toting cops at 6.30pm at Liverpool Street as a 'deterrent' but no unarmed cops in Tottenham Hale - for example - at midnight where they could be a much better deterrent. You are much more likely to be injured in crime than killed - terrorism included.

But why let that get in the way of a good show of guns?

 

[ExRes]

In summary there is no evidence that overtly arming the police with SMGs acts as a deterrent.
There is evidence that it alienates significant members of the public (including for example Andrew Mitchell who was prevented from exiting Downing Street by a small gate because of security!)
So why do it?
It is playing to the gallery.
There are gun toting cops at 6.30pm at Liverpool Street as a 'deterrent' but no unarmed cops in Tottenham Hale - for example - at midnight where they could be a much better deterrent. You are much more likely to be injured in crime than killed - terrorism included.

But why let that get in the way of a good show of guns?

How on earth can you ever quantify a deterrent ?, I can't say that something would happen and you can't say that nothing would happen if the Police were unarmed, if armed Police have stopped just one person from committing a terrorist act then it pays its way

As for Andrew Mitchell, what has his moment of fame got to do with arming the Police ?

Your comparison of a packed main London station at 630pm, the rush hour, and Tottenham Hale at midnight seems rather strange as well

 

[Deerfold]

How on earth can you ever quantify a deterrent ?, I can't say that something would happen and you can't say that nothing would happen if the Police were unarmed, if armed Police have stopped just one person from committing a terrorist act then it pays its way

But as you say, we can't calculate that even one terrorist act has been prevented.

Your comparison of a packed main London station at 630pm, the rush hour, and Tottenham Hale at midnight seems rather strange as well

Which location do you think has more crime?

 

[ExRes]

But as you say, we can't calculate that even one terrorist act has been prevented.

Exactly, so why not carry on as we are, nobody wants to say "I told you so" if there was to be a terrorist attack


Which location do you think has more crime?

My understanding was that we were discussing armed Police, does the level of crime in the Tottenham Hale area require armed response ?

 

[Deerfold]

My understanding was that we were discussing armed Police, does the level of crime in the Tottenham Hale area require armed response ?

I believe we were.

I think the point was whether there is more likely to be crime at Liverpool Street station. If not, why do we not have armed police at Tottenham Hale?

 

[ExRes]

I believe we were.

I think the point was whether there is more likely to be crime at Liverpool Street station. If not, why do we not have armed police at Tottenham Hale?

I disagree, I think the point is whether there are more likely to be terrorist type outrages at Liverpool Street that require armed response, something far far far less likely at Tottenham Hale

 

[Joseph.bevan96]

I'd go with 16-18; formed an opinion of the world whilst still somewhat sheltered from it

May I enquire as to how old you are?

 

[Deerfold]

I disagree, I think the point is whether there are more likely to be terrorist type outrages at Liverpool Street that require armed response, something far far far less likely at Tottenham Hale

Well you were arguing that it acted as a deterrent.

Presumably if someone wanted to do something at Liverpool Street they'd simply pick a time when the armed police were not there - or they'd try somewhere else.

 

[LateThanNever]

How on earth can you ever quantify a deterrent ?, I can't say that something would happen and you can't say that nothing would happen if the Police were unarmed, if armed Police have stopped just one person from committing a terrorist act then it pays its way

As for Andrew Mitchell, what has his moment of fame got to do with arming the Police ?

Your comparison of a packed main London station at 630pm, the rush hour, and Tottenham Hale at midnight seems rather strange as well

My point is that there is no evidence at all that armed police on show are a deterrent. Indeed the countries with the worst gun crime all have armed police so rather the contrary in fact. The Police are a finite resource so could and indeed should be transferred to where they are most needed. Showing off in Liverpool Street is no more than a current fashion. I'm suggesting that less showing off and more intelligence would be advantageous to us all.

Andrew Mitchell's plebgate was all about armed police who seem to be so bored and fed up that they have nothing better to do than lie about cabinet ministers. Clearly they are just the right people we need to protect us ..... presumably from cabinet ministers.
And after dark is the time for (most) crime.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I'm suggesting that less showing off and more intelligence would be advantageous to us all.

How do you know that it wasn't intelligence that suggested armed officers should be placed at Liverpool Street. The answer is, to make it easy for you, is that you don't.

 

[Deerfold]

Andrew Mitchell's plebgate was all about armed police who seem to be so bored and fed up that they have nothing better to do than lie about cabinet ministers. Clearly they are just the right people we need to protect us ..... presumably from cabinet ministers.

None of the officers on the gate have been found guilty of lying. The ones who have were not on the gate at that time.

 

[LateThanNever]

None of the officers on the gate have been found guilty of lying. The ones who have were not on the gate at that time.

Fair enough - but they all seemed to have rather too much time on their hands to concentrate on the 'real' job - which is not crucifying the now ex Government chief whip! and why - it has to be wondered - whether or not their job with showy arms is (as the BTP at Liverpool Street) is actually necessary....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How do you know that it wasn't intelligence that suggested armed officers should be placed at Liverpool Street. The answer is, to make it easy for you, is that you don't.

Thank you - how kind.
I stand to be corrected that this is the unique instance when showy arms have deterred. But on the basis of history it is extremely unlikely.

 

[ExRes]

Fair enough - but they all seemed to have rather too much time on their hands to concentrate on the 'real' job - which is not crucifying the now ex Government chief whip! and why it has to be wondered whether their job with showy arms is (as the BTP at Liverpool Street) is actually necessary....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Thank you - how kind.
I stand to be corrected that this is the unique instance when showy arms have deterred. But on the basis of history it is extremely unlikely.

Once again, you have no idea whatsoever what the presence of armed officers may have deterred. History can only be based upon events that have actually occurred and been recorded, if the combined terrorist organisations of the world publish figures of their planned and cancelled operations and you have access to it, then fine, you can then show what is likely or unlikely and whether the employment and use of armed officers has been useful or a waste of time and resources

 

[LateThanNever]

Once again, you have no idea whatsoever what the presence of armed officers may have deterred. History can only be based upon events that have actually occurred and been recorded, if the combined terrorist organisations of the world publish figures of their planned and cancelled operations and you have access to it, then fine, you can then show what is likely or unlikely and whether the employment and use of armed officers has been useful or a waste of time and resources

Regrettably you have no idea either. The evidence is negative in that there is no evidence that showily armed police have prevented anything. But if Police Officers, either armed or unarmed, are a deterrent then, given that the Police are an increasingly limited resource, any evidence of prevention should be oriented towards attempted diminution of violence rather than death. Criminal violence is much more likely for all of us rather than death - why would any of us not wish to prevent that as a priority?

 

[Llanigraham]

But equally there is no evidence that they haven't prevented an incident.

And from the current crime figures, which somehow I'm guessing you don't believe, disproves your last sentence too.

 

[EM2]

Criminal violence is much more likely for all of us rather than death - why would any of us not wish to prevent that as a priority?

I'm pretty sure that I am going to die.

 

[Domh245]

Death is one of the few absolute certainties in life. Unless somebody has discovered an elixir of eternal life or something

 

[bnm]

Death is one of the few absolute certainties in life.

Yep. Along with taxes, and Piers Morgan being a ****.

 

[sonorguy]

Regrettably you have no idea either. The evidence is negative in that there is no evidence that showily armed police have prevented anything. But if Police Officers, either armed or unarmed, are a deterrent then, given that the Police are an increasingly limited resource, any evidence of prevention should be oriented towards attempted diminution of violence rather than death. Criminal violence is much more likely for all of us rather than death - why would any of us not wish to prevent that as a priority?

Any evidence that exists wouldn't be made available to you or anyone else considered general public (including myself as a serving soldier), it's strictly need to know due to sensitivities around how intelligence is gathered and used. As a consequence, you can't say there is no evidence.

Risks posed by terrorists tend to be fairly specific, in that the intelligence community is aware of the types of plots that have recently occurred (and there have been a number of plots that could have been very major incidents over the past few years, some well known about, others not so), and what technologies/tactics exist that may be used and/or are likely to be used.

One of the major current risks, as has been said, is of a Mumbai or Nairobi style attack. One of the very few ways of diminishing the effects of this type of attack initially if it hasn't been picked up by intelligence, is to have police officers (as it would be police officers who were first to respond) who are armed and can use, if necessary and as per RoE, lethal force.

'Attempted diminution of violence' isn't nearly enough when dealing with fanatical terrorists armed with automatic weapons, grenades and/or suicide IEDs.

The risks are real and out there, both from muslim extremists and also current versions of republican Irish terrorist groups, and can be found on government websites detailing the current terrorism threat levels (substantial and heightened readiness, severe and heightened if you are in NI).