• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The London Bobbies Still Don't Carry, However The Palace Gurds Do.

rhinefire

rhinefire

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
10,409
Reaction score
3,023
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Explain the thinking behind the logic of the bobbies not being armed and the Palace guards armed like SWAT? See London terror attack on 3/22/17.
 
rhinefire said:
Explain the thinking behind the logic of the bobbies not being armed and the Palace guards armed like SWAT? See London terror attack on 3/22/17.
Click to expand...

Because the common police officer cannot be trusted with the responsibility of carrying a firearm. That and politicians and royalty are more important whereas the common citizenry is expendable.
 
BretJ said:
Because the common police officer cannot be trusted with the responsibility of carrying a firearm. That and politicians and royalty are more important whereas the common citizenry is expendable.
Click to expand...

Dumbest post of the year so far. Congratulations.
 
Grand Mal said:
Dumbest post of the year so far. Congratulations.
Click to expand...

Not even close, every single anti gun post on this board beats it. and his argument has much merit. those who protect the leaders are heavily armed. those who protect the hoi polloi are at a disadvantage dealing with a guy with a knife

says a lot about the class stratified society
 
TurtleDude said:
Not even close, every single anti gun post on this board beats it. and his argument has much merit. those who protect the leaders are heavily armed. those who protect the hoi polloi are at a disadvantage dealing with a guy with a knife

says a lot about the class stratified society
Click to expand...

Do you really think that London bobbies dont carry guns because they cant be trusted with them and because the ordinary people in London arent worth the effort? Yeah, I guess you do. Wouldnt say so otherwise, would you.
Damn. What a flat-out dumb attitude. What a display of ignorance of cultural differences. Class stratified society- what year do you think this is anyway?
Yeah, England has no regard for low-born commoners. Only the aristocracy is worth the effort of armed protection.

Oh, and do you still believe the police protect anyone? Or was that just a convenient word choice, partisan-wise?
 
Grand Mal said:
Do you really think that London bobbies dont carry guns because they cant be trusted with them and because the ordinary people in London arent worth the effort? Yeah, I guess you do. Wouldnt say so otherwise, would you.
Damn. What a flat-out dumb attitude. What a display of ignorance of cultural differences. Class stratified society- what year do you think this is anyway?
Yeah, England has no regard for low-born commoners. Only the aristocracy is worth the effort of armed protection.

Oh, and do you still believe the police protect anyone? Or was that just a convenient word choice, partisan-wise?
Click to expand...

England obviously doesn't trust its own citizens to own

1) handguns

2) semi automatic rifles

3) knives that lock open

I have no use for such "leaders" or the sheeple that support them
 
TurtleDude said:
England obviously doesn't trust its own citizens to own

1) handguns

2) semi automatic rifles

3) knives that lock open

I have no use for such "leaders" or the sheeple that support them
Click to expand...

Probably best you stay home, then. There's lots of things out there in the world that you'll find unfamiliar and uncomfortable and lots of people who think in ways about society that you'd find too different. Yes, best stay where you'll feel familiar and, uh, safe.
 
Never let a tragedy go to waste.

Can't even let the bodies go cold before the usual crap starts.
 
BretJ said:
That and politicians and royalty are more important whereas the common citizenry is expendable.
Click to expand...

Not much different here in some states that are now easing their Conceal and Carry laws.

Citizens are being allowed to carry in public areas, except of course they can NOT carry in State building/offices where the Legislators who eased the concealed carry laws work.

So you can walk into a day care center carrying a concealed weapon, but not in a State building. lol
 
rhinefire said:
Explain the thinking behind the logic of the bobbies not being armed and the Palace guards armed like SWAT? See London terror attack on 3/22/17.
Click to expand...
The general pattern of crime across the UK doesn't require all police officers to routinely carry firearms. Where police officers are specifically tasked with protecting key locations where things like terrorism pose a greater proportion of the threat (not just Parliament, places like airports too), they will have armed officers on site.
 
rhinefire said:
Explain the thinking behind the logic of the bobbies not being armed and the Palace guards armed like SWAT? See London terror attack on 3/22/17.
Click to expand...

A big majority of them want to stay unarmed, too. Waddaya think about that?
 
Grand Mal said:
A big majority of them want to stay unarmed, too. Waddaya think about that?
Click to expand...

What makes them so different than the police in nearly all of the rest of Western Europe?
 
Rucker61 said:
What makes them so different than the police in nearly all of the rest of Western Europe?
Click to expand...

In a way, they're the same. They're doing their job the way they always have, they've learned ways to do it their way and they resist being told they should do it different, especially by someone from outside.
Same as everyone. I'm a retired ironworker and not long before I retired the government brought in fall-arrest rules. It was obviously for our benefit, to make us safer, but we all resisted it, for those reasons.
And also, maybe they don't want that sharp distinction between them and the public.
And, probably, lots of other things. It's a different culture. Not better, not lesser, different.
 
Grand Mal said:
Dumbest post of the year so far. Congratulations.
Click to expand...

Lived there for a long time. Had many cop and military friends. Use to train with one of the few armed Hereford police officers. When we would discuss it, invariably the contention was, they did not carry because the population feared what they saw happening in the US and they did not want it to happen there. So why don't you climb down off that horse, and tell me how I am wrong rather than pompously declare I won your goofy little prize.
 
BretJ said:
Lived there for a long time. Had many cop and military friends. Use to train with one of the few armed Hereford police officers. When we would discuss it, invariably the contention was, they did not carry because the population feared what they saw happening in the US and they did not want it to happen there. So why don't you climb down off that horse, and tell me how I am wrong rather than pompously declare I won your goofy little prize.
Click to expand...

Because you said, "Because the common police officer cannot be trusted with the responsibility of carrying a firearm. That and politicians and royalty are more important whereas the common citizenry is expendable."
That's a dumb thing to say. Especially considering that the majority of them want to stay unarmed. Unless you honestly think that, for some reason, you're just 'way smarter than they and know 'way better how they should do their jobs. And unless you really believe that people in England are considered expendable. In that case, it's not just the statement that's dumb.
 
Grand Mal said:
Because you said, "Because the common police officer cannot be trusted with the responsibility of carrying a firearm. That and politicians and royalty are more important whereas the common citizenry is expendable."
That's a dumb thing to say. Especially considering that the majority of them want to stay unarmed. Unless you honestly think that, for some reason, you're just 'way smarter than they and know 'way better how they should do their jobs. And unless you really believe that people in England are considered expendable. In that case, it's not just the statement that's dumb.
Click to expand...

Is the decision for the bobby to carry or not carry a personal one, or is it still up to the bosses?
 
Grand Mal said:
Probably best you stay home, then. There's lots of things out there in the world that you'll find unfamiliar and uncomfortable and lots of people who think in ways about society that you'd find too different. Yes, best stay where you'll feel familiar and, uh, safe.
Click to expand...

that's just a plain irrelevant and stupid response to my point
 
Grand Mal said:
Because you said, "Because the common police officer cannot be trusted with the responsibility of carrying a firearm. That and politicians and royalty are more important whereas the common citizenry is expendable."
That's a dumb thing to say. Especially considering that the majority of them want to stay unarmed. Unless you honestly think that, for some reason, you're just 'way smarter than they and know 'way better how they should do their jobs. And unless you really believe that people in England are considered expendable. In that case, it's not just the statement that's dumb.
Click to expand...

I was there when an officer was hacked to death with machetes hole trying to protect firemen in Brighton. There was a lot of discussion about arming officers. It was the same discussion that occured after a police officer was chased down and shot to death by armed bank robbers. Why can't an officer that chooses to be armed, carry a hidden sidearm? You can paint it however you like, but the reason is that your government does not trust that police officer to carry a firearm and be responsible with it. If he can be trusted, then why should he not be allowed carry if he so desires? As for the other half of my statement, why do some people warrant armed protection when the common citizenry is more likely to be killed/injured by attacks such as this and get officers armed with whistles and radios and perhaps 1 roving armed response officer in each county?
 
BretJ said:
Because the common police officer cannot be trusted with the responsibility of carrying a firearm. That and politicians and royalty are more important whereas the common citizenry is expendable.
Click to expand...

Considering the many instances of american cops shooting without cause. it would seem that in america people are expendable if they get in the way of anyones right to shoot people.
 
Rucker61 said:
Is the decision for the bobby to carry or not carry a personal one, or is it still up to the bosses?
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_Kingdom
The usage of firearms by the police is covered by statute (such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which applies only to England and Wales, and the Human Rights Act 1998), policy (such as the Home Office Code of Practice on Police use of Firearms and Less Lethal Weapons and the ACPO Manual of Guidance on Police Use of Firearms) and common law.

Authorised Firearms Officers (AFOs) may only carry firearms when authorised by an "appropriate authorising officer".[22] The appropriate authorising officer must be of the rank of Inspector or higher.[23] When working at airports, nuclear sites, on Protection Duties and deployed in Armed Response Vehicles in certain areas, 'Standing Authority' is granted to carry personal sidearms.[24] All members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland have authority to carry a personal issue handgun as a matter of routine, both on duty and off.[25] In all forces, usage of other weapons such as semi-automatic carbines requires further training and authorisation. Semi-automatic carbines are stored in a locked armoury inside Armed Response Vehicles. Equipping of semi-automatic carbines rests on a judgment of the AFO[clarification needed].[26]

United Kingdom law allows the use of "reasonable force" to make an arrest or prevent a crime[27][28] or to defend oneself.[29] However, if the force used is fatal, then the European Convention of Human Rights only allows "the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary".[30] Firearms officers may therefore only discharge their weapons "to stop an imminent threat to life".[31]

ACPO policy states that "use" of a firearm includes both pointing it at a person and discharging it (whether accidentally or negligently, or intentionally).[32] As with all use of force in England and Wales, the onus is on the individual officer to justify their actions in court.[33]
Click to expand...

Unlike in america where little is done when a cop shoots someone. In britain the amount of paper work and court proceedings and public and police inquiries that evolve from each shooting make it undesirable for police to want to carry guns.

But they are not defenseless as non lethal weapons can be carried, Tasers, pepper spray a baton etc.
 
soylentgreen said:
Considering the many instances of american cops shooting without cause. it would seem that in america people are expendable if they get in the way of anyones right to shoot people.
Click to expand...

Weird. As far as I know, it is illegal for anyone to shoot anyone purposefully unless in defense of self or others. Not sure what your point is. No one is expendable as far as I know. Though in the UK, some folks are more valuable than others and warrant a higher degree of protection.
 
soylentgreen said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_Kingdom


Unlike in america where little is done when a cop shoots someone. In britain the amount of paper work and court proceedings and public and police inquiries that evolve from each shooting make it undesirable for police to want to carry guns.

But they are not defenseless as non lethal weapons can be carried, Tasers, pepper spray a baton etc.
Click to expand...

Define little is done. Does this occur sometimes? All the time?
 
Rucker61 said:
Is the decision for the bobby to carry or not carry a personal one, or is it still up to the bosses?
Click to expand...

Read my lips. "The majority want to stay unarmed."
 
rhinefire said:
Explain the thinking behind the logic of the bobbies not being armed and the Palace guards armed like SWAT? See London terror attack on 3/22/17.
Click to expand...



First why don't you explain why the US homicide rate is off the scale compared to Britian, Canada and other countries that have more passive intervention tools?

It cause and effect, supply and demand whatever. But there are more guns than people in the US, of course your police are going to look like military.

Always so critical of other countries and never look internally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom