Once again there are headlines about the police. I suppose in an era when a personality or a member of a subset of a group sneezes the rest of society reaches for a handkerchief. When recent events follow on almost simultaneously with the publication of the The Baroness Casey Review it`s hardly surprising that many with or without knowledge are offering an opinion on the short lived mutiny amongst the licensed firearm officers of the Metropolitan Police. Some facts are usually the basis of any discussion. The Police Federation last polled its members in 2018 on the subject of armed officers. That is available here. For previous posts from me on this topic write "armed police" in the search box. The latest official statistics on firearms use by police is now available. This subject has always been what could be described as a hot potato. Interested bodies are only too pleased to throw the topic to others. Too hot to handle might be another apt description. With police now often seen patrolling not just with a holstered side arm but with sub machine guns many commentators seem to have forgotten that it was only in 2009 that such weapons were authorised for general use e.g. when patrolling at airports, public buildings and the like. My own recollection of such armed police patrols was on a visit driving through Belfast in 1968. All cross roads in the city centre had a machine pistol armed officer of the Royal Ulster Constabulary on guard close by. I was shocked then, shortly before the official start to the "Troubles". Reporting to a sergeant at a Santa Barbara police station some decades ago that my rented car had been stolen I was somewhat shocked when he said to me, "If you see the car don`t go near it. You might get shot". He was advising me that police would have information on the vehicle and would be suspicious of anyone attempting to use it. Such conversations stay with you for a long time.
A simple fact of which I recently became aware was that armed police do not receive any extra pay over and above their colleagues. I asked myself then and I ask you, a member of the public like me, why do those individual officers volunteer for a job which involves the possibility both of facing deadly violence and protecting themselves, their fellow officers and us, the public for no financial gain. I would venture one possible answer insofar as they actively want to be involved in precisely such situations where there is the possibility of using deadly force. All those with a license to carry guns are trained, we must assume, to the highest standards. The very few times a police weapon is discharged is evidence of that but is it a coincidence that in the last couple of years three high profile cases of serious criminality have been proved against officers licensed to carry firearms on duty. Currently 260 police officers in the Met are due to face misconduct charges and one firearms licensed officer is currently facing a charge of murder. There are no figures for how many of those 260 are licensed gun carrying officers.
It is a common comment by amateur psychologists that those who most seek power are those best not to have their desires satisfied. Official guidance for chief constables on granting of an ordinary firearms license for a member of the public can be found here. I can find no publicly available information on the criteria required and the selection process for granting a license for a police officer to carry a gun on duty. Can it be the case that those who volunteer for no extra pay or promotion and seek to carry guns are those whose applications should be scrutinised in the very finest detail? And should that whole application process be publicly available? After all, if magistrates whose powers include depriving a person of up to six months liberty, are subject to a very onerous open selection process why not gun carrying police officers whose powers include shooting to kill?
No comments:
Post a Comment