|
RBOnline
45 posts
37 months
|
XCP said: I am not sure what point is being made as the metaphor did not seem to fit the situation. The answer to the OP's question is years ago. The point was that tip of the iceberg means the same thing as thin end of the wedge. Someone was trying to say they meant two different things. That is all.
|
|
|
RBOnline
45 posts
37 months
|
mjb1 said: A while ago, whilst I was late night shopping in a 24 hour supermarket in Bodmin, I noticed a couple of policemen doing some shopping with holstered hand guns on their belts (must have been on night shift getting some snacks in). I know Bodmin in a bit dodgy, but thought that was a little excessive! Either they're not allowed to leave them in an unattended vehicle (thought they had gun safes in the boot of ARVs?) or they just like to be seen carrying them. Or - They are armed police officers. Therefore, it helps to be armed. As I made clear earlier, armed bad guys probably won't comply if unarmed officers ask them to wait 5 minutes while they nip back to their vehicle and get their weapons.
|
|
|
simonrockman
4,665 posts
124 months
|
RBOnline said: Or - They are armed police officers. Therefore, it helps to be armed. As I made clear earlier, armed bad guys probably won't comply if unarmed officers ask them to wait 5 minutes while they nip back to their vehicle and get their weapons. Yes, but unarmed bad guys will decide that if they regularly encounter police with guns they will need to become armed bad guys. I completely agree with the sentiment of the OP. Police who are not working in an environment where they know that they need to be armed should not be. Simon
|
|
|
300bhp/ton
26,483 posts
59 months
|
Chim said: Passed a police landcruiser that had pulled over a young girl in my small town today, my son pipes up saying look they are the cops I told you about that carry guns. We had this argument a couple of weeks before I told him not to be so stupid as standard police patrols do not carry guns. I told him that the only UK police that carry guns are armed response units and certain ones that protect airports etc.
So to prove my point I spun the car round for another pass to show him that the only things they carried on their belts where pepper spray and handcuffs.
I lost 20 quid, sure enough they both carried side arms. When the fook did this start, I thought we prided ourselves as a nation on the fact that our beat police are unarmed. I would have expected to hear a lot more about the fact that our police are now carrying sidearms as a matter of routine. I went on a tour of one of the local Police stations many years ago. Can't remember if it was with the school or Cub/Scouts. The Patrol car they had there had a lock box and fire arms in it. I'd estimate this was 17-20 years ago.
|
|
|
Elroy Blue
5,679 posts
61 months
|
simonrockman said: Police who are not working in an environment where they know that they need to be armed should not be.
Simon I must remember to nip down to stores and book out a crystal ball. Add it to my psychic ability and 'how to be a fortune teller' handbook.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
RBOnline
45 posts
37 months
|
simonrockman said: Yes, but unarmed bad guys will decide that if they regularly encounter police with guns they will need to become armed bad guys. I completely agree with the sentiment of the OP. Police who are not working in an environment where they know that they need to be armed should not be.
Simon They are armed anyway. They can't walk into a bookies without a weapon and demand cash, can they? They aren't carrying weapons to fight the police, they are carrying weapons to instil fear and make people follow their commands.
|
|
|
XCP
10,486 posts
97 months
|
RBOnline said: The point was that tip of the iceberg means the same thing as thin end of the wedge. Someone was trying to say they meant two different things. That is all. They do mean two different things. 'tip of the iceberg' implies that a small amount is visible but there is much more lurking underneath. The true extent of an issue is not visible. 'thin end of the wedge' implies that if this small issue is accepted then the problem will get bigger and bigger. As you can see, 2 entirely different points of view.
|
|
|
TheEnd
12,098 posts
57 months
|
What about a thin wedge of an iceberg?
That would be a slippery slope.
|
|
|
J5
2,394 posts
55 months
|
simonrockman said: Police who are not working in an environment where they know that they need to be armed should not be.
Simon So you want ARV teams to sit doing nothing all day, just in case an ARV requiring job comes in? you want these experiences officers (as the vast majority are) to not do any work? Or, more logically, they could just patrol and do normal jobs till needed, whilst fulfilling their ARV role? Sometimes it's painful reading stuff on here.
|
|
|
mel
9,742 posts
144 months
|
The Sweeney are always packing, and that was yesterday on UK Gold 
|
|
|
Six Fiend
5,277 posts
84 months
|
What we're seeing here is not beat bobbies walking about with guns is it? It's specialist units covering RPU duties and ARV work. Mate has been doing this for donkey's years here. Side arms were worn openly when some clown ordered Ford Galaxy's which had problems with the gun safes. A few people commented at the time and then got over it.
If you want to cry about coppers on the street openly carrying guns we had a lovely time in St Pauls/Easton Bristol where gang shootings were on the up when a turf/drug supply war broke out. One gang were in prison (Aggi crew, caught with £1m crack), Yardies moved in, Aggi crew came back out and they started shooting eachother.
We had armed Police on foot patrol in that area until the Aggi Crew were all locked up again for breach of this and that condition...
|
|
|
Rovinghawk
2,009 posts
27 months
|
Baron Greenback said: I don't mind if they carry guns it the stupid idiots in the public with guns/knives I don't trust! http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1215766/Thames-Valley-police-fined-40-000-gun-expert-shot-man-safety-demo.html&sa=U&ei=RacNUKW8I_Or0AXCr_HKCg&ved=0CBEQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNFXqeeXLJXOnHiuoFgIRqyFulPb_w RH
|
|
|
Dave_M
5,077 posts
93 months
|
Elroy Blue said: simonrockman said: Police who are not working in an environment where they know that they need to be armed should not be.
Simon I must remember to nip down to stores and book out a crystal ball. Add it to my psychic ability and 'how to be a fortune teller' handbook. Quite so. I've done many routine vehicle stops in past roles and these checks have sometimes found weapons one being far more substantial than a hand gun. Also, colleagues visiting an ordinary office found an assault rifle and a pistol. Hardly predictable.
|
|
|
streaky
18,235 posts
118 months
|
mel said: The Sweeney are always packing, and that was yesterday on UK Gold The Mobile Patrol Experiment essentially lost its right to bear arms in February this year, when what is now SCO19 exclusively took over the role of interdicting armed criminals. If memory serves, its forerunner, SO19, first became involved with the Flying Squad around 2000. There was a time, ending in the '60s I think, when Met and City detectives could routinely draw arms. Derek's memory is likely better and more immediate than mine. Streaky
|
|
|
simonrockman
4,665 posts
124 months
|
J5 said: simonrockman said: Police who are not working in an environment where they know that they need to be armed should not be.
Simon So you want ARV teams to sit doing nothing all day, just in case an ARV requiring job comes in? you want these experiences officers (as the vast majority are) to not do any work? Or, more logically, they could just patrol and do normal jobs till needed, whilst fulfilling their ARV role? Sometimes it's painful reading stuff on here. No. I want them to not carry their guns, at least not on display, when they are on a patrol that would not normally justify armed response. Dave_M said: Elroy Blue said: simonrockman said: Police who are not working in an environment where they know that they need to be armed should not be.
Simon I must remember to nip down to stores and book out a crystal ball. Add it to my psychic ability and 'how to be a fortune teller' handbook. Quite so. I've done many routine vehicle stops in past roles and these checks have sometimes found weapons one being far more substantial than a hand gun. Also, colleagues visiting an ordinary office found an assault rifle and a pistol. Hardly predictable. The logical extension to this is that all police should be armed all the time. Which is indeed what most police forces in the world do, but this leads to an arms race. I'd argue that one of the reasons why the UK has such a low figure for people being killed by guns is our strong laws and the police not being routinely armed.
|
|
|
Derek Smith
16,043 posts
117 months
|
streaky said: The Mobile Patrol Experiment essentially lost its right to bear arms in February this year, when what is now SCO19 exclusively took over the role of interdicting armed criminals. If memory serves its forerunner, SO19, first became involved with the Flying Squad around 2000.
There was a time, ending in the '60s I think, when Met and City detectives could routinely draw arms. Derek's memory is likely better and more immediate than mine.
Streaky Not of the 60s it's not. The rules of issuing guns to CID changed in 76 but not everyone in the Mets got the memo. When I was station sergeant - a little crown above the stripes, real cool - I seemed to be always waking superintendents to obtain authority but it was always given. Two City CID were on their way back from an armed non-incident and decided to stop off at a night club. They flashed warrant cards but the doormen, not recognising the card, refused them entry. One then opened his jacket, showed the occupied pancake holster, and said that they were following a dangerous suspect. They were allowed in. The club phoned the local station which got onto their SOn, who turned up. Whilst the two DCs were strutting their stuff on the floor, each were rewarded by the close attention of two plain-clothes firearms officers. They beat the s  t out of them, removed their guns, took them to the local nick and then phoned the City saying that they would release them only to a superintendent. Both were in the lodge so no harm done.
|
|
|
XCP
10,486 posts
97 months
|
Ah the good old days 
|
|
|
creampuff
1,229 posts
12 months
|
simonrockman said: The logical extension to this is that all police should be armed all the time. Which is indeed what most police forces in the world do, but this leads to an arms race.
I'd argue that one of the reasons why the UK has such a low figure for people being killed by guns is our strong laws and the police not being routinely armed. You know around the world, I can't think of anywhere except the UK where you can walk up to a copper and tell them to get fu$%ed and really, nothing is going to happen. Sometimes I wonder if the routine non-arming is one of the reasons for this.
|
|
|
redgriff500
6,934 posts
132 months
|
creampuff said: You know around the world, I can't think of anywhere except the UK where you can walk up to a copper and tell them to get fu$%ed and really, nothing is going to happen. Sometimes I wonder if the routine non-arming is one of the reasons for this. I was shocked when watching the Police programmes on the TV that this happens, I think it's disgusting that it is allowed to happen and they should be arrested and fined as a minimum. Police should treat and be treated with respect.
|
|
|
Red 4
1,359 posts
56 months
|
creampuff said: You know around the world, I can't think of anywhere except the UK where you can walk up to a copper and tell them to get fu$%ed and really, nothing is going to happen. That depends on the officer. You would be unlikely to be shot though.
|
|
