UKC

Firstly a disclaimer. I've used and carried firearms, I don't subscribe to the 'all guns are bad' viewpoint and regretfully I see the need to have groups of coppers wandering around with G36's in the event someone decides to get stabby/try to detonate in the name of Allah.

However tonight a friend posted the obligatory FB photo of posing with a copper, in this case at the Bryan Adams gig in Carlisle. Could anyone tell me the reason why the police might need to launch:

A. Baton rounds;
B. Tear Gas;
C. 40mm grenades.

Into a crowd of mostly middle aged punters at Carlisle racecourse? Or is is a case of send someone down with a thing that looks like it goes bang to 'reassure' the public?

In reply to Ridge:


Hard to say without a link to the photo but while batons and hand cuffs are probably not needed, I'd say there is good reason for a variety of fragmentation and high-explosive grenades.

In reply to Ridge:
FFS, it's a Bryan Adams gig.
The cops were briefed to use any means necessary to stop him from performing this:-

youtube.com/watch?v=ZGoWtY_h4xo&

In reply to Ridge:

You've hit the nail on the head

Bryan Adams and middle aged men.

Teach the rest a lesson to grow old with dignity

In reply to Ridge:
Maybe because a firearms incident can quickly turn into a seige and they don't want to have to run back to the munitions safe in their car to get extra kit, leaving the terrorist/baddie to run off to kill more people?

In reply to 1philjones1:


Fixed that for you

In reply to The Lemming:

Thanks- bloody spellchecker!

In reply to henwardian:

I reckon they have been smoke grenades, rather than the fragmentation variety.

In reply to Ridge:
Likewise at keswick mountain festival , the two blokes on duty looked like they d stepped straight off the cover of " special forces and special forcing monthly " . Whereas apart from two women on horses who looked like they meant buisness , the police lining at the streets after Radiohead in manchester a couple of weeks ago looked a bit , well, half hearted . Maybe Cumbria police have a load of ordnance about to go out of date ?

In reply to FactorXXX:
Gave your post a like without clicking the link .

In reply to Ridge:

Maybe police are like many climbers at Stanage who despite considering a route that clearly only needs small wires and friends takes a full rack with 20 quick draws and two sets of hexes?

On a more serious note though, I think it is more of a deterrent and the fact you have posted on here shows their tactic is working. Remember Manchester just over a month ago? Terrorist don't care what sort of sh1t music is being listened to.

In reply to Ridge:

I had the misfortune to be travelling by train to Carlisle yesterday afternoon and, judging by the waistlines of most of the attendees, I suspect that there was going to be a disturbance at the gates because they wouldn't be able to fit all the ticket holders into Bitts Park. Also, the party that were in my carriage, plainly thought it was still the summer of '69 and that smoking in the toilet of a train was socially acceptable (and legal).

Unleash the full force of Cumbria Police upon them for having such appalling taste in music, I say.

In reply to The Lemming:

Fatties don't get guns.

In reply to Ridge:
All non lethal weapons, provides a range of options for the firearms officer. Obvious really.

In reply to mike123:


Shocking they looked half hearted. It's almost like they've been working non-stop 12 hour shifts with all leave cancelled.

In reply to Ridge:

I'd have thought that the fact that the recent Manchester bombing was at a concert, a relatively easy target, would answer your question for you. Terrorists don't go for a particular demographic - their remit is to strike wherever, whenever.

In reply to mike123:

Making an effort for the hot climber clunge, Radiohead fans....maybe not.

D

In reply to rj_townsend:


My question was regarding the choice of weapon. Obviously I can understand why you'd want to shoot a knife/gun/suicide-vest attired wankpuffin should they start running around in public; hence I have no problem with seeing police armed with assault rifles, SMGs or pistols at these venues.

However I can't see how, in a terrorist scenario, someone would think "Quick, get the big single shot, inaccurate weapon and fire a hard plastic dildo at the terrorists".

I take cander's point that it's a less lethal option, but the police on the mainland UK have been very, very reluctant to use baton rounds, even in riots where petrol bombs are flying about and the lives of the public and police are at serious risk.

Maybe that policy has changed, and TBH I'd much rather the police were able to flatten very violent individuals at a distance should the need arise, rather than put officers at risk by having to get in close with tasers and pava sprays. Just seems a strange bit of kit to be wandering about with.

In reply to Ridge:

WTF does WFT mean?

In reply to rj_townsend:


Have you done a survey or something?

In reply to TobyA:

Whenever, wherever
We're meant to be together
I'll be there and you'll be near
And that's the deal my dear

From a speech by Abu Shakira

In reply to Ridge:

To answer your question:

G36 - shooting people, obviously. I.e. terrorist with a gun.

Baton Gun and Tear Gas - 'less leathal option', allows them disarm violent people without having to kill them. I.e. Nut job with a machete.

40mm grenades - are actually 9-bang destraction grenades, for building clearance. I.e. terrorist taking pot-shots from a window, they'd chuck the 9-bangs in before they cleared the building, to give them a chance of comming out alive.

They'd also have a Tazer as a third less lethal option for close range and a Glock 17 for confined spaces and incase the 36 malfunctions.

In reply to Ridge:

I like that Shakira I do. She's Colombian isn't she? So possibly a terrorist of the Carlos-the-Jakal-much-better-dressed-back-then kind.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Thanks for that, answers my original question.

In reply to ByEek:


How do armed police deter suicide attackers?

How does Ridge posting on here show that 'armed deterrent' tactic is working? You could maybe argue the 'armed reassurance' tactic is working except he doesn't sound especially reassured by the choices they've made.

My local police recently trialed their 'terror reassurance' program, they put horses on packed pedestrianised streets. Day one a horse trampled a baby in a pram and the plan was rapidly put back in the box marked 'who the hell thought that was a good idea and what had they been smoking?'. Thankfully the baby survived.
jk

In reply to jkarran:


They don't necessarily deter them, they shoot them dead as at Borough Market.


Yeah , police horses! Sounds really stupid doesn't it? Until you consider that at the riders height they can see over the heads of packed crowds and guide armed response units onto knife wielding wankpuffins , and hopefully shoot them before they stab too many innocents.

The police aren't stupid and they have to train for all sorts of horrible scenarios, some we've already seen played out on our streets and some we haven't.

In reply to jkarran:


A fair question. But a suicide bomber isn't much use if they get shot before reaching their target.

In reply to ByEek:


Depends how their device is triggered and how populous the approach to the target is. Even getting shot without detonating gets you the press/government/social media knee-jerk and chips away at social cohesion and freedom.
jk

In reply to jkarran:



Doesn't even need to be there anymore. Walked past Trent Bridge this morning, and for the first time ever there were blockades and anti- vehicle barriers everywhere - enough to raise a teeny bit of stress, without there even being a physical threat. I daresay there were armed plod as well, but all I saw were a few stewards and a couple of PCSOs, but it was early and I tend to give the area a wide berth once it fills up with punters

In reply to Stichtplate:


I asked someone a question in response to their statement. Firearms teams on foot patrol in cities is largely about the visuals, about being seen to be doing something.


Fine but that was explicitly not what they were on the streets for. It was day one of a pre-publicised drive to increase the visibility of muscular policing (for want of a better description) to reassure the public. It was ill conceived by their own admission and went horribly wrong on day one.


I don't suppose they are. That said, individuals and organisations are not immune to making poor decisions for a variety of reasons irrespective of how smart they are. None of the cops I know/knew are daft or infallible.
jk

In reply to jkarran:



A successful suicide bombing , like a Manchester Arena chips away a social cohesion.
Suicide attackers shot dead in an 8 minute response time reassures the public.

If not armed response units , how do you think we should approach the wankpuffins? Counselling or the naughty step.

In reply to Stichtplate:


Do you think I'm arguing it doesn't?


It reassures the public the police (at least the Met' in central London) are capable of dealing with an unsophisticated spree killing before the number injured or killed hits triple figures. The attack, even one 'less successful' (a distasteful phrase in context) is still very effective at triggering responses and dividing society.


I think we should use the word wankpuffin a little more sparingly for starters. I'm not arguing against having armed response units widely available, they are one prong of an appropriate response to that problem. Counseling/mentoring probably is another appropriate prong of our response for some at least. I frankly don't understand how you could have got the impression I'm arguing against having a police armed response readily available.
jk

In reply to jkarran:

Fair enough. But personally I love the word wankpuffin when referring to these criminals. To call them terrorists lends them legitimacy. Lone wolf attacker is even worse in playing to the fantasies of these sad inadequates.
The usual profile of these attackers is drug using , petty criminal thugs and scum. Wankpuffin suits them fine . Don't really see why you'd object. Are you concerned with hurting their feelings?

In reply to Ridge:

40mm Grenades? I take it, yer being sarcastic

In reply to drunken monkey:


The cop in question was lovingly holding what looked like a HK69 or similar. My first thought was baton rounds or tear gas, but grenades, (or D cell batteries...) are an option.

Posting my OP when pissed at 2 A.M meant it wasn't particularly clear what I was dribbling on about, but openly wandering around with that bit of kit struck me as a bit odd. Seems to mark a shift in what's routinely acceptable.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Mr Walrus

You need to change your user name to Rambo

Kind regards

Albert T

In reply to jkarran:

Surprised you consider deploying mounted to a city centre pedestrianised precinct such an obviously terrible idea.
I've seen them deployed in city centres fairly routinely.
Usually a centre of attention for families.

In reply to off-duty:

Have you lot here resolved the issue of not leaving steaming piles of horse shit all over the pavement and particularly cycle paths of your fair city? Helsinki police department never seemed to have worked that one out, or indeed even consider it! I got quite good at dodging the ever present piles on the cycle paths, it was a slightly disgusting sign that summer was arriving when the horse poo started appearing!

In reply to Stichtplate:

Yeah , police horses! Sounds really stupid doesn't it? Until you consider that at the riders height they can see over the heads of packed crowds and guide armed response units onto knife wielding wankpuffins , and hopefully shoot them before they stab too many innocents.

Police on stilts I reckon. Able to see over the crowd and not trample babies to death.

In reply to Ridge:

AFAIK - Police armed response units don't carry that type of kit (40mm Grenades) - and I doubt the guys from Hereford/Poole would deploy it in UK either. Certainly not in that situation.

Police units do use stun grenades though - not sure if HK69 can fire these, more likely baton or gas round like you say.

In reply to off-duty:


Which is exactly how a baby got trampled. Narrow packed streets, little room to maneuver and a spooked horse that simply didn't need to be there in the first place makes for a very bad combination as your colleagues apparently now agree.

Bin wagons on the same streets are another obviously bad idea at peak times but we'll have to wait for someone to get dragged or crushed before the council are willing to concede that. At least the bin wagons are there for good reason.
jk

In reply to jkarran:


You're not referring to the incident in York which was 3 months ago are you?
The reports I've read all suggest the horse was spooked by something and as a result reacted as horses do.

Bearing in mind that these horses are trained to deploy in riots that is undoubtedly not a good thing.

However nothing you have said explains why you are so convinced that the deployment of a horse to a city centre is an inevitable and highly predictable accident waiting to happen.

There are a few half hearted mentions of "crowds" in the articles, accompanied by descriptions of the family wandering over to the horses to see them (rather than swept into them in an overwhelming crush of people).
I can't see any apology from the police suggesting "they should never have deployed them in that area" and, indeed, no suggestion from any article that this was an obviously bad idea for a deployment.

Everything I've seen suggests the horse got startled and reacted unexpectedly and entirely outside its training.

In reply to off-duty:

Have you been to York on a summer weekend? Half the streets you struggle to get a bike through without hurting someone let alone a horse. That the horse was basically just there to look tough only makes it worse. I've no idea I they've apologised, I sincerely hope they have to the family involved. I do note they've not redeployed the horses since so lessons were clearly learned.
Jk

In reply to jkarran:


The usual role for mounted police in the UK is crowd control. They are usually seen policing football crowds and demos, i.e. Places where people are very densely packed together.

What lessons exactly do you think Yorkshire police have learned? Not to deploy police horses in crowds?

Edit: though I must admit I do hate those horses , just standing around trying to look tough!

In reply to drunken monkey:


Brian Adams gig, no - I'm sure you are right! But I think its pretty well known that the SAS now have some people based in London supporting the police http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-terror-attack-sas-blu... "Blue Thunder" is a bit of a crap name though isn't it? Particularly for anyone who has watched Tropic Thunder!

In reply to TobyA:

I know - I was more making the point that 40mm grenades would be very unlikely to be used in UK.

In reply to Stichtplate:


I presume the lesson they've learned is to reserve their horses for crowd control, a role in which they are supposed to barge, trample and intimidate out of control crowds rather than deploying them as half ton PR props. As with most crowd control there are risks and benefits in using horses, but in an unruly crowd the practical benefits generally outweigh the risks, the same simply is not true where the deployment is purely symbolic and to a densely packed confined space.
jk

In reply to jkarran:


You've got some really weird ideas about British policing.

In reply to Stichtplate:


Ever seen a police horse being used to control an angry crowd? I have. They don't use them as a platform to ask nicely for people to behave better, it's physical and there are real risks!
jk

In reply to jkarran:



I've seen police horses at football matches ,demos and just plodding around town centres. My own daughters were delighted to meet a couple of them in the centre of Manchester a few months ago. I've never seen them barging, trampling or intimidating people. In fact the last time I can remember a police horse charge was at Orgreave 30 years ago.
Police horses need to be regularly habituated to city centres, crowds and traffic ,otherwise when they are needed operationally they would be more of a liability than an asset.

Most organisations don't ditch sound policy because of a single freak accident.

In reply to Stichtplate:


Lovely. I like horses too, I spent a lot of my youth around them.


They may not regularly deploy them into crowds but that is what they're there for when required, they're big physical and potentially dangerous animals, they're maintained by the police for that physicality.


I have no problem with that in a more open context but again, I'm referring specifically to narrow medieval streets often so congested with pedestrians it's difficult to safely push a bicycle and to a role where they were purely symbolic.


But accidents do lead to reviews which may conclude the policy was not in hindsight sound.
jk

In reply to jkarran:



Police horses are maintained for a variety of reasons, deployment as an offensive asset are vanishingly rare occurrences.


It may come as a surprise but narrow medieval streets were no strangers to horse traffic.

In reply to Ridge:

I thought police forces were ditching mounted sections because they were poor value for money. I know Notts has (literally) put theirs out to grass

In reply to toad:

Why have I got this mental pictures of a load of coppers wandering round a meadow ? but I assume its actually the horses rather than the mounted section out to graze ?

In reply to jkarran:


Given that the police in Northern Ireland are the UK experts in riot control, and they don't use horses, I think they are more an anachronism than what you suggest.

In reply to jonnie3430:


Bit of a special case in NI where any civil unrest often had a few guns and nail bombs thrown into the mix. Mounted police just presented as an especially easy target.

In reply to jonnie3430:

Yet there are still lots of them and they're regularly deployed to events and protests. Northern Ireland had and still has some unique policing challenges. At the height of the war road patrols were impossible in some areas, armoured vehicles and heavily armed police using tactics more befitting the military than a civil police service for even simple traffic stops are still the norm for good reason. I'm not sure wider UK policing and NI are especially comparable.
jk

In reply to Stichtplate:


Talking to you is like nailing snot to a wall. You win.


No, really! They didn't have a hundred thousand or so shoppers thronging them though did they and the local militia's health and safety policy was probably slightly different to NYP's.
jk

In reply to jkarran:




Let's call it a draw (it's just possible that on a slow day at work I might enjoy a good argument a bit too much )

In reply to Stichtplate:


They present just as easy a target here too.

In reply to jonnie3430:


From Wikipedia- by 1983 the RUC was the most dangerous police force to serve in across the globe. Over 300 dead and 9000 injured.

Do you see why the retention of mounted police might not have been a good idea in such a situation?

In reply to Stichtplate:


Do you see why the rest should follow suit?

In reply to jonnie3430:

no.

In reply to jkarran:



They provide a large physical block to crowds and people get the he'll out of the way when they move - however slowly that is.
They are very effective at "herding" from the rear and guiding from the front of any march.

They are also often largely static in large crowds for example football fans leaving/entering stadiums.

As is clearly stated in the reports one got spooked. Something I haven't seen before and something that certainly isn't compatible with public order policing, whether it is your wilder view or mine. The principle feature of that type of policing being control.