British Metropolitan police asked for more weapons two months ago MARCH 23, 2017
[Guess their whistles and bully clubs weren't getting the job done!]
AS THE fallout over the murder of an unarmed British policeman at the hands of a suspected terrorist continues, it has emerged that Metropolitan police officers asked for more guns several weeks ago.
A survey carried out by the Metropolitan Police Federation (MPF) in January this year found that almost half of participants wanted more firearms specialists and 75 per cent believed all officers should be issued with Tasers.
More than a quarter of those surveyed said they thought police should be routinely armed and six per cent believed the proportion of gun-carrying officers protecting the capital was “inadequate”. The results prompted MPF chairman Ken Marsh to call for the number of specially trained firearms personnel to be doubled to 16 per cent.
The union put the issue — which is controversial in Britain — back on the table in the wake of the terrorist attack in Nice last July in which an armed French Tunisian, 31-year-old Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel, drove a truck through a crowded promenade during Bastille Day celebrations.
More than 80 people, including ten children, were killed and Lahouaiej-Bouhlel’s murderous rampage was only brought to an end when he was shot by police.
“We’re in a far more dangerous society than we have ever been and so we have to have the correct equipment to deal with that,” Mr Marsh told The Guardian in February.
“If you take the lorry (used in the July 2016 terror attack) in Nice for example, that drove into crowds of people, my cops are not armed and they would not have been able to respond like the French police did, and instead would have had to make a call.
“We’re not asking for mandatory arming of all officers, but what they are asking for is for more specially-trained officers. We have to stick to the stringent criteria and the criteria for handling a firearm in the UK is still the toughest in the world.” WHY DON’T (ALL) BRITISH POLICE HAVE GUNS?
People ask this question every time there is a terrorist attack or act of extreme violence in the UK.
The answer is that historically the majority of British police officers have resisted the opportunity to be routinely armed. Part of that is to retain a ‘British Bobby’ effect on the community where respect between officers and the public is given priority over arming those charged with keeping the population safe.
In 2006, two unarmed female police constables were shot dead in the line of duty in the north of England. Their boss, Greater Manchester Chief Constable Sir Peter Fahy had this to say: “We are passionate that the British style of policing is routinely unarmed policing. Sadly we know from the experience in America and other countries that having armed officers certainly does not mean, sadly, that police officers do not end up getting shot.”
THE BRITISH PUBLIC WANT THEIR POLICE ARMED
But there is no doubt that the spate of terrorist attacks, and in particular lone wolf attacks that have plagued Europe — so many of them inspired by the Islamic State — in recent years has resulted in a change in attitudes within the force.
The MBF survey carried out in January showed 26 per cent of Metropolitan police now want to be routinely armed — a jump of six per cent over the previous year.
The British public, however, have long called for their police to be more weaponised. A 2004 national poll on terrorism found 47 per cent supported arming all police, compared to 48 per cent against. And in 2007, a survey of 2,156 people by think tank Policy Exchange found 72 per cent wanted to see more armed police patrols. This morning’s attack has renewed public calls for all British police to carry guns — particularly in London and particularly for those officers guarding sensitive landmarks like the Palace of Westminster.
A scathing article by political staffer turned journalist Andre Walker published in the Observer online poured scorn on the practice of using unarmed guards to protect Parliament. “Today’s terror attack at the Palace of Westminster has sent shockwaves through the British political establishment because a knife-wielding terrorist was able to penetrate ‘tough’ security,” Andre wrote in a piece titled A blunder for the Books: Why did Westminster use Unarmed guards?
“When I say tough, let me clarify what I mean: every gate is guarded by at least ONE UNARMED police officer.
“The police constables are sometimes (but not always) assisted by yet more unarmed security guards from the Metropolitan Police P Division (Parliamentary Police). Behind the scenes, Metropolitan Police D Division (Diplomatic Protection) provide firearms support, although a cursory look at the weapons shows some of them aren’t even loaded.
“Today the attacker simply had to overpower two unarmed police officers and he was in the heart of British government.
Those officers could call for backup — but why weren’t the firearms officers at the gate in the first place?”
Social media users didn’t hold back either, with many Americans tweeting their disbelief that the police officer killed, Constable Keith Palmer, had not been equipped with the armoury to match the importance of the site he was protecting.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
