Armed rural police

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Unfortunately in this day and age entirely necessary but there are social means to lessen risks not least the introduction of a national service for the 20th century which gives experience of emergency/security service.

[Gordon]

Unfortunately in this day and age entirely necessary but there are social means to lessen risks not least the introduction of a national service for the 20th century which gives experience of emergency/security service.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Vlad, but isn't a bit late to do anything in respect of the 20th century?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Correct me if I'm wrong, Vlad, but isn't a bit late to do anything in respect of the 20th century?

My apologies, 21st century.

I forgot to move my clock forward.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I hope the police will not be armed. Arming police doesn't make a community any safer, imo.

Unfortunately it's needed because of the possibility of Terrorism and the time it would take for antiterrorist squads to get to an incident.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How many terror attacks have targeted on rural communities here in the UK?

Stupid question. Before 9/11 how many jets had been deliberately flown into skyscrapers with thousands of people?

[Aruntraveller]

No it isn't a stupid question, terrorists are much more likely to target highly populated cities rather than rural areas where there are fewer people. Their aim is to kill as many people as possible.

I don't know about that. It would seem to me that if they chose to target a village fete held on a main street in a quaint little place in the countryside it would be much easier to drive a lorry through the middle of the crowd than it would be in more aware areas like urban ones. We have to be aware of the terrorists ever-evolving strategy and it would seem sensible to guard against as many eventualities as we can.

Similarly regional airports would I imagine be seen as a softer target for terrorists. It's not pleasant to contemplate but we have to unfortunately.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it isn't a stupid question, terrorists are much more likely to target highly populated cities rather than rural areas where there are fewer people. Their aim is to kill as many people as possible.

The case which has been seriously raised by people who know is based on the time it can take for an anti terrorist squad to get to a situation where guns are needed. In London attacks that has been minutes with multiple deaths. What do you imagine the death toll would be in any small country town or large village or church or village fete.

I'm afraid rural people have the right to something at least approaching the levels of security in cities.

Hanging on to a bucolic concept of merrie England cannot be afforded.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Obviously we have to beware, but I am not sure arming the police in those communities would be a good idea.

Why not?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because arming the police isn't likely to put the terrorists off, and is more likely to lead to more crime rather than less, imo. Is the US a safer place because of gun ownership?

We are not talking about normal crime or gun ownership. We are talking presumably about a marauding attack where it could be up to half an hour before anybody who can neutralise the situation is in position. This is terrorism we are talking about.

In your argument there is no point to have rapid response in cities which is why your argument is flawed.

[Robbie]

This is the story:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-armed-routine-uk-terror-attacks-target-missed-recruitment-a8354926.html

I'm thinking the security services have got wind about something.

Rural areas don't just mean tiny villages with cottages miles apart surrounded by fields but small towns.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is the story:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-armed-routine-uk-terror-attacks-target-missed-recruitment-a8354926.html

I'm thinking the security services have got wind about something.

Rural areas don't just mean tiny villages with cottages miles apart surrounded by fields but small towns.

Note:Mr Chesterman said ARVs can currently reach urban areas in under 10 minutes but admitted the delay would be “significantly longer” elsewhere.

[Rhiannon]

This is the story:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-armed-routine-uk-terror-attacks-target-missed-recruitment-a8354926.html

I'm thinking the security services have got wind about something.

Rural areas don't just mean tiny villages with cottages miles apart surrounded by fields but small towns.

This has been discussed for a couple of years now at least - it’s not a new story. You are right though -  targets could mean village schools, of course, but also airbases and air fields, and nuclear power plants are sited in rural/coastal places. It’s not just Islamic terrorism that is a thing either, but any kind of home-grown nutter. Derek Bird went on his shooting spree in Cumbria.

[SteveH]

Unfortunately in this day and age entirely necessary but there are social means to lessen risks not least the introduction of a national service for the 20th century which gives experience of emergency/security service.

No to routinely armed police, and no to any kind of compulsory national service. The former would invite criminals to arm themselves, and the latter would lead to a generation of resentful, sullen young people. Encourage voluntary work, by all means, but leave National Service of any kind in the 50s.

[SteveH]

I hope the police will not be armed. Arming police doesn't make a community any safer, imo.

"Imo" is not an argument! FFS! How many times?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No to routinely armed police, and no to any kind of compulsory national service. The former would invite criminals to arm themselves, and the latter would lead to a generation of resentful, sullen young people. Encourage voluntary work, by all means, but leave National Service of any kind in the 50s.

I disagree there are all sorts of people who never see how the other half lives and that will become more and more the case. There are those who will never fully understand public/security service and will be alienated because they are not forced from their comfort zone to enjoy any form of constructive camaraderie.

[wigginhall]

Comrades!  You will now enjoy forced camaraderie with the hoi poloi.   Anyone shirking this, will be made to clean the lavatories for the next 6 months, with a tooth-brush.     

[Robbie]

A small town would not be classified as a rural area.

Rural area:- Village, Hamlet, Town and Fringe with less than (can't remember how many) people.
(Got that off internet - 'Definition of rural area' in PDF)

Wigginhall, you're on form :-).

Steven H. I dislike the idea of forcing anyone into the armed forces but does National Service have to mean military? Agree with encouraging voluntary work.
Routinely arming the police is an unattractive idea to me but I feel they know stuff I don't which is why the idea has been profferred - as said, not a new idea.

[jeremyp]

I don't know about that. It would seem to me that if they chose to target a village fete held on a main street in a quaint little place in the countryside it would be much easier to drive a lorry through the middle of the crowd than it would be in more aware areas like urban ones. We have to be aware of the terrorists ever-evolving strategy and it would seem sensible to guard against as many eventualities as we can.

Similarly regional airports would I imagine be seen as a softer target for terrorists. It's not pleasant to contemplate but we have to unfortunately.

And yet they don't attack village fetes or regional airports.

I helped organise a village fete last weekend. From gate receipts, it's clear that at least 800 people attended. It was widely advertised and yet there were no terrorists... or police officers, armed or not.

[jeremyp]

and nuclear power plants are sited in rural/coastal places.

You think that nuclear power stations rely on the local bobbies for security?

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170504-the-crucial-role-of-britains-nuclear-police

[SteveH]

Rural area:- Village, Hamlet, Town and Fringe with less than (can't remember how many) people.
(Got that off internet - 'Definition of rural area' in PDF)

Wigginhall, you're on form :-).

Steven H. I dislike the idea of forcing anyone into the armed forces but does National Service have to mean military? Agree with encouraging voluntary work.

No, it doesn't - that's why I said "any kind of National Service".

Routinely arming the police is an unattractive idea to me but I feel they know stuff I don't which is why the idea has been profferred - as said, not a new idea.

The idea of routinely arming the police is regularly touted by some swivel-eyed right-wing knob-job or other, and as routinely rejected by all sane people.

[Robbie]

Ta Steven, I thought you didn't just mean military but when i googled all I got was military! I wouldn't have liked to be forced into military service, not gonnna happen now but I feel for those younger. Some got out of it in the past, others were forced; bad scene, imagine if they had to go into a war in which they didn't believe & ended up killed?

As for non-military NS which some countries did in the past, who wants everything mapped out from age 18? Not fair, some would be suitable& embrace it (think back to school days) but not others. Lots of youngsters at 18 are extremely young & need a bit of protection while others are more mature. How can one generalise?

I agree with you about routinely arming the cops.

[Nearly Sane]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44173954

Another school shooting in America, their police are but it wasn't prevented!

Don't think the argument here is about prevention but ability to react. So in the London Bridge attacks, the ability to get armed police to an attack quickly.

[Nearly Sane]

By which time the damage is done anyway, guns don't prevent massacres.

And again that isn't the point which my post made clear. Do you want unarmed policeman trying to take on those who are armed? The police who turned up to London Bridge were in a better position to deal with the murderers because they were armed.

[Nearly Sane]

The problem apparently is not guns but too many doors



https://www.sacurrent.com/the-daily/archives/2018/05/18/ban-doors-not-guns-to-stop-school-shootings-dan-patrick-says

[jeremyp]

And again that isn't the point which my post made clear. Do you want unarmed policeman trying to take on those who are armed? The police who turned up to London Bridge were in a better position to deal with the murderers because they were armed.

In countries where the police are routinely armed, they seem to have just as much trouble with gun massacres as we do, if not more. Even in the USA, these events are so rare that basing your law enforcement policies around them is plain daft.

If we arm our police officers, it is likely that accidental deaths of innocent people at the hands of police officers will increase. On the other hand, I seriously doubt that you will reduce the number of gun massacres by terrorists.