Much has been written about Great Britain's routinely unarmed police service, most of which is inaccurate, politicised and counter productive. Policing in Great Britain, especially in large cities is now carried out either by the vast majority of totally unarmed officers or a smaller number of heavily armed officers, in SWAT style uniform and virtually all carrying long barrelled rifles. Neither extreme is effective.
Policing in Britain has resisted the routine arming of policing mostly for political and nostalgic reasons, advocates claiming it makes officers more approachable, trusted and that the civilian character of policing is retained. This assertion is made without any evidence base whatsoever.
Police services around the world are virtually all armed, many of which are excellent community policing services because of their ethos, professionalism, responsiveness and partnership working. The fact they carry a firearm goes unnoticed by a citizenry whose trust is earned and retained by policing behaviours and standards and not by the tactical tools they have immediately available.
The irony is many of those routinely armed police services would virtually never deploy on foot patrols the heavily armed swat style cops we have seen across the country in recent days since they terrible Manchester bombing (and I have the greatest respect for these fine officers). We will all have seen hundreds of pictures of firearms officers deployed on routine patrol since the Manchester bombing, almost everyone them carrying long barrelled rifles. These deployments are tactically misjudged and worse, strategically counterproductive and here is why.
Image
The public in Great Britain and I suggest most police officers, identify armed policing and firearms officers as heavily armed specialists, always carrying long arms and bristling with equipment.
This skews an accurate understanding of what routine armed policing looks like, which in almost every country is front line community officers, in normal uniform, who carry a sidearm discreetly. Most never draw let alone fire their sidearm, however when life is in peril, they have the capability to protect the public and themselves.
These officers are supported by specialists who provided surge capability in times of heightened threat or specialist capability at specific incidents or operations.
The fears that a routinely armed police service would make offices less approachable are fuelled by the current style of armed policing we are deploying.
I visited Belfast this weekend, where the Chief Constable said that he would have additional officers deployed in public areas to reassure and protect the community as part of the national response to the Manchester bombing. I saw community policing and armed policing at its reassuring best. Police officers patrolled Belfast City Centre, on foot and in normal uniform, but each discreetly carried their service issue Glock 17 handgun. I watched one officer hold a missing child by the hand and another take some alcohol from young people. When your police officers are routinely armed they can be more lightly armed, in regular uniform, solving community problems and you don't rely on the specialist, more heavily armed colleagues to provide all your armed policing service.
Effectiveness
Policing in Great Britain is largely unarmed, the daily dangers of this for the police service and public are well know. Quite simply, whether it is a marauding terrorist attack or a Dunblane type attack first responders cannot effectively intervene, we wait for the specialists whilst the deaths toll rises.
Given the relative rarity of IS attacks but their deadly potential, we will need to be extremely fortunate if firearms officers are close enough to respond in time to attacks in Great Britain. Senior officers will claim they are confident they have reviewed the firearms numbers and we have adequate, but this is nonsense, quite simply an attack can happen anywhere and at anytime and our first responders are unarmed.
Any delay is catastrophic. If the terrorists attack a rural location, perhaps a rural school, they will have run out of ammunition long before a specialist is close to arriving.
IS terrorist attacks or thwarted attacks in the U.K. rarely involve high powered automatic weapons, rather knives, bombs and vehicles are the preferred choice, mostly because automatic weapons are relatively difficult to source in this country. This fact is lost on many police leaders and the government. Routinely arming regular police officers with a sidearm affords them the capability, in extremis, to tackle a threat effectively and promptly without fatal delay. These officers can be supported by specialist colleagues when required and crucially when the police service needs a surge in armed officers, as during the past week, this can largely be provided by officers in normal uniform providing reassurance and keeping people safe. This maintains the approachability of the British bobby as opposed to eroding it and reinforces the civilian character or policing.
I pose a final question for police commanders that is squarely within their remit to answer and address. Why do our armed officers when patrolling in recent days all carry rifles, is this tactically required or even effective? Is any consideration given to some of the firearms officers simply carrying their handgun, with one of the patrol carrying a long barrelled weapon for cover and enhanced tactical options. Yesterday, I witnessed three firearms officers boarding a busy train, all carried rifles, these seems cumbersome and unnecessary. In crowded urban spaces I remain unconvinced why group of firearms officers all need to carry rifles, I am a qualified firearms officer and we would benefit from a rethink and consider each deployment in terms of how many 'long arms' are required per patrol. Image and effectiveness are key.
In conclusion, in a debate often conducted in the extremes we urgently need an informed rethink. Those who want to safeguard the civilian and community style of policing in the U.K. would do well to reconsider routinely arming police officers with sidearms thereby enhancing first responder capability and reducing the resort to heavily armed specialists when we need extra armed patrols. In any case, the current deployment of specialist officers officers on foot patrol, when surges are required as currently, should be immediately reviewed and the default of taking out a rifle because you are trained to carry it replaced immediately with an informed decision on each deployment.
The UK has the finest people and police officers in the world, neither are best served by the current routinely unarmed policing service and the paradox that undermines our safety and the community policing ethos we all hold dear.
