'Outrage as police officers armed with huge guns pose with children at Christmas market'

[asim18]

Yes there could be, but statistically it makes more sense to have resources mobile so they can be used as and when necessary, and work pro-actively when not answering calls. Again, it comes down to most efficient use of resources, which was one of the other points I made.

Again this is assumption.

Keeping your officers mobile has zero advantage other than getting your money's worth from their wages.

If an officer has been parading for 8 hours of their shift is hungry, tired, needs to urinate, maybe needs to poop, and a serious terrorist situation requiring absolute tactical precision and complete physical and mental strength happens in the 9th hour a few miles away, it could be argued that the officer would have been in a better state to deal with it if he was off relaxing back at the station range keeping his stomach filled, practising his aiming or cleaning his gun or whatever.

 

[Roar87]

I love how you apply these conditions. So the only place where you won't find parading officers is your house? And there's no densely packed place in the UK where there aren't armed parades?

Considering a terrorist who wants to do "maximum amount of damage", as per your conditions, then a gun isn't going to stop that particular attack. As I explained you cant really stop someone pressing a button on their vest. Even if the attacker has a gun or knife, dual wielding he can take out two officers posing for pictures quite easily. People need to think realistically, this is real life, not a movie where the officers will see the reflection in the camera's lens and turn around and take out the bad guy.

It really does seem like people watch too many films.

Of course there are areas where there won't be armed police, but that doesn't mean they can't be deployed to a place that could be a target when they're available. Why wouldn't you do that? You just potentially saved lives.

Sure terrorists can use bombs, but again, that doesn't mean they might not use a knife or a gun, so why wouldn't you have armed police to counter that particular threat?

I'm struggling with your application of logic

 

[asim18]

You're accusing people of making arguments based on specific conditions, then doing exactly the same yourself a sentence later.

I didn't make that condition. The other poster made the condition, I was simply assuming a stance and pretending his condition was correct and that the terrorist was out for maximum damage. If that condition is correct then other condition's are automatic, the condition that he won't do it right in front of a couple of armed officers and give them time to shoot him is a follow on condition of that poster's initial condition of the terrorist actually wanting to cause some damage before getting shot.

 

[TheVoice]

Again this is assumption.

Keeping your officers mobile has zero advantage other than getting your money's worth from their wages.

You're quite uninformed on the matter I'm afraid, because that simply isn't the case; it's not an assumption, it's proven in practice by every police service in the UK. I've already discussed the reasons why police officers are deployed in the manner they are and the strategies behind where and when resources are deployed aren't just made up on the spot. The public want the police to be visible and pro-active, and that can only be achieved if they're out in the actual area they're policing as opposed to solely reacting in the manner the fire service do.

You can put two PCs in a car anywhere, you can't move a police station to where it might be needed without some serious excavation and building costs.

And you're still using 'parading' wrong.

 

[stewski]

Came here expecting a photo of armed police pointing guns at kids, as it is I can't see a genuine issue relating directly to this story.

Whilst an interesting discussion about the genuine necessity of "visibility" of armed police could definitely be had, I'm at a loss why this story would initiate that.

 

[diamount]

I love how you apply these conditions. So the only place where you won't find parading officers is your house? And there's no densely packed place in the UK where there aren't armed parades?

Considering a terrorist who wants to do "maximum amount of damage", as per your conditions, then a gun isn't going to stop that particular attack. As I explained you cant really stop someone pressing a button on their vest. Even if the attacker has a gun or knife, dual wielding he can take out two officers posing for pictures quite easily. People need to think realistically, this is real life, not a movie where the officers will see the reflection in the camera's lens and turn around and take out the bad guy.

It really does seem like people watch too many films.

I do love you saying people watch too many films and you come out with 'take out both police officers with dual wielding'.

 

[tom_e]

I love how you apply these conditions. So the only place where you won't find parading officers is your house? And there's no densely packed place in the UK where there aren't armed parades?

Considering a terrorist who wants to do "maximum amount of damage", as per your conditions, then a gun isn't going to stop that particular attack. As I explained you cant really stop someone pressing a button on their vest. Even if the attacker has a gun or knife, dual wielding he can take out two officers posing for pictures quite easily. People need to think realistically, this is real life, not a movie where the officers will see the reflection in the camera's lens and turn around and take out the bad guy.

It really does seem like people watch too many films.

They're not in their no. 1 dress parading ffs.
Dual wielding...yeah...No. Purely a film stunt.

 

[area51_for_psx]

Nothing wrong with it at all. No point in kids being afraid of armed police. I grew up in N.Ireland and always seen armed police and army so was never afraid of it and with more armed police being needed now in england it will end up being usual for kids and adults to see them

 

[helpimcrap]

People moan about never seeing a policeman, then they turn up - with guns!

They were just being friendly so people weren't scared BECAUSE they had guns.... It's the reason you don't tell people to 'we are going to crash' etc because it causes panic and elevates the problem of trouble a lot.

 

[StriderX]

What if that kid is a suicide bomber?

If they should be resigned to watching the streets, they can't be soft.

 

[jimjamuk]

the idea is to make them visible and move them around - its all part of a deterrent as well.

 

[asim18]

I do love you saying people watch too many films and you come out with 'take out both police officers with dual wielding'.

That was based on the other posters condition that the terrorist wants to cause "maximum possible damage". If i need to accept that condition then I need to accept it fully. You cant just expect a terrorist who wants to cause maximum damage to simply walk into a couple of officers and let them shoot him before he has a chance to cause "maximum damage" let alone any damage. If that condition is assumed true then yes it's not hard for said terrorist to disable a couple of officers who are posing for photographs.

You cant be selective, you cant simply choose certain aspects. If "maximum possible damage" is to be used as an argument then that condition needs to stay consistent throughout any theorised scenario. Some people think the mere presence of a gun is enough to stop a terrorist hell-bent on "maximum possible damage" in his tracks. It's a false sense of security.

 

[HoneyBadger]

Little me seeing those officers with guns and enjoying their job posing with families etc would have motivated me into wanting to be one. I really don't see the fuss here. They're making a presence, making people feel safe, and acting approachable.

Just your average fuss over nothing in the news.

Couldn't agree more.

The world is a dangerous place, where you can be out with your family, shopping and enjoying yourself and within seconds, it can all change. I work in a London, so see armed offices a lot and it's comforting knowing that if something does occur, the trained offices can respond accordingly as opposed to using harsh language.

I'd rather them have guns and not need them, than not have them and need them.

 

[TheVoice]

You cant be selective, you cant simply choose certain aspects. If "maximum possible damage" is to be used as an argument then that condition needs to stay consistent throughout any theorised scenario. Some people think the mere presence of a gun is enough to stop a terrorist hell-bent on "maximum possible damage" in his tracks. It's a false sense of security.

A terrorist attack isn't consistent, trying to apply your "conditions" to it isn't going to help your argument.

In the various attacks that France endured over the last couple of years, one common theme is police shooting and killing the perpetrators, thus preventing further loss of life. I think the people who survived those incidents might disagree with you calling armed police a false sense of security.

 

[StriderX]

A terrorist attack isn't consistent, trying to apply your "conditions" to it isn't going to help your argument.

In the various attacks that France endured over the last couple of years, one common theme is police shooting and killing the perpetrators, thus preventing further loss of life. I think the people who survived those incidents might disagree with you calling armed police a false sense of security.

Are you just ignoring that they had already committed their offence before being killed?

 

[mmj_uk]

If anyone watched BBC Panarama last night they were saying that the reason why security needs stepping up is because they're expecting 'lone wolf' attacks, keep an eye on your neighbours guys absolutely nobody can be trusted.

What a lovely divided/paranoid/scared society we have become.

 

[TheVoice]

Are you just ignoring that they had already committed their offence before being killed?

No, are you ignoring that I said "prevent further loss of life"?

 

[asim18]

A terrorist attack isn't consistent, trying to apply your "conditions" to it isn't going to help your argument.

In the various attacks that France endured over the last couple of years, one common theme is police shooting and killing the perpetrators, thus preventing further loss of life. I think the people who survived those incidents might disagree with you calling armed police a false sense of security.

Good grief, I'm not denying the "actual" security which can only be provided by armed police, I've already said we need armed police, but we need them for things which call for armed response. I'm calling parading officers with guns in a Christmas square a false "sense" of security. The armed officers can be inside their car, they can be in their station, they can be watching things from a covert vantage point.

You're mistaken it's not me who's creating the conditions here. Now you've added France to the conditions you cant still think they're my conditions?

Of course a terrorist attack isn't consistent that's the whole point here. Your argument is based on "the attack" being consistent with your carefully selected advantages of there being an officer at a certain time and place.

I think the people who survived those incidents might disagree with you calling armed police a false sense of security.

Are you forgetting people died there? You've created another condition, one which is only valid for a few survivors who may not have been able to flee/already fleed and survived as a direct result of the gunman being disabled.

One goes to the Christmas square. One sees two armed police officers therefore one knows the place is secure. 10 mins later terrorist takes out gun, sprays and prays. One dies along with 10 others. One's sense of security was false.

You're thinking about the people who survived but how can you forget the actual reality for the one who died or may die in the future at the hands of a terrorist?

If one dies, was their security actual or perceived?

 

[Energize]

Given the statistically negligible probability of a terrorist attack that armed police could effectively intervene in occurring, why were taxpayer resources being squandered in such a manner at this event?

With the current threat level at 'Severe' I don't understand why people are questioning this course of action during such a busy time of the year.

Lol, you are aware that the government just sets the threat level to what it wants to right? It's not something based on objective data or expert opinion. Don't let a few mp's scare you into submission.

 

[dowie]

That is a complaint. Well, technically it's a whinge but.. to-may-to, to-mah-to.

Who am I complaining to? I posted a topic to invite discussion, I don't agree with the views of people who've complained about this but I'm not complaining about them rather I'm disagreeing with the views they hold. Now perhaps you'd like to contribute to the thread instead of trying to sidetrack it?