How do police in England do their jobs without guns and a body count?

HelenConway
OH Thank you !!!!

Well out of the 5 shots they fire annually apparently, they sure manage to kill plenty of people who are innocent and cows !!
If that is 1 person a year that equals 20% of shots they fire that kill innocents !! Shocking.

I had to read and re-read that a few times for it to make any sense Helen - you're babbling.

What the hell are you on about when you say "they sure as hell managed to kill plenty of people and cows"? They haven't killed "plenty of people". On average, 1 person dies per year from Police shootings. Most of the time, it is legitimate but yes, sometimes mistakes are made. Either way, you have failed in a quite spectacular fashion to make your point.

And what's with the "cows" comment?

The point I was making, in contrast to your "trigger happy" comment is that out of the many thousands (around 12,000 per year) of callouts for ARV's around the entire country, only 5 shots were discharged. How on god's green earth does this mean they are "trigger happy". As per usual, Helen, you're making a mountain out of a grain of sand.

As I said in the previous post, if only 0.04% of ARV callouts result in a weapon being discharged, then this surely means the Police are NOT trigger happy and are, in fact, the total opposite.

What's "shocking" is your quite obvious failure to grasp reality, Helen. Instead, you seem to dwell in some fantasy land where the Police go around shooting people all the time for the sheer fun of it and, for some bizarre reason, cattle.

Actually Stu, the police probably do shoot more cows than people!

www.portsmouth.co.uk...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

That's two in 2013 alone!

But us humans seem quite safe

reply to post by stumason


United Kingdom- 167,318 LEOs (2009) 307 per 100,000 people-----"Crime and Criminal Justice - Police Officers". Eurostat. 2008-03-12. Retrieved 2011-02-14.


United States- 780,000 LEOs (2012) 245 per 100,000 people--------"Bureau of Labor Statistics - Police and Detectives"

en.wikipedia.org...


You have more police.

Also, your snarky comment to Helen was completely uncalled for. I didnt much appreciate your condescending tone towards me in your previous post either. Very unlike the rest of your countrymen I have met. They were charming and pleasant, even when we didnt agree on everything. You are rude and impolite. You cant disagree with people without acting like they kicked your grandmothers teeth in? Are you sure you are originally from the UK?

reply to post by tadaman


Moot point but those figures are out of date and we have less policemen now,

www.theguardian.com...

~128k in England & Wales with ~25k in Scotland and N Ireland

crazyewok
reply to post by abe froman

 

As someone who has freinds in the police I can tell you. Its all down to recruitment and training standards.

The police is very hard to get in to, standards are very high.

A lot of recruits are degree holders from middle class background and very intense.

Also the training never stops, they dont pass police acadermy then get handed a badge and set of hand cuffand tell em to go catch bad guys!. They cant even drive a car with lights at first. Everything needs training and courses.

Of course bad apples get in and we have our problems, but the British people have a very low tolerance for police abuse and we speak out and demand change when things go wrong, many a policeman career gets ruined and rightly so.

To be honest Police officers undergo an initial 12 weeks intensive training period after joining the service, after that they get very very little training input apart from public order training and self defence. During my service of almost 20 years I was shocked at how little training we received.
I'm not a fan of the Police service as a whole and saw plenty of inappropriate behavior by officers, many of whom became almost power crazed here in the UK despite not having any weaponry to back up this mentality other than the uniform.

I used to treat people how I expected to be treated but I guess I was in the minority there.

We are however taught to use personal communication skills in order to diffuse situations. Listening and observing are key skills, we are also trained to be firm but fair. Often letting the suspect vent his verbal aggression first before then controlling the situation.
We are also taught how to disarm violent offenders and those with non firearm weapons such as knives without the use of lethal force. Pre-Tazers our only aid was the Casco, (extendable steel baton) which was a very effective tool.

During my service I was once shot several times in the chest by a man firing a high powered gas air rifle. It did at the time make me realise how different the outcome would have been had the weapon been a real firearm.

What does amaze me though is how quickly US Police Officers resort to lethal force even in the most mundane situations. I have seen people being shot in circumstances that I believe I would have been able to control without having to fire a gun at a suspect, injuring or killing them in the process. This after all in a life that we are talking about.
Just because someone was waving a knife around for example would not mean they should be shot dead, not by a very long shot. If I had shot every person I had engaged who had a weapon, I would have a very long body count after my name.

Lethal force in the UK is a very last resort and generally only used in extreme cases or when the offender(s) are believed to be armed themselves.
Saying all of the above though, here in the UK not everyone citizen is considered to be a firearms carrier, concealed or otherwise. I fully appreciate that US cops face very different challenges to UK Police and the personal risk involved is much higher than here. I would happily Police the streets of the UK but would not relish doing this in the states.

During my recent visit to California I spoke to a woman Police sergeant about her role and found her to be a highly approachable lady with good communication skills and awareness. Whilst chatting to her on a parking lot a second cruiser suddenly came roaring up beside us from nowhere and an altogether different officer stepped out of his cruiser wondering what was happening. I think he thought that because someone was speaking to his Sergeant it must have been a confrontational situation. This officers manner was abrupt and aggressive until being told to leave by his senior who said that the officer had been having a bad day and was looking for someone to arrest.

So just like in the UK, we have officers with good and bad attitudes but our bad days aren't loaded onto the end of a gun.

Remember the police response is more appropriate to the situation here.

If i were to get hold of a farmers shotgun and start waving it around in the street, shooting in the air and shouting, you can bet there would be 4 van loads of fully armed and armored police in a matter of minutes.

The average police person doesnt expect guns and knives as part of a random encounter, when responding to an incident they will likely know what to expect from the radio and therefore if in light police gear they may not be the ones to go to a more heavy serious situation.

We are lucky to have so little organised crime over hear now, the higher levels of police have been doing a pretty good job of keeping it under control and out of the public's way.

reply to post by abe froman


They write noir thrillers by Stephen Macbride...

reply to post by Biigs


Good point although knives are encountered a lot more than one would expect but firearms incidents are indeed pretty rare by comparison.

tadaman
reply to post by stumason

 

United Kingdom- 167,318 LEOs (2009) 307 per 100,000 people-----"Crime and Criminal Justice - Police Officers". Eurostat. 2008-03-12. Retrieved 2011-02-14.


United States- 780,000 LEOs (2012) 245 per 100,000 people--------"Bureau of Labor Statistics - Police and Detectives"

en.wikipedia.org...


You have more police.

Aside from using out of date figures, you use a data set for one country 3 years apart from the other. That is quite disingenuous.

Anyhoo, using the latest figures for both countries, as I did, shows the UK has 1 Officer per 411 people (153000 Police/63 Million Pop), while the USA has 1 Officer for 401 (780k Police/313 Million pop), so you do have more Police.

tadaman
Also, your snarky comment to Helen was completely uncalled for. I didnt much appreciate your condescending tone towards me in your previous post either.

So? You waded into the thread calling the UK streets "the most violent in the world" and Scotland a "bloodspot", you then started a bit of a rant about us apparently unable to walk our streets because of "certain ethnic backgrounds" (and we all know what you meant, btw), before finishing with the usual Yank arrogance about how much better you are. I think if I was condescending, it was duly deserved, so suck it up.

tadaman
Very unlike the rest of your countrymen I have met. They were charming and pleasant, even when we didnt agree on everything. You are rude and impolite. You cant disagree with people without acting like they kicked your grandmothers teeth in?

Maybe so, but only to fools and idiots talking bollocks about somewhere they've never been and which happens to be my home. Deal in facts and talk sensibly, and you will get the respect you seem to crave. It isn't given freely, it is earned, so perhaps you can look at your opening post and reflect on why you got a hostile response and not just from me, I might add.

tadaman
Are you sure you are originally from the UK?

That's the best you can do? Born and raised.

reply to post by AndyMayhew


reply to post by stumason


Yet your civilian occupation of police posts seems to have doubled. So while you may have less officers than before, you have an incredible increase in civilian police employment.

As far as my figures being off, would you care to DOUBLE YOURS? You know, since the tallies you mentioned only consist of about 60% of total law enforcement in the UK.

news.bbc.co.uk...

If you were to tally them up, you would be surprised to find that what your own police are saying. That because of budget cuts, they have loss pay and manpower just so as to employ more people in positions previously held by LEOs. The coalition government has hired civilians to do the jobs of police officers which IMO is fine, since it means more police can focus on fighting crime directly. Everything from investigators to radio dispatchers are now average people with a bare minimum of training though, so there are risks. There is also the possibility of criminals being employed as police support staff or for corruption to increase within the ranks of law enforcement.

So I cant believe that just because they arent hired as police officers that they dont count towards the final tally of total manpower for law enforcement in the UK. That is disingenuous.

Police Federation warns about rise in civilian staff

Police chiefs say civilians free up officers to do what they trained to do
Police forces may soon employ more civilians than officers, the Police Federation of England and Wales claims.

The body, which represents officers, says the proportion of police to civilians has fallen sharply over a decade in forces in England and Wales.

It warns that the drive to cut costs is putting the public at risk by making it harder to handle unplanned emergencies.
Police chiefs, however, say civilian staff free up officers to do the work they trained to do.

According to the Police Federation's research, there are on average fewer than one-and-a-half officers to every civilian, down from nearly two-and-a-half.

In Surrey and Northamptonshire, the number of civilians already outstrip officers, the body says.

EDIT TO AD:

The headcount equivalent of 213,620 FTE police workers was 222,697. This relates to the actual numbers of people employed by the police whether full- or part-time, and of this total 214,087 or 96.1% were available for duty on 31 March 2013 (please see the User Guide for definition).

www.gov.uk...-facts

Maybe so, but only to fools and idiots talking bollocks about somewhere they've never been and which happens to be my home.

Thanks Stuart for yet again insulting me for simply disagreeing with you. Where have I insulted you to deserve being insulted by you?

As far as respect, I dont need it from you. I dont need your validation to hold an opinion. Over emotional Jerks who cant control themselves dont garner my attention very much. Even less so do I need the privilege of their acceptance.


Is that the best you got?

Once again, a lot of waffle without actually considering what you're saying. Yes, the UK police have a lot of "civilian" (hint: Civilian means non-Military, hence all Police Officers are civilians as well), but you present the numbers as proof of total Police manpower in the UK exceeding that of the US on a per-capita basis without also reference the total US policing manpower including "civilian" employees.

Until you do this, your not proving anything in the slightest. All you are doing is selectively presenting information in an effort to prove a point and doing so very, very badly.

tadaman
Thanks Stuart for yet again insulting me for simply disagreeing with you. Where have I insulted you to deserve being insulted by you?

Proof you don't read, I pointed out why I have taken a particular dislike to you. Wading in with both feet talking bollocks about my country is not going to do you any favours, is it?

tadaman
As far as respect, I dont need it from you. I dont need your validation to hold an opinion. Over emotional Jerks who cant control themselves dont garner my attention very much. Even less so do I need the privilege of their acceptance.

Then why the tears? Suck it up and move on. Like I said, if you hadn't come in acting like a "jerk" from the get-go, you would have got a different response. It's like someone walking into a bar, taking a piss in the corner, shouting at the locals about what a craphole the bar is and then getting upset when one of them stands up and tells him to do one.

In June 2004, there were about 40,000 sworn officers plus several thousand support staff; in June 2005, that number dropped to 35,000. As of December 2011, it had increased to slightly over 36,600 with the graduation of a class of 1,500 from the New York City Police Academy. The NYPD's current authorized uniformed strength is 34,450.[6] There are also approximately 4,500 Auxiliary Police Officers, 5,000 School Safety Agents, 2,300 Traffic Enforcement Agents, and 370 Traffic Enforcement Supervisors currently employed by the department. The Patrolmen's Benevolent Association of the City of New York (NYC PBA), the largest municipal police union in the United States, represents over 50,000 active and retired NYC police officers.

en.wikipedia.org...

There were 139,110 full-time equivalent (FTE) police officers in the 43 police forces of England and Wales as at 31 March 2011.

www.politics.co.uk...

So, New York, alone, has almost 35,000 police officers, which equates to around 25% of the total number of police in the whole of the UK. Believe me, America has overkill when it comes to policing.

reply to post by stumason


Did he really say most violent in the world? lol I grew up in Moss Side Manchester, pretty rough and at times violent but I have been around the world and places in Brazil and others have spots which make my old stomping look right posh.
All who have not been here can have such a wrong view about a country some of the comments here are laughable ill-informed and frankly a bit rude.
But toddle pip for now old chum and keep on informing others about the GREAT British .
Oh and remember everyone different cultures and all that and no point getting miffed cos we are better than that .

reply to post by stumason


I never mentioned "military". I simply stated that the UK has a higher ratio of law enforcement personnel to non law enforcement than compared to the US. We have allot Militarized forces in charge of security here yes. I am not disputing that. I am saying that per person, you have more LAW ENFORCEMENT personnel. Military forces are trained and used for combat and as a result have less interaction with the civilian population than LEOs. I dont see why that is even relevant to the discussion. Unless you are playing the tired tune of "The US is an overly aggressive nation and has machine gun toating officers pulling over old ladies". Excuse me if I laugh at that the same way you scoff at my remarks.

You have a HUGE police force that has had to be scaled down for its excessive size. That really isnt even disptable. Those statistics are from your very own government.

The US also the most involved military in the world, with responsibilities all over the globe in mind numbing numbers. They do need to live and train somewhere. Again not really relevant but ok.

As far as moving on, why are you so upset? I am not the one getting angry at another person WHOM I HAVE NEVER MET. Much in the same way you say I have never been to your country, you cant possibly begin to "know" me. You have never met me, yet you "dislike me". Ok. Doesnt take much huh.

Monkey: I didnt say MOST violent in the world. I said one of the most violent. That too is not disputable. That is like saying that Harlem is not a bad place to walk around because its so beautiful and safe.

The UK had to be disarmed for crying out loud. What, you just felt like it one day for no reason?

Moving along ( I will take your advice Stuey), I never "pissed on your country and yelled at the locals". I parroted everything your own people have told me over the years. I have actually met MANY people from the UK. I have many friends from the UK since I lived in Europe for almost 7 years. While you may not notice the burden of living in a bad neighborhood or near one, these people I met have. I dont think they were all "in on it" to convince some random New Yorker how unsafe they felt at times.

So, I am sorry that you took such offence to my post. It is entirely your own problem and I am not sorry for what I said. I am sorry for you to have take offence at it the way you did is all. Pitty.

The fact that you needed to insult me only validates my point though. Your first instinct isnt reason or conversation. Its aggressive and barbaric tones of bile soaked sensitivity later masked by a victim mentality of indignation. I wonder what would have happened if we were to carry this conversation out in person. A bloody fight? Hmmmm.

All that being said. I do like your country and your countrymen. Nice bunch. To everyone else from the UK not Stuart, have a good one. Stuart, chill out man. I would recommend a beer and some down time but I think alcohol wouldnt really help your case. How about some nice herbal tea though?

tadaman
I never mentioned "military". I simply stated that the UK has a higher number of law enforcement compared to the US. We have allot Militarized forces in charge of security yes. I am not disputing that.

I never said you said "military", however you did call non-Police staff civilians which, by implication, means that Police aren't civilian - hence military. This is something I see from Yanks all the time, talking about Police and then civilians like they are distinct entities, they are not - Police are civilians.

tadaman
I am saying that per person, you have more LAW ENFORCEMENT personnel.

No, we don't.

Firstly, as covered earlier, we don't do "law enforcement", we "keep the peace". Massive difference.

Secondly, we don't have more "law enforcement personnel". The "civilian" staff are mainly administrative, or technical (CSI types) or, in the case of PCSO's just plastic bobbies who don't even have the power of arrest.

Now, I said to you that it was totally disingenuous of you to use these support staff in your figures while not doing so for US police figures - you have simply ignored this hole in your argument and just repeated what you said earlier. Care to address that point?

tadaman
That really isnt even disptable. Those statistics are from your very own government.

That you are selectively using - see above.

tadaman
We are also the most involved military in the world, with responsibilities all over the globe in mind numbing numbers. They do need to live and train somewhere.

Ok, great, nice to know... Not sure of it's relevance.

tadaman
As far as moving on, why are you so upset? I am not the one getting angry at another person WHOM I HAVE NEVER MET. Much in the same way you say I have never been to your country, you cant possibly begin to "know" me. You have never met me, yet you "dislike me". Ok. Doesnt take much huh.

Haha, if you think I am angry, you are sorely mistaken. Yes, I have taken a slight dislike to you, for the simple fact you're peddling nonsense.

tadaman
I didnt say MOST violent in the world. I said one of the most violent

Semantics - That's like saying you didn't say Orange, you said Citrus fruit....

here is what you said (on page 4 - last post):

They don't keep order. Your streets are some of the most violent in the world. Scotland is a blood pot.

tadaman
. That too is not disputable. That is like saying that Harlem is not a bad place to walk around because its so beautiful and safe.

How is not disputable? I would dispute the crap out of it, actually. You are far less likely to get involved in any violence in the UK than a whole slew of places. Many a recent study has also shown violent crime to the lowest ever recorded:

Source 1
Source 2

tadaman
The UK had to be disarmed for crying out loud. What, you just felt like one day for no reason?

"Had to be disarmed"? When were we "disarmed"? In fact, when were we ever "armed"? Gun culture has never been big in the UK and those who do own guns do it out of professional need (farmers, pest control, hunting). You are, obviously, completely clueless as to the history of gun ownership in the UK.

tadaman
Moving along ( I will take your advice), I never "pissed on your country and yelled at the locals".

It was an analogy, I am sure you are familiar with the concept. What you did in your opening post here - bottom of page was what I was referring to. If I did something similar about the US, while not being familiar with the people or culture, you'd be pissy too.

tadaman
I parroted everything your own people have told me over the years. I have actually met MANY people from the UK. I have many friends from the UK since I lived in Europe for almost 7 years. While you may not notice the burden of living in a bad neighborhood or near one, these people I met have. I dont think they were all in on it to convince some random New Yorker how unsafe they felt at times.

I'm just going to have to take your word for it, but you also seem to be missing a trick. British people love to moan and love to try and make a situation appear far worse than it is. Essentially, your basing your entire opinion on somewhere you have never been on hearsay.

And yes, I have had the privilege of living in some really rough area's. but at the same time, I never once encountered any violence. Once, we did get a couple of black lads pop out of an alley and demand our weed, but we simply laughed and walked on. The only time I have ever really encountered "serious" violence was due to alcohol and I can count those occasions on one hand over a 10 year period.

tadaman
So, I am sorry that you took such offence to my post. It is entirely your own problem and I am not sorry for what I said. I am sorry for you to have to see it the way you did is all. Pitty.

Had you not phrased what you said in such a confrontational and inflammatory way, whilst obviously having no experience of what the hell it was you were chatting about, then we could have a polite discourse. But, you jumped in with both feet with your arms swinging, then got all upset when you get some back.

tadaman
The fact that you needed to insult me only validates my point though. Your first instinct isnt reason or conversation. Its aggressive and barbaric tones of bile soaked sensitivity. I wonder what would have happened if we were to carry this conversation out in person. A bloody fight? Hmmmm.

Oh please - overly sensitive, perhaps? Aggressive and barbaric? Hahah, nope. Confrontational and challenging, because you did post some right bollocks, but if you think this is "barbaric" then your a bit of a softy!

And yes if, say, you walked into a pub, went over to a table of people having this conversation then loudly announced the UK is "one of the most violent places" and describing Scotland as a "bloodspot", then proceeded to tell us we're being overrun by Muslims (because that is what you meant by "ethnicities") and don't have the balls to stand up to them, the chances are you'd be knee deep in trouble pretty soonish. Just as I would expect if I walked into an American bar and started spouting the stereotypical nonsense associated with you guys, such as you're all fat, redneck, gun toting idiots.

Point being, you're having a right old whinge at me biting back at you when it is you who waded in with both barrels first.

tadaman
All that being said. I do like your country, and your countrymen. Nice bunch. To everyone else from the UK not Stuart, have a good one. Stuart, chill out man. I would recommend a beer and some down time, but I think alcohol wouldnt really help your case. How about some nice herbal tea though?

I am chilled, don't fret. I do think you have read "aggression" and "barbarity" where none was present - I simply think what I wrote was a strong;y worded rebuttal. Again, probably culture differences at play here - we don't pussy around, we get straight to the point. We're not happy-go-lucky like you guys - none of that "have a nice day" crap over here - we will call our best mate a Wanker and regularly engage in banter with work colleagues that would probably be seen as harassment! I can't repeat any of the things we say to each other here.

The misconception of us being all fluffy round the edges, Hugh Grant style weaklings is an american ideal, not reality.

For what it's worth, if you were genuinely "offended", I will apologise for that. However, I would suggest you grow a thicker skin because if I believe something is incorrect or if someone is spreading nonsense, I will become the proverbial tonne of bricks. I'm all for free debate, but I deal in facts

I also don't drink, as a rule. I do like herbal remedies though...

ThePeaceMaker
reply to post by Echo3Foxtrot

 

We have armed response units. Armed with side arms sub machine guns and tasers.

And when those boys come out, they really do mean business.....Before armed police are deployed at all there must be a presumption that the target is armed and dangerous and the firearms teams respond accordingly.

If a suspect were so foolish as to wave a gun at these guys they will be taken out in an instant.

stumason
And yes if, say, you walked into a pub, went over to a table of people having this conversation then loudly announced the UK is "one of the most violent places" and describing Scotland as a "bloodspot", then proceeded to tell us we're being overrun by Muslims (because that is what you meant by "ethnicities") and don't have the balls to stand up to them, the chances are you'd be knee deep in trouble pretty soonish. Just as I would expect if I walked into an American bar and started spouting the stereotypical nonsense associated with you guys, such as you're all fat, redneck, gun toting idiots.

I suspect a lot of people would be extremely surprised at the level of 'casual violence' in the UK, mostly associated with pub & club kicking out time.....My own quaint little rural city turns into an alcohol fuelled hellhole on a Friday and Saturday night. Behaviour that I've certainly never seen in the US or indeed anywhere else, barring the presence of British tourists.

Kind of embarrassing really.

reply to post by stumason


I am flattered.

Throwing around statistics is unhelpful, because regardless of the source we know things are / are not included. The fact is that the number of police officers in the UK and US are broadly similar and in line with other developed nations.

As already mentioned, I think there is a difference in the approach of UK and US police officers. In the UK the approach is based on the Peelian Principles of policing aka "policing by consent".

1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.
3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and
maintain the respect of the public.
4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of
physical force.
5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial
service to the law.
6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise
of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.
7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are
the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention
to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

Source WIKI but widely found

Look at point 4 and 6. I think that is the problem in the US. In the UK the fact that a shot is fired is seen as failure and subject to endless inquiries and scrutiny. From what I gather, in the US the police use of guns is routine and less scrutinised - in other words physical force is over-used.

Hope this helps

Regards

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by ObservingYou

 

I actually think you might have made the opposite point from what you were trying to make.

For any of our cousins across the pond this is how UK police deal with people who are being awkward.

Just watch the video, the police dont really do anything that I would say was wrong, people get pulled over all the time and the officer asks that you turn off the engine and get out of the car. Its pretty normal stuff.

This guy in the video goes a bit over the top, he is shouting at the police, talking about "Bacon breath" and firing all kinds of insults at them so the PC calls for some support (nothing wrong with that) the guy has a bit more of a rant as they check him out on their systems and he drives off. The result probably would have been the exact same had he been more cooperative.

I think a lot of members of the public forget that a police officer is just doing his or her job and its a job that someones got to do.

You cannot actually fault the police in this video, but the guy filming it is acting like a real jerk.

Yea, Police OFFICER was the key word in your post.

FREEMEN only deal with police CONSTABLES.