British Police shoot Terrorism suspect, again.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lol real_name is awesome! "Ok you scary terrorists, leave us alone or we'll execute more complete strangers to you, who you don't care about and who haven't done anything wrong or even suspicious. And puppies, we'll start killing puppies, don't think we're kidding, we'll do it! That's it, I'm strangling my son's hamster. Do you see this? I just crushed my son's beloved pet. Take us seriously!"
 
UK cops have a long and ignominious history of getting all worked up and shooting/killing innocent people. Probably comes from an appalling societal ignorance of firearms and watching too many police dramas on the telly.
 
Lots of castles in the air being built here, on the basis of no confirmed facts at all. Nobody in the media here is saying it was all a mistake yet, which started within 24 hours at Stockwell.
 
This is one reason,why the UK cops were hostile towards terrorists and towards legal gunowners.The following section is extracted from the author Jeremy Josephs,Hungerford:One mans massacre-which was a detailed account of that terrible massacre.This section,includes the actual dialogue,between Sgt Paul Brightwell and Micheal Ryan-before Ryan killed himself,with his Beretta M92f.

Possibly the following section,could explain,why their policies are "shoot to kill-when dealing with terrorists and would-be bombers.

Sgt Paul Brightwell,was a section and platoon leader of the Thames Valley Police departments,Tactical Firearms Unit-who were the equiverlant of a typical American Swat team.

Brightwell and Ryan’s conversation, which was to last almost an hour and a half, began when the gunman finally confirmed that he had heard the police message that he was surrounded. But the exchange hardly seemed to get off to a promising start.

SERGEANT: What is your first name, Mr Ryan?

RYAN: It is nothing to do with you. Mind your own business.

SERGEANT: That’s OK. I just want to talk to you and get you out safely. Do you understand?

RYAN: Yes, I’ve nothing against you.

SERGEANT: What weapons do you have with you?

RYAN: One 9mm pistol and ammunition.

SERGEANT: Mr Ryan, this is very important. Do not come to the window holding any weapons. Do you understand?

RYAN: I understand. I also have a grenade.

SERGEANT: Do not come to the window with the grenade. Do you understand?

RYAN: Yes.

SERGEANT: What type of grenade is it?

RYAN: Israeli fragmentation type.

SERGEANT: I want to get you out of the building safely.

RYAN: Yes.

SERGEANT: It is important that you do not come to the window with any weapon. Do you understand?

RYAN: Yes.

‘It was a bit of a relief when I was immediately answered,’ Sergeant Brightwell would later reveal. ‘He was actually easy to talk to. The whole enormity of what he had done didn’t dawn upon me at the time. I had met George Noon on the way down though, and seen Douglas Wainwright slumped over his car - so I knew what he had done all right. I just wanted to keep him talking - to get him out of the building, as you can see from my report. I didn’t want him to be shot. That’s the training. Although I’m not a proper police negotiator, we do learn how to negotiate with someone in a building as part of our overall tactical training. I was nervous but not shaking. So at this stage I switched my radio off, in order to be able to concentrate more effectively. Another PC with me was in radio contact and reporting back all the time to Mr Lambert.’

Chief Inspector Lambert, leading the Support Group, had by now moved out of his Portakabin outside Hungerford police station and headed towards the school. Accompanying him on this short journey was a trained police negotiator, expert in psychological tactics and techniques, who had been standing by for some time. But Lambert was soon satisfied that the dialogue between Sergeant Brightwell and Ryan was going well. It was his judgement that no useful purpose could be served by a sudden change of personnel. In fact he was more worried about Ryan’s claim to have a grenade, so he ordered additional police armoury to cover the window of the classroom where the gunman had been seen. As the Chief Inspector continued to monitor the dialogue, he became convinced that Ryan was going to give himself UP.

Just as the head of the Support Group was happy for Sergeant Brightwell to proceed with the negotiations, so the Assistant Chief Constable, Charles Pollard, was content to follow the judgement of his firearms adviser.

‘While I was in overall charge of the police operation, you do have to be able to delegate,’ Charles Pollard would later insist. ‘So I let Paul Brightwell get on with it via Glyn Lambert. Because once I knew that we had the school contained, it became, in some respects, a routine policing matter. We now had the situation under control. It was at this stage that I too went down to the school.’

‘Although the conversation went on for well over an hour,’ Sergeant Brightwell would later explain, ‘it seemed more like five minutes. All the time he was both lucid and calm. There were the odd gaps in the dialogue, but other than that it was almost continuous. On several occasions I really did think that he was going to make a move and come out. I knew precisely how I wanted him to come out, because of the training. But he did keep on asking about his mother.’

Altogether, Ryan would ask the Sergeant about the plight of his mother, Dorothy, well over a dozen times. Indeed it was the central theme of their conversation.

RYAN: I want to know how my mother is. Tell me about my mother.

SERGEANT: I will try to find out about your mother. Just bear with me.

RYAN: I must know about my mother.

SERGEANT: Mr Ryan, do you have any other weapons?

RYAN: I’ve got a.32 CZ pistol but that is in for repair. I must know about my mother. Tell me. I will throw the grenade out of the window.

SERGEANT: Don’t do that. I’m trying to find out.

RYAN: That is ridiculous. You must know. I want to know.

SERGEANT: Mr Ryan, when I tell you to, I want you to stand up and look out of the widow to the front of the school.

RYAN: What for?

SERGEANT: If you stand up, we will know what door you are coming out of.

RYAN: I’m not standing up, Have you found out about my mother yet?

SERGEANT: Not yet, I’m still trying.

RYAN: I’m not coming out until I know.

‘As you can see; Sergeant Brightwell would later explain, ‘he kept on asking about his mother. But I can tell you that she was as dead as a doornail. It seemed to me that by asking about her continuously he was almost trying to let himself off of the hook in some way.

The conversation continued.

SERGEANT: I want you to leave all your weapons in that room. Do you understand?

RYAN: Yes. My pistol is tied to my wrist with a lanyard. I have one round of ammunition.

SERGEANT: Can you undo the lanyard?

RYAN: No.

‘I must say that I was perplexed by this man,’ Ryan’s interlocutor would later admit ‘I just wanted him to do as I was telling him. I still thought that I was going to get him out. It seemed to me as if he wanted to come out. I was shouting because of the distance between us. A couple of times I had to ask him to speak up. But what he said about the gun being tied to his wrist with a lanyard worried me. Because I knew that if he did come out he could easily have been shot, had the gun been misinterpreted, for example. But he still seemed to be happy to talk. He asked about my rank and so on. So we carried on talking.’

SERGEANT: It is important that you come out with no weapons.

RYAN: I had an M1 carbine which I left in the park. It was on a gravel path near the body of a mate I shot near the swimming pool. There should be a thirty-round magazine with it.

SERGEANT: Thank you for that, Mr Ryan.

RYAN: Also, there is my dog. Has anybody found that? It is a black labrador. I shot it. I had my eyes shut the first time and I just winged it. I have undone the lanyard. I also have body armour.

SERGEANT: Thank you. Will you come out?

RYAN: I am not coming out until I know about my mother.

SERGEANT: I am trying to find out. But I want you to come out leaving all your weapons in the room.

RYAN: Where shall I leave them - on the window-sill?

SERGEANT: Don’t come to the window holding any weapon. Just leave them on the floor. Do you understand?

RYAN: Yes.

SERGEANT: Just leave all your weapons in the room and come out.

RYAN: I will come down the stairs outside.

SERGEANT: The stairs with the rifle out in front?

RYAN: Yes, those stairs.

SERGEANT: When you come outside look to the left and you will see me. Do not make any move towards the rifle. I want you to leave your body armour in the room as well, Mr Ryan.

RYA N: Why’s that?

SERGEANT: I need to be able to see you have nothing concealed, that you understand my position.

RYAN: Yes, I understand. I am not going to come out until I know about my mother.

SERGEANT: I am doing my best, Mr Ryan. I am still trying to find out about your mother. If you come out, we will be able to sort it out much quicker.

Sergeant Brightwell later explained: ‘All the time I was trying to play down what he had done. To give him the impression that we could sort everything out - that I was a sort of friend who he could talk to - even though it was obvious that the bloke was completely nuts and needed locking away for the rest of his life. So when he asked about the casualty figures, I again tried to talk the whole thing down.’

RYAN: What are the casualty figures?

SERGEANT: I don’t know. Obviously you know you shot a lot of people.

RYAN: Hungerford must be a bit of a mess.

SERGEANT: You are right. They know you have been through. Do you know how many you have shot?

RYAN: I don’t know. Its like a bad dream.

SERGEANT: It has happened. The sooner you come out, the easier it will be to sort out.

RYAN: I know it’s happened. I’m not stupid.

SERGEANT: I know that, mate.

RYAN: How’s my mother? She’s dead, isn’t she? That’s why you will not tell me. I am throwing the magazine of the pistol out. I still have one round left, though.

SERGEANT: Why do you have that?

RYAN: It is obvious, isn’t it?

SERGEANT: I want to get you out safely. Don’t do anything silly.

RYAN: Don’t worry. I have nothing against you. You have got your job to do.

That afternoon there was another man in Hungerford with a job to do. Sergeant David Warwick, a senior firearms instructor in the Support Group, had Michael Ryan in his telescopic gun sight for a full minute. And yet he chose not to pull the trigger.

‘If I had fired,’ he comments, ‘then I would have been a murderer. I would have been no better than him. He was unlikely to shoot anybody else. Nor was he any longer a threat to the police or the public. It was also extremely unlikely that he was going to abscond or commit other offences. You have got to have the justification before shooting someone and the justification wasn’t there.’

Unaware that Sergeant Warwick’s gun had been trained on him, albeit from outside the school, Ryan continued to ask about his mother.

RYAN: You must have a radio. Get on that and find out. How many people are with you?

SERGEANT: Just a couple.

RYAN: Well, get them to do it. Have you found the M1 carbine yet?

SERGEANT: They are still looking, Mr Ryan. I have passed on all the details.

RYAN: It is just that there were some kids nearby. I don’t want them to find it. And what about my dog? Have you found it? Was it on the Common?

SERGEANT: Is it important?

RYAN: Yes.

SERGEANT: It is at Hungerford police station.

RYAN: Will you look after it?

SERGEANT: Of course we will.

RYAN: Will you give it a decent burial?

SERGEANT: Yes, Mr Ryan. If you come out, you can see the dog yourself.

RYAN: What about my mother? She is dead. I know she is dead. Have you found her yet?

SERGEANT: I am still waiting, Mr Ryan.

RYAN: I have picked up my gun again.

SERGEANT: Don’t do that, Mr Ryan. If you come out I will find out. All you have to do is walk slowly down the stairs with your hands in the air. Have you seen anybody in the school?

R YAN: No. I am on my own. I haven’t any hostages. What time is it?

SERGEANT: It is 6.24.

RYAN: If only the police car hadn’t turned up. If only my car had started.

SERGEANT: Will you come out now please, Mr Ryan?

RYAN: I want to think about it. Why won’t you tell me about my mother?

SERGEANT: I don’t know. As soon as you come out, we’ll find out together.

RYAN: I won’t come out until I know. I did not mean to kill her. It was a mistake.

SERGEANT: I understand that, mate.

RYAN: How can you understand? I wish I had stayed in bed.

SERGEANT: Mr Ryan, just come down. Leave all your weapons in the room and come down.

Within the sixty seconds that Sergeant Warwick’s gun was trained on Ryan, the gunman appeared at the window, apparently unarmed. Warwick wondered if it was perhaps Ryan’s way of asking the police to bring about the end. But still the police marksman refused to shoot. The senior firearms instructor knew very well that if Ryan had appeared at the window with a grenade, or anything remotely resembling a grenade, or indeed if he was holding a hostage, then the police response would have been totally different. But neither of these scenarios materialized.

‘All the talk was that he was going to give himself up,’ Sergeant Warwick would later explain. ‘He was in an empty school, having thrown one weapon out of the window - and I can tell you he wasn’t going anywhere. Pulling the trigger would therefore have been entirely the wrong decision.’

Still unaware that his life had been spared by the highest standards of professional policing on the part of Sergeant Warwick, Ryan began to dwell on the consequences of giving himself up. He asked if he could be taken to London.

RYAN: Will I be treated OK?

SERGEANT: Of course you will, Mr Ryan.

RYAN: Will I go to prison for a long time?

SERGEANT: I don’t know, Mr Ryan. It is not up to me.

RYAN: You must have an idea. I will get life, won’t l?

SERGEANT: I don’t know, Mr Ryan. You will go to prison for a long time.

RYAN: It’s funny. I killed all those people but I haven’t got the guts to blow my own brains out.

SERGEANT: Mr Ryan, just leave all your weapons in the room and do exactly as you are told. Don’t do anything silly. Do you understand?

RYAN: What time is it?

SERGEANT: Six-forty-five. What do you want to know the time for?

RYAN: I want to think about it. I am not coming out until I know about my mother.

SERGEANT: Mr Ryan, I am still trying to find out. If you comedown we will be able to find out together.
There followed several minutes during which time Michael Ryan did not speak. And then, at 6.52pm, Sergeant Brightwell heard a single, muffled shot from the classroom. The gunman, who had not expressed the slightest remorse for any one of his victims, was not to speak again.

‘But that was by no means the end of the matter from our point of view,’ Chief Inspector Lambert would later point out. ‘Had he shot the wall? Would we all get shot if we went in there? I kept an open mind and was determined not to rush it. But I did want to finish it before dark, only a couple of hours away. I thought that there could be a booby trap. We flew a helicopter past the window -but they couldn’t see in. Then someone got up onto the roof. We had a dog in front of us. These are the Tactical Firearms dogs who are used to training with us. So the dog went in first for us to see what the reaction would be. If there was a person in the room the dog would have reacted. The person on the roof was using mirrors on a long pole, and he saw Ryan, who appeared to be dead. I knew that we were almost home. People then went in and saw that he was indeed dead. We then used a technique to make sure that he was not wired for explosives before we touched him - and an explosives officer took over at this point. So the body was tied up and wired up and moved to make sure that there was no booby trap. Then I went into the classroom myself and saw him. My reaction was just one of relief. That it was over.’

When members of the Tactical Firearms Team entered the classroom, they found Ryan’s body slumped in a corner on the floor near a window. His back was against the wall and his 9mm Beretta pistol, hammer still cocked, remained clasped in his right hand, tied to his wrist by a bootlace. A Home Office pathologist would later confirm that Ryan had died from a single gunshot wound to the head. It had passed through his skull, shattering his brain. The bullet wound was 0.7cm at the point of entry and the skin around it blackened and as if tattooed. The bullet had fractured the skull extensively, and its heat had singed the gunman’s hair.

‘I went in with some others,’ Sergeant Brightwell recalls. ‘The doors were barricaded. And there he was, sitting beneath the window, dead. I thought, Oh - so that’s who I’ve been talking to. I didn’t feel sorry for him. I thought that’s more than he would have got if he would have come out. It’s probably as close as you could have got to justice, if you like. It wasn’t a case of brains being splattered everywhere, as you might think. But there was blood all over his face and up the wall. When it was all over I got back to the police station and phoned home. My wife, Sandy, knows not to expect me on time, and she would have known that I would have been involved. Still, she was mightily relieved to hear from me. It was midnight when I got home. The kids were in bed. You just try to play it down a bit. I’m not the hero of Hungerford. Its just that I ended up speaking to him. I was just doing the job I was trained to do. The people of Hungerford were brave - the public and the injured. When I got there, we now know, it was all over. He had shot his last person. In any case, I had a gun and a flak jacket, and I was surrounded by eight blokes. Those who got it had nothing. The local police were unarmed - Roger Brereton and the like. So compared to what some people saw, and to what they still have to deal with, you realize that you got off lightly.’

According to one of the tabloid newspapers, soon after the announcement that Ryan had shot himself, a good number of the townsfolk of Hungerford went wild with delight. It reported that some residents living near to the school ran into the street chanting: ‘The bastard’s dead, the bastard’s dead.’ The paper claimed that children, many of whom had been ordered to hide under their beds while Ryan was on the loose, cycled up and down yelling ‘Good riddance’, while in the pubs of Hungerford, drinkers toasted his death. Hungerford’s mourning had thus still to begin.

Ron Tarry formed a completely different impression as he walked around the town in the wake of the shootings. He explains: ‘I saw people shocked and talking in hushed tones to each other. My impression was that it was largely the press and others who had rushed into the town and were drinking in the pubs. Not one resident toasted Ryan’s death, and there were no signs of rejoicing. What that newspaper reported was totally untrue.’
HUNGERFORD.jpg


A couple of TFU members,gearing up and ready to track Micheal Ryan,to his former high-school.
 
Wow. Some people love to make a mad dash, knocking down as many people in their way, so he or she can be first in line to be the righteous one. I understood what you meant, real_name, just perfectly. And I can't say I agree or disagree with it, because it wasn't so much an opinion of yours as it was one of several factual conclusions drawn. Can't agree or disagree with facts, they simply are.

On a related note, why does everything involving police using force on anyone (whether they be criminals or turn out to be innocent civilians) garner as much reaction here as those from the anti-gunners when there's a shooting spree or a murder of seven family members in a household? Let's examine the facts, or in this case, the lackthereof and come to a better, more proper judgement than mere speculation.
 
Policemen arrested over 'murder' of Scot
KAREN MCVEIGH

Key points
• Unarmed man's police killers are arrested
• Officers who shot Harry Stanley were cleared of unlawful killing just one week ago
• Fellow police protest against arrests

Key quote
"These officers were asked to make a split-second, life-and-death decision as a result of the armed policing duties they had volunteered for. Six years later, their decision is still being examined by the legal system." - Scotland Yard's assistant commissioner, Steve House

Story in full
TWO police marksmen have been arrested on suspicion of murder over the fatal shooting of an unarmed Scots grandfather, Harry Stanley, six years ago.

The dramatic twist in the long-running case, which began on 22 September, 1999, when Inspector Iain Sharman, 42, and Pc Kevin Fagan, 38, fatally shot Mr Stanley, when they mistook the table-leg he carried for a shotgun, comes weeks after a High Court cleared them of unlawful killing.

They were held on suspicion of murder, gross negligence, manslaughter and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by Surrey Police officers, before being released on bail, pending further inquiries. They have not been suspended from duty.

Their arrests last night prompted resignation threats from a number of firearms officers, while others refused to carry their weapons in protest against their treatment.

A previous decision to suspend the officers in November last year, following an unlawful killing inquest verdict, had led to similar threats of an unofficial strike. The officers were re-instated but banned from firearms duties.

The latest development, six years after Mr Stanley died yards from his home in Hackney, east London, came as a result of new forensic evidence unearthed by Surrey Police as part of their review of the case.

Any charges resulting from their arrest will be decided by the Crown Prosecution Service, which has been reviewing the evidence since October 2004, following the second inquest into Mr Stanley's death.

The men could be charged with any of the offences, a combination of the offences, or none, depending on the CPS's decision.

Scotland Yard is standing by the two officers, whose arrests mark the latest twist in a bitter legal battle that has included two inquests, a High Court hearing and, three weeks ago, a judicial review.

Mr Stanley, 46, originally from Lanarkshire, was carrying a blue plastic bag with a coffee table-leg inside, which had just been repaired by his brother Peter. Both officers opened fire as the painter and decorator walked home from the Alexandra pub in Hackney.

The father of three had been recovering from an operation on colon cancer at the time.

Mr Stanley's widow, Irene, 52, from Glasgow, made no comment yesterday, but her lawyer issued a statement on her behalf. It said: "The family has noted today's development and is awaiting an early decision on criminal charges. They are again calling for the officers to be suspended from all duties."

However, those representing rank-and-file officers criticised the treatment of Pc Fagan and Insp Sharman. Glen Smyth, the chairman of the Met branch of the Police Federation, accused Surrey detectives of acting with "gross incompetence". He said that the officers were "absolutely devastated" by the news.

"The way this case has been conducted goes from bad to appalling. I can't comment on the alleged new evidence, but for Surrey Police to present new evidence to the world six years after the event is incredible."

He said that Surrey Police had known about the evidence last month, before a judicial review overturned an inquest verdict that the officers had unlawfully killed Mr Stanley.

"The very fact they knew about it before the judicial review and sought an injunction to prevent the Police Federation from telling the interested parties of the new developments is absolutely scandalous."

Mr Smyth said that the officers' careers had been put "on hold for six years".

The Police Federation chairwoman, Jan Berry, said it was "astounding and completely wrong" that the matter still had not been resolved.

"Firearms officers do an extremely difficult job and are expected to make split-second decisions," she said.

Scotland Yard's assistant commissioner, Steve House, added: "The investigations and inquiries into this tragic incident have now been running for nearly six years and the time this has taken can only have increased the strain placed on all concerned.

"These officers were asked to make a split-second, life-and-death decision as a result of the armed policing duties they had volunteered for. Six years later, their decision is still being examined by the legal system. How many of us would want to be in that position?"

He added that the internal disciplinary position of the two officers had been reviewed by the Met's Directorate of Professional Standards and, in "the light of today's developments, their position remains unchanged".

The first inquest into Mr Stanley's death returned an open verdict in June 2002 - a decision which his family subsequently had overturned at a High Court hearing. A second inquest, at St Pancras Coroner's Court last October, returned a verdict of unlawful killing.

Then last month, the unlawful killing verdict was quashed by a High Court judge who said that there was "insufficient evidence" to support it - a decision that was attacked by Mr Stanley's family.

Daniel Machover, Mrs Stanley's lawyer, criticised Mr Smyth for his comments about the case.

"We consider the matter to be sub judice. It sounds to me like Mr Smyth is getting their defence in early."

He added: "What we are waiting for is a decision on charges, and we want to make sure, if there is a trial, that it is a fair trial. The family have always wanted a jury in a criminal case to make a decision on whether the officers are guilty of criminal charges."

He said that the family would be seeking an appeal of the judge's ruling on 12 May, which cleared the officers.

A CPS spokesman said that no decision as to whether or not there would be a prosecution had yet been taken.

"We will give our decision to Surrey Police when we have received and had time to consider all of the evidence in this case, including the result of current police interviews," he said.

THESE are the events that led to the arrests of two police officers on suspicion of murdering the painter and decorator Harry Stanley.

• September 1999 - Mr Stanley, 46, shot as he walked home from a pub near his home in Hackney, London, carrying a wooden table-leg, which the officers mistook for a sawn-off shotgun.

• June 2002 - An inquest jury returns an open verdict. They had not been allowed to consider possible verdicts of unlawful killing or gross negligence manslaughter.

• February 2003 - Mr Stanley's family win permission to apply for a fresh inquest.

• April 2003 - Mr Justice Silber, at the High Court in London, orders a fresh inquest.

• October 2004 - An inquest jury returns an unlawful killing verdict.

• Days later, Chief Inspector Neil Sharman and Pc Kevin Fagan from the Metropolitan Police firearms unit S019 are suspended from duty.

• November 2004 - Met Police firearms officers threaten to lay down their weapons in protest against the suspensions.

• Both officers are allowed to return to work on "non-operational duties".

• May 2005 - The High Court quashes the unlawful killing verdict.

• June 2005 - Sharman and Fagan are arrested.

_38632569_armed300.jpg
 
Central Operations Specialist Firearms Command (CO19)


banner.jpg

History
Society has, over recent years, been debating the issues around fully arming the police in response to increasing armed crime, some of which have include several high profile incidents. These debates intensified after the massacre in Hungerford by Michael Ryan in 1987 and more recently, the killing of PC Pat Dunne in Clapham, South London in 1993.

Actually, this issue has been debated for over a hundred years. In fact the Metropolitan Police back in 1884, after the murders of two constables, were given permission from the Commissioner of the day, to carry revolvers during uniformed night time patrols. These were called 'Comforters' and each Officer would make up their own mind if they wished to carry them. This was the nearest we have ever been to a fully armed service and that was over a hundred years ago. This remained the case until 1936 when the revolvers were taken off the constables and kept locked in a cupboard back at the station.

If they had 'good reason' for having a revolver they would have to get permission from their Station Sergeant. We then entered the 'so called' golden era of Policing with the character 'Dixon of Dock Green' after the 1950's film, 'The Blue Lamp'. People often refer to this as the good old days of the British Police service. This image never actually existed, but can you remember what happened to PC George Dixon? No, he didn't retire happily. He uttered the words, "Now don't be silly son, give me the gun". Then he was shot dead.

The Beginning
The Firearms Department as we know it today started back in December 1966 as the direct result of the murders of three plain clothes officers when they were gunned down as they challenged a gang of armed robbers. In the beginning the department was solely responsible for training officers in the use of police firearms and safe tactics. Since then the department has evolved and today is responsible for most operational deployments within the Metropolitan Police Area.

The Metropolitan Police Service first introduced 'Armed Response Vehicles' to the streets of London in 1991.

These vehicles are crewed by uniformed officers who have been selected and trained to stabilise and control armed incidents, stop and search suspects, their vehicles and to search premises for armed suspects.

These officers are the first 'Armed officers' to arrive on the scene and in serious cases can call for the support of specialist firearms teams.

Each Armed Response Vehicle (ARV) is crewed by three officers in police uniform who patrol specific areas of London to ensure the fastest response. Each member of the crew has specific functions whilst responding to calls. The 'driver' is responsible for getting the crew to the scene in the fastest, safest way possible having regard to the public presence on the roads. The 'operator' is responsible for the many in-car communications and extracting the maximum amount of information prior to their arrival. The 'observer' in the rear of the vehicle has a London map book and provides the driver with a suitable route.

When the officers first arrive they will make an immediate assessment. If an armed containment is deemed necessary to isolate an armed suspect from the public, then two of the crew will deploy leaving one to control the incident, calling for further armed support and liasing with the local senior police officer. All these officers are personally armed with 'Glock' 17 self-loading pistols and two of the officers have access to 'Heckler and Koch' MP5 carbines as shown here.

Supervising officers from the firearms department also patrol in marked police vehicles and attend incidents as they develop. They take charge of the armed officers present and give the local senior officer tactical advice on how to resolve these incidents in the safest possible way. They carry additional equipment, which may have to be used particularly if force is needed to gain entry to premises.

In addition to the 24-hour response provided by the ARV's the MPS also employs a number of Specialist Firearms Officers (SFO's) to provide an enhanced firearms capability to the MPS. These officers undergo advanced firearms training and are also available 24 hours a day.

Their role includes dealing with all pre-planned operations as well as providing the MPS with a hostage-rescue capability. Specialist Firearms Officers can be deployed at any firearms incident in the MPS subject to the authority of a senior officer.

The workload of these ARV's has increased dramatically since their inception. In their first year they were actively deployed on 132 occasions. In 1999, they deployed 1,440 times. 2000 this figure was 1441. In 2001 it was 1058 and 2002 2490 times.

Not all calls result in an armed deployment, many calls turn out to be false or not armed related. In 1999 ARV's responded to 15,901 emergency calls. In 2000 this figure was 12763, in 2001 10463 and 13394 in 2002.

ARV's are there to protect and respect the people of London. They are on patrol 24 hours a day, seven days a week for 52 weeks of the year.

Firearms Training
The new purpose built centre at Milton provides training to Met Police staff in all aspects of the firearms environment relevant to today's modern police service:

Initial Firearms Courses
Armed Response Vehicle Course
Specialist Firearms Officers Course
National Firearms Instructors Course
Tactical Refreshers for all Authorised Firearms Officers
Firearms Incident Command Training
And other courses that fall within the remit of the Firearms Training Establishment from time to time
Initial Firearms Course
We aim to provide all the necessary skills, and theory, to allow an Officer to become an Authorised Firearms Officer and function in that role for whichever department that Officer may serve in.

The course is of two weeks duration and includes input on the Glock 17 Self-loading Pistol and the various drills, the Law, Basic Firearms Tactics, Target Identification, and Containments. Some time will be spent in the Simulation Gallery where students react to incidents and apply the Law to those incidents, in as near to real life as we can achieve.

A lot of time is spent on the ranges learning shooting skills and weapon handling. The course is structured so that an Officer, with no experience of firearms, will by the end of the course be able to complete a shooting test and be competent in the tactical use of Police firearms.

ARV Course
After being selected for becoming a member of the Armed Response Vehicles, the successful Officer will undertake a Basic Firearms Course, if not already an AFO, a one-week H & K MP5 Carbine course and then an intensive three-week ARV course. Having passed the course Officers are then posted to an ARV relief and attend training for three days every six weeks.

The ARV course covers aspects such as team building, vehicle deployments, building containments and firearm make-safes to an advanced level. The course introduces students to the subject of searching buildings for armed suspects, building searches using specially trained CO19 dogs and Legion Patrols (anti-terrorist patrols). Having passed the course Officers are then posted to an ARV relief and attend training for three days every six weeks.

Specialist Firearms Officers Course
This course provides training for CO19 officers who have passed an extensive selection process to become Specialist Firearms Officers. The course builds on the skills, and experience, these officers gain during their ARV duties, to equip them with the necessary skills for such operations as hostage rescue, rapid entries where firearms are believed to be involved, plain clothes support to other departments and maritime operations.

All Officers are abseil and shotgun trained prior to attending the course. The course seeks to enhance the Officers shooting skills to an advanced level. Officers must pass the National Rapid Intervention and the Specialist Firearms Officers Shoots.

The course covers various methods of effecting entry to buildings, including the use of pyrotechnics, distraction devices and the use of ladders! Officers are also trained to work in a variety of clothing, which will best protect them from any environment they may find themselves. This will include, chemical, biological and nuclear.
 
Cops who were and are usually given more freedom to carry firearms,for the duration of their time,whilst on duty-are included in the department below.Those cops under The Serious and Organised Crime Group-are armed with what a detective in America,is armed with.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Serious and Organised Crime Group's purpose is ‘to tackle serious and organised crime, life-threatening crimes in action and those who inflict human misery on the people of London through a fast time pro-active response'.

What we do

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Central Task Force pro-actively targets criminal activities. This Unit focuses on class ‘A' drug dealers and firearms users and traffickers.

The Projects Team conducts operations against organised crime in London, throughout the UK and across international boundaries. The type of crime they deal with typically involves: contract killings, systematic and widespread extortion, major drug suppliers and firearms trafficking.

The Flying Squad deals with commercial robberies involving cash in transit, banks and building societies, betting offices, Post Offices, jewellers, casinos and robberies at commercial premises where firearms are involved. They also provide a fast-time response to certain kidnap situations.

The Kidnap and Special Investigation Unit deals with kidnaps for ransom, where the hostage has not been recovered. This unit also deals with immediate life threatening crimes in London including blackmail, extortion and product contamination.

The Hostage and Crisis Negotiations Unit provides specially trained negotiators for hostage and kidnap crimes in action or suicide intervention. It also responds to international requests for such services, which are received through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

The Intelligence Support Unit is responsible for delivering information and analysis reports to the operational units within Serious and Organised Crime. The Unit consists of police officers, analysts and researchers who collate the intelligence relating to serious and organised crime.

Fact

Serious and Organised Crime deals with a variety of crimes and policing issues. Recently, the Unit has been involved in a range of investigations including the plot to kidnap the Beckhams and also foiling the plot to steal the De Beers Millennium Star diamond from the Millennium Dome. The Unit has also been involved in meeting the operational needs of other police services, supplying officers with specialist language skills, where needed, to facilitate communication between officers and victims' families.

Historical Case
The lengthy operation to secure the conviction of the Kray brothers, Reginald and Ronald, was undertaken by Detective Chief Superintendent Leonard ‘Nipper' Read. The brothers were famous for their extreme violence, flagrant law-breaking and reputation for punishment of those prepared to give evidence against them. This was highlighted by Ronald Kray's shooting of a rival gang leader in the busy Blind Beggar public house, the shooting was not witnessed by a single patron. Their conviction only came about when officers were able to keep them incarcerated long enough to win the confidence of key witnesses.


swguns.gif

sweeney3.gif

swrun.gif
Pictures depicting the Metropolitan Police's Flying Squad,in the 1970s.John Thaw and Dennis Waterman,starred in this 1970s Police Drama:The Sweeney.

Please note that some of the things that Regan and Carter got up to,in that show,wouldn't be tolerated,in the UK of today.Both of them were ruthless and would stop at nothing,but to see justice done-one way or the other-as it were.This is almost like "Dirty" Harry Callahan's methods of law-enforcement-exept that Regan and Carter,both try to use their fists more-and Harry tends to use his revolver,more so-in some scenes.

Ian Kennedy-Martin-the writer of the original Italian Job-created this tv show and it was considered to be,one of the best Police tv shows,ever made-for tv.
 
Last edited:
Why is it the British police commonly carry machinguns with 30 round magazines on patrol, and at the airport?????

Because of the September 11th events in New York City and also,because of the July 7th bombings,that occured-last year,in London.10 years ago you would have hardly seen a cop,with a pistol,walking their beat(Exept for guarding duties at Dowing street and at embassies.)let alone armed with an MP5 Smg or a G36 assault-rifle.

The Metropolitan Police has issued its airport police H&K MP5s,G36S,PSG1s,other H&k Weaponry,Smith and Wessons,etc,etc, since 1985/1986.This was to counter any likely airport sieges from the IRA or any other terrorist organization.I think that the Iranian Embassy Seige in West-London,in May 1980-was a definate wake-up call to the cops.

Its because of the Islamic threat of bombings and gas attacks,that the cops are going overboard,with armed patrols.Almost like in Northern Ireland-minusing the presence of British Troops and angry citizens-on both sides.
 
I believe the MP5s they are using are Semi-Automatic only. I also know they carry Glock 17s.

Yes and no.The MP5s carried by Armed-Response car officers are semi-automatic only models-because they are designed to only stop light to medium threats-in the open and not inside of a building.In saying that they can be used on any target,that is a light or medium threat.

The MP5s carried by Anti-Terrorist C019(previously S019.) officers and entry-teams,are fully-automatic submachine-guns-complete with selecter switches.These guns are used in terrorist-seiges-where the firepower of a terrorists weapon,is considered far greater-than the rate of semi-automatic firepower-from a semi-automatic MP5.

Yes,you are correct about the fact that Glocks are used by those cops.Glocks gradually replaced the Smith and Wesson revolvers-starting in the early part of the early 90s(Circa:Approximately 1992,onwards.)-and finishing in 1995/1996.However,some units still retain those revolvers and most were sold on the civillian market,for target shooters-to use-as cheaper target-pistols.But the tragic events of Dunblane,put a stop to it,though.

G36s are used,as a heavier weapon to a 9mm smg-in the same way as the LAPD Swat teams,use the M4A1 carbine.
 
Last edited:
Members of the infamous Special Patrol Group,armed with various coshes and pickaxe handles,to beat up any rioters (Who resisted,whom were mainly black men and youths.) in Brixton South London, in April 1981This department was dissolved in 1986 and mereged with the newly-formed Territorial Support Group.Those officers in the Special Patrol Group,were allowed to carry Smith and Wesson .38 revolvers as well as other types of weapons.

A507BF.jpg

Apparently officers from that department were responsible for beating up black youths with pickaxe handles and causing the death of Blair Peach-a New-Zealand special-needs teacher-during an anti-Nazi riot,in Southall West London,-in 1977.


Tuesday, April 13, 1999 Published at 22:19 GMT 23:19 UK


UK

Blair Peach inquiry ruled out

Paul Boateng: Pledged to commemorate "tragic" death

An investigation into the death of anti-racism protester Blair Peach, who was killed during a demonstration 20 years ago this month, has been ruled out by Home Office minister Paul Boateng.
Mr Boateng said too much time had elapsed to call a public inquiry into the death, which took place during a protest against a rally held by the far-right-wing National Front (NF).

A Home Office spokeswoman said that while there was "understandable disquiet" at the time because of the then government's failure to set up an inquiry, it was now so long ago it was "doubtful" whether one would shed any light on the case.

But Mr Boateng did pledge to commemorate the "tragic" death of Mr Peach, who was 33 when he died.

'Lessons learned'

Mr Boateng met Celia Stubbs, 58, who was Mr Peach's girlfriend for eight years. She wrote to Home Secretary Jack Straw requesting that the case be reinvestigated by the new Racial Crimes Task Force.

Mr Boateng spoke of what could be gained out of the "tragedy" of Mr Peach's death.

"Lessons have been learned from the circumstances of his death about the policing of public order incidents and the importance of good police-community relations," he said.

"It is right that we should commemorate the 20th anniversary of his death.

Aim for 'fair, equal society'

" I look forward to doing so in a way that recognises how far we have come since then, and what we have yet to do to achieve the just, fair and equal society for which he worked and died."

Mr Peach, a schoolteacher, died from a blow to the head as police tried to disperse a crowd of thousands of people.

The Socialist Workers' Party member was protesting against the National Front rally, which was held on April 23 1979, St George's Day. It was part of the NF's general election campaign in Southall, west London, an area with a high population of ethnic minorities.

Eleven witnesses claimed to have seen members of the Metropolitan Police Special Patrol Group (SPG) hitting Mr Peach in a side-street at the height of the violence. No officers were charged with the alleged attack.

Request for racial probe

An inquest recorded a verdict of death by misadventure, and the Met reached an out-of-court settlement with Mr Peach's brother in 1989.

Jack Straw was a backbencher when he and 79 MPs called for a public inquiry into the case after the inquest, but the request was rejected by the government.

A Home Office spokeswoman said Mr Boateng had not yet decided how the commemoration would take place.
 
He turned out to have an abnormally thin skull, as I recall.
Socialist Workers' Party, ever ready to stir the pot. He was one of theirs, I think.
 
Not the High Road

MKVII

Socialist Workers' Party, ever ready to stir the pot. He was one of theirs, I think.

I'm no socialist. But this school teacher was a counter protestor at at a Nazi - National Front rally. Frankly, that's a pot that deserves to be stirred. Whats' that old saw about evil and good men standing silent ?!
 
Josh,

I think you misunderstand. There is a long history of anti-fascist "direct action" in the UK, which has usually meant the Police struggling to keep Nazi and anti-Nazi apart, and getting caught in the middle, as happened at Lewisham the year before Blair Peach's death. This has led to the ANL adopting a somewhat hypocritical stance where they claim the right to prevent BNP meeting at all and yet object to the Police stopping the ANL from disrupting the BNP event.

With regards to this raid, not one of the critics on the raid has been able to say what they would have done apart from going in there - and given the huge level of press criticism regarding the "intelligence failures" around July 7th, they were hardly likely to do nothing.

One must also point, once again (after 22nd July) to the way that 24 hour news media base ongoing coverage on what can only be described as speculation, which causes great confusion and profoundly distorts the public perception of events. Some, if not most, of the reporting around this raid was abysmal.
 
Agricola

No, I just consider comments about an individual who has died as simply having an "abnormally thin skull" and being "one of theirs" as not being a particularly high road remark. Especially considering the guy was a special needs school teacher at an Anti Nazi protest..It wasn't like he's a Jihadist, or a Nazi for that matter.

Some, if not most, of the reporting around this raid was abysmal.

I thought this piece on "SAS trainers denounce ‘gung ho’ armed police" was very interesting. what's your take on it ?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1785932,00.html
 
JoshM,

His job doesnt indicate whether or not he was a good guy - after all, Mohammed Siddique Khan, one of the suicide bombers on 7th July, was a teaching assistant in a primary school (and ironically was married to a special needs teacher). Working with kids didnt seem to prevent him blowing six other people up.

I also question the value of that report in the Times, when the reporter doesnt know what the IPCC has found (interestingly the report may have been leaked - http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/story_pages/news/news4.shtml ) and the relevance to this matter of what SAS training officers thought of their Police trainees escapes me. For what its worth, I know for a fact that there is a fitness test prior to joining - which makes the following statement partially incorrect (there is possibly a psychological profile, though I dont know thatb there is):

“There is no assessment of physical fitness, no psychological profiling, nothing. It’s a major problem.”

Besides, I hardly think you can judge people based on training scenario SNAFUs, after all that is what they are for.
 
Agricola

His job doesnt indicate whether or not he was a good guy

True, However the poster I was responding to, seemed to dismiss the death of a man by misadventure - at police hands - as being one of "theirs" (an anti Nazi protestor, or a member of a left wing political party).

My point is, a poster made up his/her mind about Mr Peach's death being somehow more tolerable because of his affliations, and those comments are not reflective of the high road.

It takes abit of gumption to go to a nazi electoral rally, and counter protest, but that action does not also require being a bad guy.

after all, Mohammed Siddique Khan, one of the suicide bombers on 7th July, was a teaching assistant in a primary school (and ironically was married to a special needs teacher). Working with kids didnt seem to prevent him blowing six other people up.[/

I don't believe Mr Peach (left wing anti Nazi protestor from New Zealand - killed at an anti Nazi protest) and Mr Khan (Homicidal Jihadist/terr - killed by a suicide device) have anything in common other then they both worked in the field of education. Which is an enormous field.

Thank you for your comments about the Times article.
 
JoshM:

don't believe Mr Peach (left wing anti Nazi protestor from New Zealand - killed at an anti Nazi protest) and Mr Khan (Homicidal Jihadist/terr - killed by a suicide device) have anything in common other then they both worked in the field of education. Which is an enormous field.

True, but I was responding to your emphasis on your previous post:

Especially considering the guy was a special needs school teacher at an Anti Nazi protest..It wasn't like he's a Jihadist, or a Nazi for that matter.

Also, please note that "counter protest" is a very polite term of what was happening at the time between the NF and ANL. "Riot against" might be a better term.
 
as I said, the post mortem report concluded the deceased died from a blow to an abnormally thin skull which any other man would probably have survived unscathed. The weapon was untraced but a large number of unofficial coshes etc. were found some of those officers' lockers.
Most of these 'demonstrators' were the sort who would join anything and go anywhere if there was the prospect of a good fight at the end of it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top