Channel 5 Armed Police

I will not go to length again about this pathetic programme, but I just wanted to mention the most outrageous statement in this weeks episode. This was the shooting of Mark Saunders, a barrister.

Needless to say he was shot by armed police. He had been firing a shotgun from his flat and clearly was a danger. It was considered that he was having some kind of breakdown and had been drinking heavily. So you might not be too sympathetic and the programme ended the piece about him by saying that 'apart from his drinking their was no explanation for his behaviour'.

The edited piece showing Mark just before he was shot was of him leaning quite far out of the window, holding the shotgun (though not pointing it). He was shot ten times.

What they didn't say about what actually happened was that, when he was shot by seven firearms officers (five managed to hit him), he was leaning out and saying "I can't hear you", referring to someone shouting at him. The reason he couldn't hear was because the police helicopter was hovering low above the scene. The police were also trying to phone him at the time.

He wasn't presenting a threat, he was presenting the best target the police had had since the 'siege' started. If you are a criminal on a roof, the police will close all the surrounding streets and wait as long as necessary for the man to come down, not doing anything that might cause him to fall. If you are a barrister doing something completely out of character, then a quick end so everyone can go home is preferable.

The programme keeps talking about how our well-trained armed police are the best in the world. So how did two of the firing squad of seven officers miss a sitting target?

Reading the report into the Manchester Arena suicide bomber, it is clear that the mindset of senior officers is completely at odds with dealing with reality and the solution seems to be the odd tweak, here and there and quite a bit more paperwork and protocols (whilst saying it was an important aspect of the response that many strayed from the 'rules' to save lives).

Armed Police - Channel 5

Having written a number of times about armed police incidents, I of course had to watch this programme on Channel 5 last night. I don't know what hopes I had for the programme, but I constantly look for someone to explain about when their operations go smoothly, with outcomes in the control of the officers. Basically, something to confirm their utility in our society and to balance the other stuff we know.

Well, this output from Channel 5 was not the place to seek such enlightenment.

So far, it is a series, we were shown only incidents that are very well known and not always 'successful'. Balance was offered by mentioning an occasion when it went wrong; I'll come back to that. What was the motivation for this piece of television? Did a film maker want to do this, or was it promoted to them as a potential 'puff piece' for the police. It certainly ended up as the latter. Perhaps the police had the final say on what was aired?

Naturally, being about a very serious subject, involving the potential of lives ending, the style was very much sensational. Tabloid TV. Early on, we heard Tony Blair speaking of our 'determination to protect our values', something he worked hard to undermine, not least the rule of law.

Not far in, Tony, an ex-firearms officer explained how the blowing open of a door to a flat, containing two terrorists in 2005, was the 'first operation in UK history to use explosive entry'. Presumably this expert had never heard of the incident at Prince's Gate in 1980, although as that was the SAS, perhaps he meant an operation conducted by the civil power? That was not made clear and is a detail to the general public. It was wrong and gave a wrong impression.

A point is made, dramatically, that the police using a 'circling tactic' to contain the area the bombers were in, having been led to their flat by intelligence. I'm sorry, but the idea that two dangerous men, potentially armed and careless about their own lives, should be surrounded doesn't strike me as the work of a genius. It seems the most basic of ideas and one that has existed forever, I would guess.

To give an example of the terrible way this programme handles such terrifying stories, to sensationalise and titillate for the viewing public, the narrative talks of the police entering a terrorists flat in 2005 and finding him standing in the bath, with a rucksack on his back and a mobile phone in his hand. An unidentified police officer is quoted as saying he formed the opinion that he was going to have to shoot this man. Which seems eminently reasonable,

The pictures switch from the training exercise being shown during the previously mentioned detail, to a thoughtful ex-policeman walking thoughtfully across a flat rooftop (for some reason). The voiceover continues; 'after a violent melee the man was tasered and overpowered'. So not lethally shot then? What strikes me about this is that the officers involved were extremely brave and their tactics perhaps not that clever. To avoid innocent death, I would have accepted an immediate lethal shot would have been the preferred option.

If someone who has already tried to kill people, looks like he is planning to do it again, I would end it, straight away. Basically an action based on decisions he made. I don't think police have a right to shoot first and ask questions after, but I do think that the terrorist, in order to live has the onus placed on him to make himself appear very non-threatening.

However, dangerous terrorist arrested, not dead.

Now we move on to the 'when it goes wrong bit'. This is 'balance'. The mistake was the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, a case of mistaken identity. Which is the first misleading statement, as he was shot because they hadn't identified him, at all. He was  a man and came out of the same block of flats where the terrorist was, whilst the overwatch officer was relieving himself. No-one got a clear view of Jean Charles and he remained unidentified until he was shot.

One of the ex-officers talking to the programme said, he knew 'the two officers who pulled the trigger, the two shooters' and went on to explain that whilst ordinary people would have been getting away, they went towards him. Not sure those two things go together and certainly don't in hindsight.

The curious thing for me is that, I understand that Jean Charles was grabbed, when he was in the Tube carriage, in a bear hug (to prevent him detonating a device and another officer stepped up and shot Jean Charles repeatedly in the head. So, in this instance an unidentified individual was shot and killed presenting no danger (not standing in a bath with a rucksack for instance).

And the manner of the killing is interesting too. It is very much more in the manner of the SAS. They apply a doctrine of 'overkill' to definitely eliminate a threat and quickly - not just dead, very dead. Now  there was talk at the time that the police were receiving training from the SAS, but was the real reason no proper investigation took place and no criticism levelled at senior officers knowingly lying about the incident, because someone had allowed the SAS to take the lead without proper handover from the civil power?

If that were to happen, you would expect lies, lack of investigation and perhaps the promotion of key officers who 'know too much'. The senior officer during the incident was Cressida Dick.

In the strangely dragged out piece about Raoul Moat, when the incident finished with Moat shooting himself surrounded by police, the voiceover says that the police were praised afterwards for the way they handled it. At no point did we see the comedy senior officer, who put herself in front of the cameras as often as possible, talking about 'my officers', nor was mention made that she ordered the deployment of an illegal weapon.

During the hunt for Moat, the officer who was in charge at the time (shown at one point leading a column of armed officers wearing a military style helmet at a jaunty angle, which with his casual clothes, protective 'vest' and firearm, made him look an amateur), spoke about his command. After Moat's car was found in Rothbury, he set teams to search for Moat in the surrounding woods and fields, because he was convinced he was there. Although, it seemed obvious to everyone, surely?

The Lee Rigby murder is covered and again, as we watch the armed police arrive and the murderers run straight at them, the female officer explaining that she feared for her life and shots were fired. Again, the terrorist lives, shot in the leg. Is it only innocent members of the public with chair legs in bags who can hit with kill shots?

I also watched with interest the carefully edited footage of the response to the terrorist attack in Borough market in 2017. Firstly the voiceover tells us the police are armed with handguns and high velocity carbines. Except they are not, some may have rifles, but usually, carbines of lower velocity, which is more appropriate in an urban environment. But research is tedious, no?

Then we see the BMW X5 arriving where officers deploy immediately and open fire. They needed to. No what wasn't shown was that the driver forgot to put the handbrake on and one of the officers falls over as the car rolls forward into them, having run round in front of it. Funny, if the fallen officer didn't then become a target for one of the knifemen. These ones definitely didn't survive. Better tactics overall, led to the conclusion.

The programme is awful and merely a PR piece to convince the public how brilliant the armed police are, when in fact, a balanced objective analysis would more likely suggest that our armed officers are poorly trained, use dire tactics and are very, very badly led. But, undoubtedly very brave individuals. We all deserve better.

Shooting In Annecy

We have heard before of the incompetent approach of the French authorities to crime detection and investigation, but the eight hour delay in rescuing a four year old girl from a scene of carnage is despicable. The press conference clearly shows up the ridiculous nature of the way the French police proceed with their investigations. It seems that to them, the most important thing was the preservation of the scene, so I guess we have to accept that the people were actually dead, because the suggestion would appear to be that they didn't check the occupants of the car too closely.

A self excusing twerp in uniform explained that they 'couldn't' open the doors of the car as they would 'lose forensic details if they did so'. They did at least have the decency to stumble over the rambling explanation of why the little girl wasn't found. Apparently they used a heat camera, but didn't see her, she was 'hidden'.

Where the girl was and her not crying or making herself known to police is unusual, but it was still a combination of misguided policy and a lackadaisical approach to policing that allowed her discovery to be delayed. As we have seen, British police are striving for this level of incompetence and are encouraged by the EU, of course.

The Fetish Of Armed Police

Let me give you a scenario and see if you can guess what happened. Whilst reading the tale, think what response would be enacted today and then consider which is more appropriate. Ask yourself if things are better or worse.

Police are called to a small block of flats on a seafront. The day is sunny and warm and the area is thronged with holidaymakers and daytrippers.  A 13 year old girl has seen from the window of the flat she lives in on the second floor, two young men park and get out of a small hatchback, open the tailgate and one of them remove a pistol, which he shoves down the waistband of his jeans at the front.

When questioned the girl is shaking and had a clear view of the car from the window. She seems sensible and gives a very good description of the two lads. The car is fairly new, clean inside and out. On the back seat is a Snoopy toy dressed as a chef and on the parcel shelf a tidily rolled up umbrella. It doesn't seem like the kind of car two youngsters would be driving, though it isn't listed as stolen. Wires can be seen coming from the cigarette lighter socket, going up under the dashboard.

Recently, a well known terrorist organisation has been found to be targeting seaside towns for a bombing campaign. All police forces have been made aware of this and a heightened state of alert is in place. The officers sent to investigate are in uniform and unarmed. No back-up has been assigned and force headquarters has not been informed (as standing orders at the time said they should for a 'firerms incident').

The officers wait in their car. Suddenly two people clearly matching the girl's description appear at the entrance to the car park. On seeing the police car they immediately turn and walk away. The officers walk after them. The lads quicken their pace at which point one of the officers calls on them to stop.

What happens next? Should a more senior officer be in charge than the station sergeant? Should armed police have been deployed with the two young men surrounded and forced to the ground at gunpoint? Maybe one or both might have been shot for the protection of the officers and the public, because they made some move which was deemed threatening? Was the car a bomb? Should the area have been evacuated and the Army brought in to conduct a controlled explosion? Is it not better to be safe than sorry? Why should officers have their lives put at risk?

In the actual, real scenario detailed above, the lads stopped, and one lifted up his T shirt to expose a black, oblong wallet. The car belonged to one of their fathers and the doll was because they were both trainee chefs. They had walked away because they had parked in a private car park and thought they were in trouble. The wires were to power an alarm they had fitted and it was the only place they could get power from.

You see, the girl was a reliable and sensible witness and the car presented some deviation from what you might expect, when viewing things as a stereotype, but the simple explanation still turned out, as it does most often, to be right. A non-event passed off as a non-event instead of the massive drama of police in paramilitary garb, lurching about shouting and pointing rifles at completely innocent members of the public, that is the acceptable (apparently) face of policing today.

The above actually happened in the mid-Eighties in a less drama prone part of the country, in less drama prone days. Not necessarily safer days. Let us now consider the Jean Charles de Menezes shooting in the same light.

The police had a block of flats under surveillance because they were pretty sure at least one terrorist was living there and they knew what he looked like. Someone emerges but has been partly missed by the team, anxious messages are passed back and forwards trying to ascertain if anyone can identify the man and what should be done. Eventually the decision is taken that he must be 'neutralised' (my word) as they couldn't 'risk it'. So he is followed, grabbed and shot in such a way that he is definitely dead.

There may have been a terrorist in the block of flats, but there were also a lot of other people, so the chance of an unidentified person being the target is low, statistically. The person they follow hasn't been identified, so there is no known 'risk' that they cannot afford to take. He is aware he is being chased before he was caught but didn't try to blow himself up.

When caught he was put in an immobilising bear hug and then killed. Even at this point, as a terrorist with a bomb, he has been caught, immobilised, yet he was shot. Perhaps this final act was necessary as they 'couldn't take a risk', which would have been fine, unless he had a trigger that detonated the bomb if he let go.

I still have less of a problem with the officers on the ground, who whilst clearly brave had not deployed well, than with the idiot senior officers who failed completely to understand and deal with the situation appropriately. The murdered man's family and the British people can rest safely in their beds, as the officer in charge has since been further promoted, so no telling what damage can be done now.

Police Shooting

Once again we have a man dead after the deployment of armed officers and again in a planned operation, where the police decided the ground on which they operated. The plan appears to have been that the three men in question should be surrounded in a public car park, tear gas deployed and the occupants threatened by armed police.

Not sure about the tactic of using the gas, but there may be some sense to it that isn't immediately apparent, though I wouldn't suggest that anything impeding the sight-line of armed officers would be terribly helpful. I wonder too if the possiblity that the targeted men might try to drive away had been considered, bearing in mind the approach was made whilst they were in a vehicle?

But whether through the usual tactical ineptitude, or because of reasons wholly to do with the actions of the criminals, our armed police once again opened fire and once again we meet a wall of silence about whether the targets were armed. What was the actual reason, the absolute need to open fire?

Let's be clear on this. If a criminal finds himself facing armed police it is entirely his responsibility to ensure the police feel no need to shoot him. I don't feel a huge concern that criminals end up getting hurt. My problem is with the willingness of the police to shoot people at all. It is not just that the police train armed officers inadequately, it would appear that the training is inappropriate too.

Tactics, the actual weapons used and deployment are of great concern. That the IPCC do not see it as their job to urge caution and suggest change is outrageous. I am certainly not comfortable with the police becoming judge, jury and executioner. Whilst we act with vigour to convict soldiers of 'crimes' in war zones, our armed police are a protected breed, loosing off rounds with impunity.

Why does the publicly accountable body, the Greater Manchester Police and the publicly funded though doubtlessly unaccountable IPCC, both feel they have no need to reassure the public about the actions of armed officers? Were these men armed? They already know the answer, it cannot possibly affect any subsequent court case to release the information now, but we can't have it. The reason is likely to be the concoction of justifications that everyone is 'happy' with, politicians, legal advisors and police.

I don't understand why no-one seems to think a better trained and more competent force of armed police officers would be a good thing. We deserve better.

Bin Laden Still Dead

There is something not quite right about the recent 'Gotcha' with the killing of millionaire recluse Osama bin Laden. See, when Raoul Moat was shot, I didn't need to see the bodies, with holes, to be convinced as there was enough circumstantial evidence. Now I know the order of importance is somewhat different here, but the whole thing was videoed so surely there is footage to prove it was the nutter himself, without having to show us the gory bits. All this, 'yep we got him, definitely him, but we won't show you any kind of substantive evidence and we disposed of the body at sea. Really quickly', just doesn't wash. This we are to take on trust, but from people who have also said he used his wife as a human shield, quickly followed by no he didn't. So which bits are made up and which bits true?

I also liked the dithering bit. Obama has a reputation for not being keen on making definitive decisions, you know, ones that he could be held responsible for. Kind of makes you wonder if he really thought through being President, what with the way the job spec. for that role reads. 16 hours I hear; he spent 16 hours deliberating on what to do once he knew where Osama was. See how you do. The question was, 'we have found the location of the most wanted man in the world, the man who committed the worst atrocity in US history. Should we go get him?' You can see the difficulty can't you?

And so it comes back to trust. The Left managed to sow the line that Bush was as thick cold custard and comedians repeat it endlessly, but we don't hear that about Obama, despite all the evidence. Now this might be because he isn't actually dumb. or because it is only the Left who think slurs are the best way to conduct intelligent politics. Obama doesn't strike me as being all that reliable, which is why I see him as no more than a US version of Tony Blair (it doesn't get worse than that). If I could borrow a Left tactic for a moment then; those still pictures showing an enrapt Obama might just be the military showing him the Chris Morris movie 'Four Lions'.

I think bin Laden is dead, but something tells me that the recent 'event' isn't all that we are being sold. He may not have been killed there or there maybe something they need to hide regarding the way he was killed. I don't know, but the more you think about it the more questions arise. If the Pakistani's didn't know anything about the raid, how come there was no armed opposition from their military when four very noisy helicopters drop from the sky and then there is considerable mayhem and shooting? Particularly when a military facility was so close at hand?

Another IPCC

I have just been reading reports on the website of the Independent Police Complaints Commission of shootings. Firstly the accidental shooting of a civilian worker by a Thames Valley Police Firearms Instructor and then the shooting by the Met of a man carrying a chair leg in a bag. The reports are, in general, self-serving claptrap and quite obviously so.

Firearms Instructor PC Micklethwaite was to take a firearms awareness course and for this he needed weapons and inert ammunition. He was told that the 'demonstration ammunition' was in a clearly marked box in the armoury at Milton Keynes. When he went there he couldn't find it, but he did see a Quality Street tin that contained a mix of ammunition, which he assumed to be inert, because of the lackadaisical method of storage and that mixing live with inert was a 'sin, a no-no'. So he took the tin home and left it in his porch overnight, as you do. Next day, he loaded a weapon during a classroom session and eventually discharged the gun, hitting a member of the class. It becomes beyond satire when you find out that PC Micklethwaite attended a Firearms Instructors course as is required and failed it. And what pray tell did he fail on? Safety and weapons handling. The course Instructor recommended that TVP conduct a documented review of these aspects. Naturally, this never happened.

The IPCC felt that there was a case to answer and passed a file to the Crown Prosecution Service who decided not to proceed. The IPCC also passed a file to the Health and Safety Executive who did prosecute and extracted a fine for both the PC and Thames Valley Police. Much to their credit the IPCC carried on and now recommended a disciplinary hearing for misconduct, at which point PC Micklethwaite announced his intention to retire. Because they have to give notice of proceedings against an officer, TVP said that they wouldn't be able to proceed until after his retirement, so abandoned it. This decision was accepted by the IPCC, case closed.

Whilst scathing about PC Micklethwaite's assumptions, they were perfectly happy that ammunition was kept in a Quality Street tin as training requirements were not the same as operational. That Micklethwaite was an accident waiting to happen seems clear, but the IPCC doesn't exactly come across as balanced and fair.

The IPCC report into the shooting of Mr Stanley was a little less, um, searching. Admittedly it is subsequent to the old PCC investigation, the organisation that preceded the IPCC. This report agrees that the death of Mr Stanley was due to the use of force by police officers, which wasn't really an issue in so much that he was shot in the head by them. The document is defensive in tone and outcomes relevant to the police officers involved.

The background. Harry Stanley was drinking in a pub, whilst having with him a chair leg wrapped in a plastic bag. A member of the public (for whom no claims of firearms experience has been made) reported a suspicion that it may be a sawn-off shotgun. Firearms officers were despatched and Harry Stanley was challenged in the street, from behind with shouts from the armed officers. Not unnaturally Harry would not have known they were shouting at him and turned to see what was going on. This aggressive movement by an armed man caused the officers to open fire, hitting him in the hand and head.

In their investigation they claim to be impressed that the officers gave almost identical accounts of events despite also noting that the officers wrote up their notes together at 1:30am. I would have been amazed if they differed! This strange self-satisfaction continued into the reason the officers fired. Although the report warns against using hindsight let us allow ourselves to use that facility, to remind ourselves of the real situation as opposed to the reality invoked by the police and backed up by the IPCC. Harry Stanley was a painter and decorator by trade, I guess the officers confronting him didn't know that, rather than someone experienced in the use of guns and in a tactical manner or combat situation. He wasn't carrying a gun, but a chair leg and the officers certainty that he was carrying a firearm comes solely from a report by a member of the public. This certainty still doesn't explain why the officers said of Mr Stanley turning to them that he did so with a “fluid deliberate movement”, adopting a “classic firing position, boxer

stance”. I think, with hindsight, the police would have been more aware of that than he was. However, puffing themselves up, the IPCC in their report say that they asked several firearms experts and they agreed that the officers actions were reasonable, in the circumstances. It might, you would have thought, have been 'reasonable' to ask people who were specifically not firearms officers. The problem here is one of reinforcing. Having been told the man has a gun, police officers able to use lethal force and trained in weapons handling will read way more into innocent situations than anyone else. It is almost a guaranteed way of making a mistake. If I had a gun and an armed policeman came up behind me and shouted 'stop! Armed police' I would stop, stand still and do whatever else they wanted, because I know, pretty well that it is me they are after. However, if I didn't have a gun, I'm sure I would turn around, with a fluid movement or not, to see what was going on. In the situation in which Harry Stanley found himself, this thought never occurred to the police officers. If you ask why, there is no satisfactory answer, so the IPCC don't ask that question.

Too many incidents involving armed police prove that they are deployed in a very controlled manner and I don't mean in a good way. Senior officers are always quick to let you know that no-one can tell an armed officer to pull the trigger, it is their decision alone. That is not a comforting comment and it is not intended to be supportive or reassuring. The statement is designed to remove blame from the operational commanders. Yet these all too often hopeless 'leaders' send armed police to incidents wound up, with their finger on the trigger ready to pull it.

I remember a bomb threat to a disco, which was in a room on stilts. On checking the area we saw a car parked under the building stuffed with all sorts of paraphernalia, so we called for the owner to come forward. When no-one did, this 'likely hoax' suddenly started to look a little scary. Then someone sidled up and asked why we wanted the owner, was he in trouble. Panic over. When the idea of a problem is planted, your thinking can become conditioned. I cannot believe the police still do not seem to have addressed this with common sense approaches to even deadly situations, rather than their preferred certainty and paramilitary stance. They would say they cannot put police officers lives in danger. We have no evidence of that, but rather too much evidence of the current thinking putting the public in danger. The IPCC don't seem to have spotted that.