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.

Hmm, Troops On The Streets.

In what can only be described as an open and obvious display of panic, the UK government has agreed to deploy troops on the streets. There are all kinds of issues here; on what basis? Aiding the civil power, martial law, or has control been handed to the military?

Are they to guard locations considered targets in a tactical or visible manner? Are they for go or show? Will they have body armour (the police do)? What are their rules of engagement?

Let's look at the decision. It is believed that the Manchester suicide bomber had a device that was sophisticated enough to make it likely others were involved (design, supply?) Plus of course, who made it and who convinced this imbecile to do what he did?

This suggests a wider 'cell' and a still extant ability to strike again. But would they? Well, if we accord them the status of dedicated fighters (soldiers, as the media insist on calling them), then yes. But if, as they undoubtedly are, they are cowards who don't quite make it as human, then they will go to ground, vanish.

The bomb maker is a valuable asset and the 'brains' will have no intention of getting caught, or killed. So my prediction is, that there will be no incident in the coming days, no follow up. Sure some other loner smack-head, psychotic cannabis freak might drive a car at people, but that will just be copying what they see on telly. Certainly no part of a plot.

So again, why the troops? Well, our senior police officers, who have repeatedly shown they are complete and utter failures, will have seen the political opportunity the murder of children presents. Whilst the rank and file want to keep a mainly unarmed force, the senior officers want an armed force (sorry, service).

What kind of ambitious, self-regarding officer of rank would not want to have high profile police, dripping with bags and equipment openly displaying guns? The bigger the better. And helicopters and maybe armoured cars.

But they have had to ask for the unusual and (in Britain) hugely political deployment of soldiers, because that will release the, clearly small number, of available trained firearms officers to face this 'imminent' threat. Of course, if they had the right numbers and the right weapons.....

These 'trained' police, don't forget, managed to shoot and wound the killer of Lee Rigby (despite us being told police can't 'shoot to wound'), shot dead a man with a chair leg in a bag, shot dead a criminal who was naked in his bedroom. They also fell down the stairs trying to deal with an unarmed drunk man who they fired at several times, mainly missing - in a house.

The 'experts' who numbered an instructor in their ranks who shot and wounded a student on a firearms course, in a classroom. And as an interesting aside, the police never get criticised or legally pursued over these events, unlike our hounded soldiers.

Consequently, I see it that the politicking of certain key, yet pathetic figures, has forced the Prime Minister to move to panic measures. And panicking, as Cressida Dick could tell you, if she is about and not under a desk somewhere, doesn't lead to good outcomes.

It was once said that the sign of an effective police force is the absence of crime, not their visibility, rushing around after a crime has been committed. But the fashion today is very much the opposite, that lots of blue lights and guns and robocops shows the police mean business.

This lazy, easy resort to deploying troops is a dangerous precedent, deeply un-British and in the circumstance pertaining, wholly unnecessary anyway. The separation of our volunteer army from the people has always been clear and carefully controlled. Thatcher unleashed the SAS for a particular operation, where their skills were essential at the Princes Gate siege of the Eighties.

Control was, briefly handed over from the civil power (the police) to the military. Once over, so control was handed back. It is that controlled, when done right.

The Army, with high velocity weapons are not the right defence in this situation on urban streets and our police have repeatedly shown themselves too often not fit for purpose. And their leadership, the root of the problem, is of very poor quality.

Dealing with this terrorism is the opposite of what we are doing. The people of Manchester have instinctively got it right, go out and show that we stand together against their plots, brave in the face of danger. What they are doing is standing up for the British values that has and does make our society great.

Thus by inference we reject their value system based on violence and coercion. But the politicians become more martial, they puff and bluster, whilst maintaining all the safeguards to keep terrorism amongst us. The Trojan Horse schools? They are not just not educating children properly, they are the start point for radicalisation, creating division.

The hate preachers - why are they still operating and often true, why are they still here? The potential terrorists returning from fighting for ISIS in Syria. Returning? Don't let them in! Even if, heaven forfend it should cause Corbyn sleepless nights to take such action.

And finally, please can I never be told again, after a terrorist atrocity that the perpetrator was 'known to police'. Or how many plots were prevented (that strangely saw no one arrested, no one is aware they happened and no one goes to prison as a result).

Protecting Britain

Recent events have shown up that Britain is pretty much defended along the hope and trust basis. Planning, resource provision and competence are in question.

Ten minutes out from landing at Manchester airport a Pakistani airliner has two men try to break into the cockpit, possibly muttering threats, according to reports. The pilot needs to take that seriously and what is anyone supposed to do? You have to get the plane down and deal with the men in as a remote a location as possible. Such a facility is available at Stansted.

But why would these man just allow themselves to be arrested because they couldn't hijack the plane if they were terrorists? But what else can you do when the plane lands than go on board? So trapped by the special circumstances of an aeroplane, you have limited options across the whole scenario. Of course the assault team has to be trained in storming an aircraft.

Are Essex police so trained? How many police in the UK are? When de Menedes was killed, grabbed in a bear hug to prevent any bomb activation moves and shot repeatedly in the head it seemed more likely to be the work of special forces, rather than police. But the claim is they were police officers.

What then are the measures we are aware of, to protect the UK from terrorism (we know the Royal Navy is not designed or equipped to protect our shores)?

Well, as we saw, when a 300 ton plus aircraft is considered a danger a quick reaction jet is sent to intercept and escort it. If a real danger becomes apparent our only option is to shoot the airliner down, hopefully over open countryside. After that it is our para military police. If something develops of an on-going nature then the military can be deployed and the SAS have trained for certain eventualities.

Should we not have a more advanced and integrated response prepared though? Military helicopters could be useful and the extra fire power and dedication to killing their targets of soldiers, more appropriate in certain situations. Whilst an Apache might be scary, it is probably too powerful for any domestic problem, but if area containment was important, circling Lynx with pintle mounted machine guns would be a definite deterrent.

It is unfortunate, but any incident which is 'terror' related (eg the assailant is likely to not behave rationally, nor be concerned for his own life) then overwhelming lethal force needs to be available as quickly as possible, to reduce or eliminate the threat and to form a containment. None of this seems to be understood nor in place currently. The government and the police can only brag about operations where they have had time to plan and organise.

Whenever they have to react to fast moving circumstances they are found wanting in some way. They either shoot first and ask questions later (while they cook their stories) or they absent themselves. We have a right to know why training of police firearms officers, which allegedly says that shots are aimed at the bulk of the mass, the torso, leads to the fatal shooting of an innocent man with a chair leg in a bag (hit in the hand and head) when two dangerous, armed murderers were shot in the legs, as at Woolwich. The police say eight rounds were fired and the audio of the shots was very interesting, particularly the gaps.

We wait to hear more, but one thing is plain. The government have no intention of being deviated from its course of supporting terrorism through the ring-fenced foreign aid budget, nor taking any effective action at home. To do so would be contrary to the Left ethos of undermining Western society, to which our political class cleave.

As If Proof Were Needed

This blog has repeatedly asserted that armed police in Britain are of an appallingly low standard and very dangerous. Whilst mainly due to the incompetence of senior officers, it is plain the training and quality of the officers is also sadly lacking.

Today we see publication of a photo showing armed police fooling around with weapons for their own amusement. Everyone should be able to have a laugh and the black humour of surgeons and undertakers is well known, but some things are beyond the pale. Acting out scenarios would be one area I would stay away from. You may make jokes that would seem shocking to the ordinary public, but you don't fool around in operating theatres.

And guns are definitely a no-no. But this photo gives an insight into the childish mentality of the people we hand guns to, to the lack of control over them; an inexcusable lack of discipline. No wonder their mindset when actually sent out to real or imagined 'armed threats' is notoriously hit and miss, with no predictability on outcome.

Will the person have a real weapon when we arrive, they think and will we shoot them anyway, regardless? Thank goodness for the IPCC and the compact with government never to pursue gun crime by police officers.

In a society where policing by consent was the norm, where the police were integrated with the community they serve, where the law is the servant of the people, police officers such as these would be dismissed from the force forthwith and also their managers. They talk of the heavy responsibility of the armed police officer; well, this is part of it. But we live in a region of the EU called Britain, a region where the people are the servants of the state, the police its enforcers and as such subject to state protection.

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.