March 24th, 2011

Follow me, not

Apart from the news that the Airwave radio solution that the tax payer has paid millions for & continues to pay on a per second of use basis ramping up big profits for a private company, the most interesting comment to come out of the into the Cumbria Derek Bird slaughter of last year, was by the comment by one of the chiefs from West Mercia Police who said this week that the Ambulance & Police service front line officers should put themselves in the firing line.

Someone who will never have to do so himself said: “If I was commanding the incident, the overarching aim would be to protect the public from harm. We would expect emergency service staff to put themselves at risk to carry out this strategy. The public have a right to expect the emergency services to put themselves in harm’s way to protect the public … we cannot go on with this confusion as to response.”

A bit rich from someone who’s biggest risk comes from a potential paper cut to the finger whilst  sat on his big fat overpaid arse at some police HQ.

You can skip to the end and leave a comment. Pinging is currently not allowed. RSS 2.0

5 comments

  1. Ted says:

    Well actually I think he is right. Up to a point. It has to be calculated risk though. I’ve gone in to a smoke filled house before the arrival of the fire service. I’ve been involved in the usual fights. I’ve been assaulted on duty. I’ve also watched someone drown because I calculated that the river was flowing so fast I wouldn’t get anywhere near him, never mind rescue him. It later turn out he had tied a drain cover to his ankles before he jumped in.

    Acceptable risk does not include, in most circumstances, tackling gunmen whilst unarmed. Follow at safe distance until backup arrives, yes. The way to protect the public from gunmen is to have more police routinely armed.

    March 25th, 2011 at 09:33

  2. Fee says:

    Just the fact that the man said “overarching” means he’s lost the argument so far as I’m concerned.

    I do not want unarmed police officers throwing away their lives tackling nutters on the loose with guns. Not in my name, thank you very much.

    I’d rather see our officers routinely armed, because if they had been, this incident (and the Moat one, of course) could have been ended much faster.

    March 25th, 2011 at 14:38

  3. Tony F says:

    Having been in a job that sometimes (rarely though) could put me in harm’s way, I would be mightily pissed off if my bosses had sounded off in the same way.

    Airwaves, what a con. The wrong frequency for the job to start with. The only reason it was chosen was because it was on an unlicensed ie: free channel that someone wanted to make money from.

    March 25th, 2011 at 19:42

  4. joe says:

    My dad went up against criminals with firearms armed only with his ‘stick” in his career. I’ve done criminals with knives in my time as a special. Nonetheless sending coppers out without the right kit to do the job is criminal. I can’t see any reason against (and many compelling arguments for) generally arming police officers.

    March 25th, 2011 at 22:08

  5. Plodsknow says:

    He expects me to put myself in harms way when he is in command?
    Yes Sir! I’ll be right behind you.

    ACPO, Don’t you just love them?

    March 26th, 2011 at 07:08

Leave a comment