Recession, what Recession?

[thirdcrank]

In the early days of the first Harold Wilson government - when was still a teenager - I attended a lecture when British politics was compared to a pantomime horse. The front legs were the Labour Party and the back the Tories. The point being that it was only ever a matter of time before the Tories adopted more socialist policies. Even then, there were obvious weaknesses in implying that the main political parties were not internally divided but it's right that our society has changed.

Fast forward to 2022 and the lines between the parties are rather blurred.

Change, usually gradual, has occurred through concessions which have avoided any sort of regime-changing rebellion. (FWIW, by 1964, Charles de Gaulle's presidency was heading downwards)

[ossie]

In France for instance, it's normally the job of the Army, or specialist units within the army to respond to terror threats and they appear to do so with great skill and efficacy. It's Army who patrol airports and sensitive locations of government in Paris for instance, which makes me feel a lot safer. I've a colleague who's son is with the Legion and from him I've learned that these protection forces are all drawn from men with active military service, who have served under active fire situations.

I wouldn't imagine that many British policemen have come face to face with an 'active shooter', and this does concern me. It's only recently that the Gendarmerie in France have started to recruit personell from ex soldiers who have not seen active service. You can see the benefits of having ex servicemen and women in situations of high stress like terrorism activity where their experience is invaluable.

What I'm saying is that i would prefer ex service personnel (or the army) to respond to situations facing an armed threat, than policemen. However well trained. As stated above it was not the type of bullets used, but the manner in which they were used which instigated a near nationwide (in England at least) riot.

Many UK Police firearms officers are ex military as are their instructors. I'd wager the majority of SCO19 are as well. I was on holiday with a Royal Protection officer last month and most are ex military. The fact the vast majority of the UK police are not routinely armed, unlike the French is something I welcome.

[thirdcrank]

police killings.jpg (18.23 KiB) Viewed 510 times

from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56834733

Thanks for posting that (which I've had to copy to get it to display.) It does seem to support my point about US policing.

OTOH, international comparisons need to be put in context so eg what counts as "police" in one country may be a part of the army or a para-military body in another. "Gendarme" (armed man) is perhaps an example.

There are many elements involved in the police use of firearms. Safe handling of weapons and marksmanship are a couple which might be taken for granted with former military personnel. The broader requirements of civil policing may not be part of their training or experience.

I assume that the big number for the USA in that table is directly related to the extent of gun ownership. Tight gun control policies here have contributed to the much lower figure for E&W. No guns = no shootings = nobody being shot. Utopia, but "few" can be written instead

[pete75]

I'm saying that the Hague Convention is irrelevant to policing in this country. Of Course, all police use of firearms is regrettable: it's better if it doesn't happen. However, the days of Give me the gun, sonny, and nobody will get hurt" are gone.

If I've misunderstood what you were saying, try re-wording it

Ok I'll put it in simple terms. If a type of ammunition is considered too harmful to be used by trained professional soldiers being shot at by trained, professional soldiers then police officers certainly shouldn't be allowed to use the stuff to shoot members of the public.

Thanks. And I'll point out that Steve76 dealt with that above before you

Which is a nice example of ignorance being involved in exacerbating matters. Police using hollow points is intentional and desirable and has nothing to do with whether their actions in terms of the shooting itself were appropriate. The bullet needs to be stopping in the target, not going straight through and into other things at still potentially lethal speeds.(My emphasis)

I think "into other people" is likely to be worse than "other things" but it covers the issue. (I've no idea of Steve76's standing here)

Yes, I was aware of that excuse well before Steve76 mentioned it. Given the known damage this type of bullet causes when fired into central body mass it's almost invariably fatal. It would seem the ammunition has been adopted as part of a deliberate shoot to kill policy.

[pete75]

I wouldn't imagine that many British policemen have come face to face with an 'active shooter', and this does concern me. It's only recently that the Gendarmerie in France have started to recruit personell from ex soldiers who have not seen active service. You can see the benefits of having ex servicemen and women in situations of high stress like terrorism activity where their experience is invaluable.

The Gendarmerie are soldiers. The organisation is part of the French military and has been routinely deployed around the world in "trouble spots" like Afghanistan, Kosova, Syria, Bosnia etc

[Nearholmer]

It would seem the ammunition has been adopted as part of a deliberate shoot to kill policy.

Yes, the then commissioner of the Met said as much c10 years ago, the logic being to shoot a suspected suicide bomber in the head, not the body because that could set off any bomb they have strapped to them.

It’s deeply unpleasant stuff, and when they get it wrong and shoot an innocent person it’s an absolute disaster, but it has worked successfully, as in 2017 when they killed three guys on a knife rampage around London Bridge/Southwark in very short order.

[Dingdong]

I wouldn't imagine that many British policemen have come face to face with an 'active shooter', and this does concern me. It's only recently that the Gendarmerie in France have started to recruit personell from ex soldiers who have not seen active service. You can see the benefits of having ex servicemen and women in situations of high stress like terrorism activity where their experience is invaluable.

The Gendarmerie are soldiers. The organisation is part of the French military and has been routinely deployed around the world in "trouble spots" like Afghanistan, Kosova, Syria, Bosnia etc

They are part of the French military, but are essentially deployed in rural areas of France to police local issues. Police Nationale are deployed to control larger towns and cities (they drive white vehicles) The Gendarmes are mostly engaged in issuing fines, parking tickets, patrolling for speeding, drunk driving, attending RTA's and various other motoring and rural issues (like controlling the local hunt and fishing etc). It's a stretch to call them 'soldiers', though up until 15 years ago, it was very difficult to become a member of the Gendarmerie without previous military experience in the armed forces.

This has been relaxed in modern times and it's estimated less than 60% of the force has previous military experience, which is still substantial, when compared to British police forces. Currently there are around 102,000 of them and they have an annual budget of some €9.5 billion. They date back to 1337, a direct descendant of the 'Marshalry', as a national force, They have influenced police forces throughout the world, including the UK forces.

[pete75]

It would seem the ammunition has been adopted as part of a deliberate shoot to kill policy.

Yes, the then commissioner of the Met said as much c10 years ago, the logic being to shoot a suspected suicide bomber in the head, not the body because that could set off any bomb they have strapped to them.

It’s deeply unpleasant stuff, and when they get it wrong and shoot an innocent person it’s an absolute disaster, but it has worked successfully, as in 2017 when they killed three guys on a knife rampage around London Bridge/Southwark in very short order.

A disaster for the person killed but not for whoever shot them. They always seem to get away with it. The force involved may be criticised by "leftie" publications like the Guardian but that's about it.

[thirdcrank]

Yes, I was aware of that excuse well before Steve76 mentioned it. Given the known damage this type of bullet causes when fired into central body mass it's almost invariably fatal. It would seem the ammunition has been adopted as part of a deliberate shoot to kill policy.

"Shoot to kill policy" implies that there's an alternative of shooting to do something else. My own police firearms training is now dated but it was always made clear that somebody should only be shot at if the intention was that they should be killed or seriously wounded.

[pete75]

I wouldn't imagine that many British policemen have come face to face with an 'active shooter', and this does concern me. It's only recently that the Gendarmerie in France have started to recruit personell from ex soldiers who have not seen active service. You can see the benefits of having ex servicemen and women in situations of high stress like terrorism activity where their experience is invaluable.

The Gendarmerie are soldiers. The organisation is part of the French military and has been routinely deployed around the world in "trouble spots" like Afghanistan, Kosova, Syria, Bosnia etc

They are part of the French military, but are essentially deployed in rural areas of France to police local issues. Police Nationale are deployed to control larger towns and cities (they drive white vehicles) The Gendarmes are mostly engaged in issuing fines, parking tickets, patrolling for speeding, drunk driving, attending RTA's and various other motoring and rural issues (like controlling the local hunt and fishing etc). It's a stretch to call them 'soldiers', though up until 15 years ago, it was very difficult to become a member of the Gendarmerie without previous military experience in the armed forces.

This has been relaxed in modern times and it's estimated less than 60% of the force has previous military experience, which is still substantial, when compared to British police forces. Currently there are around 102,000 of them and they have an annual budget of some €9.5 billion. They date back to 1337, a direct descendant of the 'Marshalry', as a national force, They have influenced police forces throughout the world, including the UK forces.

Yes, it's a stretch, after all they look nothing like soldiers.

[Dingdong]

Yes, it's a stretch, after all they look nothing like soldiers.

Ecole_de_gendarmerie-IMG_9188.jpg

Yes. It's quite an incredible stretch! That's their special terror response unit (GIGN), on parade for Remembrance Day. Your average police force Gendarmerie looks like this (they're probably on traffic duty, which is the core of their workload). They help old ladies with their shopping and such, and are considered a 'friendly' force. More like neighborhood watch. Like I said upthread their primary responsibility is to issue fines and report up the chain to the Police Nationale for more serious crime. They rarely arrest anyone.

[francovendee]

Little as my experience with the Gendarmarie is, I think that they are quite aloof unlike a British bobby. Not bad people but far less helpful. They are generally disliked by our French friends, mainly for issuing them tickets for driving offences .

[al_yrpal]

Driving back from Spain in 1964 with 3 pals at the end of my apprenticeship I got nicked by the Gendamerie for crossing a double white line at speed near Calais and fined on the spot. This was made worse by my pissed companions taking the mickey out of the guys plastic white belt and plastic boots. We had a bit of a shock because he was talking about old Francs and we thought the fine was new Francs. We had to have a whip round to pay it!

Al

[Dingdong]

As was said upthread, the police rely on the support of the public to be able to carry out their job. Once public trust in the police is lost, it'll be very difficult to get it back again. It's at that point that general law and order irreparably break down.

If the situation in Britain descends into civil unrest, and the police deploy their new legal powers to stifle dissent and remove the right to peaceful protest, things could get out of hand very quickly indeed. We've seen this across the channel in France with the Gilet Jaunes movement, who were only stopped in their tracks by the fortuitous arrival of lockdown and COVID 19. The police, IMO will have to tread a very fine and sensitive line if those groups who have been instrumental this year in protest join forces, and if they garner the support of those striking over the winter months.

Pile on top the frustration over fuel hikes and cost of living crisis and it won't take much of a spark to light the pyre. I can't see any easy way out for the national police forces if things take a turn for the worst, I'm not privy to the upper echelons of the force, but I imagine they have to obey the will of the politicians and the Home Office come what may.

The French deploy the army as a matter of course in large scale civil unrest, how long before we see DPM jackets and automatic weapons on the streets of Britain if this does indeed turn out to be the mother of all 'winters of discontent '? And would the Tories aggravate and stir up such a situation, for political gain? There are seeds of that already at work. We live in interesting times.

[Nearholmer]

Do you remember the miner’s strike?