This post comes on the back of reading a post by a UK Police Officer where he talks about arresting one of his colleagues. One of the offences the officer was arrested for was possession of offensive weapons; not knives and guns which are almost uniformly illegal but with police issue batons and CS gas.
Now this is an interesting dichotomy. If on duty, a police officer can carry (and use) these items perfectly legally. They have special dispensation from the Home Secretary of the day exempting them from the blanket ban on carrying intended weapons. However off duty, despite the fact they are still expected to carry their warrant cards that convey powers only available to police officers, it becomes illegal to carry items intended for personal protection.
Originally I was going to suggest that the law be changed to allow police officers to carry these items at all times regardless of if they're working or not but I changed my mind on this. It throws up a few issues that I am not entirely comfortable with. Firstly is it would then create and implicit expectation that police officers will respond to any incident they encounter which really isn't fair. We need more police officers, we cannot expect current officers to intervene in their time off. Despite this, I am quite sure there are a vast number of officers who would happily intervene in incidents regardless of whether they are or are not on duty. The second issue this idea raises is a safety one. Yes off duty officers would have a baton and CS spray however they would be unlikely to have their radios; a vital tool to summon backup. No matter how good the officer, many incidents won't be able to be solved by one individual alone and fiddling with a mobile calling 999 is no substitute for a panic button. Finally there is the issue of showing off. Police blogs have long documented a swathe of warranted officers who rarely venture further than the front desk instead preferring to police with a computer. This is all very well and I'm sure that some vital functions are performed but I can't help thinking that by allowing officers to carry policing equipment off duty might lead to some (a small minority) who have gone straight for desk jobs and who don't have the experience in front line policing deciding to play the hero off duty - possibly showing off to the missus and/or mates - and causing the whole situation to degenerate. I don't have evidence to back up the latter theory beyond what I've read in various blogs and books about policing but common sense dictates that this could well be a considerable risk,
So instead of this, here's another idea entirely; instead of allowing officers to carry these items off duty, why not legalise them more generally. Now before you condemn this idea as popularising violence, hear me out.
First off, I'm not advocating that they be put on sale in the local Tescos. Instead have a licencing system whereby people can undergo education and training in self defence in exchange for a licence to purchase and carry batons and/or CS spray. The government is constantly talking about altering the law on self defence to allow innocent citizens to defend themselves and their property. Here's a real opportunity to put it's money where it's mouth is. Substitute the phrase "reasonable force" for "necessary force" and allow people to put a bit of muscle behind their defence and as part of that give them the tools to do it.
Now here's the next bit. Rather than use whatever comes to hand for defending oneself, why not use items designed for the purpose? Batons and CS gas are designed to allow the user to apply significant amounts of non-lethal force by the user. In short, if you're on the receiving end it's going to hurt like hell but it's not going to kill you. Surely that's to the good. Far better than someone grabbing and using a kitchen knife/screwdriver/spade and using those in panic. As I said before, these items would require a licence for purchase so there's the added advantage of requiring people who possess them to have undergone some form of training increasing the likelihood further that they can be deployed with maximal efficiency and minimal long-term damage to the recipient.
An argument against I can foresee is the argument that these items could end up in the hands of criminals. Yes this is true but do you really think that they don't have access to scarier implements already. A quick trip round B&Q or Homebase will allow any wannabe reprobate to pick up lots of things considerably stabbier and generally more dangerous than the items I have spoken of. These can be bought perfectly legally and without any form of check. Not only that, many hardcore criminals have graduated to guns. What I'm suggesting is not escalating the situation, it's not even playing catch up, it is simply levelling the playing field ever so slightly against events such as mugging or burglary (which coincidentally is - hopefully - covers the more commonly experienced crimes in the UK).
So to recap what I am suggesting is that people in the UK be given the right to defend themselves with the force necessary to do so (rather than the bare minimum possible) and using tools specifically designed for the job subject to training. As a further point, I would strongly advocate widespread self-defence training available to all. Down the line, I would like to see it offered in schools as part of the PHSE or whatever it's called this week but in the short term I would like to see training maid openly and cheaply available. I am not advocating vigilante action but I am advocating people standing up for themselves rather than rolling over and being able to do so confident they know how, they have the equipment to do it safely and they have the backing of the law.
JR
Now this is an interesting dichotomy. If on duty, a police officer can carry (and use) these items perfectly legally. They have special dispensation from the Home Secretary of the day exempting them from the blanket ban on carrying intended weapons. However off duty, despite the fact they are still expected to carry their warrant cards that convey powers only available to police officers, it becomes illegal to carry items intended for personal protection.
Originally I was going to suggest that the law be changed to allow police officers to carry these items at all times regardless of if they're working or not but I changed my mind on this. It throws up a few issues that I am not entirely comfortable with. Firstly is it would then create and implicit expectation that police officers will respond to any incident they encounter which really isn't fair. We need more police officers, we cannot expect current officers to intervene in their time off. Despite this, I am quite sure there are a vast number of officers who would happily intervene in incidents regardless of whether they are or are not on duty. The second issue this idea raises is a safety one. Yes off duty officers would have a baton and CS spray however they would be unlikely to have their radios; a vital tool to summon backup. No matter how good the officer, many incidents won't be able to be solved by one individual alone and fiddling with a mobile calling 999 is no substitute for a panic button. Finally there is the issue of showing off. Police blogs have long documented a swathe of warranted officers who rarely venture further than the front desk instead preferring to police with a computer. This is all very well and I'm sure that some vital functions are performed but I can't help thinking that by allowing officers to carry policing equipment off duty might lead to some (a small minority) who have gone straight for desk jobs and who don't have the experience in front line policing deciding to play the hero off duty - possibly showing off to the missus and/or mates - and causing the whole situation to degenerate. I don't have evidence to back up the latter theory beyond what I've read in various blogs and books about policing but common sense dictates that this could well be a considerable risk,
So instead of this, here's another idea entirely; instead of allowing officers to carry these items off duty, why not legalise them more generally. Now before you condemn this idea as popularising violence, hear me out.
First off, I'm not advocating that they be put on sale in the local Tescos. Instead have a licencing system whereby people can undergo education and training in self defence in exchange for a licence to purchase and carry batons and/or CS spray. The government is constantly talking about altering the law on self defence to allow innocent citizens to defend themselves and their property. Here's a real opportunity to put it's money where it's mouth is. Substitute the phrase "reasonable force" for "necessary force" and allow people to put a bit of muscle behind their defence and as part of that give them the tools to do it.
Now here's the next bit. Rather than use whatever comes to hand for defending oneself, why not use items designed for the purpose? Batons and CS gas are designed to allow the user to apply significant amounts of non-lethal force by the user. In short, if you're on the receiving end it's going to hurt like hell but it's not going to kill you. Surely that's to the good. Far better than someone grabbing and using a kitchen knife/screwdriver/spade and using those in panic. As I said before, these items would require a licence for purchase so there's the added advantage of requiring people who possess them to have undergone some form of training increasing the likelihood further that they can be deployed with maximal efficiency and minimal long-term damage to the recipient.
An argument against I can foresee is the argument that these items could end up in the hands of criminals. Yes this is true but do you really think that they don't have access to scarier implements already. A quick trip round B&Q or Homebase will allow any wannabe reprobate to pick up lots of things considerably stabbier and generally more dangerous than the items I have spoken of. These can be bought perfectly legally and without any form of check. Not only that, many hardcore criminals have graduated to guns. What I'm suggesting is not escalating the situation, it's not even playing catch up, it is simply levelling the playing field ever so slightly against events such as mugging or burglary (which coincidentally is - hopefully - covers the more commonly experienced crimes in the UK).
So to recap what I am suggesting is that people in the UK be given the right to defend themselves with the force necessary to do so (rather than the bare minimum possible) and using tools specifically designed for the job subject to training. As a further point, I would strongly advocate widespread self-defence training available to all. Down the line, I would like to see it offered in schools as part of the PHSE or whatever it's called this week but in the short term I would like to see training maid openly and cheaply available. I am not advocating vigilante action but I am advocating people standing up for themselves rather than rolling over and being able to do so confident they know how, they have the equipment to do it safely and they have the backing of the law.
JR
No comments:
Post a Comment