From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I have read the posts resulting from my original reply
> re the Falmouth incident with great interest.
> A common thread is severe criticism of the Police. It
> seems to be the consensus that the 'Police' are useless,
> incompetent, dangerous, unnacountable, a law to
> themselves, etc. etc. There is very little moderation
> or informed argument, merely bland statements.
I think a lot of the time People are only saying what they
find. I don't think that the Police are "useless,
incompetent, dangerous, unnacountable, a law to
themselves, etc. etc." in everything they do. Generally
the Police do a very good job under difficult
circumstances and whenever I have needed them either
Personally or through Work they have always been
efficient and polite. However this does not apply to all
Police Work and it dosen't apply when things go wrong. If
we are talking about Firearms matters then the Police
quite often are incompetant and dangerous. Just looking
at the numbers of negligent discharges involving Police
officers tells us that. Over about 13 years that I have been
shooting I have never seen a negligent discharge by a
civillian shooter and I have only heard of one involving
someone I knew directly (this did however go in a safe
direction). The Police seem to be having them all over the
place. Airports, railway carriges, race meetings and
Police stations. The fact that this seems so common
leads me to believe that the Police are indeed dangerous
when it comes to Firearms handling. It also seems to be
rather common for the Police to leave Guns lying around
for anyone to pick up, although I admit that it hasn't
happened recently. As for being unaccountable, How can
the Police be accountable if complaints against them are
investigated by other Police personell?
I suspect
> that many of the comments are made by people who are
> merely propogating a popular myth. Whatever, the thread
> is that the 'Police' are all the same.
I don't think People are saying this at all. We are
shooters and because of that the Police whom we come
into contact with the most in a profesional sense may be
mostly the same ie: anti firearm, so this is what People
notice. I don't think they are tarring all of the Police with
the same brush, many shooters know Police Officers
personally and there are lots of serving or retired Officers
who are shooters. Most of the grievances shooters have
with the Police stem from the fact that whenever possible
the Police have, from a policy point of view, screwed
shooters. We all know that the restrictions in '88 and '97
had zero effect on the criminal use of Firearms. We also
know that it won't stop some scumbag committing mass
murder with an illegal Firearm in the future. Yet the Police
were all too willing to support whatever measures the
government of the day proposed without question. If the
Police had given an honest opinion on the matter or had
said nothing it would have been that little bit more difficult
to get the legislation through. But no, there were too
many Knighthoods and promotions at stake.
> Back to anonymity. Why should a person who is merely
> doing his or her job be placed under the extra pressure
> that disclosure of identity would bring? Can anyone who
> disagrees with this say that they would be prepared to
> do the same job and be named and photographed publicly?
As Steve has pointed out, there is virtually no risk in the
Falmouth incident of the Officers involved being subject to
any sort of retribution. Why then do they need to hide
their identitys? If it is just the pressure of being named
and Photographed that we are talking about, then
perhaps the Officers concerned should not be doing the
job? Police work, like other some jobs, brings pressures
that are not present in more ordinary lines of work.
People know this when they join the Police and receive
very good pay and Pensions to compensate. If they are
not prepared to undergo the extra pressures involved
should they be doing the job in the first place, especially
the extra pressures brought on by Firearms duty?
> I have protective measures (communications
equipment) in
> my home because, in the course of my work, I have
> confronted and dealt with some major criminals who have
> actively attempted to discover my whereabouts. I resent
> the implications that I have some sort of a magic
> entitlement to this. Anyone who is directly threatened
> can have it.
I agree with this, my Family has had this also some
years ago. Credit where credit is due the Police on that
occasion were excellent.
> Lets get real here. Just what does the public want
> from the Police? Does the person who wants guns banned
> have any less right to say that than anyone here?
If that person is a Police Officer and is speaking from a
Police point of view than I would suggest that he does
have less right to say these things. The Police are there
to administer the Laws passed by Parliament. I do not
believe that the Police have any right to give their views
on what legislation they would like passed
Like
> it or not, this is a democracy and although there are
> some dreadful laws, it is the duty of the Police to
> enforce them. It is the duty of the home office to
> instruct the Police. It is the duty of parliament to
> tell the home office what laws are in existence and
> will be enforced. Dont keep knocking the Police please.
> Look at the top end.
> As an aside, I have spent lots of time in trying to
> effect a reconciliation in my area.
Yes, it's nice to have someone who knows what they are
talking about rather some of the no nowt's that have done
the job in the past.
I have invited
> clubs and societies to our training wing to see
> how we train and what kit we use.Our licensing dept.
> has invited clubs to visit them to see what goes on.I
> have liaised with local clubs to assist their members
> with problems in licensing issues. I have stuck my
> neck out for shooters over long barreled pistols,
> moderators and other things that cause grief.
You shouldn't have needed to "sick you neck out" over
these issues. These things are not prohibited so your
licensing department shouldn't have a problem with them.
I am a
> shooter through and through and have always tried to
> help the private shooter as much as possible, as all
> who know me will corroborate.
> Having read the posts here, though, it puts a
> different light on things in many respects. Although
> I know there was resentment, I didnt realise it was
> so deep and virulent. I am having a deep rethink of
> my philosophy.
Of corse it's deep and virulent. The police have done
evything possible over the years to restrict the activities
of Civillian shooters, I'm talking about the Police as an
institution, not the rank and file that do the leg work.
