Forum menu
ninfan - Member
Ah, lefties telling us what 'the UK' does and does not want - quelle surprise...
At the risk of engaging...
But it's OK for a 'rightie' to do exactly that?
zokes - Still not a customer
...and stepping out of the bun fight for a second; what can the soldiers on the streets actually do? Do they have stop and search powers? Would they actually be authorised to use force (deadly if necessary) to stop someone they suspected was about to commit a crime?
My understanding is that they are under direct command of the police they are supporting.
I see Dennis Skinner posted this. Seems Jeremy is only saying what Dave had previously agreed with
[img] 
[/img]
and stepping out of the bun fight for a second; what can the soldiers on the streets actually do?
Wondered that myself, Zokes.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/armed-troops-patrol-streets-security-10493625
Theresa May stressed they would be under the command of the police, who would decide where and how they are used.
But there's this, too:
But the decision to use the military alongside armed police under Operation Temperer was greeted with concern by many in policing.Retired Met detective Peter Kirkham said: “Police officers are trained to shoot to stop but the military have their own rules of engagement. Usually a soldier will be shooting to kill.
“Training to become a police firearms officer is rigorous and involves conflict resolution tactics and learning when to fire and when not to.
“The military have not had this and are not going to have batons and Tasers. It will be all or nothing with them.”
“Training to become a police firearms officer is rigorous and involves conflict resolution tactics and learning when to fire and when not to.
Aye, 'cause that's never gone tits up, has it?
The less armed police on the streets, the less potential for fowl ups or summary executions of unsavoury characters. Or innocents.
Aye, 'cause that's never gone tits up, has it?
To be fair, given that guns on the streets is a fact, I'd rather have those carrying them trained in that kind of discipline, than not.
less potential for fowl ups
Terrorist chickens - the stuff of my worst nightmares..!
😉
My understanding is that they are under direct command of the police they are supporting.
The police telling them where to stand is one thing, but I'm still unsure that a soldier on British streets has the legal power to stop anyone for questioning, never mind use lethal force.
Unless they're striking workers?Scousers, South Wales miners, Glaswegians or from Belfast were all fair game for live rounds before now
never mind use lethal force.
The retired police officer I quoted in my earlier post certainly seems to think that lethal force from the Army is a possibility.
I'd imagine lethal force from the Army is a given..
What, these ones were never deployed. God damn photoshop and fake news.
They aren't self propelled guns, they are armoured reconnaissance vehicles, the article even states that. there is a big difference self propelled guns are a artillery piece
#fakenews
ulysse - Member
I'd imagine lethal force from the Army is a given..
Yeah, I get that's sort of their purpose, but I'm very unsure about the legality of it in this context. I suspect that if they did shoot someone who was just about the commit a terrorist act then it would all be brushed under the carpet, but if it was a case of mistaken identity then presumably it would be an even bigger mess than de Menezes in 2007.
Essentially, what legal powers do the army have in peacetime on UK civilian soil?
The police telling them where to stand is one thing, but I'm still unsure that a soldier on British streets has the legal power to stop anyone for questioning, never mind use lethal force.
The army won't be questioning anyone, it's a police operation, PACE will apply etc
The army can shoot people and always have, the soldiers guarding barracks etc used to have a card system that set out the rules, they will have something similar now approved by the AG
The army can shoot people and always have, the soldiers guarding barracks etc used to have a card system that set out the rules, they will have something similar now approved by the AG
But barracks are army land. If there are provisions for the AG to give approval then fair enough, I just knew they could really act as extra cops.
Yeah, I get that's sort of their purpose, but I'm very unsure about the legality of it in this context. I suspect that if they did shoot someone who was just about the commit a terrorist act then it would all be brushed under the carpet,
How are you going to brush it under the carpet? There are rules, it has to be done within the law, the AG approves these
but if it was a case of mistaken identity then presumably it would be an even bigger mess than de Menezes in 2007.
The army gets less protection than the police, no comparing notes, full police investigation rather than a IPCC one. Number of soldiers did time for mistakes in NI
To be fair, given that guns on the streets is a fact, I'd rather have those carrying them trained in that kind of discipline, than not.
Agreed.
But let's keep it as is, a trained specialist unit used for extreme situations, and not every single plod, some with questionable attitudes, carrying guns.
We get cock ups now, let's not increase the potential for those cock ups
To be fair, Rone - I still find it easy to blame Maggie effing Thatcher for a lot of the problems the UK currently faces. You can trace many things back to her with a bit of imagination..!
Absolutely and unequivocally. As someone who lived smack bang in a pit village I couldn't agree more.
But it's done now and we've got to figure stuff out for the better.
To me it's more about action than words too. The media are obsessed with what someone said. Hence all the Diane Abbott noise.
But barracks are army land.
They can shoot people who are shooting at them but not on MoD estate
If there are provisions for the AG to give approval then fair enough, I just knew they could really act as extra cops.
They are not cops, they don't have police powers, a Special Constable has more police powers than the soldiers
But let's keep it as is, a trained specialist unit used for extreme situations, and not every single plod, some with questionable attitudes, carrying guns.
Our police force is a representation of our society with the rough edges knocked off
If you want it to look a particular way you need to join it and change the people with the warrant cards to look like the part of society you feel you represent
They aren't self propelled guns, they are armoured reconnaissance vehicles, the article even states that. there is a big difference self propelled guns are a artillery piece
Nitpicking - this isn't arrse.co.uk.
To most people, whether it's a self-propelled gun or an ARV/ATC, all tracked armoured vehicles with turret-mounted ordnance are much the same thing.
Nitpicking - this isn't arrse.co.uk.To most people, whether it's a self-propelled gun or an ARV/ATC, all tracked armoured vehicles with turret-mounted ordnance are much the same thing.
Which of course explains why the OP picked the most inflammatory phrase rather than for example toy tanks etc
They are not cops, they don't have police powers, a Special Constable has more police powers than the soldiers
I think we're in furious agreement. I know they're not cops, hence the initial question. I just wondered, beyond looking tough, what they could actually do.
Armed police being helped out by the army? A daily reminder that Corbyn is right about the roots of the problem and Theresa May's war on terrorism during her time in office has failed.
The media are obsessed with what someone said. Hence all the Diane Abbott noise.
You don't think that what she has said in the past might be revealing of what they really think, and would do if they were put in a position of power?
the OP picked the most inflammatory phrase
[i]Really?[/i] Seems to me you might already have been primed to look for something to react to.
Seems to me the OP simply saw what most people who aren't Squaddies would see, and described it accordingly.
I think we're in furious agreement. I know they're not cops, hence the initial question. I just wondered, beyond looking tough, what they could actually do.
Shoot people if required
Armed police don't deploy solo so some of it is about pairing up to free up numbers
Look like something is being done
Attract the nutters
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/politics/news/86201/watch-jeremy-corbyn-supporter-yells-police-and-soldiers-downing-street
what she has said [u][i]in the past[/i][/u]
Bit of a recurring theme in your posts, Nin...
Seems to me the OP simply saw what most people who aren't Squaddies would see, and described it accordingly.
After not reading his own link justifying his description......
Exactly, I remembered a tracked armoured vehicle that I knew wasn't a tank.
You'd have equally gone off on one if I'd had described it as a tank.
And reading the link, you credit me with too much.
After not reading his own link justifying his description......
It didn't exactly go into great detail about the niceties of armoured vehicle identification though, did it?
And as it's not really the main thrust of the article, a reader might be forgiven for not giving the point his main attention, not expecting it to be followed up with an exam...
A daily reminder that Corbyn is right about the roots of the problem
What has Sweden done to deserve the same problem?
You don't think that what she has said in the past might be revealing of what they really think, and would do if they were put in a position of power?
What, like Boris Johnson?
What has Sweden done to deserve the same problem?
You're [i]very[/i] literal, aren't you?
Nobody has suggested that western foreign policy is the [i]only[/i] cause of jihadism, and clearly the (global) jihad threat pre-dates decisions to march into the Middle East to counter it.
I just wondered, beyond looking tough, what they could actually do.
Just like the [b]TANKS & MISSILE BATTERIES [/b] at Heathrow, exactly that, it's a pr exercise
You don't think that what she has said in the past might be revealing of what they really think, and would do if they were put in a position of power?
I have [i]no[/i] idea whether her past pronouncements predict the future - and neither do you.
I do know however, that people - even politicians - change their minds in light of experience.
I do know however, that people - even politicians - change their minds in light of experience.
People who knew me 10 years ago would think you were mad if you told them I'd joined The Green Party...
Priceless stupidity from Fallon - even exceeding his own standards !
Oh, FFS..!
Fallon used to be considered a big hitter by the tories. Now he's as much of a liability as BoJo and May.
and would do if they were put in a position of power?
There's an (inadvertently) good point here.
I don't expect Labour to manage to change all that much if they get into power, faced with the brakes inherent in Parliament and the civil service. One argument for the election I've heard is that if May increased her majority then she wouldn't have to pander to more rabid extremes of her party to get things through Parliament. Even if Labour miracle a win then it's hardly going to be a landslide or stop the labour right wing trying to meddle. I would, however, like them to try to make worthwhile changes, and perhaps convince a few more people that "might is right" isn't necessarily the best route to peace. Maybe that will encourage politicians generally that a way to get elected is to appeal to people's good nature rather than their insecurities and fears.
Pie in the sky, I know.
I like that, Spud-Face...
Cheers!
I don't see how any sane, rational person can argue that our recent adventures in the middle east have been anything other than an unmitigated disaster, which has massively contributed to the region descending into chaos, and made the whole world a far more dangerous place.
Corbyn is one of the very few MPs who have constantly called this right, and therefore has any credibility on this issue
Yep - no other conclusion bears any critical analysis.