Lack of armed police ‘leaves UK regions open to terrorist attack’

[bsnub]

Britain’s regional cities are highly vulnerable to Paris-style terror attacks because they lack the 24/7 armed police cover given to London, the home secretary has been warned by police chiefs co-ordinating counter-terrorism.


Officers at Scotland Yard have briefed Theresa May that “dedicated armed assets” outside the capital are sparse. An exercise carried out by the National Counter-Terrorism Command aimed at examining how the UK’s police would respond to a simultaneous attack on London, Birmingham and a smaller provincial city has further highlighted the perils. A Scotland Yard source said: “Ask a regional force how long it would take them to respond to a terror attack and watch them squirm.”

The revelation comes in the wake of reports that the mastermind of the Paris terror attacks, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, visited the UK on a false passport. It was reported he may have been in Kent before meeting fellow extremists in London. It was earlier reported that he had photographs of Birmingham landmarks on his phone and that he had called numbers belonging to Moroccans there.


Seven terror plots in the UK have been foiled in the past six months alone; the current threat level is “severe”. Shadow home secretary Andy Burnham said: “It is essential that all our major cities have 24/7 protection from attack. If this is true, it suggests there are worrying gaps in our ability to respond.”


A Home Office spokesperson said that in recent weeks an extra £34m has been provided to fund more armed police. And it is understood that counter- terrorism chiefs are negotiating with May over a plan to assemble four dedicated regional armed units to be available seven days a week, and late into the night. It has also been proposed that “stand-by” teams, ringfenced from other operational duties, be made available to the regions on 15 minutes’ notice.


Critics believe the Home Office is determined to further run down parts of the security apparatus to meet budget cuts. Last week it emerged through a leaked document that a third of emergency vehicles kitted out to deal with a “dirty bomb” or other major contamination incidents in England were to be axed. The memo, circulated to all fire services two weeks ago, revealed that 22 of 65 vehicles – carrying decontamination showers, tents and one-piece suits – will be made redundant.


That cut comes on top of a 15% drop in armed officers since 2008, from nearly 7,000 to 5,875. Forces to have seen falls include Greater Manchester, down 27%, Merseyside, 25%, and West Midlands, 12%. The largest reduction is in Warwickshire, which saw a 47% cut. And only a few firearms officers are counter-terrorist specialists trained to deal with sieges and hostage situations.
Following January’s attack on the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris, deputy chief constable Simon Chesterman, of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, hinted at the current risks. He wrote in Top Cover, the journal of the Police Firearms Officers’ Association: “The prospect of a nationwide manhunt for armed terrorists who have gone to ground after an attack is deeply concerning. Could the UK respond to incidents like the ones in Paris? I believe we have the capability: capacity is a different issue.”


Lack of armed police ?leaves UK regions open to terrorist attack? | UK news | The Guardian

[Pragmatic]

Nice of the UK to let its enemies its fcuked.

[taxexile]

if the uk was considered to be such an easy target due to its perceived lack of anti terrorist measures, then why on earth did the terrorists eventually choose paris, a city known for its heavily armed and non too "gentle" police force , for the attack in november.

[slackula]

Seven terror plots in the UK have been foiled in the past six months alone

When 'terror plot' has been so redefined and diluted that it now seems to include 13 year old pukes saying something edgy on twitter and anything else that makes the police feel like detaining rebellious teens to meet their targets in the great WoT it's hardly cause to militarise the 'protect and serve' brigades.

Wake me when they catch the next Guido Fawkes.

[DrB0b]

This is just Andy Burnham doing his "look at me, I'm still relevant" schtick. There is nothing anywhere to indicate UK cops want more guns.

[sabang]

Who needs guns, when you got cameras?

[slackula]

Who needs guns, when you got cameras?

Michael Bay!

[mykthemin]

It will happen soon and the police will be totally powerless to stop it, what a total disgrace. all because of the liberal PC wankers.

[VocalNeal]

People separated by a common language who have never been to or lived in UK should not be fooled into thinking that just because community or traffic police in the UK do not carry sidearms, that there are no guns.

If a policeman in the US arrives with a gun it is a Colt/Glock .45. If a policeman in the UK arrives with a gun it will an MP5. (Flying Squad excluded)

[Neverna]

Everywhere is open to a terrorist attack or an armed attack. Arming police won't stop that. It's naiive to think otherwise.

[rickschoppers]

An older story, but appropriate for the new year.

JANUARY 8, 2015 , BY NICOLAI SENNELS 80 COMMENTS ON INTERPOL: ALLOWING CITIZENS TO CARRY GUNS IN PUBLIC IS MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO PREVENT TERROR ATTACKS 100386

How long would the jihadis at Charlie Hebdo, Westgate, Mumbai – and many other terror attacks to come – be able to continue killing if they were surrounded by armed citizens? Interpol states that the only way to stop such attacks is to allow citizens to carry arms (the only alternative to an armed citizenry is “extraordinary security” surrounding every area where many people meet – train stations, super markets, schools, etc. – which is of course completely unrealistic). If guns are illegal, only violent criminals, fanatic jihadis and our over-worked, understaffed police will have them.

In case you are unsure whether it is a good idea that citizens legally own firearms: Switzerland has very liberal gun laws and one of the lowest percentages of homicide in the world. Interesting statistics on guns, homicides and firearm related accidents in the US here.

From abcNEWS:t
Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble said today the U.S. and the rest of the democratic world is at a security crossroads in the wake of last month’s deadly al-Shabab attack at a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya – and suggested an answer could be in arming civilians.

In an exclusive interview with ABC News, Noble said there are really only two choices for protecting open societies from attacks like the one on Westgate mall where so-called “soft targets” are hit: either create secure perimeters around the locations or allow civilians to carry their own guns to protect themselves.

“Societies have to think about how they’re going to approach the problem,” Noble said. “One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves are so secure that in order to get into the soft target you’re going to have to pass through extraordinary security.” …

Citing a recent call for al Qaeda “brothers to strike soft targets, to do it in small groups,” Noble said law enforcement is now facing a daunting task.

“How do you protect soft targets? That’s really the challenge. You can’t have armed police forces everywhere,” he told reporters. “It’s Interpol’s view that one way you protect soft targets is you make it more difficult for terrorist to move internationally. So what we’re trying to do is to establish a way for countries … to screen passports, which are a terrorist’s best friend, try to limit terrorists moving from country to country. And also, that we’re able to share more info about suspected terrorists.”

In the interview with ABC News, Noble was more blunt and directed his comments to his home country.

“Ask yourself: If that (Westgate terror attack) was Denver, Col., if that was Texas, would those guys have been able to spend hours, days, shooting people randomly?” Noble said, referring to states with pro-gun traditions. “What I’m saying is it makes police around the world question their views on gun control. It makes citizens question their views on gun control. You have to ask yourself, ‘Is an armed citizenry more necessary now than it was in the past with an evolving threat of terrorism?’ This is something that has to be discussed.'”

Interpol: allowing citizens to carry guns in public is most effective way to prevent terror attacks | 10News.dk

[Neverna]

Yeah, that will prevent people getting shot.

[mykthemin]

Everywhere is open to a terrorist attack or an armed attack. Arming police won't stop that. It's naiive to think otherwise.

No the naive one is you, believing all the PC crap.

[Latindancer]

Australia's gun laws are very strict, yet many of our police carry guns. I think it's odd that UK police cannot.

[thaimeme]

Everywhere is open to a terrorist attack or an armed attack. Arming police won't stop that. It's naiive to think otherwise.

Yes...
Need to understand the roots of the whys and wherefores of such activities.
Blowback?
Kharma?
Or, anything along those lines.

Cause and effect is really an Asian philosophical ideal and can't be deciphered by an Occidental mindset.....even though such fundamental rules are bastardized by disconnected European types.

[Neverna]

Everywhere is open to a terrorist attack or an armed attack. Arming police won't stop that. It's naiive to think otherwise.

No the naive one is you, believing all the PC crap.

So there's never been any terrorist attacks in the USA then? Or any armed attacks in the USA (where the police are armed)?

[VocalNeal]

Australia's gun laws are very strict, yet many of our police carry guns. I think it's odd that UK police cannot.

It is not cannot. They don't want to.

Everywhere is open to a terrorist attack or an armed attack. Arming police won't stop that. It's naiive to think otherwise.

No the naive one is you, believing all the PC crap.

Having the police carry sidearms when terrorists have automatic weapons won't stop anything.

If the police arrive with guns in the UK they will have MP5's Edit: or apparently now maybe G36





Terrorists can take their chances!

A police quote: There's nothing glamourous about guns - they are just tools for an unpleasant job. Some do the job better than others.

[DrB0b]

Australia's gun laws are very strict, yet many of our police carry guns. I think it's odd that UK police cannot.

It is not cannot. They don't want to.

Everywhere is open to a terrorist attack or an armed attack. Arming police won't stop that. It's naiive to think otherwise.

No the naive one is you, believing all the PC crap.

Having the police carry sidearms when terrorists have automatic weapons won't stop anything.

If the police arrive with guns in the UK they will have MP5's Edit: or apparently now maybe G36





Terrorists can take their chances!

A police quote: There's nothing glamourous about guns - they are just tools for an unpleasant job. Some do the job better than others.

What Simon Chesterman, head of the UKs armed police, actually said was that he believed there were currently enough arned police to deal with terrorist issues but he worried that planned budget cuts would undermine their capability to respond. The Telegraph article on this, while sharing a similar scaremongering headline, is far better than the Grauniad's nonsense.
British police would struggle to cope with Paris-style attacks and on-the-run terrorists, says armed police chief - Telegraph

[VocalNeal]

^ Budget time coming up is it?

The closest firearms unit to the major naval port and potential terrorist target of Portsmouth is now based at Netley, 20 miles away

So there are no Royal Marines at Portsmouth then to deter said terrorists? Good luck to them then.

Neither Oxford nor Milton Keynes have firearms teams based there, with the closest unit to both now based at Bicester.

Bicester to Oxford centre is 27mins according to google maps. Not necessarily according to a police driver in BMW M5.

Terrorists can take their chances.

Maybe it is a real problem but it sounds like hyperbole to me!

Then again nobody thought the Canadian Parliament was protected by armed personnel until they tried!

[DrB0b]

^ Budget time coming up is it?

Government already said at the last spending review that they were going to massively reduce police budgets. This whole austerity lie is completely out of hand, much of what people expect from civil society has been utterly destroyed. What's really distressing is that about 30% of voters have fallen for the lie that it's a necessity. So far they've been able to comfort themselves with the thought that it's only affecting foreigners, poor people, the disabled, and other degenerate scum but now the same tory voters are starting to feel the bite. They had no sympathy for the victims of austerity but they're crying like babies now they've become the victims. Revenge may be sweet but schadenfreude is sweeter!

[Horatio Hornblower]

Wonder if the Govt are trying to get there friends in the Arms Industry Happy, a fully armed police force must be on the Agenda.

[BobR]

The stupidity of police not having guns is laughable, especially now when political correctness mandates hiring 45 kilo women to be cops.

[DrB0b]

The stupidity of police not having guns is laughable

And yet it works well in the UK and Ireland (excluding NI which is a special case) . The vast majority of the population, police included, don't want any change. Gun crime is low, police killings are rare, and the police are generally respected rather than feared. Hardly seems stupid to me.

[rickschoppers]

I don't disagree that the past policy in the UK has worked up until now. What the issue is, that Neverna seems to ignore, is that the risk of terror attacks in the UK have risen dramatically in recent times. A country needs to adjust to current threats and not rely on old tactics.

I seem to remember the British losing a war in America because they chose to march rank and file while the revolutionaries ambushed and plinked away at an easy target. Why remain an easy target today?

[DrB0b]

I seem to remember then British losing a war in America because they chose to march rank and file while the revolutionaries ambushed and plinked away at an easy target.

You remember that, do you? You're older than I thought.

is that the risk of terror attacks in the UK have risen dramatically in recent times

You remember over 200 years ago but you don't remember 30 years ago? The UK has far more experience of dealing with terrorism than any other European country or the USA. The risk of terrorist attacks now in the UK is less than it was at almost any time in the last part of the 20th century.