Armed police at Liv Street this evening

[EssexGonzo]

Routine patrol or would they only be here as a result of a specific threat?

 

[badassunicorn]

I've seen armed BTP at LivSt loads of times, reckon its just normal

 

[user15681]

Could be either, really, but almost certainly a routine patrol. Armed police do regularly patrol the busy London stations - they'll just walk round.

I've only ever once had reason to suspect an armed patrol were acting on something, and that was not nice as their sniffer dog reacted positively to me.

 

[wensley]

As stated, likely routine, we get them at Kings Cross from time to time giving a visible presence.

 

[jopsuk]

Normal, unfortunately.

 

[DownSouth]

Could be either, really, but almost certainly a routine patrol. Armed police do regularly patrol the busy London stations - they'll just walk round.

I've only ever once had reason to suspect an armed patrol were acting on something, and that was not nice as their sniffer dog reacted positively to me.

Were you hiding a missing baby?

 

[tsr]

I must say I often see armed police at Liverpool St if I visit. Likewise other major stations such as Gatwick Airport, though in that particular case, they'd almost certainly be Sussex Police officers.

 

[colchesterken]

Often seen them at the Channel Tunnel terminal they walk around with machine guns in front of them.

I dont like it it does not seem right here, PC Dixson would not aprove, I think about that De Menezes chap and hope it does not happen to me

Why cant they keep something small in their pocket

 

[HowardGWR]

Often seen them at the Channel Tunnel terminal they walk around with machine guns in front of them.

I dont like it it does not seem right here, PC Dixson would not aprove, I think about that De Menezes chap and hope it does not happen to me

Why cant they keep something small in their pocket

It's clearly for show. I don't know who it is supposed to impress. Any terrorist uses bombs, not guns, and the first thing that anyone knows about that is probably the last thing they know, including the said police.

When have machine-gun armed police ever stopped a terrorist outrage?

 

[Mojo]

It's clearly for show. I don't know who it is supposed to impress. Any terrorist uses bombs, not guns, and the first thing that anyone knows about that is probably the last thing they know, including the said police.

Have you not heard of an 'Active shooter?' http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_shooter

Might not have happened here but has occurred elsewhere, and a main line railway terminal, especially Liv St with it's balconies, must be one of the 'better' (for want of a more appropriate word) locations for it.

 

[ExRes]

It's clearly for show. I don't know who it is supposed to impress. Any terrorist uses bombs, not guns, and the first thing that anyone knows about that is probably the last thing they know, including the said police.

When have machine-gun armed police ever stopped a terrorist outrage?

'Terrorists only use bombs', tell that to the families of people around the world who have had loved ones killed by guns, knives and poisons

'When have machine-gun armed police ever stopped a terrorist outrage', maybe every single day, how would you know if terrorists have been put off ?, surely putting them off is the whole idea, unless you want dead bodies around to prove a point

 

[user15681]

It's clearly for show. I don't know who it is supposed to impress. Any terrorist uses bombs, not guns, and the first thing that anyone knows about that is probably the last thing they know, including the said police.

Mumbai 2008 springs to mind.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Any terrorist uses bombs, not guns, and the first thing that anyone knows about that is probably the last thing they know, including the said police.

When have machine-gun armed police ever stopped a terrorist outrage?

You're so very wrong. The big risk is not bombs at the moment, but "MTFA" terrorism tactics - marauding terrorist firearms (or knives/other weapons) attacks - which armed police absolutely can stop.

 

[robby p]

It can't hurt them showing an armed presence in such a busy station, even if just to reassure the public that they are at least doing something?

As for terrorists not using firearms, what about Mumbai 2008 or Nigeria 2012? Nothing stopping it happening in London and you never know, it may just put some terrorist off knowing that someone would be returning fire pretty quickly.

 

[Llanigraham]

A small pocket sized pistol is only accurate over a VERY short distance and has little "stopping" power. Even the small Glock used by some groups is less than 30 mtrs for accuracy.

 

[Saint66]

We have to remember that we've already had a much smaller incident in the shape of the Lee Rigby stabbing last year.

Who's to say that armed individuals wont attack a station during rush hour?

Armed police would certainly help prevent too much damage in an incident like this.

Also, please remember that Armed officers will only use lethal force (A gun) if it is absolutely necessary, and most of the time, they will look to use their tazer only.

I welcome armed police at police stations and other very busy public areas, and I'm sure staff do too.

 

[ExRes]

A small pocket sized pistol is only accurate over a VERY short distance and has little "stopping" power. Even the small Glock used by some groups is less than 30 mtrs for accuracy.

Not quite sure of the point you're making, if you check out some details of the Glock 9mm you'll see an effective range of 50m with magazines capable of carrying 15 or more rounds and a muzzle velocity of 375m per second, that in the wrong hands equals slaughter

 

[Llanigraham]

Not quite sure of the point you're making, if you check out some details of the Glock 9mm you'll see an effective range of 50m with magazines capable of carrying 15 or more rounds and a muzzle velocity of 375m per second, that in the wrong hands equals slaughter

The effective range may be 50mtrs, but the accuracy drops off quite a lot at that distance, and the Police rely on accuracy not rate of fire.

Remember that this thread is about the Police carrying them and a previous member complaining about the visibility of the weaponry and wanting them to carry something small and pocket sized.

 

[HSTEd]

Patrols by armed police are completely useless against terrorists armed with firearms.

Since the terrorists will be concealed until they open fire - they will simply walk up behind the policemen and shoot them in the back of the head. They are merely the first to die and you've handed the attackers additional firearms.

Its just kneejerk "something must be done"-itis.

They are useless even if the threat is only armed with large knives á la Lee Rigby's murder. Since the first they know about it will be the knife slicing their carotid open. The same argument that is used to justify these patrols would equally hold for putting them on every street corner and generally arming the entire police force.
It is an attempt at creeping normalisation of the idea of police having firearms so that they can be more easily introduced at a later date.

 

[Llanigraham]

Patrols by armed police are completely useless against terrorists armed with firearms.

Since the terrorists will be concealed until they open fire - they will simply walk up behind the policemen and shoot them in the back of the head. They are merely the first to die and you've handed the attackers additional firearms.

Its just kneejerk "something must be done"-itis.

They are useless even if the threat is only armed with large knives á la Lee Rigby's murder. Since the first they know about it will be the knife slicing their carotid open. The same argument that is used to justify these patrols would equally hold for putting them on every street corner and generally arming the entire police force.
It is an attempt at creeping normalisation of the idea of police having firearms so that they can be more easily introduced at a later date.

That sounds like you have a very skewed view of society, and certainly not one I recognise.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

It's nothing to do with normalising armed police to society. It's got everything to do with smart deployment of armed officers to known or suspected targets so as to respond quickly in the case of an MTFA incident.

 

[A-driver]

Patrols by armed police are completely useless against terrorists armed with firearms.

Since the terrorists will be concealed until they open fire - they will simply walk up behind the policemen and shoot them in the back of the head. They are merely the first to die and you've handed the attackers additional firearms.

Its just kneejerk "something must be done"-itis.

They are useless even if the threat is only armed with large knives á la Lee Rigby's murder. Since the first they know about it will be the knife slicing their carotid open. The same argument that is used to justify these patrols would equally hold for putting them on every street corner and generally arming the entire police force.
It is an attempt at creeping normalisation of the idea of police having firearms so that they can be more easily introduced at a later date.

That is one of the funniest posts on here in a long time! Shoot them in the back of the head?!

You have a good imagination and a very odd and cynical view of things but you are claiming to know the tactics terrorists use seriously?!

Sounds like a post that Gareth Keenan from the office would make!

It's good to see that the armchair experts on here arnt just rail experts but equally as 'knowledgable' on policing tactics aswell! Has it not occurred to people that the police do know what they are doing and have actually made decisions based on lots of experience and reasearch?

As for posters saying that they fear they may be the next victim like the stockwell shooting, get real and stop worrying...it's hardly a daily occurrence!

 

[sonorguy]

Not quite sure of the point you're making, if you check out some details of the Glock 9mm you'll see an effective range of 50m with magazines capable of carrying 15 or more rounds and a muzzle velocity of 375m per second, that in the wrong hands equals slaughter

I'm trained and current on a couple of different types of 9mm pistols and have carried them operationally. I consider myself a decent shot. I wouldn't trust myself to hit a barn door at 50m with a snap shot and in any case the stopping power of a 9mm round is fairly low, especially at that kind of range.

Realistically anything much over 25m will be a lucky shot against a moving target.

9mm pistols are really only for last resort close protection, and one of the army jokes with the old Browning was that you'd probably be better off throwing the weapon at your attacker.

Any range much above 25m is better served with a carbine/bullpup or longer barrelled weapon with a rather better sight than pistols have.

Just like the police are equipped with, in fact.

 

[drbdrb]

Any range much above 25m is better served with a carbine/bullpup or longer barrelled weapon with a rather better sight than pistols have.

Just like the police are equipped with, in fact.

So if it was all kicking off at a London terminus at rush hour with hundreds of innocent bystanders rushing in every direction, would you fancy letting loose at who you think is the bad guy 25m away in the crowd?

If yes, you are either lying or a psychopath.

If no, what is the point, other than for show.

 

[sonorguy]

I'm not a police officer so can't comment on their training or rules of engagement, but no, unless there was a very specific reason and RoE that covered that. Even then it would clearly aimed shots at a target currently perceived to be an imminent threat to you or someone else and almost certainly on single shot rather than automatic. Neither I, or I assume, the police would just 'let loose' under any circumstance.

These weapons are used for more scenarios than just railway stations however and are a good compromise, but yes, part of it is indeed for show or more correctly as a deterrent.

 

[the sniper]

They are useless even if the threat is only armed with large knives á la Lee Rigby's murder. Since the first they know about it will be the knife slicing their carotid open.

Worst possible example... The response to the stabbing of Lee Rigby was a perfect advert for armed policing. The armed Police arrived at the scene, were charged at by the knife wielding maniacs, who were quickly suppressed by non lethal gun fire. As such, only one person died that day.

People like you would have wave after wave of wooden truncheoned PCs being gunned or knifed down in the event that someone armed and dangerous needed to be stopped/apprehended. The increased risk of injury and death to Police Officers dealing with these situations is irrelevant so long as your liberal conspiracy theories and love of the works of George Orwell aren't in your mind fulfilled... :roll:

Let's also ignore any lessons that can be learned from previous Active Shooter attacks and incidents. Previous real world situations are irrelevant. Arming a small percentage of Police Officers and having them patrol rather than sit in an office out of view of delicate flowers is blatantly a state conspiracy to suppress the public. All that matters is that liberal thinkers and hipsters who fear the great Police uprising are appeased.

 

[Starmill]

I don't care how effective it is at deterring terrorists or how good or otherwise it is at doing whatever it is they think they are doing that's beneficial by having armed police in railway stations.

I just don't want to live in a world where anyone walks around brandishing things that kill people.

 

[Lockwood]

I just don't want to live in a world where anyone walks around brandishing things that kill people.

Eeurgh, this is where we have the "tools" discussion.

There are some tree surgeons worked on the local road. They are walking around brandishing chainsaws.
The college near here, in its catering studies restaurant, has teenagers brandishing kitchen knives.
The hospital up the road has people brandishing scalpels
The paramedics queuing at the hospital would earlier have been brandishing needles and injecting opiates into people

Those, and the AFOs' guns, are tools for a job. If incorrectly used, the tools can be fatal.

Yes, I know that the items I listed have a primary or intended purpose other than wounding people, whereas a gun has one job.

I would rather have an AFO with a gun than a random citizen. (In the same way, I'd rather have a tree surgeon wielding a chainsaw than a random man off the street)

 

[A-driver]

I don't care how effective it is at deterring terrorists or how good or otherwise it is at doing whatever it is they think they are doing that's beneficial by having armed police in railway stations.

I just don't want to live in a world where anyone walks around brandishing things that kill people.

Well I'm sure we would all like to live in this ideal little world which you live in but sadly out here in the real world there are people intent on causing harm to others. This means that the rest of is need authorities to take steps to protect us. That means arming police.

The police arnt out to harm anyone, they are their in response to a very real threat from other people.

 

[ushawk]

I just don't want to live in a world where anyone walks around brandishing things that kill people.

People can be killed by anything, even a pillow or a plastic bag - not just a gun or a knife.

Your in dreamland.

On topic, it is incredibly rare Police would discharge an actual firearm as it is now preferable to use non-lethal tazers. Id rather armed police were there than not there, as if they are unfortunately needed - they are available. The same armchair experts who dont want armed police are the same people who would cry blue murder if an incident were to happen and they werent there.