Talk:Police use of firearms in the United Kingdom

Continued vandalism by anonymous editor

Apparently the same anonymous editor has continued to vandalise this page and others by repeatedly seeking skew factual statements, and introducing and giving undue prominence to irrelevant details, both here an on Jean Charles de Menezes and Menezes. The anonymous editor has sought to make this a "personal" matter, by labelling my reversion of their vandalism as "political bias", despite such reversion being in line with consensus previous reached amongst other editors. The anonymous editor also registered and used the ID of "Nick Cooper1" as part of this disruptive activity, in a gross breach of Wikipedia etiquette (ID has now been blocked indefinitely [1]). The same anonymous user is also engaged in similar disruptive editing on Hector MacDonald‎. Nick Cooper 13:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just posting a request for page protection when I noticed this so I'm going to leave it for now. Firstly, NPOV violations are not vandalism. Secondly, you both seem to be accusing each other of bias. Thirdly, anonymous users are allowed to edit here and should be encouraged as far as possible.

To me this looks like a content dispute rather than vandalism and it doesn't appear that either user is trying to impose a particularly outrageous wording on the article. Consensus may have existed in the past but that doesn't prevent later editors from making changes. Repeated reversion in such cases isn't really appropriate and it needs to stop. Nick, I wasn't aware of this user's previous behaviour and I agree that some of it is not acceptable but as a more experienced user it's up to you to set an example and assume good faith. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 21:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobody disputes the right of anonymous editors to edit, but this particular anonymous editor is hardly playing the game themselves. For example, consensus was reached long ago that describing Jean Charles de Menezes as an "illegal" immigrant in the introduction to that page was not relevant to his notability and giving undue prominence to something that disputed, anyway, this being covered in detail in the main text. The anonymous editor chose to ignore the consensus reached, not only on that particular page, but others on which the subject was mentioned (e.g. Menezes). Apart from the same sort of thing on this particular page, the anonymous editor's changes can be characterised as deleting or seeking to needlessly minimise existing content. In addition they have never sought to clarify or justify such changes on the appropriate Talk pages, apart from on Hector MacDonald, the only other subject the editor seems interested in (in a similarly disruptive way). Nick Cooper 07:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Was Menezes an illegal immigrant or not. Yes he was. Therefore, why do you, Nick Cooper, continually vandalize the pages to remove references to this? This is a politically-motivated form of vandalism. Same with your other reversions. Your so-called "consensus" essentially = what Nick Cooper thinks and says about an issue. I don't think so. Your behaviour can be characterised as deleting or seeking to needlessly minimise existing content for POV reasons. As Lo2u says, Nicky, NPOV violations are not vandalism and anonymous users are allowed to edit here and should be encouraged as far as possible. Diddums that someone stands up to your PC agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.209.105.46 (talk) 20:24, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I pointed out that anonymous users are allowed to edit because I thought the comments about this user being "too afraid" to register seemed to be discouraging anonymous contributions. 172.209.105.46, nobody's vandalising and you've just ignored a direct request to stop revert warring. Firstly, I'm with Nick on the illegal immigrant thing - the only information that's relevant here is that he was a terrorist suspect. Secondly, you should really be able to find a compromise wording for: "The policy under which British police use firearms has resulted in controversy"; I see no harm in adding a "sometimes" to the sentence but it shouldn't create an argument. The mention of an "apparent shoot to kill policy" has a ring of original research to it. However, I believe the term is used by the police, as well as the media. The section should start by mentioning it and explaining what it is,[2] before it says that it's been criticised otherwise the article does nothing but criticise. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 23:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope my comments about registering were taken like that, as they were solely aimed at this particular anonymous user, who is clearly familiar enough with Wikipedia and indeed seemed to have no trouble in registering and using User:Nick Cooper1 until it was (obviously) blocked. I don't automatically assume bad faith on the part of anonymous editors, but this one does seem to be to some extent "hiding" behind their anonymity during a sustained campaign against this page and others.

This page was originally created as at my suggestion as an alternative location for the material on controversial shootings that was on Jean Charles de Menezes, but also to cover police firearms use as a whole, and as such most of it has been migrated from other pages, namely Law enforcement in the United Kingdom‎ and Uniforms and equipment of the British police‎. The section on the alleged "shoot-to-kill" policy was from the Law enforcement in the United Kingdom‎, which had not previously drawn the attentions of the anonymous editor. It is erroneous of the anonymous editor to claim my reversions are "vandalism" since I am generally merely reverting the text back to the form it was for some time before they started their disruption. The very fact that they are labelling my reversions as "PC" says more for their motivations than mine.

I see that the anonymous editor has again altered the text. As I've said previously, consensus was reached on Jean Charles de Menezes that neither his occupation nor residency status was significant enough for the introduction to that page - and by extension shouldn't be for the précis here - not least because that latter status is disputed, rather than being as clear-cut as the anonymous editor has tried to present. "Brazilian national" is neutral in this context. Secondly, the editor seeking to qualify the extent of controversy over certain shootings smacks of trying to minimise the extent of the issue. There are, in fact, quite a few more shootings that could be included (as they have been treated as such by the press), making them a much larger proportion of the 30 fatalities over the twelve year period quoted by The Independent. The anonymous editor has previously tried to use the term "on rare occasions" (and similar phrases), yet I daresay that there will be some people who might rather see it as "on many occasions"; the text as it was originally acknowledges the controversy, but does not seek to quantify it in such POV terms. Lastly, the anonymous editor has removed the line, "The national media have often criticised the "shoot to kill" policy apparently adopted by police forces" as a whole. Given the fact that the national media has criticised the alleged policy, I am reinstating it with a minor tweak, pending additional work on this section. Nick Cooper 08:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know everything of the user's history - pleased to hear the comment wasn't aimed at all users. I don't think reverting in the interests of neutrality is ever a good idea though. I agree that Menezes' immigration status is irrelevant and very prejudicial. Arguments about whether something is "controversial", "sometimes controversial", "often controversial" etc have occurred many, many times on Wikipedia. I don't want to push the matter too hard but we're really talking about maybe two or three very public controversies each decade. I wouldn't want to call it "rare" but would you not be agreeable to a "sometimes"?

When I first looked at this article, it was, as you say Nick, all about controversial police shootings. It's now been expanded and is looking rather good. It's important to ensure neutrality though and I do think there's something lacking in that respect in the "Shoot to kill" policy section. There's no separate article on the subject. This section is effectively a substitute for that and anyone tying to find out about the policy would naturally come to this page. At the moment, all the section does is say that the policy gets criticised, at least when it mentions it directly. My suggestion to the anonymous user, who clearly has objections to its current state, is that he expand and reorganise the section, which would perhaps give any criticism, which certainly deserves a mention, a little less prominence.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 21:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the degree of controversy is subjective. The piece in The Independent details all 30 police shooting fatalities, not just the ones where they were the wrong person or unarmed, without differentiation. A similar article in The Times gives a bit more detail on some of the cases. Checking elsewhere on the small number of ones which remain unclear shows that of those 30 fatal shootings, six were unarmed, five had swords or knives, five replica firearms (two blank firers), and three air weapons. That leaves 11 that that did have "real" firearms, although a couple are disputed. Of course, my own view is anyone waving something at the police that looks like a gun is pretty much asking for it, but on the other hand, this report notes that of 24 shootings (not all fatal) investigated by the Police Complaints Authority, "11 involved individuals who may have had a death wish, two were mentally ill and five were drunk or on drugs." The actual report is here, and it's finding echo some of the apaprent patterns of police firearms use highlighted in the mainstream media (e.g. rapid escalation in seige situations due to operational failures). In one form or another, something like two-thirds of all police fatal shootings have been called into question, and there are plenty of references to show that they have been.

The "Shoot to kill" policy was transferred - pretty much unchanged - from Law enforcement in the United Kingdom‎. It's essentially about Operation Kratos, which does have it's own rather extensive article, so it could be pared down to a brief(er) outside and a link to that. Nick Cooper 02:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I don't have any strong objections to the article as it stands. You've done a really, really good job with it. I'm just trying to iron out a few points that have been raised by the other user. The article's changing fast and revert wars make the history very difficult to use. I take the point - any police shooting is likely to attract controversy. It should be noted too that police shootings are extremely rare - if we're talking about 30 fatal shootings, that's far less than one per police force, though obviously non-fatal shootings could also be controversial. This means we're still really talking about occassional controversy. Whether we give any quantificiation or no quantification it's still rather subjective. Perhaps something like "There have been instances of controversy"? - perhaps a bit less sweeping than the current statement. Out of interest, when the Independent claims to list all fatal shootings, how far back are we talking? --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 16:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I took the view that the 'Fatal incidents' section was written with an obvious anti-police bias making it appear that in every cited incident the police opened fire without justification. I took further detail from the cited evidence and placed them briefly within the section. This created balance within which a reader can derive their own opinion - I added further citations to some facts. Before I had completed my edits Nick Cooper had reversed my edits as uncited (despite where I was deriving my additions from) and demonstrably biased !! I am only adding facts from the cited material — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.130.86 (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

West Yorkshire incident

"In 2005 the botched bank robbery in West Yorkshire lead to a West Yorkshire Police Constable killed and another severly injured." - was there a (documented) wider context for this event, which makes it relevant to the police use of firearms? I'm not sure it's particularly relevant, as a standalone event. --McGeddon (talk) 09:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoops! Deleted it before seeing your above post! I would agree that it is not contextualised, and doesn't really fit where it was, although I suspect that the editor who introduced it was motivated by the poll link on the BBC page cited. There probably is a place for highlighting the (relatively) very low number of firearms fatalities amongst police officers to counter the assumption outside of the UK that criminals are running around, shooting un-armed officers with impunity. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the goal of editors should be accuracy and objectivity, not countering presummed "false assumptions" held by certain readers. If the information on the officer in question isn't relevant then neither is the rate of fatalities of officers from firearms, as the paragraph stands now it seems to read a little like a justification for why British cops aren't routinely armed. User 070 (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The number of police officers who get shot is essentially the other side of the coin of the use of firearms by police officers, and as such merits the coverage that we give it. It is beholden of us to present as much of the "bigger picture" to prevent readers making incorrect assumptions, e.g. that the police being generally unarmed makes them "easy prey" for armed criminals. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This article shouldn't be the place where an editor attempts to sell a particular policy or "counter assumptions" one doesn't agree with. No one who edits this article should have a stake in shaping the personal opinions of the individual reader, I don't see how that would be consistent with wikipedia's goal of it's articles having a NPOV. And while we're speaking of assumptions, I think one that you might have should be corrected; Police officers aren't issued firearms to engage in gunfights, a gun is simply an instrument of deadly force which under certain circumstances the officer has the right to employ. So therefore, the number of cops who get shot isn't all that relevant to whether or not more officers should be armed. There really isn't "another side of the coin" to speak of, you can't equate Police officers with the people who shoot at them. While I agree that to insert info about the slain female officer without much context isn't that helpful to the article, I think that the larger point of the person who did so should be included in the article; mainly the effectiveness of this policy when dealing with armed criminals. User 070 (talk) 01:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be labouring under a number of misapprehensions yourself. This is betrayed by your claim that, "the number of cops who get shot isn't all that relevant to whether or not more officers should be armed." This is not - and has not been presented here as being - about whether officers should be armed or not, but rather an illustration of what happens - or rather what generally does not happen - when they are not. Most British police don't carry guns, and neither do most British criminals, and there is enough evidence from the latter that the two are very much related. One way it manifests itself is in the exceptionally low number of officers who get shot, let alone fatally. Even when armed, criminals do not demonstrate a tendency to shot officers, perhaps for the very simple reason that the criminal doesn't have a need to get the "first shot" in to prevent being shot themselves.

I assume (although am perfectly willing to accept I may be wrong) that you are American, given some of the terminology you have used above. Clearly, then, you see this issue through the prism of police as you know them being routinely armed and this being a "good thing" in absolute terms, as opposed to being a "good thing" in the context of the the actual conditions in the country. It would be as unwise to disarm American police overnight as it would be to arm British police overnight. As to your opinions as to what armed police officers' weapons are for, and the circumstances in which they may or not be employed, that is all they are - opinions. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't live in the UK and therefore certain aspects of the culture/politics there may seem interesting(to put it mildly) to me, that being said I don't think that disqualifies me from having an equal say on the quality of an article. I'm not attempting to invent facts or push an agenda, I have an interest in neither. This article reads alot like justification for the firearms policy of police forces in the UK even though there really isn't any need to do so. There are many people on both sides of the issue, apparently more in favor than against. The quality of the article is affected when one tries to justify or defend something(first off it's blatantly obvious, more so to people who might disagree), as I said there isn't any need to do so, unless you're the policy maker.

I'd like to see some evidence that proves that my statement about why police officers are armed is mere opinion. As to the circumstances under which they are allowed to discharge their weapons none was stated, so where's the opinion? I'm not pretending to be well versed in the various laws that govern the police and law enforcement practices in the UK, but don't think that I'm completly ignorant on these matters either. A firearm is simply an instrument of deadly force; that's a fact - no opinion. Police don't carry around sabres for instance because they're less effective. "Knife crime" has risen in London in recent years there is no effort to debate whether or not to arm cops with knives so that they would be equipped for a knife fight.

I edited the article to provide a little more information regarding the circumstances surrounding the deaths of the two officers in the fatal shootings of police officers paragraph, and I renamed it shootings of police officers, because it seemed to disregard non-fatal firearm injuries of police officers. Since that was to be "the other side of the coin" it's amazing it's not a list like the section dealing with controversial shootings by police officers, even If there were only 6 fatal shootings of British police officers since 1990 as the article states, by definition they are all "controversial" and surely they are notable and just as worthy of being in the article won't you agree? whether or not there's a bias or prejudice on the part of some(most) editors of this article that's not the issue, the article simply suffers when there isn't atleast an attempt to be objective about something that as the article itself states is "a perennial topic of debate". User 070 (talk) 01:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Dispute over claimed British police use of "machine guns"

I'm having a bit of a dispute over at Talk:Death of Ian Tomlinson over the inclusion of an erroneous press report that the Met's Territorial Support Group has access to "submachine guns" as opposed to the actual semi-automatic MP5 carbines used by Authorised Firearms Officers in the unit (which does not have any Specialist Firearms Officers attached to it). Other editors may wish to offer their opinion on the matter. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Surely "submachine guns" is a colloquial name for an MP5.124.197.15.138 (talk) 21:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if it was, it would still be wrong. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Question

What does "senior officers wanted their forces to still have the "British Bobby" or Dixon of Dock Green effect on the community" mean? I suggest that the editor clarify what was meant, and translate the paragraph into proper English.124.197.15.138 (talk) 21:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

"Notable incidents"

This sections is large, unwieldy and has been tagged for over year as needing reducing. Can we come up with some criteria for including incidents in this section? I'm thinking significant, widespread and sustained coverage in the national press, at the least. I'd like to say that incidents should only be included if they already have their own articles? ninety:one 20:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the lack of a separate page is an appropriate yardstick for non-inclusion. We list twelve incidents, eight fatal, four non-fatal. Seven of the fatal shootings account for 23% of the total of thirty upto October 2005. In nine cases the person shot was unarmed, while in two the person was in possession of an air pistol, and in one a bladed weapon. In many of cases the person shot was entirely innocent, and/or going about their lawful business. It is these circumstances which result in controversy, and therefore make them notable. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This 2005 article from The Independent [3] lists no less than 30 fatal shootings by UK police between 1993 and 2005. Details of each case are minimal, but names and dates are presumably accurate. I hope more experienced wikipedians than I may find this source useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.198.224 (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits by Cziltang mexico

I have reverted the edits by [[User:|Cziltang mexico]] due to various issues, including but not limited to:

• Spelling and grammatical errors.
• Misleading account of Harry Stanley shooting - we only have the officers' word that this is how the deaf, unarmed, and entirely innocent of any wrong-doing Stanley reacted.
• Immigration status of the unarmed and entirely innocent of any wrong-doing de Menezes has been discussed many times on the associated Talk page, and judged to have no bearing whatsoever on his shooting, quite apart from the concesus that he was not in the country illegally. There is also conflicting evidence over whether the officers properly challenged him, although it hardly seems surprising that even a completely unarmed and innocent person may not act "correctly" when confronted by multiple persons with firearms in civlian clothes.
• Large block of uncited commentary. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Response

You twice refer to people as "unarmed, and entirely innocent of any wrong-doing" which doesn't make you the best choice for an impartial edit. I will endeavour to find citable sources to back up these stories. Having compared your edit to the previous one I find your language biased as you focus on how people were shot from behind or while unarmed but do not allow supporting evidence for officer's actions. I think we all know it is possible to get a point across using less rather than more. Deliberately editing to show the monstrous nature of what have been legally proven to be mistakes is not acceptable. --Cziltang mexico (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Neither Gail Kinchin, John Shorthouse, James Ashley, Harry Stanley, John Charles de Menezes, Stephen Waldorf, Cherry Groce, the Leeds diabetic, nor Abdul Kahar were armed. These are self-evident facts. Harry Stanley, Jean Charles de Menezes, Stephen Waldorf, and the Leeds diabetic were clearly going about their lawful business. The same could be said of the people shot in police raids, such as John Shorthouse and Cherry Groce, where they were not the person/s the police were looking for. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Edits by Nick Cooper

While I appreciate this user has more Wiki time under his belt than me, can we have another editor's opinion on what is developing into Edit War? I am trying to keep the "Notable Incidents" section factual. NC has made comments that imply officers shoot unarmed people but omits information that gives both sides of the story (e.g. Stanley and Menezes shootings). To be fair, since my penultimate edit he has only redone the suicide notes from Sanderson BUT these notes are not relevant here. A section on armed police notable incidents is to list stories of such, not to imply or insinuate that a suicide note left a month previously would have made a difference to a standoff with armed cops. If it should go anywhere it's on a page for Anne Sanderson NOT here. --Cziltang mexico (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

One doesn't have to, "imply officers shoot unarmed people," because they self-evidently do. If the fact that Cherry Groce's death provoked a riot in which someone was killed is relevent, then so is the Anne Sanderson's state of mind, which the IPCC clearly thought was significant and should have been acted upon. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Nick Cooper has now left childish and insulting remarks on the History page for this article. Methinks this now needs intervention. --Cziltang mexico (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

What are you going to do? Arrest me? Nick Cooper (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

(Arrive via the third opinion page...) Some of the stuff that was added has merits; for example information on what happened to the police officer in these cases is pertinent due to the subject of the page (those very officers :)). A lot of the other stuff strikes me as irrelevant. Although I also think mention of the suicide note is irrelevant (though I note we have no article about that actual incident for such info to go into). --Errant ^(chat!) 23:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Nick, please be civil in talk page comments and edit summaries. My feeling is that some of Nick's edits may have used selected facts to put a negative slant on events. The IPCC report notes that officers failed to put a warning marker on Sanderson after the notes were found, but makes no suggestion that this would have changed the outcome of the main incident under discussion. As such, I agree that this information, while undeniably factually accurate, is not relevant and, because it is selected from a large number of possible facts contained in the IPCC report, potentially introduces a non-neutral point of view. My favoured solution is to remove this superfluous information. For the time being, however, I have simply sought to add balance with some additional information from the IPCC report, including the vital point that a verdict of lawful killing was returned at inquest. Both of you also need to keep WP:3RR in mind, as I believe you may be close to breaching this.--Korruski^Talk 23:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

After a bit more looking at the diffs, it seems that Nick has systematically removed statements that officers were cleared of wrongdoing. So long as it is reliably sourced, the outcome of any investigation into an officer must surely be stated, as failing to do so introduces obvious POV.--Korruski^Talk 23:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"Systematically" is misleading, as it implies I been doing that you claim specifically, both "currently" and in the past. I reverted Cziltang mexico edits en masse because - as noted above - there were too many issues with them as a whole. Nick Cooper (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, I was overstating my case and I apologise. However, hopefully you will agree that we should include information about the outcome of any criminal investigation if available. --Korruski^Talk 23:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't actually understand the first line of Nick's last paragraph. I bow to the opinions of Koruski and ErrantX. Oh and the en masses deletion you did a while back wasn't my edit, I just put the other guy's back. You are clearly biased against the police which means your are putting POV into this article. If a statement about a suicide note is relevant then so is info clearing officers of wrongdoing. Keep this site factual.--Cziltang mexico (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I edits lots of pages - am I biased against all of them? On the other hand, most of your edits appear to be police-related. Odd, that. Nick Cooper (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

CS as firearm

It is a common misconception that 'CS is a firearm' in UK law. It is not the case. The Firearms Act of 1968 clearly defines a firearms as follows: "In this Act, the expression “firearm” means a lethal barrelled weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged." CS Spray does not match this description in any way.

The confusion seems to arise from the fact that CS spray is also prohibited by this act, under section 5 ("any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing"). However, simply being banned by the firearms act does not make something a firearm! I am about to revert the relevent edit.--Korruski^Talk 16:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Quite correct - CS gas is a "prohibited weapon" by virtue of being listed in section 5(1), along with certain firearms, but not everything listed in 5(1) is a firearm. ninety:one 17:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Mention of suicide note in case of Anne Sanderson in "notable incidents"

Can I have 3rd party intervention on this as Nick Cooper keeps mentioning the suicide note left weeks previously to her shooting by Kent Police firearms officers, on the section entitled Notable Incidents.

This has no relevance to the actions of the armed response officers on scene as they react spontaneously to what unfolds at the time and even if they knew of such a note they would not be able to think "oh hang on, that gun she's pointing at us is possibly fake as she's probably trying for Death By Cop".

I would like 3rd party opinion on whether this note should be included in the section or, as is my opinion, on a page for Anne Sanderson instead.

This section's purpose is to detail incidents NOT present soap box material to show either the victims or the police in a bad light. It should be impartial and the terminology not weighted to one side or the other.--Cziltang mexico (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Heavy irony. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Cziltang - I broadly agree with you. It is indeed perfectly obvious that the suicide note would have made no difference to the actions of the armed officers, once she decided to point a gun at them. I don't think we should place much, or any, weight on it in this article as it relates only very tangentially to the issue of the police use of firearms in the UK. However, the fact is that it was mentioned in the IPCC investigation, so Nick Cooper does have some justification for including it. If it is to be included, it should simply be heavily caveated with the statement that the IPCC made no connection between the issue of the suicide note and the events of the shooting, and ascribed no blame to the armed officers involved.--Korruski^Talk 23:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The note is relevent, because it's an indication of Sanderson's suicidal intent. I would also note that Cziltang mexico's justification that the information should be on a page devoted to Sanderson, rather than this one, is weak. Some cases we can be more brief with, because there are main pages that can be referred to, but in others there is little justification for a separate page, so more detail can and should be included here. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Claims by Michael Winner

John Nevard previously added the following claim, the removal of which was subsequently reverted by Cziltang mexico:

"Police Memorial Trust founder Michael Winner noted in 2007 that of the 33 officers fallen in the line of duty the trust had memorialized, about 28 could still have been alive if UK police were routinely armed.[4]"

Winner has frequently made simialr claims, but does not seem to have identified exactly which killing he thinks could have been avoided. This page lists the 43 officers commemorated by the Trust upto 2010. Of those 43, six (Head, Fox, Wombwell, Fletcher, Goodman, and Broadhurst) were the victims of what could be described as "sudden shootings," would could not have been prevented by any of them being armed; likewise the three killed by an explosion (Dodd, Lane, and Arbuthnot), and the ten (McCloskey, Tooley, Jones, Ahmed, Odell, Armitage, Walker, Moore, Munn, and Walker) killed by or in chases with vehicles. Four officers were off-duty, and clearly arming officers 24/7 is even less likely than arming them whilst on duty. It may well be that some of the remaining 20 officers' deaths might have been avoided, had they been armed, but it seems unlikely that that would have been so in every case. This is quite apart from the fact that armed suspects faced with armed police might be more inclined to shoot first rather than be shot themselves. In this context, there is little to support Winner's claims. Nick Cooper (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

We're not here to discuss the merits or otherwise of what he said; rather its presentation (or otherwise) in the article. As it stands, it is a commentator's opinion (ie not hard fact) sourced from a "what the papers say" article. It is not suitable for inclusion. ninety:one 18:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

- While your knowledge of the above facts is commendable, the inclusion of this paragraph by John Nevard is relevant because it is an unbiased inclusion of Michael Winner's opinion (regardless of whether you believe Winner himself is biased or you agree with him or not). As founder of the Police Memorial Trust his stated opinion in the media is valid for inclusion here the same way that the same quote from David Cameron would be relevant. Nick Cooper has repeatedly shown ill informed and possibly biased opinions towards arming the police, leading his objectivity as a Wiki editor in question. He has previously included evidence not relevant on this page to illustrate his points and has now removed the paragraph on Winner's statment because he believes what Winner said is wrong. I will repeat. THE INCLUSION IS FOR THE FACT THAT WINNER SAID IT, AS HEAD OF THE PMT HIS QUOTED STATEMENTS HAVE RELEVANCE HERE. This is not a vehicle for debate on what you believe someone knows what they are talking about.--Cziltang mexico (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that you read WP:CIVIL, and then maybe you'd like to identify exactly the "evidence not relevant on this page" you claim above. For your information, I have no issue at all with selected police officers being suitably trained and armed, and indeed find little to question their actions in, for example, operations like this one. However, whether you like it or not (and the fact that your edits are predominently police-related suggests a more systemic bias towards the latter on your part), other armed police operations are the subject of great public interest, debate, and/or condemnation, and Wikipedia should reflect that. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia presents facts, not opinions that either lead the reader to one conclusion or leave other evidence out. You placed great store by Anne Sanderson's suicide note, but it took 3rd party intervention before you conceded that it had no outcome on her death during a stand off with armed police officers. I am again passing this over to 3rd party intervention (and that means someone other than Ninety One). I fail to see how the opinions on arming police, of the Police Memorial Trust founder are irrelevant to a wiki page entitled "Police Use of Firearms in the UK".--Cziltang mexico (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

First, please note that the second-last paragraph of the 'History' section already includes a more up-to-date rendering of Mr Winner's opinion, so the 2007 version should probably remain out of the article regardless. As far as the 2010 version goes, I believe it ought to remain. It is a relevent opinion by a figure who is notable in the context and is quoted in a reliable source. While Nick Cooper may be right that Winner's opinion is not correct, that is not a reason not to include it. We do not exclude a statement of someone's opinion from Wikipedia simply because that person was incorrect. I suggest that Nick Cooper looks for another source which refutes Winner's view, and adds that to provide balance.--Korruski^Talk 12:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Didn't realise this was repetition. Thanks again Korruski for your sage wisdom.--Cziltang mexico (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

If Winner was claiming in 2010 that 38 officers out of 44 were "almost certain" to have not been killed had they been armed, then obviously his views have become even more preposterous, because clearly far more than six deaths are unlikely to have been so affected (unless, perhaps, he thinks carrying a gun means someone can't be run over/into!). It would be very surprising if no-one has cast a more critical eye on his claims, so I'll see what I can find. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Raoul Moat's uninsured van.

Surprised as I am, me and Nick Cooper are actually in agreement on something. Can we get a third party opinion to stop the unidentified user from mentioning that "On an earlier occasion, Rathband had confiscated Moat's van on the erroneous suspicion that it was not insured". as this has absolutely nothing to do with Moat shooting Rathband in the face some considerable time later.

--Cziltang mexico (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, not important at all. ninety:one 21:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Removed section 'Shootings of police officers'

I removed the section 'Shootings of police officers' because it's not about police use of firearms. However, I think the content ought to go in some article somewhere, perhaps its own, dedicated one. What do people think? Body of section in italics below.--A bit iffy (talk) 09:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Outside of Northern Ireland, shootings of police officers are rare; between 1900 and 2006, 67 officers were killed by firearms. Since 1990 six officers have died from gunshot wounds, including Ian Broadhurst in December 2003, and Sharon Beshenivsky in November 2005. In both cases multiple officers were hit, with the two incidents resulting in two other officers being injured (in one case, a bullet deflected off the officer's radio). Deaths have been much higher in Northern Ireland, with over two hundred firearms fatalities, the vast majority linked to The Troubles.

The most recent shooting of a police officer outside of Northern Ireland was in early July 2010, when Raoul Moat shot the unarmed PC David Rathband while he was in his patrol car on West End A69 roundabout. The shooting was not fatal, but left Rathband blind. Moat shot himself in a stand-off with police several days later near Rothbury, Northumberland.

I disagree strongly with this removal. As noted in the "West Yorkshire incident" section about, coverage of the shootings of police officers is the other side of the coin. Annecdotally there is a perception outside the UK that its police not being armed leaves them easy prey to criminals who are armed, which isn't really reflected in reality. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, sorry, I didn't see the "West Yorkshire incident" above. But I'm still not convinced that 'Shootings of police officers' should be included. So I wonder whether the section should be along the lines of 'Police and public safety in the UK: are they increased or decreased by arming of police?'. Something along those lines (but not with that wordy title!) might better meet your point. Thoughts?--A bit iffy (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

References

Removal of Statistics section

Who put this in?!!

It is biased and clearly has no place here as it is from a pressure group's findings, not a government survey.

Also what relevance does the "ethnic minority" bit have here, unless you possibly include the ethnic group of the officer(s) that fired the fatal shots.

Let's keep this group factual and impartial and use material that is not weighted to imply "UK cops are bad guys with a gun licence who shoot non-whites". --195.225.189.243 (talk) 12:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Successful Prosecutions of London Met Police Officers for Murder/Manslaughter/Unlawful Killing as the result of firearm use in the line of duty

Having lived in London myself (as recently as 2005), I recall it was common public knowledge that there had NEVER been a successful prosecution of any on-duty police officer for shooting and killing an innocent member of the public.

If this statistic is correct, it is surely remarkable enough it self to warrant inclusion in the article.

I've been unable to find any instances of an officer being found guilty as described above but haven't seen an exhaustive list of cases. Can anyone conclusively confirm or refute this fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.210.187 (talk) 04:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The term "air weapon".

The term "air weapons" is highly subjective and heavily politicized; it does not comply with Wikipedia's neutrality policy.

In order for this article (and the article "gun politics in the United Kingdom", i may add) to comply with the neutrality policy in force, i suggest that the term "air weapons" be either removed or replaced with a neutral term such as "airguns". 94.225.24.149 (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The term is a technical one and is used consistently in official UK documents, notably the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 and the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006. Your aggressive attempts to delete or change the term in several articles is a violation of precisely the policy you claim to be enforcing. Further attempts at such changes will be flagged as edit waring and political promotion. — Aldaron • T/C 15:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, i seek to prevent political promotion; the term "air weapon", carrying the unjustified and negative connotation of dangerousness, was created in order to fraudulently justify the restrictions placed on airguns by the aforementioned acts.

Such a term violates Wikipedia's neutrality policy.

Furthermore, the term is a logical fallacy; airguns are not designed for use as weapons. 94.225.24.149 (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

That may be your view, but Wikipedia is not the place to promulgate it. Please refrain from further edits to these pages until a consensus is reached on overruling the sources with a new term. Do not simply insert a term that is to your liking or you will be in violation of both WP:EW and WP:NPOV. — Aldaron • T/C 16:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not "my view"; "air weapons" is an illogical and judgmental term which violates Wikipedia's neutrality policy.

WP:NPOV explicitly states that judgmental and "loaded" language should be avoided.94.225.24.149 (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

You'd be hard pressed to convince any native English speaker who is not advocating a political agenda that a gun is not a weapon. The UK government statutes relevant to the articles you are editing certainly do not see it that way, which is precisely why the UK Parliament has seen fit to regulate them, and why they need to be called that, especially in these articles. Wikipedia is not the place to change matters of policy. Your time is better (and more honestly) spent writing your MP. — Aldaron • T/C 18:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The reasoning behind the term is illogical; if airguns are referred to as weapons because they are guns, why are baseball bats, which are essentially clubs, not referred to as weapons?94.225.24.149 (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

As I said: if you see it that way, take the issue up with your MP. As it stands, the term is in use and is specifically and explicitly the term used in the context of the articles in question. You could just as well argue that butterfly is an illogical word because it describes a creature that is neither a fly, nor involved in the production of butter; but here is not the place to have that argument. As for your earlier (frankly disingenuous) argument that the term "air weapon" is politicized, any attempt to soften the term is certainly political, and thus inappropriate here. — Aldaron • T/C 02:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

"Air weapons" has been the accepted term in legislation and everyday reportage for over 50 years. As an owner of air pistols, I don't see any evidence that there is widesprerad opinion that it is, "highly subjective and heavily politicized." Nick Cooper (talk) 10:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

British Police on Routine Armed Patrol

Update: BBC News. August 6, 2014. Meusvita (talk) 07:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Which means very little. All this is is that AFOs in one area of one police force will always carry their sidearm on duty. The vast majority of officers remain unarmed in that area, that force, and Britain as a whole. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

References

RUC "armed from the beginning"

In a section on Northern Ireland in the article, it states that the police were armed from the beginning. While this is true, it neglects a period of time (I don't know how long, when they stopped being armed) during which the police were not armed. There was a vote taken by police officers roughly around 1969 in which the RUC voted against carrying guns. Within months, due to the escalation of the Troubles, the result of the voe was over-turned, and the police were routinely armed from that point on. --82.21.97.70 (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

What about Scotland?

I can't see any mention of the law with regards to the use of firearms by Police Scotland. Are there plans to add this? Chazzyb31 (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Chazzyb31: There's a paragraph on Police Scotland under "Great Britain" (beginning "In 2013, Police Scotland"), but you're right that the discussion could be more substantial. There's more detail at Police Scotland#Armed Policing which could be summarised here. It's unlikely that anyone's actively planning to expand this (or any other) part of this article, though, as it doesn't look like anyone's worked on it much in the last couple of years. You could, of course, be bold and expand the article yourself. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)