I think it’s pretty troubling that the military may have to step in to cover what should be police matters when it’s not a matter of a national emergency.
One of the most worrying things here, to me.
We have 100 highly trained police staff who do not trust our legal process to only prosecute the guilty.
I’ve got quite a few police officers in my circle of friends and tbh, I’ve rarely heard anything good about the justice system from them.
Normally they tell me of cases where CPS will refuse to charge for what should be easy cases with a ton of evidence and when all the procedures were followed.
My suspicion is that this charge is political grandstanding.
I was talking recently to a guy who worked rape cases. He said he hardly ever got CPS to take cases, even when he was 100% sure he had enough. It nearly made him leave policing. In the end he just left the department and went somewhere he had at least a tiny chance of getting it through.
So, you know that the CPS often don’t charge but, also, this is clearly a gratuitous charge?
And it is political grandstanding but the Home Secretary opposes prosecuting officers?
It’s ridiculously rare for police officers to face any kind of disciplinary action, let alone prosecution. We will have to wait for the court case, reporting restrictions are in place so none of us have enough information to judge.
But we do know that the CPS don’t prosecute unless they believe there is at least a 50% chance of a guilty verdict and, if there is any political context to this prosecution, it is the belated recognition that criminal officers have routinely been allowed to stay on the job.
Perfectly normal island. No one can afford to feed their kids and we’ve got soldiers walking the streets in place of police officers.
Nothing to see here, move along now.
Due you think the current lot in Westminster will ever acknowledge the path they’ve led us down?
I trust the soldiers more though.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The Ministry of Defence is offering armed soldiers to support London police after dozens of Met officers handed in their weapons.
More than 100 police officers turned in permits allowing them to carry firearms, a source told the BBC.
The Met Police said the action was being taken after an officer was charged with the murder of unarmed Chris Kaba, 24.
The MoD said it received a request - known as Military Aid to the Civil Authorities (MACA) - from the Home Office to “provide routine counter-terrorism contingency support to the Metropolitan Police, should it be needed”.
The move comes after Home Secretary Suella Braverman called for a review into armed policing.
He was hit by a gunshot fired by a Met Police officer into the vehicle he was driving and died in hospital the following day, an inquest was told.
The original article contains 331 words, the summary contains 141 words. Saved 57%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
So unless they can shoot with impunity, they won’t fulfill their oath to serve and protect the public. Feels like we’re being held hostage.
I’m not sure if being able to shoot with impunity is what these armed officers are asking for. It seems that they’ve lost confidence that the justice systems will treat them or their colleagues fairly after being asked to make split second decisions that could result in someone losing their life in extremely dangerous situations.
The police should be accountable, but I don’t think it’s good for either the police or the public that these armed officers hesitate to act in situations that call for their intervention because they’re worried about being prosecuted if it all goes wrong.
Officers who were acting by the book shouldn’t be afraid of doing their job just because there was an unfortunate outcome.
Police losing faith in the justice system doesn’t sound ideal
Would definitely go some way to explaining why morale in the police (the Met at least) has been terrible for years and experienced officers are leaving faster than new ones are joining.
Why do such a stressful job if you don’t even believe you’re ultimately making a difference?
their oath to serve and protect the public
Their what now?
Don’t remember that bit from when I joined up, mind you that was in 1980, but I don’t think the oath has changed in the meantime.
