...British Police Brace Themselves For Armageddon
In the aftermath of the drama and tragedy endured by the people of France, rank and file British police officers are asking themselves and each other how well a disillusioned and thoroughly embittered police service would cope with a similar or even a more deadly scenario.
With cutbacks clearly taking their toll on British policing, officers watched with empathy and concern as the drama unfolded and noted how the French authorities were able to rapidly pour formidable police resources in the form of hundreds of heavily armed police officers on to the streets of Paris and other major cities.
There is little doubt, as has been made abundantly clear by the head of MI5 Andrew Parker, that the UK will suffer terrorist attacks in the future. The major difference however is that unlike France, terrorists in the UK will be faced by a largely unarmed police force which, in many parts of the country, would enable them to have more than enough time to cause carnage before the arrival of what may be even then, an initially limited armed police response.
In London and other major cities, there should be sufficient armed officers to contain and deal with a single incident but concern remains as to the ability to deal with three or more multi venue attacks such as those seen in Mumbai and Nairobi. Regardless of the scale of the incident however, time will always be of the essence and it will be remembered that it took one Armed Response Vehicle (ARV) ten minutes to reach the scene of Lee Rigby’s death which is within the recommended response time.
Whilst an incident in central London would see armed police respond within minutes, many officers in the Metropolis believe that the number of ARV’s should be increased to the equivalent of one per London borough This would ensure that a multi-venue or fast moving terrorist attack would result in the fastest possible response even in the outer London boroughs. These ARV’s would, of course, also be able to support their colleagues in force areas bordering London such as Surrey and Hertfordshire.
The problem with increasing the level of armed response is however one of cost with some forces having already cut the numbers of armed officers while others are giving such cuts serious consideration.
The situation in smaller, more rural forces is even more uncertain with unarmed officers frequently expressing concern as to the amount of time it would take for armed units to be deployed to assist them. Cutbacks mean that these unarmed officers are now more frequently ‘single crewed’ while ‘back up ’is likely to be even further away than previously.
The gun rampages, by Raoul Moat and Derrick Bird, in the north of England just four years ago showed that containing armed individuals who are mobile is a daunting prospect in any event but especially so when sufficient armed resources are not readily available.
Whilst the ability of French law enforcement to assemble police resources with remarkable speed has been clearly demonstrated, an examination of comparative police numbers perhaps explains why. Of course the UK government will point out that France has a larger geographical area but what they won’t go on to say is that much of France is sleepily rural. Thus the blood, vomit and carnage of Friday and Saturday nights prevalent in most British towns and cities is almost unheard of.
The relevant fact is that the populations of France and of England and Wales are roughly the same; France however has 155,000 National Police (Police Nationale) and 105,000 Gendarmerie, all of whom are armed. In addition there are 18,000 generally unarmed municipal police which gives a grand total of 278,000.
Compare this to the police strength in England and Wales where there is a shrinking force of 128,000 officers with just over 6,000 of those armed. Even adding Police Scotland’s 17,500 officers which include 275 who carry firearms, does little to balance the equation.
Reports emanating from the Home Office suggest that the ultimate goal of the current Home Secretary is to reduce police strength in England and Wales to 80,000. This patently absurd reduction appears to be supported by the despised, soon to be knighted Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Tom Winsor, who recently infuriated police with his patronising comments that police need to ‘work smarter’ and ‘get upstream’ to stop crime. Front line officers will point out that cuts have meant that preventative, proactive patrolling and linked neighbourhood policing, all of which are essential to ‘get upstream’ will soon disappear thanks to punitive cuts.
The figure of 80,000 becomes even more relevant in that the French were able to rapidly deploy 80,000 security personnel, primarily police, during the height of the crisis last week. Of course, despite these numbers, deaths resulted as indeed would have been the case here were it not for the prodigious efforts of the UK security services and counter terrorist police. The question being asked by UK police is what happens when terrorists actually evade detection and take to the streets or other public places with the intention of killing.
Front line officers, whilst discussing events in France and elsewhere, are also asking how is it that they are now held in such contempt by, not only the Home Secretary but apparently much of the UK establishment. Not only have their pay and conditions been eroded but this erosion has been accompanied by what is to many officers is an orchestrated campaign of vilification and denigration. The fact that Met police Deputy Commissioner Craig Mackey has publically stated that morale ‘is not good’ clearly illustrates the depth of the problem.
It frankly makes little sense for any government embarking on an austerity programme to deliberately go out of their way to antagonise police and it makes even less sense to have police morale on the floor when problems created by austerity are coupled with the greatest threat to national security since the Second World War.
None of these factors will influence how front line officers, both armed and unarmed, will perform when the inevitable terrorist incident or incidents occurs. Individual police will have thought through how they will react to the various terrifying scenarios. No officer will engage in activity that is essentially a fruitless suicide; some have indicated however that in certain circumstances they will not obey instructions to “hold back” if they are unarmed especially if they are in a vehicle that could be used as a weapon or as a shield and certainly if the victim is a fellow police officer being murdered and perhaps decapitated on the street.
There is also concern that, after the policing shambles of the riots, officers at the top of the Met and other forces may not be equal to the task of controlling a fast moving terrorist incident that is multi venue, complex and perhaps crosses force boundaries. British police were impressed by the command and control shown by the French and again the question is whether this could be replicated across the plethora of separate police control rooms that exist throughout the UK.
The Met commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, did little to foster confidence when he declared on Sunday that he didn’t think an attack likely but that one was a possibility. This, as Sky News pointed out, places the threat level at a relatively relaxed moderate as opposed to the actual existing, official threat level of severe which is two levels higher.
The government statement that the army can assist police in certain circumstances will do little to assuage concerns. Aside from the SAS any army deployment will take some considerable time and occur only after a calamity has taken place.
It has been an emotionally draining few weeks for, what is termed throughout the law enforcement fraternity as the police family. The deaths of two New York police officers assassinated by a gunman in apparent retaliation for the deaths of two black men provoked allegations from police officers across the USA that comments from politicians such as Mayor De Blasio contributed to their deaths.
This initiated debate as to whether criticism of police by politicians and other public figures actually increases the dangers to those policing the streets with UK police fingers being pointed in the direction of Home Secretary Theresa May and other establishment figures in addition to the traditional police critics of the left.
The death of off duty Merseyside PC Neil Doyle, reportedly because he was recognised as police officer, inevitably reinforced this view as did the fact that no comment in relation to his death was made by Theresa May or any other politician. Even the Home Office website, active over the weekend that immediately followed his death, failed to record even a simple factual mention.
UK police have been warned for some time that they are now the targets of jihadists with arrests being made in respect of an alleged plot that centred around Shepherds Bush in West London. The fact the photographs were found of two police officers and two PCSO’s sent a shudder through police throughout the UK. The dangers clearly now relate not only to officers on duty, but those off duty especially when arriving or leaving for work and indeed there have been other incidents of suspected ‘hostile reconnaissance.’
The shocking news and footage surrounding the death of the three French officers brought home the reality of the situation to a police service that shares, only with Ireland and New Zealand, the distinction of being unarmed. It was true to say that few UK officers wished to be routinely armed but as the threat grows, that view is beginning to change. Officers are aware however that whilst being armed offers additional protection, it is by no means a panacea.
All police officers at every level are confident in the expertise, courage and professionalism of their specialist armed units and indeed the armed officers themselves believe they have never been better trained and equipped to ‘take on’ terrorists in any situation. These undoubted skills are supplemented by close working relationships with both the UK Special Forces and security services. The primary concerns of armed officers revolve around whether the ‘jam is too thinly spread’ and whether they will be able to deploy quickly enough to prevent carnage.
Police cynics have also commented that if the same scenario resulting in the killing of terrorists had occurred in the UK, the actions of armed special police units would be microscopically examined by the IPCC with a view to prosecuting any officer who had not precisely conformed to the ‘rules of engagement’ while ‘second guessers’ would be dominant throughout all sections of the media.
Depressingly police officers and the security services will know that during the dramatic events in France there will have been literally hundreds of UK trained jihadists cheering on their French counterparts. They will be equally aware that the UK’s ‘chocolate teapot’ border controls presided over by the Home Secretary have allowed these jihadists to become dangerous adversaries by virtue of obtaining both training and combat experience abroad, with, until recently, very little hindrance.
This current threat must be viewed against a background of diminishing police numbers and resources even to the extent that Greater Manchester Police were intending to cut their number of armed police by twenty five; a decision they have since backed away from.
Sickness levels are increasing, violent crime in London has risen by 22% and the capital has also seen an alarming spate of murders. The list of additional demands being made upon the police in the days of austerity Britain appears to be endless and the only crumb of comfort comes from a recent survey which shows that trust in the police continues at around 66% while trust in cabinet ministers and politicians remains embarrassingly ‘in the teens.’ How ironic therefore that Theresa May frequently refers to the loss of public confidence in the police.
A demoralised, run down police service facing an unprecedented terrorist threat is clearly a far from ideal situation. The deaths of police officers by virtue of what could be interpreted as government neglect will prove catastrophic for a police service in meltdown.
As for the thorny question of whether the Home Secretary would be welcome at the funeral of a police officer killed in the line of duty; that will be a matter for the officer’s family but it is hard to see a family extending an invitation in the current circumstances especially where she could be deemed either directly or indirectly culpable.
Meanwhile the hope is that the security services and police will continue to work their magic by frustrating terrorist plots and that the subject of policing actually becomes a major issue as the general election campaign progresses.