agurney
Well-Known Member
Interesting perspective on this topic revealed today - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38369742
A man with a machine gun came up to me - or was it a dream
- Thread starter dylanwinter
- Start date
awol
Well-Known Member
Maybe teasing the Modplod off Coulport isn't such a good idea?
NormanS
Well-Known Member
At some point in 1989, I spent several weeks working at Faslane, working on various piling and fendering jobs on many of the berths there including the ones for the nuclear subs. I had a mobile phone, which in those days was about as big and heavy as a car battery, so it wasn't the sort of thing that I carried about with me.
The security getting into the base, and between parts of the base was time consuming, and bothersome. While on one of the nuclear berths, complete with sub berthed alongside, I wanted to make a phone call, and rather than face the security hassle involved in getting back to my phone, I asked the sentry on the brow (gangway) if I could use his. Apparently his phone was just an internal dockyard phone, but he invited me to go down onto the sub, and use the one in the submarine's control room. I duly clumped down the ladder, and had the phone pointed out to me, and told to help myself.
To say that I was astonished would be rather an understatement.
Triassic
Well-Known Member
Dear Maggie could have issued as many directives as she liked however it wasn't going to change anything that actually happened on the ground (or water in this case) unless she actually made changes to legislation, or individuals understanding of them.
To avoid confusion the power for an individual to use force comes from common law and statute, namely the Criminal Law Act which says:
"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large".
Common law says you can use force to protect yourself, another, or property.
Both require the force to be reasonable, so shooting a wayward sailor that happened to have strayed within 100m of a submarine wouldn't be reasonable unless you had further reason to suspect they intended to put you or others in significant harm by doing so. Finding an intruder inside a nuclear submarine carrying out an act of sabotage and the only way to stop them was to shoot them might be viewed as reasonable under the circumstances. It would very much depend on what the individual with the gun believed the intruder was doing and what they believed the consequences of the action would be. I suspect the directive by Maggie was more aimed at influencing that belief.....
To avoid confusion the power for an individual to use force comes from common law and statute, namely the Criminal Law Act which says:
"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large".
Common law says you can use force to protect yourself, another, or property.
Both require the force to be reasonable, so shooting a wayward sailor that happened to have strayed within 100m of a submarine wouldn't be reasonable unless you had further reason to suspect they intended to put you or others in significant harm by doing so. Finding an intruder inside a nuclear submarine carrying out an act of sabotage and the only way to stop them was to shoot them might be viewed as reasonable under the circumstances. It would very much depend on what the individual with the gun believed the intruder was doing and what they believed the consequences of the action would be. I suspect the directive by Maggie was more aimed at influencing that belief.....
NormanB
Well-Known Member
It is a great shame they were not shot (or at least one of them).
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
In what way do you think a killing of that sort would have improved our lives?
RobF
Well-Known Member
I agree that killing is a bit of an extreme response to this situation. However, having intruders on a nuclear powered and presumably nuclear armed submarine warrants a very strong response (in my opinion), even though is is exceptionally unlikely that these intruders would be able to launch one or more of the ICBMs on board.
newtothis
Well-Known Member
Think the ones that needed the shooting were those who were supposed to be on duty protecting the boat, not some crusty peaceniks armed with nothing more than spray paint and idealism. The military seem to be a bit more accommodating on the legality of shooting their own, as well.
Triassic
Well-Known Member
Given that the vast majority of the crew are unable to launch one I suspect you might be right.......
The real risk is that they damage part of the systems and thus render the vessel inactive, which would remove part of our nuclear deterrent and put the country in perceived danger....... according to some.
Mister E
Well-Known Member
So making a treat to commit an act of Terrorism is not covered under the various acts about this and the power to use lethal force?
newtothis
Well-Known Member
More likely to be covered by the right to peaceful protest.
NormanB
Well-Known Member
The security of the base is the responsibility of the MOD Police service.
Triassic
Well-Known Member
Indeed it is, but I'm fairly sure they don't have any additional powers with regard to the use of force than any other police service, or individual for that matter, it's just that they may have the means to do so more readily available and the threshold for doing so is more likely to be met due to the nature of their business.
awol
Well-Known Member
I thought the Captain's toilet was quite capable of performing that role!
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
What "treat to commit an act of terrorism"? And when did we introduce summary execution as a penalty for anything?
aquaplane
Well-Known Member
And that is as it should be.
Uricanejack
Well-Known Member
I read the article. Interesting particularly my recollection of life and the value of life in the UK. Not withstanding Maggie.
I am glad to read those on duty were not inclined to shoot first and ask questions later.
It may have been embarrassing to have to wipe felt pen of a white board. Still a lot easier than cleaning spray paint. Even if damaged. Submarines can be repaired. Patching up people who have been shot not so easy.
Shooting unarmed, long haired hippy, protesters for trespassing is quite unreasonable. The damage to the reputation of the of the MOD Police, The Navy and the whole Nuclear deterrent programme would have been far greater if they had shot some Student, hippy or C of E vicar for what turns out to be a harmless prank. Carried out as a protest. Not sabotage or terrorism.
Some times there are things to be proud about being British.
In todays world I hope most of the British Police remain the friendly unarmed kind. While the few armed ones continue to err on the side caution and reason.
Rather than the shoot first ask questions later variety.
I am glad to read those on duty were not inclined to shoot first and ask questions later.
It may have been embarrassing to have to wipe felt pen of a white board. Still a lot easier than cleaning spray paint. Even if damaged. Submarines can be repaired. Patching up people who have been shot not so easy.
Shooting unarmed, long haired hippy, protesters for trespassing is quite unreasonable. The damage to the reputation of the of the MOD Police, The Navy and the whole Nuclear deterrent programme would have been far greater if they had shot some Student, hippy or C of E vicar for what turns out to be a harmless prank. Carried out as a protest. Not sabotage or terrorism.
Some times there are things to be proud about being British.
In todays world I hope most of the British Police remain the friendly unarmed kind. While the few armed ones continue to err on the side caution and reason.
Rather than the shoot first ask questions later variety.
Last edited:
aquaplane
Well-Known Member
Too right.
Seen some of the vids of Yank cops shooting folk and thought, WTF, I'm glad I live here!
Triassic
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't necessarily automatically blame the US cops for that. Sure there are examples of where they have blatantly misused their firearm but you have to appreciate that they operate in an environment where weapons are far more prolific and their use against the police commonplace, and this will impact on the officers mindset. In other words they are far more likely to believe that their life is in danger and that their use of a firearm was reasonable in the circumstances than their British colleague.
Our problem in the UK is that we are now getting into the situation where we have officers who spend all their time in a firearms environment and they become so indoctrinated into it that they lose perspective of real life and don't necessarily look for alternative resolutions.
BelleSerene
Well-Known Member
The trouble is that when the police are armed, a given action by a citizen represents a higher risk, which then justifies using the firearm.
When you approach an unarmed policeman, the threat to life is easily assessed. Until you get into a position of uncomfortable control over him, you don't represent a threat to life. Now give the cop a firearm and approach him in exactly the same way. You're now in a position where you could grab the firearm, or at least where if you overpowered him you'd be able to grab it and commit a murder - either against him or against someone else.
So the same citizen's action represents a higher risk in the reasonable assessment of the policeman, if he is carrying a weapon than if he's not.
It's worth remembering to understand the position - and the everyday stress - that armed policemen are put in. Oh, and to stay alive.