The air-waves and cyber-waves are fair buzzing with the debate on whether or not ‘to arm our police’. Everybody and his maiden aunt has a definitive view.

On Sunday morning, the BBC fielded its usual ‘balanced panel’ to discuss the matter. We had Mohammed Anzar, described as not just a social media commentator, but ‘a Muslim social media commentator’; a genuine Mus-i-Twit, or should that be Mus-i-twat? Douglas Murray – you’re waiting for me to say ‘a Christian social media commentator’, but no such luck, Douglas is Director of a non-partisan think tank, which promotes human rights, tolerance and greater cohesion among the UK’s ethnic and religious communities, and the well known ‘shock-jock’ John Gaunt. Dotted around on various video screens were more talking heads – and not one policeman.

The debate flowed this way and that – we must remember the number of people in the USA who have been shot because policemen have guns (let’s not mention Pakistan, eh); de Meneses, Hillsborough, policing by consent, increasing the number of guns on the street, every well worn cliche that has been trotted out on every blog. What everyone was agreed on was that ‘the police themselves don’t want to be armed’. That they were all quite sure of.

All present could correctly quote the 82 percentage of police who had said they didn’t want to be routinely armed. Nobody wanted to mention when that poll was carried out. So I had to look it up.

2006. Six years ago. Isn’t it about time someone asked the police themselves what they think? They might have changed their minds in the meantime. Enough has happened since 2006.

Personally I can’t see what all the fuss is about – I live in a country where all the police are armed; we don’t have mass shoot outs in the street as a daily occurrence – nor do we have officers in padded teddy bear suits waddling between Panda car and street disturbance. We have some exceptionally good looking girls and men in thin summer shirts and excruciatingly well cut trousers who happen to have a gun in a holster.  If we are stopped driving our cars, we don’t have to get out with our hands above our heads and stand spreadeagled over the bonnet; we are politely approached and asked to produce our documents – exactly the same as in England. We share tables with them in the local cafe for lunch and don’t shiver with fear. I’ll grant you that the CRS are a different kettle of fish; if they appear we vanish as fast as possible – we know damn well that if you throw rocks at them or petrol bombs you are liable to get shot. Nobody takes the piss out of the CRS.

It’s all very well asking the Muslim Twitter head what he thinks, those who are financed by shady think tanks can fret about the human rights of ‘victims’ all they want, shock-jocks can court popular opinion till their ratings go sky high; I don’t see how there can be any debate before asking the police.

If they chose to be unarmed, we cannot force officers to stay in post if we insist they are armed. If they chose to be armed, we can have a debate about whether we agree to be policed like that. Perhaps we don’t, and we will run the risk of the police leaving the force in droves.

What we cannot do is make a decision and then force it on them.

They are the people who have to daily face the scum who live by the gun – their’s should be the first opinion, the most informed opinion, sought. Until that happens, I suggest the rest of us retreat to our armchairs and play solitaire or something.

Go on, ask a policeman!

patently September
27, 2012 at 16:19

There’s a logical flaw in your argument, Anna. Apologies if it has already
been pointed out in one of the comments above.

When you say “ask the police officers what they think”, you don’t specify
which officers. Is that all the officers currently in service, or just the
officers we would like to keep in service, or the potential officers who would
join the service if the service was routinely armed? That leads to two
assumptions; first, that the officers who, generally, do not want to be armed,
are the officers that we would wish to retain in our police service, and
second, that the officers who you have unwittingly excluded on the basis that
they chose not to join an unarmed police force, are officers that we would not
want in our police force.

I’m not sure those assumptions are valid. Certainly, in my experience the
officers that we have are happy to maintain control over a situation by
alternative means, usually the use of haughtiness, arrogance and sneering at
the pleb with whom they are required by their duty to converse. If we were to
give officers another means of controlling a situation, perhaps we might not
select for such types of officer. Perhaps we might select even worse officers,
I do not know.

All I can say is that (apart from the CRS) the officers you describe all
sound much more pleasant than the ones I have experienced (as a law-abiding
member of the public…) here. Maybe that is because they are armed, maybe it is
some other reason. Maybe it is the existence of a CRS in which to put all the
arrogant ones…?

AWM September 25, 2012 at 17:11

As mentioned here, at least one of these Policewomen was carrying a
Taser.

I suppose when people refer to the Police being armed, they mean with a
traditional firearm but I struggle to see a difference in principle with a
Taser. After all, it’s a means of incapacitating a person at a distance and
has proved fatal in certain unfortunate circumstances.

If I was a criminal of a certain sort, I’d routinely go around armed, as
the police already are…

GildasTheMonk
September 25, 2012 at 07:03

I am still pondering the the thought of “some exceptionally good looking
girls” armed with a gun in a nce uniform.
Just sayin’…..
Ha, hum…….

john malpas September 25, 2012 at 02:26

How can you overthrow tyrany without firearms?

Pat September 24, 2012 at 22:59

I’m not sure what this case says about the advisability or not of arming
the police- but it does rather point up the uselessness of banning firearms
for the public. Clearly criminals can obtain firearms if they want to, and
suffer little more penalty than if they hadn’t.
A system where only
criminals carry guns seems like a poor idea to me.

Lerxst September 24, 2012 at 23:03

Indeed.

Hysteria
September 25, 2012 at 10:40

yup…

cascadian September 25, 2012 at 18:20

So do something, today.

http://www.shootinguk.co.uk/goshooting/starting/126232/Shotgun_licence__shotgun_certificate_application.html

Michael September 24, 2012 at 21:22

Bit of whimsy, and I’m told a true story…

My mechanic was once dispatched to the local Spar just before closing time
to buy milk. On his arrival he jumped out of his truck and was surprised to
find five big burly policemen appear out of nowhere training their assault
rifles on him.

“What’s all this then?” he asked in his usual gruff Yorkshire fashion.

“We need you to step away from the car, sir, and move where we can see
you…”

Mechanic was unfazed. “Well I’m not afraid of you f*ckers, but I am afraid
of ‘er indoors, and if I don’t get some milk in the next minute that shop’ll
be closed”…

With that he started for the door, leaving 5 policemen a little bemused and
having to decide between shooting him and following him into the shop to let
him pick up his puchase before establishing that it was a case of mistaken
identity. Fortunately, they chose the latter.

Matt September 24, 2012 at 20:52

I read the other day of a gun club slogan in USA that went :-
If a crook
is in your bedroom threatening your wife and kids with a gun –every second
counts. But don’t worry the police will be along ion a few minutes. How dare
the Government prohibit me from defending myself ?
Detestable country.

cascadian September 24, 2012 at 22:12

Matt there is a constitutional right “to bear arms” in the USA. What is
detestable about exercising one’s rights?

In areas where the constitutional right has been (illegally) overridden,
notably in cities like Washington DC, New York and Chicago it is notable
that there are far higher death rates due to gun use. This is
counter-intuitive and poorly understood in yUK.

Perhaps a higher ownership of guns in the yUK might improve the manners
of some of the criminal-class.

JuliaM September 25, 2012 at 05:26

Cascadian, I may be reading it wrong, but I think the ‘detestable
country’ of which he wrote was outs, for not allowing the same
options.

cascadian
September 25, 2012 at 07:48

Thank you for pointing out that possibility Julia, if I have
misconstrued Matt’s comment I owe him an apology.

However my understanding of British law is that it is perfectly legal
to own a shotgun for sporting purposes or vermin control. Should it get
used for personal or family protection because you feared for your
safety is controversial, but as Matt noted “when danger is second’s away
, the Police are minutes away”. Ownership of weapons is a serious matter
and should only be considered if you have training in their safe use.
That training is certainly less onerous than a driving test. Having said
all that, it is a personal choice whether you wish to live in fear under
detestable conditions or take some personal responsibility for your
families safety, thus making the country less detestable.

binao
September 25, 2012 at 09:18

I suspect the need to get to the mandatory gun safe, unlock and
retrieve a licensed gun. then go to the seperate place where the
ammunition is stored would make armed response to a burglar a bit
difficult at very short notice.
Do we live in a country where
having a weapon and ammunition to hand is necessary? I’ve certainly
lived abroad where I’d be tempted, but not in England.

cascadian
September 25, 2012 at 18:13

Accessing a gun and ammunition can be achieved in less time than it
would take to call emergency services and answer their checklist
questions in the correct order. Meanwhile in your scenario you then
await the call to be prioritised, dispatched and arrival of unarmed
police, while criminals ransack your property (or worse).

If you are aware of the availability of responders and response
times (day and night) of your local police and are satisfied then no
further action is required. I prefer not to sub-contract my family’s
safety to an understaffed, under-equipped police force (who lets face
it are basically demoralized civil servants).

Just as I insure my house and car against events I hope never
occur, I have increased the premium against my family’s safety.

Mudplugger September 24, 2012 at 20:42

This debate was undoubtedly provoked by the death of the two WPCs in
Manchester. But putting together the reported details, it seems unlikely that
their being armed would have changed the outcome in any way, so it is a bad
example as a source.

It is reported that one of the officers may have drawn her Taser, but not
discharged it. Given that the hoax report was of a ‘soft’ burglary, how likely
is it that those WPCs would have entered the scene with guns drawn and cocked
? Almost certainly not, so the outcome would have been no different,
considering that their determined killer lay in wait with loaded gun ready and
even a grenade to hand. (Although perhaps then two pristine police-issue
handguns would then have found their way into the criminal network for future
underworld use.)

It is always unwise to allow knee-jerk reactions to drive important policy
(see Dangerous Dogs), and this case has enough emotional tags to cause the
State-knee to start an involuntary twitch. There is a debate to be had, but
one in which those with operational responsibility for crime prevention and
detection should take the lead. We devolve that responsibility to those public
servants, we provide the materials which they define as being needed in
support of their role. If the police change their specification to requiring a
totally armed service, then that becomes an issue to address.

At a personal level, I have never felt threatened by police officers in
parts of Britain or in other countries merely because they were carrying guns,
and there is no reason to think that status would change if all UK ‘Dixons’
were armed. As others observe, it is not the gun that hurts/kills you, it’s
the person holding it. (You just hope it’s not the PC in the Ian Tomlinson
case !)

JuliaM September
25, 2012 at 05:24

“(You just hope it’s not the PC in the Ian Tomlinson case !)”

Or anyone trained in the safe handling of firearms by this guy!

jaded September 24, 2012 at 20:21

We can debate this all we like,it’s not going to happen. No Home Secretary
will authorise it as he/she doesn’t want to be known as the one that armed the
police full-time.
Just like capital punishment,Europe and mass immigration
the politicians think they know best.You know, the ones guarded by armed
police.

right_writes
September 24, 2012 at 22:11

All the more reason to get behind the upcoming Harrogate Agenda

I suspect that you are right about home secretaries, so we need to find a
way to make them listen.

m.barnes September 24, 2012 at 19:49

PS In saying all of the above I do agree with Anna’s irritation at the
talking heads on TV discussions on this. The radio has been filled with
renta-psychologists wittering away about potential impact on police/ locals/
the public/ criminals/ of these shootings. Drives me nuts. Now it’s moved on
to fair trials and arming the police – next up Capital Punishment.

m.barnes September 24, 2012 at 19:45

While the Police are certainly an interested party I’m afraid the final say
belongs to citizens, as the people being policed and from whom the police
come. I am not a fan of complete arming of the police. I am not sure Frankies
suggestion is a go-er. Some police but not all police? How would that work?
How would anyone decided the proportions in each locality of armed versus
un-armed. Would it cause divisions within the force? And would it really
prevent any officers being killed or just encourage an arms race between the
police and criminals? I am uncomfortable when I see police abroad armed. There
are some police officers that we really wouldn’t want armed – the crooks, the
nutters, the lazy, the cowardly – and they are there, as they are in every
workplace, in every group of humans.

Wolfers September 24, 2012 at 19:34

Ahhh yes, the CRS. I’ve seen them in action a couple of times.

A couple of tips:

If approached by a CRS officer, be as polite as you can be, more polite
than you’ve ever been in your entire life.

If approached by a CRS officer after you’ve caused him to stamp his
cigarette out on the ground. Run, very fast. Run faster than you’ve ever run
in your entire life.

JuliaM September
24, 2012 at 21:27

minktulip September 24, 2012 at 19:12

Paid agents of the state are the only people who may legally initiate
violence. The circumstances in which they do so is a matter which concerns
everybody. England is a violent country so arming the police is reasonable,
provided the regulation of the police is improved.
It may also be time to
remember that the police were originally only an aid to keeping the peace,
which for most of history has been the collective responsibility of the
citizens. The police have something of a guild mentality about this but most
people will be better off if they themselves are armed and independent of the
police.

Frankie September 24, 2012 at 18:05

I cannot ever see the equivalent of the American 2nd Amendment enacted in
the UK (although, historically we DID once have the right to bear arms – to
certain classes of persons (Protestants) under the Bill of Rights 1688) but
speaking to the subject directly, I believe that police officers should,
routinely be armed with firearms (when one considers they can currently carry
CS incapacitant spray (a Section 5 ‘Firearm’) and Taser (a Section 5
‘Firearm’)) IF they
1… Wish to do so.
2… Are working in a front line
role.
3… Can pass a stringent Firearms Course, which would focus of
safety/psychological profiling of the user.

As our host convincingly points out, officers with firearms (handguns) on
the continet are so routine as to pass no comment. A firearm is only dangerous
if it is used/abused by its human operator. It is unlikely to kill/injure
anyone, left to its own devices. I think it is high time this absurd Dixon of
Dock Green attitude to police carrying firearms was done away with once and
for all.

Having carried firearms myself routinely for many years in my work related
role I can attest to the fact that they are, in company with many other
mundane items, a piece of equipment. They do a job. There is no mystery about
them. Once armed, we, collectively, are no more likely to be placed in
jeopardy than we are now, with the proper safeguards in place. Do we,
routinely, for example, hear of members of the public being randomly sprayed
with CS incapacitant, by the police, just for the hell of it, or ‘zapped’ with
a Taser, because the officer had nothing better to do? No, of course not
Clearly, not all police officers would want to be armed but those who would
wish to carry a handgun should be permitted to do so, subject to stringent
conditions. Do not forget that the Armed Response Vehicle is a concept that is
uniquely British. No other country only arms very small numbers of police
officers exclusively. Everywhere else, police officers carry handguns as a
matter of course, and, perhaps, a shotgun in their patrol vehicle, or other
‘long’ gun.

I have always adopted the policy that: ‘…It is better have, and not need
than to NEED… and not have’.

Lerxst September 24, 2012 at 21:12

‘…It is better have, and not need than to NEED… and not have’.

How true. On that basis, I assume you have no objection to my having an
uzi. You know, just in case I need it.

Hysteria
September 25, 2012 at 10:35

no objection at all. We are allowed a motor vehicle – and they can do a
LOT of harm….

Not sure we should license RPGs or artillery pieces – but handguns to
be held by property owners ? Why Not?

right_writes September 24, 2012 at 18:03

I really couldn’t care less whether the police are armed or not, surely
that is up to them?

On the same subject though, a few years ago, I read an interesting article
by Dr. Sean Gabb on the subject of arms in general, and whether the public
should be allowed to have their own guns again.

A brief search of the googles revealed this article…

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1103

It wasn’t the actual article that I remember but it is pretty close and the
sentiments are the same…

If I remember, in the other article, there was a little story about the
fact that the policeman on the street has never been armed, and that it was
common practise for a policeman to run up to someone and ask them if they had
a gun because the bank was being held up, and he could do with either the gun,
or some assistance.

Elena ‘andcart
September 24, 2012 at 17:47

I have to admit that I haven’t read the preceding comments. The Police in
France are armed, and I have never felt threatened. Not even when I have been
stopped without the documents that I should carry. And I have never been
ordered to the nearest Gendarmery for not having the aforesaid documents, or
been shot, for that matter. Just give them all a pistol when they join, and
tell them not to fire at will. But make them pay for the ammunition.
That
was a joke, by the way. At least, I think it was.

JuliaM September
24, 2012 at 17:37

“They are the people who have to daily face the scum who live by the
gun…”

As do, increasingly these days, paramedics, firemen, railway workers,
council bailiffs, traffic wardens, etc. Should they all be armed too?

Longrider September 24, 2012 at 18:00

Oooh, yes please…

jaded September 24, 2012 at 21:49

Silly argument Julia. They can walk away if they don’t like the situation
they are in.

Lerxst September 24, 2012 at 22:00

Paramedics can abandon the ill and dying? Firemen can walk away from a
burning building or a trapped motorist? Really? Well, in that case the
police can presumably walk away as well.

Penseivat
September 24, 2012 at 22:42

Lerxst,
Who do Paramedics and Firefighters call when they attend a
scene and decide it’s too dangerous to stay there? They contact the
Police who will turn out to protect them. If the Police don’t turn out,
then the Paramedics and Firefighters WILL go away. I’ve seen it happen.
They all do a brilliant, unappreciated, job but the basic rule is that
if you’re dead or injured, you can’t help/save anyone. Of the three,
only the Police are not allowed to go away.
Julia,
When was the
last time you saw a railway worker, bailiff or parking attendant (they
are NOT traffic wardens) face up to a drunken, unruly, mob? Perhaps
you’re just taking advantage of the chance of another crack at the
f*cking plebs?

Lerxst
September 24, 2012 at 23:30

Penseivat

“only the Police are not allowed to go away”. Not strictly true, as
we saw during last year’s riots when the police stood back and let the
yobs run wild. That might have been the right decision given their
limited numbers, but in retreating to the sidelines, they effectively
walked away.

And while they rarely admit it publicly, there have been a number
of areas across the country that at various times that have been
considered privately as no-go areas by the police. Indeed, growing up
in the North West, I remember a rather public campaign being launched
to reclaim Moss-side in which it was acknowledged that it had become
such a no-go area. The police did eventually step in, but for a period
during the 80s, the place was largely left to the drug gangs, and
every night Look North West had news of another shooting. That is not
particularly to criticise the police. They often face a no-win
situation in such places.

JuliaM September 25, 2012 at 05:21

Penseivat, not quite sure where the ‘plebs’ remark comes from?
Mitchell is an oik, a jumped-up little Johnny-made-good of the type
that typifies Cameron’s modern-day ‘Tories in name only’, and I most
certainly don’t share his views.

But on the subject of ‘no-go’ areas and police selflessly hurling
themselves into dangerous situations, can I remind you of this case?

MTG September 24, 2012 at 15:56

You can instantly imagine a certain Mr Mitchell, 500gr heavier, lying on a
slab alongside two others who ‘deliberately fouled’ the shooter’s firing line;
each with a Freddie Patel toe tag certifying ‘sudden unexpected death
syndrome’. Yep, they can be routinely armed just as soon as I have my
kalshnikovs and enough ammunition to hold out for a week.

Nick September 24, 2012 at 15:03

I really have no problem with the police being armed. All I would request
in return is that I have the same respect accorded to myself.

Hysteria September 25, 2012 at 10:31

agreed – the right for the common man to carry arms was established in
Magna Carta – and lives to this day in the 2nd amendment.

“Remove the guns from the good guys and only the bad guys have the
guns”

Andy Baxter September 24, 2012 at 14:50

I cannot comment on one’s French experiences Raccoon but as for British
Policing it’s not for the Police to determine if they are armed irrespective
of their opinion on the matter; its for the people being policed to decide.
Your argument ignores one very important factor and that is detterrence from
crime via effective and just sentencing by our criminal justice system (which
happens not at present) a sobering fact brought to light by Norman Tebbit in
that an average of THREE people a year are killed by people who have aleready
been convicted but let loose on the streets by TPTB! for if such sentencing
with effective deterrenet were enforced then our Police would face far less
people ~(of course SOME criminals will always seek to be armed) tooled up with
knives and guns.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/normantebbit/100181673/a-return-to-capital-punishment-it-is-time-we-thought-once-more-about-the-deterrent-effect/

Peter Hitchens argues a powerful case also backed by evidence on the
detterent effect of capital punishment; along with a powerful anti to the
argument from the liberalist do gooders cry “but what if you kill an innocent”
by arguing “all the more reason to go to extraordinary lenghts to ensure you
don’t” by

Absolute presumption of innocence (even for the likes of Dale
Cregan)
Trial by jury
Conviction ONLY on a UNANIMOUS verdict (no one
left with any reasonable doubt)
Right to appeal
and if fails followed by
swift execution of sentence instead of leaving the convicted to wallow 23
hours a day while appeal after appeal strings out to the crack of
doom.
Finally the Home Secretary can commute sentence if in public interest
to Life imprisonment (Life meaning 40 years before considered for parole)

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2012/09/of-course-hanging-wont-end-all-murders-but-it-will-make-criminals-afraid-to-carry-guns.html

TPTB are already killing innocents by letting loose those already convicted
of killing because they the political class endowed with a ‘divine right’
sense of entitlement to order our lives, lack the brass cahooneys to send
lawfully convicted murderers to a judicial and lawful execution.

As Tebbit argues “There have been far too many killings of late where it is
all but impossible not wonder whether if as a disgusting member of a gang of
thugs pulled back his foot to kick in the head of some innocent passer by who
had been felled to the ground, he knew that the penalty for that kick would
come at the end of the early dawn walk to the gallows, that kick would be
delivered.”

We are supposed to live under the Rule of LAW and that means being governed
by consent and being policed by consent. Politicians unfortunately decide the
fate of many in most cases after promising the earth onc every five eyars and
delivering misery from idealogy over the next five. We ‘plebs’ to use a common
phrase of late don’t get a look in, we are not trusted with weighty matters
such as ‘self defence” just ask Andy and Tracy Ferrie, nor are we asked how we
would want our communities policed and how to pay for it; All such ‘weighty’
matters comes from centralised diktats fuelled by a target culture imposed
from central statist chief constables, the ACPO and politicians answerable to
no one that matters i.e “us”.

For if we the people are ‘sovereign’ and we are just such; then as has
happened in Switzerland these last few days it is the people who should decide
not politicians the way our communities are run. and just for the record I am
not a smoker, never have been but I respect the rights of others to do so and
I am amazed at maturity and power the Swiss have in deciding their own fate.
See for oneself the power people have to decide their own destiny in
Switzerland becasue of their almost unique constitution.

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss_news/Clear_verdict_expected_on_strict_smoking_ban.html?cid=33534456&rss=true&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=swissinfo&utm_term=swissinfo&utm_content=News+from+Switzerland

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss_news/Strict_nationwide_smoking_rules_voted_out_.html?cid=33575638

A wind of change is coming to Britian, its but a few seeds sown on fertile
ground or now bu the message is powerful and the question even more so “do you
want something you have never had?”

i.e the power to decide your own destiny.

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=83014

keep up the articles I enjoy them….

Brian September
24, 2012 at 17:41

My experience of the thuggish underclass suggests that in addition to
concern for others outside their gangs and “fairmlies”, foresight and
judgement are lacking: they live in the present. The prospect of capital
punishment in the future wouldn’t register.

JimS September 24, 2012 at 19:08

I agree it is for the people to decide how they want to be policed. The
police are not a race or species, they are from our numbers, they choose
their occupation and they are free not to follow that occupation if they so
choose.

Of course that does not mean that we shouldn’t seek the opinion of
serving police officers.

I doubt if it would save any police lives by arming all officers. For
instance I’m sure we would all hope that a traffic policeman would approach
a car with gun holstered. The armed thug driver could kill the armed officer
just as easily as now

Introducing guns would have unintended consequences. More guns to keep
under control, risk of theft. Staff time taken up on training, checks on
staff health, police on police killing when the checks go wrong etc.

Friend of Dog
September 24, 2012 at 14:28

I have read that France has the highest percentage of private gun ownership
in Europe. We have shooting parties locally every weekend during the season.
Even the customs/immigration officers are armed on duty. There are more police
per capita than in the UK the vast majority of whom are armed. I feel very
safe.

Lerxst September 25, 2012 at 01:32

Not quite the same measure, but going by that infallible font of all
knowledge, Wikipedia, France comes behind Switzerland, Finland, Sweden &
Norway for number of guns per capita. (Unless the law has changed, I believe
the Swiss men are actually issued with a firearm as part of their national
service, and afterwards are then required to keep it at home while still
part of the army reserve).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

Brass Monkey
September 24, 2012 at 14:01

I did not see the programme, but figure your description of how it went as
quite accurate. Yes. Ask the police today if they want to be armed before the
usual talking nonentities who all seem to know what it is in the collective
minds of of large numbers of people make the decision for them.
I have been
in France on holiday on more than one occasion, and find your description of
the police out there quite apt. When I was very much younger I was threatened
(in a very light hearted manner) with arrest if I did not stop trying to flirt
with one of the female officers.
You are quite right about the CRS. During
my first trip to Paris in 1960 at the time of the Algerian problems I
witnessed them in action “arresting” a group of young men with dark skin and
beards. During more recent trips I found it somewhat comforting to see these
guys around. I felt that they would be there to assist if my wife and I were
molested. Same as in Rome when out at night, almost always an Italian version
at the end of a side street wherever you walked. Not sure about the same
effect in London though.