From: Jeff@invalid.invalid 
  
 On 04/09/2025 15:36, Jethro_uk wrote: 
 > On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 12:35:54 +0100, Simon Parker wrote: 
 > 
 >> On 04/09/2025 12:06, Clive Page wrote: 
 >>> On 04/09/2025 11:45, Jon Ribbens wrote: 
 >>>> On 2025-09-04, Clive Page  wrote: 
 >>>>> One can see that if you are police officer it's a much more exciting 
 >>>>> way to spend your day dashing onto the runway at Heathrow in a car 
 >>>>> with blue lights flashing along with four colleagues all brandishing 
 >>>>> guns than trying to investigating a real crime, which might, for 
 >>>>> example, involve watching a lot of boring CCTV footage.€€ So one can 
 >>>>> see their point of view, it's just not something that most of the 
 >>>>> public would support. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> Did any of that actually happen, or did you make it up? 
 >>>> 
 >>> News reports said he was arrested by five armed police.€€ Perhaps that's 
 >>> explainable if all police at Heathrow are armed, but even so to waste 
 >>> the time of five of them seems to me a bit over the top. 
 >> 
 >> I cannot speak for Heathrow but a close personal friend is a police 
 >> officer at Manchester Airport. 
 >> 
 >> At Manchester, all police that operate airside, (i.e. those that are in 
 >> a position to intercept a passenger disembarking an aircraft), are armed 
 >> as a matter of routine.  I expect Heathrow to be similar. 
 >> 
 >> As such, should one wish to be pedantic one could use the phrase "police 
 >> that are armed" (i.e. routinely armed as part of their role), rather 
 >> than "armed police" (i.e. police that were specifically armed / deployed 
 >> with firearms to deal with this specific incident). 
 >> 
 >> Similarly, I am not familiar with the deployment protocols for Heathrow 
 >> but it is possible that these protocols require five officers to be 
 >> deployed when arresting an arriving passenger to enable them to subdue 
 >> the passenger should they fail to co-operate / resist arrest. 
 >> 
 >> "Procedurally mandated number of police that carry firearms as a matter 
 >> of course..." is a far less noteworthy sound-bite than "Five armed 
 >> police officers..." 
 > 
 > All of which sidesteps whether such measures were necessary to arrest 
 > someone whose home address was known for an offence which did not suggest 
 > there was any further risk to public safety (than there was before). 
 > 
 > No one is suggesting procedures were not followed. In fact they (and I 
 > certainly) am suggesting the procedures were never needed, regardless of 
 > how textbook their execution. A word I use very cautiously where armed 
 > police are involved. 
  
 Is it possible that procedures were changed following the Amaaz brothers 
 Manchester Airport brawl last year? The level of violence which seemed 
 to appear out of nowhere may suggest that the police now consider a 
 greater number of officers are required when attending any situation 
 where an arrest is expected. 
  
 -- 
 Jeff 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)