The question of how to tackle the rise in gun crime is an issue that affects many in Britain. Most of us live in areas of the country that are seldom plagued by the realities of what this question actually means; the Russian roulette of stepping outside your own front door, the fear that prevails in an area choking on the fumes of ‘postcode’ gang warfare. But for those caught in the middle of the relentless and vicious cycle of weapon dependency, the imagery this question creates is not far out of reach.
Recent statistics reveal that, in the capital, there has been a 17% rise in gun crime since April; a sobering figure that hasn’t gone unnoticed by the London Metropolitan Police Service.

As of November 9th a team of 18 officers, armed with Heckler & Koch MP5 submachine guns, will permanently patrol the three boroughs of Tottenham, Brixton and Haringey. The move is the first of its kind outside of Northern Ireland, a place known for its notoriously violent history with the IRA, and has raised concerns about the state of policing in Britain.
Those who regularly call upon the images of newly erected CCTV cameras, restrictions of the freedom of speech, new laws prohibiting the photographing of police and various other restrictions and enforcements will of course have a field-day with the news, but even for those of us who approach the state of affairs with a more restrained view will find it hard to swallow the sight of a neighbourhood bobby carrying a machine gun.

The weapon of choice, a German rifle capable of delivering 800 rounds of live ammunition every minute will become a regular sight in the three London boroughs, as the CO19 (Specialist Firearm Command and British equivalent to the American SWAT teams) patrol the streets, on foot and on motorcycles, in a bid to reduce gun crime throughout the area and to carry out “weapon sweeps”.

It isn’t the first time that the CO19 branch have made national headlines; most notably when the Police department were dragged through the dirt over the shooting of an innocent man, Jean Charles de Menezes, at Stockwell station in 2005.
Whilst we aren’t likely to see a repeat performance of the Menezes case, the introduction of heavy arms cops in a public place is a grave cause for concern, and has sparked staunch resistance from senior politicians, journalists and anti gun campaigners alike.

Brian Paddick, the ex deputy assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service and Lib Dem candidate in the 2008 London mayoral elections, speaking on Friday’s Today programme said; “If there is an escalation, if criminals start to carry guns because the police are carrying guns, how do they know which police officer has a gun and which doesn’t have a gun?” He went on to say, “There is a tradition of policing in the UK, policing by consent, not by force, policing with the support and the co-operation of the public. There is a danger of further distancing the police from the public.”

Jenny Jones, former chair of the Green Party and member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, went further than Brian Paddick, writing in The Guardian; “We’ve heard that this change was done without authorisation from senior ranks or from the Metropolitan Police Authority. Not to mention leaving out the normal practice of testing such changes by consulting local area representatives on the possible social impact. The justification being used for this unprecedented move is that gun crime is on the increase, apparently the borough police themselves asked for the patrols. But I suspect that the commissioner, the mayor and the police authority will not support this reasoning. Decisions of this magnitude need thorough debate.

She continued, The change was also made without any discussion of the rules of engagement – exactly how does one use a Heckler & Koch at 800 rounds per minute on densely populated housing estates and streets if you meet a sudden threat? This move has all the necessary ingredients of a tragedy waiting to happen. Reactive armed policing is very different. There is usually some foreknowledge of numbers, range, area etc but unexpected encounters with gunmen can make for unpredictable outcomes. Even highly trained officers can make mistakes. Guns are dangerous weapons, even in skilled hands.

Ms Jones wasn’t far wrong either, the BBC reported that a spokeswoman for Boris Johnson had said; “Armed police have a role in certain circumstances but that should be the exception not the norm”, but Mr Johnson stopped short of denouncing the plans, his spokeswoman saying; “The mayor was concerned by reports about the use of armed officers but has been reassured by Sir Paul Stephenson there is no intention of using armed police in routine manner.”

The Home Office declined to comment, saying that the operational use of firearms was a ‘matter for local forces’. The Evening Standard reported that members of the London Assembly demanded that Mayor Boris Johnson call an emergency meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority, the capital’s police watchdog.

In defence of the plans, Chief Inspector Neil Sharman of CO19, said on Thursday that the move was a “more proactive approach to deal with weapons on our streets”.

It’s certainly proactive, the no-nonsense approach is a sure move away from the current trend of combating gun crime in Greater London, but how effective will a police strategy like this be? There are claims that increasing the use of armed forces in the past, in similar operations elsewhere, have been largely successful; and I’m sure many totalitarian states would agree with those comments, though how the long term damaging effects of a bullet bobby on the beat will play out, remains to be seen.

The methods that have presided in the past have been largely peaceful and looking long term. A campaign of targeted advertising that both builds trust in the local communities by increasing the awareness of facilities for reporting crime, and threatens those that have little regard for those communities with prison sentences, have proven widely successful in increasing the reporting of crime. Policing however has had a tough time in knowing what to do with the issue. Stop and search has been one of the options taken by the Met and has had mixed responces. Some people feel that the active policing makes them feel that more is being done about gun (and knife) crime, whereas others have said that the methods are intrusive and create distrust.

Whatever the census however, I cannot for the life of my imagination picture a scenario where a police officer would either need to use a sub machine gun, or where, if he encountered gun crime, the use of an 800-bullet-a-minute firearm would improve the situation. I can see the headlines now, “Police Officer Sprays Bullets At Defenceless Crowd”, “Police State Turns Brutal”. As Jenny Jones pointed out in her article, even the highly skilled and well trained make mistakes, and the stakes can only get higher when you employ heavier weaponry.

I’m sure that the Metropolitan Police Service has well intent with the recent measures, but perhaps they should pay more attention to their own anti gun crime campaign posters, and think of a longer term strategy to tackle gang crime that is both forceful and has the backing of the community.  The Met will rue the day that they lose the trust and support of the people, and so will we.