Arming the Police
SIR.—Mr Ludovic Kennedy ('A Spectator's Note- book,' August 19) has crushed one argument against the arming of the British police. But there are other more important arguments which I submit that he will not be able to dismiss so easily. Most important, any move to arm the police must be an admission of failure. Surely no one wishes to suggest that the police are unable to execute their duty without re- sorting to arms? Secondly, as any member of the army will tell you, there is always a grave danger of serious accidents with a large armed organisation. If the police were armed, we might have to accept as a necessary consequence of this the deaths of two or three policemen accidentally shot on duty. I would personally rather not have to live in a society where two or three deaths were tolerated as the price to pay for having an armed police force. Thirdly, there have been incidents of extreme bru- tality displayed by police officers. With revolvers in their pockets, CID or plain-clothes officers might well be tempted into doing something which they might afterwards sincerely regret.
I believe that the British police force is one of the most efficient in the world, and the most popular force in the world. Its efficiency would not really be increased if it were armed, unless by efficiency we mean a totalitarian police state. I am sure that the arming of the police would cause it to lose much of its popularity. I would remind Mr Kennedy that it was that popularity which prompted so many people to give money to the fund for the relatives of the policemen so tragically shot.
Previous page
