Firearms officers may be better protected (legally)

Police would be freed from health and safety red tape under Tory plans due to be announced.

In his keynote speech to the party's conference at Birmingham, shadow home secretary Dominic Grieve will pledge to change the "dangerous" rules which "undermine public confidence".

A recent case saw police officers radio for help instead of trying to save a drowning boy because they were not trained in water rescue.* In another case, a woman shot and seriously hurt was left waiting for help as police stood outside because of health and safety fears. The proposed changes would prevent another police force facing a Jean Charles de Menezes-style prosecution under health and safety laws. Sources said the legislation was being misused and could lead to "defensive policing" in high pressure situations.

Mr Grieve will tell the conference: "Health and safety legislation is holding police officers back (and) making them more risk-averse."

"We now have a health and safety regime which is so stifling ... that it delayed armed officers attending the victims of a shooting for an hour after the gunman had fled but prosecuted them for mistakes made during the heat of a counter-terrorism operation."

The changes would ensure commanders could put the safety of the public above the safety of their officers. Mr Grieve will also announce plans to stop so-called "have-a-go heroes" being arrested.

******************************

This is an interesting development. Red-tape here has gotten so stifling that no matter what role you are in within the police environment everything has to be 'risk-assessed' often to the detriment of common sense.

Now ordinarily this just means tedious and painful additional paperwork and a longer wait to clear crimes, while supervisors assess whats been done and risk assess the risk assessments (:rolleyes:), followed by Inspectors assessing the reassessed risk assessments, however in a critical incident (a life or death type situation) this can mean the difference between saving someone's life or, as has happened in Thames Valley where a senior officer on scene refused to allow officers into the scene of a shooting for over an hour for fear that a shooter might still be present, people can die.

So many officers I know would not carry a firearm for the simple reason that AFOs are seen as being hung out to dry once they pull the trigger in a fatal shooting and who can say what the result might be of ongoing inquests and civil actions on future firearms incidents where an officer might just hesitate even for a split second knowing full-well that litigation is likely to follow....

While I have no illusion that a shadow Home Secretary will promise the earth, moon and stars in the hope his party will look like a better bet in the next election, I do think this is the way forward. Anything that cuts ass-covering for the sake of ass-covering and puts the public ahead of pointless bureaucracy has got to be a good thing. If Police Officers are afforded greater protection, even better. Its also nice to see that the idea of 'having a go' being encouraged too.

*This was actually community support officers, not police officers.

Source