Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 27 2010, 11:14 AM

Any one got any idea what they were doing outside Curnock Court in Enborne Road yesterday morning??

Posted by: ossy1 Aug 27 2010, 05:34 PM

Did they have their guns out?? Or did you just see them??

Chances are they were just attending a routine incident, they don't just attend jobs that require an armed response.

Posted by: GMR Aug 27 2010, 06:05 PM

Maybe they were our secret police and were going to a execution. Maybe our friend shouldn't have seen them. I would be very careful... very careful indeed.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 28 2010, 06:35 PM

When you stop posting then I'll start to worry....

Posted by: GMR Aug 28 2010, 06:38 PM

A police state worries about nothing

Posted by: Roost Aug 29 2010, 09:45 AM

Careful GMR, I think you may be getting too close to blowing the conspiracy wide open!

Once you start reminding them about Lord Lucan causing the 9/11 tragedy from his grassy knoll in Roswell while Jimmy Hoffa arranged the death of Diana you're gonna be in trouble!!

Posted by: JeffG Aug 29 2010, 10:11 AM

We're still no closer to an answer to the OP.

I'm surprised at ossy1's response that armed police might attend a routine incident. This isn't the US of A (yet, thank goodness).

Posted by: GMR Aug 29 2010, 10:33 AM

Thanks for that warning

Posted by: GMR Aug 29 2010, 10:34 AM

And "Yet" being the word.

Posted by: Jayjay Aug 29 2010, 03:54 PM

Thought that armed police were officers that had been trained in the use of firearms and when not needed did routine policing. I think they have slightly different vehicles so firearms can be locked away, but apart from that they are no different. Hope that this is the case otherwise a lot of police sitting round the station drinking tea.

edit - sorry attached to wrong post.

Posted by: Jayjay Aug 29 2010, 03:55 PM

Thought that armed police were officers that had been trained in the use of firearms and when not needed did routine policing. I think they have slightly different vehicles so firearms can be locked away, but apart from that they are no different. Hope that this is the case otherwise a lot of police sitting round the station drinking tea.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 29 2010, 04:02 PM

Last time I saw UK Police with guns was after one of the London events and two of the Met's finest were patrolling Paddington with highly visible guns. I saw an old lady with a dog walk past, the dog started to sniff the policeman's shoes, so he bent down, patted the dog and smiled at the old girl. Don't think that would happen anywhere else - glad we are in the UK sometimes!

Posted by: ossy1 Aug 29 2010, 05:15 PM

What are you surprised about exactly, police officers attending incidents????? What ever next!

Jayjay is right, thankfully they don't sit around drinking tea whilst waiting for a firearms incident to happen. If you call the police then you will get what's available, neighbourhood, response, traffic, armed response, dog handler. Thought the public would be grateful of that, seems not, can't win!!

Posted by: Iommi Aug 29 2010, 05:42 PM

Yes...police actually getting off their fat **** to attend an incident!!!

ossy1, you probably know what is meant...why did it require an armed response? It presumably wouldn't be for a bail jumper, would it?

You don't do yourself any favours sometimes.

Posted by: Strafin Aug 29 2010, 06:13 PM

I think we're all a little suprised by that. Especially in this area, there's a bakery nearby though right??

Posted by: ossy1 Aug 29 2010, 06:25 PM

Yes it can be for anything including bail jumpers as you call them.

Ive given up trying to do myself any favours on here, if i say something positive someone turns it into a negative and if i say something negative someone will have a go at me. The freedom of speech you all go on about clearly doesnt apply to me.
However i know i work hard and do my best and thats all that matters.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 29 2010, 06:46 PM

Quite right and you are not patronising or abusive. Please don't give up because its actually good to know that; our Police are human, they are willing to talk up to support the service on their own account, they feel able to do so. We aren't your 'customers' the Queen is - you are charged with keeping her peace. Actually a different requirement than simply to catch law breakers. The difference is between a monarchy and a police state. I know what I'd rather live under.

Posted by: Roost Aug 29 2010, 06:57 PM

Not sure anyone's actually answered Ossy's q about whether these 'armed police' actually had their guns out!

Way I understand it is similar to JayJay.

'Armed' police are police officers that are trained in use of firearms and have 'close' access to such firearms.

They do still attend the standard and more basic jobs that other police attend and will be wearing their holsters and other kit but should not regularly be waving those firearms around unless it is a firearms job.

Could be wrong of course!

Posted by: HeatherW Aug 29 2010, 07:01 PM

Why are the public so surprised that the police are seen more and more on our streets with guns? This sight is becoming increasingly common of late. Maybe the point is to get us used to it.

Posted by: ossy1 Aug 29 2010, 07:06 PM

No one is saying they have been in this case.

Posted by: ossy1 Aug 29 2010, 07:08 PM

You are correct unless of course you are at an airport or other such similar site then will be armed all the time.

Posted by: HeatherW Aug 29 2010, 07:09 PM

Are you saying I misread? If that is the case then I am sorry for misreading. I have to go out so I have not got the time to go back and check.

Posted by: ossy1 Aug 29 2010, 07:15 PM

TDH has not clarified what he saw. We are not sure if he was saying there was an armed response vehicle in the street or he actually saw officers with guns which to be fair if that was the case Nwn would have something in the news section .

Posted by: JeffG Aug 29 2010, 08:49 PM

That's a gross over-reaction to my comment.

I expressed surprise that armed police officers would attend an ordinary incident. Surely I am entitled to be surprised, since we don't live in the wild west, and the police here when I last looked are not routinely armed.

Posted by: ossy1 Aug 29 2010, 09:14 PM

No there not so i'm not sure why the surprise that they would muck in, surely you wouldnt want them sat around waiting for an incident that required them.

Posted by: JeffG Aug 29 2010, 10:03 PM

Of course not! I was only surprised that they would go in armed (hence "armed police" = "police carrying arms" as opposed to "unarmed police") if arms were not required for the incident being attended.

I think we are talking somewhat at cross purposes here!

Perhaps its just a question of semantics: to me an armed policeman (or woman!) is one with a gun in his/her holster, or carrying a firearm.

Posted by: Strafin Aug 29 2010, 11:23 PM

So we're still going with the laughable notion that Ossy is a copper then??? Despite being barely able to write in English, showing up a complete lack of knowledge regarding the roads, especially with the trucks on motorways thread, and basically throwing a strop anytime anyone mentions the police, be it TVP, transport, or traffic.

Posted by: ossy1 Aug 29 2010, 11:28 PM

lorrys on the motorway? What are you talking about?

Posted by: On the edge Aug 30 2010, 07:01 AM

And why not? They can't all have degrees!

Posted by: GMR Aug 30 2010, 09:13 AM

When people come on here with aliases it is almost impossible to find out what they really are/ do, some will come on here because forums are the only way to play Superman or girl. Some lead dull boring lives and by being on here they can spruce those lives up by saying whatever they like. It gives some a tingle, a feel of superority. If Ozzy wants to come on here and be a policeman/ girl (whether she is or not) then why not? We don't have to accept it and anything they say (i.e. if they claim to be a policeman etc) can be verified or challenged. Nevertheless, and saying that, there are those that are easily taken in by what people say and it is the vulnerable we've got to be concerned about.

Ozzy did allow us to know that she is a policeman/ girl so she obviously has a motive for letting us know; i.e. bringing her profession on here. I suppose it all adds to the spice of things. I've been on many forums where I've been privilaged to debate with Tony Blair, the Queen, Stalin and even God himself, so a policewoman is only a couple of steps down the ladder.

Posted by: GMR Aug 30 2010, 09:14 AM

If we still had a labour government then that might have changed.

Posted by: Jayjay Aug 30 2010, 05:08 PM

Oh GMR please get over this, it is in danger if cropping up in every post and is now getting really boring. I really do not care who does what for a living.

Posted by: GMR Aug 30 2010, 06:11 PM

Actually there is nothing to get over. I replied to the previous post. Forums are not there for one mans liking, but for various ideas, thoughts, rants, debates and many other reasons. However, as free thinking people we all have a right to choose which posts we wish to read or ignore.

There are many posts on here and other forums where I think we are going down the same road again, or this is boring... but I recognise the posters right to express themselves as they see fit (so long as they are not abusive). So I either ignore certain named threads, the poster or something else, but what I won't do is dictate what I expect from another member; I recognise that he or she is a free agent on a free forum, and without that free expression we have a dictatorship by the few.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 30 2010, 06:38 PM

That should teach Jayjay from piping-up!

Posted by: user23 Aug 30 2010, 07:03 PM

Too right. I'm have no interest in who anyone is, just the opinions they post.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 30 2010, 07:10 PM

If you read the post; albeit carefully (!), don't think GMR is either. I take by that he means Duke or Dustman he feels at liberty to take a tilt. Thats the way it is with freedom!

Posted by: ossy1 Aug 30 2010, 08:57 PM

GMR i assume your rant is about me again?
In which case it may be wise if you refer to me by actual name, thats ossy not ozzy.

May sound pedantic but there is another forum member called ozzy, best not to confuse those that don't know better or upset ozzy.

Thanks, ossy!!

Posted by: GMR Aug 30 2010, 09:25 PM

It wasn't a rant, but just responding to another poster. I see these forums as just a tool; we are all here for different reasons, but whatever they are we shouldn't get upset, but enjoy. The beauty of forums is their differences. Nothing more, nothing less. Your worth, is the same as my worth; to entertain, educate, learn, debate and enjoy.


You are correct, i wrote without really taking in the names. I know that can be annoying, but wasn't intentional and I can only apologise and try not to let it happen again.



Don't worry about being 'pedantic' as we all suffer from that from time to time. Again your point taken and I'll try to be more observant next time.

Regards,

Glenn

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 31 2010, 08:22 AM

I am just suprised that this has not made the News. The windows are now boarded up on the house that was raided so they did not just 'knock on the door'. Come on NWN - get to the bottom of whats going on in Newbury. There are also steel shutters over the Windows of a house in St Michaels Road. Are the Police by chance carrying out some sort of dawn raids operation on a certain 'element' that now frequents South Newbury...

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 31 2010, 10:13 AM

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=14392

The Armed Police were not armed....

Posted by: Iommi Aug 31 2010, 12:08 PM

That's what it nearly says. The Armed Response Unit were used as backup, but were not armed.

Posted by: Darren Aug 31 2010, 12:47 PM

The ARV's keep their firearms in a locked safe in the car. They are removed when authorised or if there is an imminent threat.

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 1 2010, 10:43 AM

It didn't require an armed response - they were the nearest / closest officers at the time of the incident. So responded.

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 1 2010, 10:46 AM

Aww, I was hoping GMR's sz blindness was going to continue for a while longer!

Posted by: Iommi Sep 1 2010, 11:55 AM

We now know that, as per recent posts. Do try to keep up!

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 1 2010, 01:51 PM

I knew it reading ossy1's initial post!!

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Sep 1 2010, 02:04 PM

So did I. It did not change the fact that I saw the Armed police though. I think you argue just for the sake of it. If I said that Hitler was a bad person I think you'd claim he wasn't and was misunderstood!

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 1 2010, 02:19 PM

You would see armed police. They were the first to respond. As ossy1 said, it could have been a dog handler.
It does not mean that a dog, or gun, was needed. Police are Police. Get over it.

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 1 2010, 02:21 PM

If you said that Hitler was a bad person, I'd think you were lying.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Sep 1 2010, 02:23 PM

You think I believe Hitler to be a good person then? You are sick and need help.

Posted by: gel Sep 1 2010, 02:23 PM

He could have just meant Police with (2) arms, as majority have I expect!!!

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Sep 1 2010, 02:24 PM

Nothing to get over. In my original post I described what I saw. You need the help sunshine.

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 1 2010, 02:28 PM

You described what you saw. You assume as the police are armed, guns are needed. When it is pointed out to you that this is not the case you get all upset because it ruins your assumption that the residents of that part of town have been upto no good again, to the point of needing an armed response.

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 1 2010, 02:28 PM

No, I said that if you said he was bad, I'd think you were lying.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 1 2010, 02:29 PM

Now who's guilty of spinning a yarn, as even ossy1 didn't know if they were armed or not in her first post.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Sep 1 2010, 02:31 PM

You can say what you want now as you are going on Ignore. I'd recommend all other users do the same.

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 1 2010, 02:32 PM

No, but she explained why armed police may have been there. - If you call the police then you will get what's available, neighbourhood, response, traffic, armed response, dog handler Seems pretty clear cut to me.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 1 2010, 02:34 PM

That's clear to me as well, but it wasn't confirmed they were 'un-armed' until later.

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 1 2010, 03:02 PM

So is TDH just making things up!

South Newbury is his bête noire, eh?