Talk:Specialist firearms officer

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law Enforcement This redirect is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement United Kingdom Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Firearms Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please stop reverting my edits I have:

Cleared out some internal contradictions eg "as they are required to learn a specialisation and undergo tougher firearm usage" vs " SFOs will usually be trained into a particular speciality"

Removed some tautologies and POV adjectives eg "tougher" and non encyclopaedic wording "blow hinges off"

Deleted the thoroughly misleading statement that UK Police can open fire if there is a danger to property.

I relise that you are acting in good faith but you need to post in good English and get your facts correct Handcockshalfhour (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have proved the article is correct. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 18:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you proved this? If there's a disagreement about the truth of a statement, we just need a source that clarifies it one way or the other, and should reference it in the article. If you can point me at a reliable article that backs up the "danger to property" thing (I can't see anything in the sources, searching for the word "property"), I can show you how to cite it, removing any need for an edit war of differing opinions.

Both Jack and Hancock should familiarise themselves with the three revert rule, before reverting any more changes. --McGeddon (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bit he is arguing about I have removed. All other evidence for the article can be found in links. I am a little saddened by how you have ruined a good article. I hope your content and got a medal for it. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 18:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "proved" you will find no proof that Police can fire to protect property as they cannot. Beyond that the current wording is internally contradictory as I have pointed out and in places just bad English - this is an encyclopaedia not a comic.Handcockshalfhour (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read and analyse, I have removed the thing about the property. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 18:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean about shoot to stop the endangering of property is with the non leathal baton gun which is used in riots to stop property damage, you obviously misunderstood. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 19:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baton guns and Taser are not 'non-lethal', but are referred to as 'less-lethal weapons' as defined in the ACPO Guidance on Less-Lethal Weaponry.

ACPO Guidance on the use of firearms states that "opening fire with such weaponry should only be considered within existing legislation in respect to necessity, reasonableness and proportionality and should only be with the intention to stop an imminent threat to life or of serious injury." SW3C (talk) 10:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"In a hostage situation, should the decision be made not to call on UKSF resources[17], they are normally the personnel called in to execute a rescue"

Following the Iranian Embassy Siege, Home Office Police Forces are now expected to undertake any hostage rescue or dynamic intervention work themselves using appropriately trained firearms officers. The involvement of UKSF will require cabinet level authorisation and will need very good reasons why police officers are not suitable, I will attempt to find an Internet Source for this information.

Poornamechoice (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need, lets just re-arrange the sentance. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 20:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it, see what you think. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 20:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a bit of a dispute over at Talk:Death of Ian Tomlinson over the inclusion of an erroneous press report that the Met's Territorial Support Group has access to "submachine guns" as opposed to the actual semi-automatic MP5 carbines used by Authorised Firearms Officers in the unit (which does not have any SFOs attached to it). Other editors may wish to offer their opinion on the matter. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]