Mr Giggs, In my police force area covering a large urban area and an extensive rural hinterland with about 100 miles of motorway, an international airport, a significant marine port and a resident population of about two million there are on average four armed police officers on patrol duty at any one time (although there are some others static at the airport). Is that too many? And where do you propose they get their food without offending your delicate sensibilities?

The intended goals and level of visibility between BTP and government appear to be at odds.

The government statement: "it will not be a daily event to see armed officers at stations", contrasts with BTP's: "Armed patrols at transport locations are not new. [] The deployment of highly visible armed officers is a nationally recognised operational tactic designed to provide deterrence"

Is this to provide response capacity or deterrence?

The gap between these aims and statements leave me with no confidence that this is a considered measure, or that BTP is following the government stance.

@Abie Vee

There are other types of terrorist attack aside from suicide bombings. This measure has been brought in due to the fears of a mumbai style attack where armed police would potentially deter or be able to limit the extent of an attack.

There was a period a few months back where an attack of this nature was seen as almost imminent until a drone attack took out the planners. Police forces were on high alert across Europe (particularly France) but in the UK senior officers knew if an attack took place on the rail network the BTP, whose job it is to protect it and who would likely have officers first on scene at a major rail hub, would be powerless. Then we'd be asking why wasn't there a quicker response.

Simple. There is anti-terrorism money to be farmed. The classic response in bean-counter driven system is 'spend it or lose it'.

Not quite sure what all the fuss is about. Britain is one of the world's most violent developed countries. Of course the police should be armed.

The article lacks objectivity and argument based on evdential fact in the second paragraph when the author states that anyone in uniform at a train station lacks common sense.
So why should anyone bother to give him the facts anyway when his writing is based on sterotypes and condesending dialogue?
By the way I do work in uniform at a train station, and no I dont read the Sun!!

@Des Demona

'As far as I'm aware Indian police are armed. Did that stop any of the bombings or shootings at rail stations?'

That's exactly why the authorities are so worried. Even in a country where police are routinely armed it still took a long time to get under control with scores of deaths. Granted, police in the UK would undoubtedly be better co-ordinated, but imagine how much more carnage could be caused when you have a police force that can't effectively respond because the small numbers of armed police can't get to the incident quick enough? Having officers whose responsibility is solely to guard vulnerable transport hubs in my mind is a good measure.

I completley disagree there's a gradual creep to a routinely armed police force (something which I oppose). It's just about adding a capability that's been anomalously lacking. There are considerably less armed police today then there were in the '70s.

And what is the purpose of the BTP? What next British Shops Police, British Filling Stations Police?

Well no doubt when there's an emergency they'll have to wait an hour for a train to take them where they need to go like the rest of us.

Seeing as cuts are supposedly needed how about cutting this lunacy, rather than officers?

@DCI Taggert:
"The more armed officers the merrier to be honest..."
What, so more innocent people can be shot? Do you really want to add to a list that includes John Charles de Menezies, Harry Stanley, and Mohammed Abdul Kahar?

have I been banned from these pages? Can't post anything. Didn't think I was being remotely controversial.

@Fergus Pickering
I dunno, maybe innocent people. In the head. Five times.

Mr Giggs, I have pondered this for a while and I confess that arming the police isn't a preference but does seem reasonable in light of the style of attacks we have seen and as has been mentioned the strategically important and vulnerable nature of the underground.

I spoke (argued) at length with my father today who disagrees with me and the points he made were:

- If we start to arm our police we could end up in a fascist state (hi reasoning being that the majority of police are thugs and you get enough thugs willing to obey orders you can oppress a populace)

- If we were to arm the police on the underground would we then need to place armed security outside hotels too (referring to Mumbai, although I feel this is flawed reasoning on his part)

- He also asked, then what, we place domes over every nuclear power station to prevent terrorism?

I think the crux of his point is "where does this end?" and although he didn't say it, do we as a nation really want to sleepwalk into a police state (although perhaps a moot point as we seem to already be there)

I feel arming the police willy nilly is dangerous and perhaps naive but it does concern me the response time we'd see and subsequent casualties were there to be a terrorist attack on the underground.

I suppose the alternative is to live with the threat of terrorism but know that on occasion there will be attacks with trade off being our freedom. Something many would say terrorism is trying (and thus far successfully) eroding.

May-be it's because our politicians fully understand the multiple threats we face, and our 'liberal' journalist don't!

Nick. Four in total sounds about right. One specialist team that is not overused and know that if they fire their weapons they're off the team for at least a year.

As to where they get their food, the station, or when not carrying weapons or when not on duty.

"The Government has been considering the resilience of the overall police armed capability and has concluded that it would be beneficial to enhance this by providing the BTP with an armed capability of its own."

THAT is the document I would like to see published. I'd also like to see a case-by-case analysis of events which may and may not have been "improved" by gun availability.

I don't care about the money; I do care about the public presence of lethal weapons.

If these steps are truly necessary, then publish the report so the naysayers (like myself) can simply read it and shut up.

Simple?

Policing in this country, believe it or not, is still with the consent of the majority. Obviously some of you would rather take your chances with religious fanatics let loose with automatic weapons, or a deranged schoolboy in a cannabis induced frenzy (as in the U.S) than have a highly trained,regulated and accountable armed force, deployed for the communities protection. With the fall of the eastern block, and the amalgamation into the EC of most of the former eastern block states, more weapons than ever are finding their way onto our streets.
When there is a Mumbai style atrocity in this country, don't be alarmed. When one of your family doesn't come home from work, don't be alarmed. Remember, you stood on your soapbox and winged about those nasty policemen with guns.
Society gets the police it deserves. Enjoy it. I shall be retiring soon, and spending long lazy days in the sun, where all police are armed!

Police state? You do make me laugh you lefties.We are the most analysed public service there has ever been.
Are France or Spain police states? Even bank security guards are armed there and you still go in to swop your Euros don't you without fainting ?

Because of muslim terror merchants have you not heard of Mumbai you madman!

Mr Giggs, I agree with you about the numbers. Outside of London, which is wholly unrepresentative of the rest of the UK in almost every respect, including policing, the level of deployment would be roughly the same wherever you went. I can't say I agree with your condition on discharging a weapon. It seems disproportionate and as if you have not really thought through the consequences of yout proposal, even though you are clearly capable of doing so. What do you think it would achieve, other than poor morale, difficulty in filling posts, decreased resilience requiring more officers to be trained and consequently extra training costs?

I'm curious about the food issue though. You sound like a reasonable, intelligent person. Why don't you like seeing police officers in shops or food outlets (armed or otherwise)? Most chief constables encourage patrolling officers to obtain and/or eat their food in public to increase visibility. I know the great British public don't always like it, but it doesn't seem to upset the Americans. Can you tell me what it is you don't like about it?

Moshi, I share your fear about more guns on the street, and you are right that many murdered American police are shot with their own weapons, but "cover up" and "lies" about Stockwell? There was very public enquiry, followed by a prosecution (and conviction) of the Metropolitan Police as a body corporate. The wrong information about the incident in its immediate aftermath did not originate with the police but was passed on by them after receiving it from other sources. Not checking the info for veracity was a serious mistake, but doesn't amount to lying.

Will we be seeing armed BTP on the buses, tackling school gangs?

And next will we be arming the Parks Police?

Aleex for the police to get away with assault it would have to be proved that an individual offcer was at fault and B, that, that assault was unlawful,IE acting in self defence when the police have to shoot dead someone with a gun who won't put it down.

Roger, I don't know which country you live in, but it's clearly not the UK.

Nick you're deluded, go back to Britain's Got Talent, the premiership & your Olympic ticket bids.

I see protesters arrested by plain clothed snatch squads for singing and dancing, a limited company (ACPO) getting police officers to infiltrate protest groups on behalf of corporations, free speech outlawed on the day of the 'royal' wedding, kettling.