December 2007
“Not Obliged”
David Codrea
“It was not until the next day that a policeman finally turned up.”
So much for disarmed subjects of the crown relying on the police for protection. But what could be more important than an octogenarian under potentially lethal and immediate attack? Police departments, after all, have limited resources. Perhaps there was a critical emergency endangering more lives and a tough decision had to be made? A riot? A terrorist act? A fire?
Well, no, actually. A great thing about the Internet is it can aggregate news stories about any subject you look up. For instance, at the time Thames Valley Police had “more important calls” to respond to than an elderly citizen under violent attack, here are the headlines for what they were preoccupied with:
“Ex-Landlady Buys Police Drugs Dog”
“Police Set Shining Example with In-Car Computers”
“Sara Thornton Appointed Top Cop”
“Workshop Offer to Driving Mobile Phone Offenders”
It certainly doesn’t sound like they had any “more important calls.” So I asked the Thames Valley Police for their policy on prioritizing emergency calls, and requested a summary of their call log to determine if maybe there was something local journalists had missed.
“Unfortunately,” I was told, “we are unable to give you any specifics of the incident as you were not directly involved.”
John McClelland, a fiction writer who blogs about liberty issues from Northern Ireland as “Cryptic Subterranean,” also tried to get this information. Being a British citizen (and one who understands principles of American Constitutionalism better than the vast majority of US citizens), he is in a better position to approach his public servants than some foreign interloper from “across the pond.”
“Your request for information has now been considered,” the Orwellian-titled “Freedom of Information Officer” informed him, “and I am not obliged to supply the information you have requested.”
And that would seem to settle it. But we can glean how UK police prioritize and oblige their manpower from other sources. For instance, the BBC reported “The use of hundreds of police officers in a series of raids and searches … uncovered one gun in south Manchester …”
And we can return to Thames Valley, where the police not only don’t consider a citizen being attacked an obligation, but do consider themselves the only ones qualified to keep and bear arms.
“A police marksman is under investigation after accidentally shooting a colleague in an extraordinary blunder,” The Daily Mail reported. “The victim … was seriously injured … at a lecture room at the HQ of Thames Valley Police ...”
Per the Independent Police Complaint Commission, “Details of the police marksman who fired the gun would be a matter for Thames Valley Police to reveal if they wished.”
So it’s optional? They’re “not obliged”?
www.armalite.com
www.wilsoncombat.com
www.kwiksitecorp.com
Features \ Departments \ Gun Links \ New Products \ Subscribe \ Home
Customer Service \ Contact Us \ Search \ Advertising
Customer Service \ Contact Us \ Search \ Advertising
