Port of Tilbury-Police Constable

[Fedster + 1,307]

Recruiting to counter-terrorist units is like 'filling a bath with no plug', DCC Chesterman said.

DCC Simon Chesterman

 

Talented police officers who show promise during their initial firearms training could be offered a shortcut to counter-terrorism roles as part of plans to address recruitment issues.

National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for armed policing Deputy Chief Constable Simon Chesterman, announced last week Home Office forces have only managed an increase of 874 firearms officers against a target of 1,000, and he does not expect a separate shortfall of 100 counter terrorism specialist firearms officers to be met for another year.

He also revealed the NPCC is considering plans to fast-track firearms officers who demonstrate “exceptional” prowess during training.

“The general pathway at the moment would be that an officer would be an experienced firearms officer before they go into the specialist counter terrorism world, which is absolutely the right thing to do because we want the best and most experienced firearms officers,” he said,  

“However the problem is that by the time you follow that all the way through there could be an issue in relation to age.

“You end up with a lack of diversity and you end up with only one recruitment pool. So what we’re toying with at the moment is when you get someone that enters the firearms world and does particularly well on their initial firearms course they could be selected and fast tracked to become a counter terrorist firearms officer.  

“But there would have to be a blend of experience and inexperience on the teams. We’re just looking at different ways of bringing people through to get more diversity and to enable us to deliver the numbers.”

DCC Chesterman admitted officers are reluctant to volunteer for firearms training because they are “worried about their livelihoods and their liberty.”

But he said he would not support a change in law on police use of force as current legislation is “very clear.”

Instead he is more concerned about the perception among officers about post incident investigations saying: “We will be treated as suspects of wrongdoing rather than doing our job.

“If you volunteer to carry firearms on behalf of the state and then you’re sent to deal with terrorists, serious and organised criminals, people who are very violent, seeking to do harm or present immediate threat to life we shouldn’t be surprised when occasionally people get shot.

“And on those rare occasions, what officers want is to be treated like professional witnesses.

“They absolutely want an open and transparent investigation to show what they’ve done is right.

“For example, when you look at body worn [video] they absolutely welcomed the introduction… in forces that are a bit behind the curve their officers are screaming out for it.

“They welcome that scrutiny but of course what they’re worried about is if they say the wrong thing or something goes slightly wrong for them they end gripping the rail in the Old Bailey."

He added: “When there is a fatal shooting of a terrorist who has carried out an atrocity the officers are heroes. When we shoot someone whose involved in serious and organised crime there is outcry.”

His comments came the day before The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) announced it is directing the Met Police to hold a gross misconduct hearing against a firearms officer who shot and killed Jermaine Baker, despite the fact CPS have declined to press charges twice and the MPS has rejected the IOPC’s findings.

View On Police Oracle

[Ether + 1,395]

Target recruitment at those leaving the armed forces, the average pass rate I would bet will be much higher. 

[Zulu 22 + 4,571]

Usually they make excellent recruits. They have a knowledge of firearms unless they are Royal Signals, Catering Corps, or similar. There is a pool of specialists and infantrymen,. and women.

[Beaker 817]

To be fair there are plenty of Support Arms that could supply specialist officers with minimal retraining. Medical Regiments produce their combat medics with a nicely rounded skillset who could likely slot nicely in to an armed policing role I would assume with some retraining.

[Sierra Lima + 117]

Yes they would be very competent but more importantly would they be females/BME?

[Ether + 1,395]

6 minutes ago, Sierra Lima said:

Yes they would be very competent but more importantly would they be females/BME?

Unfortunately that is very true, armed criminals and terrorists do seem to care that they are shot by equal opportunity, non gender assuming armed officers.

[Mac7 808]

This could be extended to other areas of policing. I’ve long thought that if you show a natural aptitude for something then why shouldn’t you get the “tap on the shoulder” or have someone help steer your career in a certain direction. Whether that is for investigations, UC work or even going up the ranks.

 

I’m not sure about recruiting direct from the military, but I can’t eloquently explain why.

 

[Ether + 1,395]

Just now, Mac7 said:

This could be extending to other areas of policing. I’ve long thought that if you show a natural aptitude for something then why shouldn’t you get the “tap on the shoulder” or have someone help steer your career in a certain direction. Whether that is for investigations, UC work or even going up the ranks.

I’m not sure about recruiting direct from the military, but I can’t eloquently explain why.

Direct recruiting should still be have standards attached to it.  

Lets recruit the best people to the jobs they are suited, not fulfil quotas.

[Growley + 2,436]

This could be extended to other areas of policing. I’ve long thought that if you show a natural aptitude for something then why shouldn’t you get the “tap on the shoulder” or have someone help steer your career in a certain direction. Whether that is for investigations, UC work or even going up the ranks.
 
I’m not sure about recruiting direct from the military, but I can’t eloquently explain why.
 

In fairness, I imagine recruiting from the military would work well for certain roles.

They should have the discipline, fitness and be used to handling weapons; and it would depend on their role as to whether they're already familiar with certain tactics.

The main problem I'd have with it, is if it really took off, it could make it harder for 'ordinary' cops to make it into specialist fields.

[Ether + 1,395]

36 minutes ago, Growley said:

In fairness, I imagine recruiting from the military would work well for certain roles.

They should have the discipline, fitness and be used to handling weapons; and it would depend on their role as to whether they're already familiar with certain tactics.

The main problem I'd have with it, is if it really took off, it could make it harder for 'ordinary' cops to make it into specialist fields.

I think it is a valid point, you have to be careful not to make certain elements unattainable by people who cannot dedicate 4 hrs a day to fitness etc.  That creep of making the physical element can be seen ion the military today, but you set standards and keep to them, that said standards should db high, because the role is potentially a deadly one if not done properly.  

Whats the current AFT fitness requirements?  Is it 7.6 on the beep test?

[Mac7 808]

AFO fitness test is 9.5 in my force with SFO being 10.5.

[Growley + 2,436]

I think it is a valid point, you have to be careful not to make certain elements unattainable by people who cannot dedicate 4 hrs a day to fitness etc.  That creep of making the physical element can be seen ion the military today, but you set standards and keep to them, that said standards should db high, because the role is potentially a deadly one if not done properly.  
Whats the current AFT fitness requirements?  Is it 7.6 on the beep test?

I wasn't concerned about the fitness, I consider that personal responsibility; it's more that we have a significant number of (ex)military personnel in this country, and if they were to become the preferred recruitment pool for firearms roles, then they could significantly reduce the spaces available for internal selection. It already happens that some specialist roles prefer other specialist roles to recruit from, but at least those roles are internal, and any PC is able to take that stepping stone role.

The JRFT for a basic AFO role is 7.6, but outside of the Met I don't think many forces bother with that role profile anymore. The JRFT for ARV is 9.4 and (IIRC) the SFO threshold is 10.5.

[Ether + 1,395]

1 minute ago, Growley said:

I wasn't concerned about the fitness, I consider that personal responsibility; it's more that we have a significant number of (ex)military personnel in this country, and if they were to become the preferred recruitment pool for firearms roles, then they could significantly reduce the spaces available for internal selection. It already happens that some specialist roles prefer other specialist roles to recruit from, but at least those roles are internal, and any PC is able to take that stepping stone role.

The JRFT for a basic AFO role is 7.6, but outside of the Met I don't think many forces bother with that role profile anymore. The JRFT for ARV is 9.4 and (IIRC) the SFO threshold is 10.5.

Truthfully I don't care that the available spaces are reduced for officers from within, (to a degree), I want the best people in the right job.  Time we threw how people felt out the window and just picked the right people and put them in the right job. 

9.5 -10.5 is a good level of fitness, it doesn't need to be higher than that, even if a beep test is a god awful way of assessing the robustness of people.  But I would like to see (I don't know if its already done) assault courses or similar, not because they are particularly relevant, but its a test of robustness. 

[Growley + 2,436]

Truthfully I don't care that the available spaces are reduced for officers from within, (to a degree), I want the best people in the right job.  Time we threw how people felt out the window and just picked the right people and put them in the right job. 
9.5 -10.5 is a good level of fitness, it doesn't need to be higher than that, even if a beep test is a god awful way of assessing the robustness of people.  But I would like to see (I don't know if its already done) assault courses or similar, not because they are particularly relevant, but its a test of robustness. 

In truth though, they're not necessarily going to be the best people for the job, so much as the cheapest to train. Even then, there's no guarantee that's even true.

The Met semi-regularly has county ARV and SFO officers transfer directly in, and fail the courses; and yet on paper they're going to be much better for the job than an untrained borough officer.

[Ether + 1,395]

1 minute ago, Growley said:

In truth though, they're not necessarily going to be the best people for the job, so much as the cheapest to train. Even then, there's no guarantee that's even true.

The Met semi-regularly has county ARV and SFO officers transfer directly in, and fail the courses; and yet on paper they're going to be much better for the job than an untrained borough officer.

I wouldn't advocate that anyone is fast tracked because of the fact they can handle a firearm, all I care is that the best people for the job.  

If AFO's from county forces fail when transferring, then the course itself and how its delivered must be inconsistent.