Jump to content
×
×
  • Create New...

Why do some police agencies not have PAVA/CS?


Recommended Posts

Wilts20

Why do some police agencies not have or use PAVA/CS, but some do?

For instance, all HO forces do, including Specials, but military police don't. 

Same with some non-HO, like Port of Dover Police do have it, but other forces don't, neither do Border Force.

Is it a deliberate lack of need or funding, or is there prohibition for some police agencies?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 29
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Ether

    8

  • Father Jack

    7

  • BlueBob

    6

  • Wilts20

    4

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Just popping back whilst we wait on the OPs FOI results.  I would assume the non-HO entities would not have the legal exemption as a starter, then the necessity question and after that would be the qu

You’re not really!   Otherwise you could have just deleted the comment before posting.   A derisory and wholly unwarranted comment and one deserves a response that as the Dragons Den says “I’m out”

You could of course £o an FOI request and come back to the forum with the outcome😀

Posted Images

BlueBob

You could of course £o an FOI request and come back to the forum with the outcome😀

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ether
On 13/10/2020 at 13:48, Wilts20 said:

Why do some police agencies not have or use PAVA/CS, but some do?

For instance, all HO forces do, including Specials, but military police don't. 

Same with some non-HO, like Port of Dover Police do have it, but other forces don't, neither do Border Force.

Is it a deliberate lack of need or funding, or is there prohibition for some police agencies?

For the military it’s pure cost and perceived amount of use it would get by people who don’t deal

with violence 

Link to post
Share on other sites
BlueBob

Just popping back whilst we wait on the OPs FOI results.  I would assume the non-HO entities would not have the legal exemption as a starter, then the necessity question and after that would be the questions of costs etc.
As for the military, in a light hearted response, why have pava when an SA80 is nearby!

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Father Jack

Wrong! An SA80 is a fully automatic assault rifle. It is considered a section 5 firearm, under section 5(1)(a). Which any service person would have lawful authority to carry on duty, as a crown servant. 

That being said there would be no legal impediment for service personnel to theoretically carry other section 5 firearms on duty. Such as PAVA spray or TASER.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BlueBob
36 minutes ago, Father Jack said:

Wrong! An SA80 is a fully automatic assault rifle. It is considered a section 5 firearm, under section 5(1)(a). Which any service person would have lawful authority to carry on duty, as a crown servant. 

That being said there would be no legal impediment for service personnel to theoretically carry other section 5 firearms on duty. Such as PAVA spray or TASER.

I’m sorry, have you read the Prev posts,🙈

Link to post
Share on other sites
Father Jack
36 minutes ago, BlueBob said:

I’m sorry, have you read the Prev posts,🙈

Yes, including the one were you incorrectly assumed that non home office crown servants would not have lawful authority to carry PAVA.

How do MDP or CNC manage to do so? Or am I missing something?

 

Edited by Father Jack
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ether
1 hour ago, Father Jack said:

Wrong! An SA80 is a fully automatic assault rifle. It is considered a section 5 firearm, under section 5(1)(a). Which any service person would have lawful authority to carry on duty, as a crown servant. 

That being said there would be no legal impediment for service personnel to theoretically carry other section 5 firearms on duty. Such as PAVA spray or TASER.

Care to explain how firearms are authorised but PAVA would be unlawful? 
 

Military would have the same lawful authority to carry PAVA would they not being a firearm under the act?

Edited by Ether
Link to post
Share on other sites
Indiana Jones
2 hours ago, Father Jack said:

Yes, including the one were you incorrectly assumed that non home office crown servants would not have lawful authority to carry PAVA.

How do MDP or CNC manage to do so? Or am I missing something?

 

I think you are missing something. It didn't say non home office crown servants. It said non home office entities.

What I'm taking from that is non home office police forces. And not squaddies, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BlueBob
9 hours ago, Father Jack said:

Yes, including the one were you incorrectly assumed that non home office crown servants would not have lawful authority to carry PAVA.

How do MDP or CNC manage to do so? Or am I missing something?

 

Okay, I’ll go with it. You’ve kindly broken it put into 3 groups as I understand it, HO, non-HO and crown servants.
but a little step back, you seem to have missed the “light hearted” part!
 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Father Jack
11 hours ago, Ether said:

Care to explain how firearms are authorised but PAVA would be unlawful? 
 

Military would have the same lawful authority to carry PAVA would they not being a firearm under the act?

You misunderstand me, I never stated that PAVA would be unlawful, PAVA is considered a section 5 firearm for the purpose of legislation. Therefore I am not aware of any legal impediment that would prevent service personnel from carrying on duty. There may be a procedural one, such as passing OST etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Father Jack
9 hours ago, Indiana Jones said:

I think you are missing something. It didn't say non home office crown servants. It said non home office entities.

What I'm taking from that is non home office police forces. And not squaddies, etc.

Perhaps, but I can't think of any non crown servants, (i.e. private individuals or organisations) who would have justification or lawful authority to carry PAVA on the mainland UK.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BlueBob
1 hour ago, Father Jack said:

Perhaps, but I can't think of any non crown servants, (i.e. private individuals or organisations) who would have justification or lawful authority to carry PAVA on the mainland UK.

Um, if we come back to the original OP, surely the whole point of the post of what do some use and others not use the likes of PAVA.  
Whether and how they can be permitted / authorised to carry the likes of PAVA is a fairly focused part of that.  As for police being crown servants, the Fed seem to think so and yet others are quite sure they are not.   
In broad terms I'd suggest police have authority under the crown but are not crown servants.  But hey, most legislation is happy to just refer to police and so unless I am a key organisation decision maker, it is unlikely to have any real impact. 
Still wondering about the option of an SA80 over items such as pava.  I suppose one does disturb the neighbours far more than the other!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ether
7 hours ago, Father Jack said:

You misunderstand me, I never stated that PAVA would be unlawful, PAVA is considered a section 5 firearm for the purpose of legislation. Therefore I am not aware of any legal impediment that would prevent service personnel from carrying on duty. There may be a procedural one, such as passing OST etc.

Military Police have exactly the same OST, using the same manual. 
 

I read your post as it would be unlawful, apologies if I misread. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ether
5 hours ago, BlueBob said:

Um, if we come back to the original OP, surely the whole point of the post of what do some use and others not use the likes of PAVA.  
Whether and how they can be permitted / authorised to carry the likes of PAVA is a fairly focused part of that.  As for police being crown servants, the Fed seem to think so and yet others are quite sure they are not.   
In broad terms I'd suggest police have authority under the crown but are not crown servants.  But hey, most legislation is happy to just refer to police and so unless I am a key organisation decision maker, it is unlikely to have any real impact. 
Still wondering about the option of an SA80 over items such as pava.  I suppose one does disturb the neighbours far more than the other!

The issue with SA80s being used is that they use full power ball ammo only, which is problematic in urban areas and of course they are made of cast iron, or as equally weighty like it is. 

Most engagements don’t need a rifle that operates out to 600m effectively. 
 

Better off with a Glock for most applications. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now