Hyperbole mars firearms debate
ONE inevitable consequence of the creation of the Police Service of Scotland was the fact that there would be only one target for our critics and, by extension, a political platform would be established for that criticism to extend to the government.
In relation to the most recent firearms story which followed the evidence provided to MSPs on the justice sub committee on policing on March 5, the allegations have been singularly unfair (“Police face fresh claims of secrecy over armed officers”, The Herald, March 6). I listened intently to the evidence provided to the Scottish Police Authority and our elected politicians in relation to this matter last year.
They were told that our very small number of highly trained firearms officers would no longer be dispatched to “routine calls”, where they were the closest or only available resource, but would now only be sent to incidents involving firearms and life-threatening situations.
Added to this, these bodies were clearly told that firearms officers will also use their discretion, to become involved or not, if they come across an incident whilst on patrol.
In his evidence ACC Higgins told parliament that, since that time, on 1,644 occasions, that discretion had been used. He also explained the type of incident that these officers had reacted to: suicidal persons, stolen cars, drink-driving and so on.
Do our critics really want our officers to ignore these issues and drive by? I would suggest that, whilst these may be “everyday incidents”, they are at the more serious end of the scale and should not be ignored.
These firearm officers were not sent to these incidents, a key element of this debate which is being lost in the political hyperbole.
On this occasion MSPs were given all the facts; there was no “coaxing” required. Niven Rennie, President, Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, Tulliallan Castle, Kincardine.
I TEND to agree with Donald Morrison (Letters, March 7). It seems to me that Sir Stephen House has enough to do reorganising Police Scotland into one service with reducing resources without interference from politicians. At times it smacks of a personal agenda. Let the police get on with their job. Graham Haugh, 52 Harelaw Avenue, Glasgow.
TO reinforce David Stubley’s letter (March 7) the police should always be named Police Service to help remind them that they are a service established by the Scottish Parliament who do not appear to have ever established a body called “Police Scotland”. Michael Elliott, 22 Bruce Avenue, Dunblane.