http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8321946.stm

Paddick might be an arse, but he raises some good points there.

I'd also like to say this is yet another BBC article where you're initially given a statement that seems stupid and inflammatory to keep you interested, like:



Then later on it actually gets put into context

Sorry, but I've seen this sort of thing quite a few times on the BBC site now, and it reminds me of the sort of drivel you get in The Sun

Well I am against arming the police, even with tasers, which can kill. Armed response vehicles are probably essential but definitely not you local beat copper or even community support officers. Airports and high security areas are a different matter.

So long as it's only a trial, and I'd have my doubts, we all know 'trials' can be a way of saying 'we think it worked', when they were gonna do it anyway...

In general, I'd worry about giving Met officers more opportunity to shoot someone anyway

I cannot see it going down well in the country side. Maybe in the inner cities but all it does is start an arms race with criminals who will all carry guns under such circumstances, and a much greater chance of a fatality.