More armed police - do you feel safer ?

It would also be fair to say that our excellent and cohesive anti terror organisations have saved us all from much evil over the past years. I heard last week that our success is due to the fact that MI5, MI6, GCHQ, the Government and Police work together; this has been policy since 7/7. Evidently in France (and PLEASE do not take this as a criticism - it isn't) the agencies are not quite so connected, although the opinion is that they will now have to be, as we have had to become. The chilling thought that I am sure we all have is that our protectors have to be lucky/informed constantly - a terrorist has to be lucky only once.

So London is "safe" and the rest of us taxpayers......

You're right, Rosina, our intelligence is second to none, but I think it goes back even further than 7/7 to days of the IRA.

The reason London needs to be more heavily protected than other UK towns is not only because it has more potential locations for attacks, (tube, airports, theatres, restaurants etc.), but because the city has seen far more people from London than any other town being radicalised and heading for Syria. They usually return to the places they know to commit these atrocities.

I live in London, and having armed police makes me feel less safe rather than more.

I'm not keen on the gradual Americanisation of Britain

I too think it makes people both secure and frightened. When there is a security alert, and far more armed police around, then it is really frightening, the police/army are there for a reason, and doing a good job.

Lillie the IRA didn't just attack in London, what about the Birmingham pub bombings? If I were a terrorist I would only be looking for one target so I don't think the number in any city is particularly relevant. They will be just looking for one where they can do the amount of harm they want.

However, if a terrorist attack were to be launched, in London or elsewhere, I would want the police to be able to bring down an attacker as speedily as possible. And I'm afraid a truncheon wouldn't do it.

I wonder if the 'protection' for London has anything to do with tourism

Agree with you, Nonnie, about the IRA. Part of central Manchester was destroyed.

Warrington.

Please read, I wasn't referring to London over any other city in my paragraph about the IRA. I was talking about overall intelligence in response to Rosina's comment.

@Nonnie Where has London suddenly got all these extra police from?

I don't think they've recruited extra police, just put more of them through firearms training.

IMO We should ALL be alert to terrorism wherever we live in today's world, and not rely on someone else to do it for us, whether they be police, armed forces or neighbourhood watch.

Extra armed police will definitely make me feel safer in London. Bring it on!

if a terrorist attack were to be launched, in London or elsewhere, I would want the police to be able to bring down an attacker as speedily as possible.

But they could only do that if they happened to be where the terrorist was attacking. There's no guarantee that they would be. If they had had prior intelligence of a planned attack they would have time to deploy the specialist armed police thay already have. Don't see any reason why all police need to be armed 'just in case'.

It would be good to hear the opinions of Gnetters who live in countries where all police are armed, though.

I think it's very sad. Policing by consent and unarmed police made us a civilised society

Who does the armed police officer shoot after a suicide bomber does their worst? I think, sadly, that guns are mostly only an illusion of safety.

I've lived in 2 countries where the police are armed. Didn't think anything of it.
We were alarmed one day when we set the burglar alarm off and the next thing I knew they were in the house with automatics at the ready.

Would like to point out the sad situation we watched on our screens 2years ago when Lee Rigby was so cruelly killed. The police were there fairly quick I believe and that is why we are in this situation. This could happen again we know a young military man was out jogging and nearly kidnapped. So unfortunately we are at war with Isis and we need the police on our streets, I for one am pleased to see them. I have a daughter who works in London. It can b very stressful for my husband and i we do worry but won't let her know that.

I noticed an odd wording to a statement earlier today. The police spokesman said that they would not be arming everyone only 10% of their workforce.

Workforce, not officers. I'm sure that was not a slip of the tongue.
Their workforce would include all the civilian staff, cleaners, mechanics, ete etc. So that could in fact be a significant percentage of the officers on the street.

I've not been to London is years but I think I would feel safer with armed officer on the streets I lived in Germany for several year and all the police wore sidearms .Hopefully it will make trouble makers think twice

Someone mentioned truncheons. A friend I fish with was a beat cop and his finest hour was chasing a criminal and failing to catch up, threw his truncheon and scored a perfect hit, flooring the villan from 20 yards.

Swanny on the radio today they talked about the difficulty of 'recruiting' enough extra qualified police.

I'm sure I heard on the radio that the extra 600 armed officers are not additional recruits. The police have trained more armed police, from their existing force. Teresa May reduced our police force when she was Home Secretary as part of austerity. I'd be happy to see a bigger police force. Like other posters, I would prefer not to have armed police but a police officer with a baton couldn't have saved Lee Rigby.

Hopefully it will make trouble makers think twice

How do you define 'troublemaker' and what 'troublemaking' would you expect them to think twice about? Indeed, at what point would you expect the armed officer to fire at someone? Would they shoot to kill or to wound. What about passers by?

As far as I can see the only time an armed response is possibly needed is in situations the police already know about, where they would have their armed officers deployed anyway. Can't see any need for the police to be carrying guns 'on the beat'.

In the past (I can't talk about now)
The police officers applied for Arms training
The ones who were successfully trained were very aware that
1 They may hit bystander and
2 After using a fire arm they would have give a detailed report
3 They could be still be charged with a wrongful shooting

They are highly trained officers and not just taken off the beat given a firearm

A truncheon was mentioned
If the truncheon was drawn at an incident then a report had to be given as to where and why. ( I expect the same of tasers now)

We cannot suddenly put extra armed police on the streets
They ready and waiting to be sent where required.
Again I can only speak of the past
The regular police officers did not want to be routinely armed. (the exception being of course the trained armed division).

gonosuch I think the quote was
'Its better to let ten men go free than to Hang one Innocent man'

They said on the news to say "hello" to the armed Police. Can't say I would fancy it, they do look scary. I was always proud our Police were unarmed. Different times.

London is an obvious target but many towns and cities have a military presence; Blanford Forum, Portsmouth, Aldershot, Winchester, Portsmouth and many many more. The IR A didn't stick to London.