Front line met police won’t get spitguards Watch

Andrew97
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 months ago
#1
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-en...ondon-45282455

A stupid decision.
2
reply
AngeryPenguin
Badges: 17
#2
Report 6 months ago
#2
Good.

There is no crisis of police officers getting spat at, and they've managed for centuries without spitguards.

If a police officer is spat on every so often, what does it actually matter? If a police officer is bitten etc., that is already illegal and the arrestee will be in deep **** for that alone.

Most police officers, I have no doubt, are great people and would not abuse their powers. But it still isn't rare to hear stories about some police officers being petty and abusing their powers to harass people they don't like, and therefore making this kind of degradation a routine response is not something we want to do.
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 6 months ago
#3
(Original post by AngeryPenguin)
Good.

There is no crisis of police officers getting spat at, and they've managed for centuries without spitguards.

If a police officer is spat on every so often, what does it actually matter? If a police officer is bitten etc., that is already illegal and the arrestee will be in deep **** for that alone.

Most police officers, I have no doubt, are great people and would not abuse their powers. But it still isn't rare to hear stories about some police officers being petty and abusing their powers to harass people they don't like, and therefore making this kind of degradation a routine response is not something we want to do.
If a suspect is vile enough to spit, then the police should be able to protect themselves.
0
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 6 months ago
#4
(Original post by AngeryPenguin)
Good.

There is no crisis of police officers getting spat at, and they've managed for centuries without spitguards.

If a police officer is spat on every so often, what does it actually matter? If a police officer is bitten etc., that is already illegal and the arrestee will be in deep **** for that alone.

Most police officers, I have no doubt, are great people and would not abuse their powers. But it still isn't rare to hear stories about some police officers being petty and abusing their powers to harass people they don't like, and therefore making this kind of degradation a routine response is not something we want to do.
You saying why does it matter if a police officer is spat on disgusts me. Of course it matters, spitting is a horrid thing and can spread things like TB. our brave officers need protecting from this.
0
reply
username1221160
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 6 months ago
#5
Spit hoods are not needed. Aside from carrying a very low pathogen risk, being spat on does no harm.
3
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 6 months ago
#6
(Original post by Sulfolobus)
Spit hoods are not needed. Aside from carrying a very low pathogen risk, being spat on does no harm.
It’s also to stop officers being bitten, plus shouldn’t they be able to protect themselves being spat on. It’s disgusting.
0
reply
Retired_Messiah
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 6 months ago
#7
They can soon manage without them, it's not like being spat at impedes their ability to do the job much. Bites of course would do, but then if you only put it on somebody when they've already attempted to bite you that sort of defeats the point, and if you do it before any attempt is made then it's quite unfair.

They just feel like the sort of thing that aren't worth a universal rollout.
0
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 6 months ago
#8
(Original post by Retired_Messiah)
They can soon manage without them, it's not like being spat at impedes their ability to do the job much. Bites of course would do, but then if you only put it on somebody when they've already attempted to bite you that sort of defeats the point, and if you do it before any attempt is made then it's quite unfair.

They just feel like the sort of thing that aren't worth a universal rollout.
If they have tried to bite once, they can easily try it again. Spitting can spread some nasty diseases, the police deserve this protection.
0
reply
username1738683
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#9
Report 6 months ago
#9
Being in a position to do so, the so-called civil liberties groups hold the upper hand and make it count. That's all.
0
reply
Retired_Messiah
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 6 months ago
#10
(Original post by Andrew97)
If they have tried to bite once, they can easily try it again. Spitting can spread some nasty diseases, the police deserve this protection.
If a copper gets bit or has somebody attempt to bite him do you honestly think he's going to let the offender put themselves in a position where they might try again? With regards to disease spread, that's already been answered by somebody:
(Original post by Sulfolobus)
Aside from carrying a very low pathogen risk
It's probably nice for them to have a little bit of added security, but spit guards are in no way a necessity.
0
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 6 months ago
#11
(Original post by Retired_Messiah)
If a copper gets bit or has somebody attempt to bite him do you honestly think he's going to let the offender put themselves in a position where they might try again? With regards to disease spread, that's already been answered by somebody:


It's probably nice for them to have a little bit of added security, but spit guards are in no way a necessity.
The police should at least get a choice though, met police won’t with this story.

The spit guard will make sure the crook can’t do anything.
0
reply
username1221160
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report 6 months ago
#12
(Original post by Andrew97)
It’s also to stop officers being bitten,
I would assume preventing someone from biting is best managed with restraint technique.

plus shouldn’t they be able to protect themselves being spat on. It’s disgusting.
It's part of the job. I worked in a rough pub and was spat at several times. The power of spitting comes purely from the reaction it gets out of people, so you don't react to it.

I like to think our brave police officers have the emotional fortitude to deal with a gob of saliva.
0
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 6 months ago
#13
(Original post by Sulfolobus)
I would assume preventing someone from biting is best managed with restraint technique.



It's part of the job. I worked in a rough pub and was spat at several times. The power of spitting comes purely from the reaction it gets out of people, so you don't react to it.

I like to think our brave police officers have the emotional fortitude to deal with a gob of saliva.
A spit guard would be part of that technique.

Spit can carry diseases, when the police arrest a suspect they have no idea what they are taken or what they might have disease wise, they thus need the extra protection. It’s that or taser them. Being spat at is not part of the job. The police should have the tools in their locker to stop them from this threat,
0
reply
username1738683
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#14
Report 6 months ago
#14
(Original post by Retired_Messiah)

It's probably nice for them to have a little bit of added security, but spit guards are in no way a necessity.
The problem is that it is the police in the streets who seem to think there is, anyone can say there is no need for them from the safety of home.

Really, why do you think they call for it?
1
reply
username1738683
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#15
Report 6 months ago
#15
(Original post by Sulfolobus)

I like to think our brave police officers have the emotional fortitude to deal with a gob of saliva.
And your problem with the hood is that it is demeaning or stressful for a person who may spit at them, is that right?
0
reply
mojojojo101
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#16
Report 6 months ago
#16
(Original post by Andrew97)
The police should at least get a choice though, met police won’t with this story.

The spit guard will make sure the crook can’t do anything.
Firstly, at the point of arrrest you are not a 'crook'.

Secondly, the police deal with lots of people who are not accused of crimes, specifically those with mental health problems.

Thirdly, is there any actual evidence of this being any more than slightly unpleasant?
0
reply
Truths
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#17
Report 6 months ago
#17


looks like something out of a hunger games movie. Need not be normalised.
0
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 6 months ago
#18
(Original post by mojojojo101)
Firstly, at the point of arrrest you are not a 'crook'.

Secondly, the police deal with lots of people who are not accused of crimes, specifically those with mental health problems.

Thirdly, is there any actual evidence of this being any more than slightly unpleasant?
If you start spitting at the police then you are a crook, spitting is a form of assault. The spit guard should at least be a choice, I’m not saying it should be used in all arrests. Spitting can spread disease, the chances might be low but it can happen.
(Original post by Truths)

Don’t spit at the police then.
looks like something out of a hunger games movie. Need not be normalised.
0
reply
Just my opinion
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#19
Report 6 months ago
#19
If they spit or bite they should be tasered.

Problem solved.👍😀
0
reply
Jebedee
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#20
Report 6 months ago
#20
The best spitguard is a truncheon. Only a few need to lose their teeth before word gets around. Problem solved.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How old were you when you first saw porn?

I've never seen it (182)
22.55%
Before I was 12 (279)
34.57%
13 (132)
16.36%
14 (98)
12.14%
15 (53)
6.57%
16 (29)
3.59%
17 (9)
1.12%
18 (8)
0.99%
Between the ages of 19 - 25 (12)
1.49%
Over 25 (5)
0.62%

Watched Threads

View All