Jump to content

Armed policemen on Lordship Lane

dulwichgal

By dulwichgal
in General ED Issues / Gossip

 Share

Recommended Posts

peckham_ryu

peckham_ryu

Posted
Posted

I've heard that the Met's policy is for its firearms trained officers to carry their weapon when they are working, not just when they are on an 'armed response'. So it could be you just saw a copper doing cop stuff, and he happens to be one of the firearms officers.


It used to be that coppers concealed even their truncheons and cuffs, so as not to intimidate the public. I guess they have decided the public is less intimidated by the sight of weapons in the 21st Century.


Also sorry if this sounds pedantic, but "gunned" can't be used to mean "carrying a gun" in English.

JohnL

JohnL

Posted
Posted

peckham_ryu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I've heard that the Met's policy is for its

> firearms trained officers to carry their weapon

> when they are working, not just when they are on

> an 'armed response'. So it could be you just saw a

> copper doing cop stuff, and he happens to be one

> of the firearms officers.

>

> It used to be that coppers concealed even their

> truncheons and cuffs, so as not to intimidate the

> public. I guess they have decided the public is

> less intimidated by the sight of weapons in the

> 21st Century.

>

> Also sorry if this sounds pedantic, but "gunned"

> can't be used to mean "carrying a gun" in English.



It doesn't intimidate me - it sort of makes me give them a nice smile :)

Ruffler

Ruffler

Posted
Posted

peckham_ryu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Also sorry if this sounds pedantic, but "gunned"

> can't be used to mean "carrying a gun" in English.


^ ^ Totally agree. Maybe the OP should edit the title of his/her post? I assumed policemen had been shot when I first read it.

JohnL

JohnL

Posted
Posted

nxjen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> JohnL Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > It doesn't intimidate me - it sort of makes me

> > give them a nice smile :)

>

> "Is that a gun in your pocket or are you just

> pleased to see me"


Pulls out huge Glock. "Oh OK then - it's a gun"

Penguin68

Penguin68

Posted
Posted
'Gun Down' is an active use of the noun gun as a verb - 'gunned' would be a passive use - indeed re-casting the noun gun into an adjectival form (as 'armed' is adjectival). As 'gun down' implies that someone has been shot, so does/ should the quasi adjectival use of 'gunned' (as in 'he was gunned down').
Sue

Sue

Posted
Posted

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 'Gun Down' is an active use of the noun gun as a

> verb - 'gunned' would be a passive use - indeed

> re-casting the noun gun into an adjectival form

> (as 'armed' is adjectival). As 'gun down' implies

> that someone has been shot, so does/ should the

> quasi adjectival use of 'gunned' (as in 'he was

> gunned down').



Sorry now I had that second can of Stella, don't understand any of that :))

Sue

Sue

Posted
Posted

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Penguin68 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > 'Gun Down' is an active use of the noun gun as

> a

> > verb - 'gunned' would be a passive use - indeed

> > re-casting the noun gun into an adjectival form

> > (as 'armed' is adjectival). As 'gun down'

> implies

> > that someone has been shot, so does/ should the

> > quasi adjectival use of 'gunned' (as in 'he was

> > gunned down').

>

>

> Sorry now I had that second can of Stella, don't

> understand any of that :))




Completely sober and I still don't understand it :))

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
 Share
Go to topic listing
  • Advertise Here

  • Latest Discussions

    • camberwell57
      Checking refs of these builders

      By camberwell57 · Posted

      Hi - I posted a request for some help with a stuck door and possible leaky roof. I had responses from Lukasz at Look_as.com and Pawel at Sublime Builders. I don't see any/many reviews - has anyone used either person?  Could use a recommendation rather then just being contact by the tradespeople... Many Thanks 
    • malumbu
      Will Mandelson be accepted across the pond.

      By malumbu · Posted

      I'm a bit worried by your sudden involvement on this Forum.  The former Prince Andrew is now Andrew Mountbatten Windsor Mountbatten in an anglicisation of Von Battenburg adopted by that branch of our Royal Family in 1917 due to anti-German sentiment. Another anglicisation could be simply Battenburg as in the checker board cake.  So I surmise that your are Andrew Battenburg, aka Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and that you have infiltrated social media so that the country can put the emphasis on Mandelson rather than yourself.  Bit of a failure. I don't expect an answer from police custody.  
    • enya
      John Marx (Top Marx Kitchens): highly recommended kitchen fitter

      By enya · Posted

      We had John fit our PLYKEA kitchen (IKEA cabinets with custom doors) and would happily recommend him and Gabi to anyone. Gabi handled all communication and was brilliant throughout — responsive and happy to answer questions however detailed. John is meticulous, cares about the small details, and was a pleasure to have in the house. The carpentry required for the custom doors was done to a high standard, and he even refinished the plumbing under the sink to sit better with the new cabinets — a small touch that made a real difference. They were happy to return and tie up a few things that couldn't be finished in the time, which we appreciated. No hesitations recommending them.
    • Suggsy
      Councillor McAsh defects to the Greens

      By Suggsy · Posted

      Not sure about that. Rockets seems to have (rightly in my view) identified two key motivating elements in Mcash's defection: anger at his previous (arguably shabby) treatment and a (linked) desire to trash the Labour party, nationally and locally. The defection, timed for maximum damage, combined with the invective and moral exhibitionism of his statement counts as rather more than a "hissy fit".  I would add a third motivation of political ambition: it's not inconceivable that he has his eye on the Dulwich & West Norwood seat which is predicted to go Green.  James Barber was indulging in typical LibDem sleight of hand, claiming that Blair introduced austerity to *councils* before the coalition. This is a kind of sixth form debating point. From 1997-1999 Labour broadly stuck to Tory spending totals, meaning there was limited growth in departmental spending, including local govt grants. However local government funding rose substantially in the Noughties, especially in education and social care. It is a matter of record that real-terms local authority spending increased in the Blair / Brown years overall. So he's manifestly wrong (or only right if the focus is on 1997-1999, which would be a bizarre focus and one he didn't include in his claim) but he wasn't claiming Blair introduced austerity more widely. 

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...