Why do the Police Need to Wear Masks

[Stretch]

Why do the Police Need to Wear Masks

'It's a balaclava, apparently. No doubt it will be described as essential protective dress. But looking at the video film and photographs of the "territorial support group officer" who has just taken his baton to Ian Tomlinson minutes before the newspaper vendor's death, I'm wondering: why does a British policeman in pursuance of his duties feel the need to be masked?
There's another mystery. In one still, Tomlinson is sitting on the ground before the police line, being aided by a stranger. There are eight helmeted officers and two dog handlers in shot. Of these, only three have balaclavas. Two wear the garment normally, covering the chin. The third, having stepped aside after his attack on the passer-by, has the thing high on his face, leaving only the eyes showing. And his shoulder tabs, the tabs bearing his police number, have gone.'
Why Do The Police Need Masks (from Sunday Herald)​

 

[tracy]

They feel a need to be masked so that they are not identified by nutters who will terrorize them and their families I assume. Citizens and police now seem afraid of eachother.

 

[Cannuck]

Ditto

 

[lone wolf]

Why do skinheads shave? It's one less thing by which to be grabbed and held....

 

[Liberalman]

They wear masks to make themselves look fiercer.
This is purely psychological.
They determined a long time ago that hidden faces bring out the most fears in protesters.
If they didn’t have face covering it would be easier to spot the police that are crapping in their pants with fear.
Warriors have always hidden their faces with masks from painting their face to covering their faces.

 

[lone wolf]

Gee ... here I thought it was to keep stuff from getting in their eyes....

 

[VanIsle]

They feel a need to be masked so that they are not identified by nutters who will terrorize them and their families I assume. Citizens and police now seem afraid of eachother.

Sadly, that is the truth for the world we live in today. I can see good reasons for the helmet and face shield protection. People spit in their faces for one thing and I sure wouldn't like anyone spitting in mine. The more gear they have on their head and face helps to protect them from things like being clubbed, spat on, rocks thrown at them, pepper spray that they may have to spray in the area themselves and a whole multitude of things. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "fear" control of a crowd.

 

[Ron in Regina]

It's not the Helmet & Face Shield that are in question in a riot situation,
but the Balaclava to hide a Public Servants features from the Public....(?)
if that is why the Balaclava's are being utilized. That would explain why,
in the OP article, the shoulder tabs with the badge # on them are covered
or removed.

"The third, having stepped aside after his attack on the passer-by, has the
thing high on his face, leaving only the eyes showing. And his shoulder tabs,
the tabs bearing his police number, have gone."

"That's an old one. It is, of course, against all the rules. The number is there
for a reason, in theory to the benefit of police and public alike should disputes
arise."

Why would Law Enforcement fear a "nutter" being able to identify a badge #?
__________________

 

[Spade]

May the Police Force be with you!

 

[Cannuck]

Why would Law Enforcement fear a "nutter" being able to identify a badge #?

Because that would enable the nutter to find out who he is and where he lives.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Because that would enable the nutter to find out who he is and where he lives.

I suppose the "nutters" could have access to internal confidential personal
files inside of the police departments...thus making it necessary to not only
hide their faces, but their badge numbers as well as to be completely
anonymous in defiance of "the rules" mentioned in the OP.

Why bother having badge numbers at all then?

Strangely, in the OP's photograph, the Media and non-weapon toting
Public aren't hiding their identities. Maybe it's just those in the picture &
the rest of the public are masked...& the rest of the Enforcement Officers
aren't masked. Could be selective photography or a coincidence, but I'm
doubting that very much. I guess those that defied "the rules" could be
disciplined if they could be identified, but....oh yeah....they can't be with
their faces and badge #'s hidden. That might be why there are rules against
that sort of thing. Whomever clubbed Tomlinson (the newspaper vendor)
to death hasn't been identified from what I can find on the internet.

This could be one of the reasons why there are badge #'s....and one of
the reasons (from what I gather from the OP article) that they're not to
be removed or covered.
____________________

 

[CDNBear]

Some Riot/Crowd Control Officers are also Tactical and/or Special Op's Officers.

Thus they do undercover work as well.

But hey, the 'nutters' needed more fodder for their conspiracies, so why not make sh!t up out of nothing...:roll:

BTW: If you don't believe me, call your local Constabulary. It's very easy to get intouch with a Desk Sgt. and I've always found them fairly pleasant and helpful. Just don't call on a Friday or Saturday night...;-)

 

[Ron in Regina]

Some Riot/Crowd Control Officers are also Tactical and/or Special Op's Officers.

Thus they do undercover work as well.

But hey, the 'nutters' needed more fodder for their conspiracies, so why not make sh!t up out of nothing...:roll:

BTW: If you don't believe me, call your local Constabulary. It's very easy to get intouch with a Desk Sgt. and I've always found them fairly pleasant and helpful. Just don't call on a Friday or Saturday night...;-)

"Some Riot/Crowd Control Officers are also Tactical and/or Special Op's Officers."

"Some" & "all" are two very different things. Those that are Tactical and/or Special
Op's Officers wouldn't need to hid their badge #'s as well as their faces, would they?

It could just be the OP photo....but it looks like all the Officers faces are hiden. 8O
_________________

 

[Cannuck]

I suppose the "nutters" could have access to internal confidential personal

No, all you have to do is make a complaint against a badge number. You will get a name at the very least.

 

[Ron in Regina]

No, all you have to do is make a complaint against a badge number. You will get a name at the very least.

That would justify it then. To you and I anyway, if not to the family of Tomlinson
(the Newspaper Verdor).

Those that are undercover wouldn't normally be wearing their badges or
rattling off their badge #'s while they're undercover, so when they're work'n
a riot with their faces hidden (& that makes sense!), what doesn't make sense
is hiding their faces & their badge #'s. It doesn't make sense to me anyway.
Maybe I'm missing something though.

Why bother having a badge number at all?

 

[VanIsle]

Why bother having a badge number at all?
Maybe the badge is like dog tags. When the nutter's kill them, they can then be identified!!

 

[gerryh]

That's right...why hide thier face and badge numbers..... They should have their name, address, and phone numbers right out there in front to make it easier for the skin heads and nut cases to find them and their family's.

 

[Ron in Regina]

And that's the crunch. It wasn't an officer killed, it was a newspaper vendor.

If an officer (if they're one of the few undercover officers) already has their
face covered (and all officers aren't undercover officers), hiding or removing
their badge #'s accomplished exactly what, in Tomlinson's case?

Nobody is stepping forward to say, "I clubbed the newspaper vendor, and then
slammed him face-first into the pavement where he died a few minutes later."
There's video. I'm not going to paste it here. A two minute search will find it.

 

[CDNBear]

"Some Riot/Crowd Control Officers are also Tactical and/or Special Op's Officers."

"Some" & "all" are two very different things. Those that are Tactical and/or Special
Op's Officers wouldn't need to hid their badge #'s as well as their faces, would they?

It could just be the OP photo....but it looks like all the Officers faces are hiden. 8O
_________________

The photo in the OP is not from the article...for starters. The article is more about left fringe paranoia then it is about the Officers wearing their assigned gear.

The Riot Dress you see in the OP photo is standard issue for London and British Riot Officers. It is not worn to the chin as is asserted in the article, it is worn to the brim of the nose. To protect the Officers face, period. Just look at the photo in the OP. I where a similar piece when hunting. I also have one that is meant to be worn to the chin. I've pulled it up to my nose for the cold, and it bunches in the corners of the eyes. I don't see any bunches in that pic. Nor this one. Where the badge number is sewn onto the epaulet. It's hard to see, but it's there.

Or in this photo where the 'Flash' is slipped on the epaulet...

The Badge number 'Flash" is not always worn on the epaulet. They are sometimes printed or sewn onto their gear. Usually the front. And of course, if you look at the pic in the OP, you can see the top of the Battle Dress Badge, sewn onto the Officers riot vest.

I say again, more left fringe BS about nothing.

 

[Ron in Regina]

I was just going by the OP & it's picture. The only thing I searched
(I'm still at work) was whether or not the guy who killed Tomlinson
has been identified or has stepped forward. Doesn't sound like it...8O