And was there a bomb in the bag? Oh! Hang on! Of course there wasn't -or at least not one which exploded- as you're here with us posting. I guess that was a 50/50 chance. Happily, in your favour. However, would that same sergeant have demanded the same action of you, had he known there to be a bomb in said bag? The situation is dissimilar to WHF in that there was alleged to have been a psychotic woman brandishing a loaded gun. What POSSIBLE use would it have been for any unarmed officer to go into such a situation, other than to become a dead hero?
This is a good observation, but I can also see the point Bill is making. Police practices are different today. If this happened in 2021, armed police would respond immediately, whereas back in 1985, Bews could not rely on an immediate armed response and was expected to act more on his own initiative.
Bews did not know that Sheila was inside with a gun because (from Bews' viewpoint at that moment in time) Jeremy did not know this. All he had to go on was Jeremy's report of a call from his father, and when they arrived at the farmhouse, there was no noise and no sign of activity.
Thus, there was nothing to report back to HQ that could justify an armed response. Yes, today in 2021, it would be totally different. Today, most British police forces are ultra-precautionary in their approach to such incidents, even when the facts are misty and unclear, and armed response officers are mobilised for a man carrying a water pistol (that has literally happened). It's a totally different culture, due to a much more safety-conscious society.
Let's say Bews, or his colleague, reports back to HQ and says: "Right, I'm here. Just walked back from the farmhouse. Had a scout round outside. Nothing happening, no activity, no sign of anybody. The son is with me and says he had the phone call, which you already know about. Says his sister is a nutter. What shall we do?"
Would armed police have come in at that point? Maybe, but I'm not convinced it's a certainty. I acknowledge that we're guessing about a hypothesis, but consider it logically.
Now let's imagine a different conversation between Bews (or whoever) and HQ:
"Yeah, we've just jogged back from the farmhouse pretty sharpish as we think we saw movement in the upstairs window. Not absolutely sure about that and no activity around the house, but the son is with me and says he had the phone call, which you already know about. Says his sister is a nutter. What shall we do?"
Remember also that Bews was himself a trained authorised firearms officer, albeit he was no longer serving in that specialism and not armed for his ordinary response duties that night. I accept that fact could be read either way. You could argue this made Bews more 'jumpy' than a more naive officer would have been and perhaps influenced his thoughts, observations and impressions. On the other hand, we could give Bews credit as a highly-professional officer who saw all the signs of a dangerous situation and wasted no time getting back to the radio so he could alert HQ and set the wheels in motion.
