Greens U-Turn on ‘Mad’ Plan for Police to Lose Tasers and Batons
A controversial proposal that could have seen police officers stripped of important tactical equipment has been withdrawn by the Green Party, after the idea sparked a fierce political and public backlash.
The proposal had been prepared for discussion ahead of the party’s annual conference and called for police to “withdraw lethal tools and tactics”, including Tasers and pepper spray. Reports also linked the wider policy package to proposals concerning policing, prisons, counter-terrorism and the use of public funds.
The controversy quickly raised a fundamental question: how much equipment should frontline police officers have available when dealing with violent or unpredictable situations?
For officers, a Taser is not simply another piece of equipment. It can provide an alternative when an individual is behaving violently but using a firearm would be disproportionate or unavailable. Tasers are carried only by appropriately trained officers and are intended to incapacitate a person temporarily in situations where their use is considered necessary and proportionate.
The Home Office approved the newer Taser 10 model for police forces in England and Wales in 2025 following testing and assessment. The government said the device was designed to provide officers with an additional option when confronted with dangerous situations.
That makes the Green proposal particularly controversial.
Critics argued that removing such equipment could leave officers with fewer options at precisely the moment when a confrontation becomes dangerous. Former Greater Manchester Police chief constable Sir Peter Fahy described the proposal as “mad” and questioned whether it reflected the realities facing modern police officers.
The issue became even more sensitive because the debate emerged at a time when questions about police safety and officer morale were already receiving significant attention.
Police officers routinely face situations that are impossible to predict. A seemingly routine call can turn into a violent confrontation within seconds. Officers may encounter people carrying weapons, suffering from severe distress, resisting arrest or threatening members of the public.
In such circumstances, having different options can matter.
A baton, for example, serves a very different purpose from a Taser. Pepper spray is another option designed to help officers control dangerous situations without necessarily resorting to greater levels of force. Removing several tools simultaneously could therefore change the way officers respond to incidents.
The Green Party’s position, however, reflects a broader philosophical argument about policing. Supporters of the proposals have raised concerns about the use of force, disproportionate policing and the impact of law-enforcement policies on marginalized communities.
Those concerns should not simply be dismissed.
Police powers must be subject to oversight. Officers should receive high-quality training, and the use of force should always be necessary, reasonable and proportionate. The College of Policing specifically states that Tasers should be deployed only when necessary, proportionate and reasonable.
But there is a significant difference between arguing for stronger oversight and arguing that officers should not have effective defensive equipment at all.
The withdrawal of the proposal therefore represents an important change. The Green Party has confirmed that the draft motion calling for Tasers and pepper spray to be removed was dropped from the final version. The party has emphasized that individual members can submit proposals and that only motions ultimately approved through the conference process become official Green Party policy.
That distinction matters.
The original proposal was not an implemented government policy, nor did it mean that police forces were actually about to lose their equipment. It was a draft political proposal that generated considerable attention before being withdrawn.
Nevertheless, the episode highlights a deeper disagreement about what policing should look like in Britain.
Should police primarily focus on prevention, community relationships and social intervention? Or should they also have strong enforcement powers and the equipment necessary to confront serious violence?
In reality, modern policing requires elements of both.
Community trust is essential. Police cannot effectively prevent crime if members of the public are unwilling to cooperate with them. At the same time, officers must be capable of dealing with individuals who pose an immediate danger to others.
Removing equipment does not remove violence from society.
If a violent offender attacks a member of the public, the consequences do not disappear because police officers have fewer tactical options. Instead, the burden may shift toward other forms of force, potentially creating different risks for officers, suspects and bystanders.
This is why the debate needs to move beyond political slogans.
The question should be what equipment police officers need, under what circumstances they should use it, how officers are trained, and what safeguards exist when force is deployed.
Britain’s policing model is already unusual internationally because most officers are not routinely armed with firearms. Less-lethal tools such as Tasers therefore occupy an important place in the spectrum between physical restraint and potentially lethal force. That was one of the arguments made by former chief constable Peter Fahy when criticizing the proposal.
At the same time, public confidence depends on accountability.
People should be able to trust that police officers will not misuse their powers. Independent scrutiny, transparent procedures, proper training and effective complaints systems are essential parts of maintaining that confidence.
The Green Party’s U-turn does not end that debate. Nor should it.
It does, however, remove one of the most controversial elements of the proposed policy package at a time when policing is undergoing major structural reform. The UK government itself has proposed extensive changes to policing in England and Wales, including reforms intended to make policing more effective and consistent.
Ultimately, the public wants two things that should not be mutually exclusive: police officers who are accountable and police officers who are capable of protecting people.
A responsible policing policy must recognize both.
The withdrawal of the proposal may therefore be less important for what it changes immediately than for what it reveals about the continuing argument over the future of British policing.
The challenge is not simply deciding whether police should carry Tasers or batons.
It is deciding how Britain can give officers the tools they need to confront genuine danger while ensuring that those powers are used carefully, lawfully and with the confidence of the communities they serve.