“Last One Out, Switch Off the Lights”: Is This the End of Met Firearms Policing?

The Metropolitan Police’s firearms officers are once again in the firing line — this time, not from criminals, but from the very system they serve. The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) has pushed forward with a gross misconduct hearing against officer W80, reigniting tensions that could see an unprecedented exodus from the Met’s specialist firearms command.

So what happens if the Met loses all its firearms officers?

It’s not just a hypothetical anymore. After years of mounting pressure, scrutiny, and legal battles, the decision to charge W80 with gross misconduct — years after the fatal shooting of Jermaine Baker in 2015 — has sent shockwaves through the armed policing community.

W80, who fired the fatal shot during an specialist operation, has always maintained that he genuinely believed there was an immediate threat to life. That claim was supported by the Met’s internal review, yet overturned by the IOPC, leading to a protracted legal tug-of-war. Now, with a gross misconduct hearing confirmed, the fear among officers is real: every decision made in split seconds could lead to years in courtrooms and hearings.

A Voluntary Role with High Stakes: What many don’t realise is that armed policing in the UK is voluntary. Officers apply for these roles, train rigorously, and knowingly place themselves in extreme danger — without the protection some argue they desperately need.

The Met currently has around 2,500 specially trained firearms officers. These are the individuals responsible for responding to terrorist incidents, hostage situations, armed robberies, and dangerous threats on the streets of London.

But morale is plummeting.

Following the initial announcement of the W80 case last year, a significant number of officers downed tools and returned their firearms permits. It was a stark message: “We cannot and will not do this job under these conditions.”

Operational Risk: The consequences of losing a significant chunk of this specialist workforce would be catastrophic. With fewer officers able to respond to armed threats, London’s resilience to terror incidents and violent organised crime would be severely compromised.

And yet, the IOPC presses forward.

Critics argue that holding W80 to account is about transparency and justice — ensuring no officer is above the law. But supporters counter that the constant fear of legal retribution is paralysing officers from doing their jobs.

Public Confidence vs Police Confidence:The case raises a critical question: how do we balance accountability with operational effectiveness?

“The danger is that good officers are walking away,” says one retired firearms instructor. “And the ones coming through? They’re thinking twice about stepping into those boots.”

There’s also a growing sense among officers that decisions are being made not with safety or operational necessity in mind — but under political and public pressure.

The phrase being muttered in locker rooms and briefing stations now? “Last one out, switch off the lights.”

What Next?:As the W80 hearing looms, the Met faces a crossroads. It must reassure its firearms teams that they will be protected and supported when acting lawfully — or risk losing the very people keeping London safe from the most serious threats.

The IOPC, meanwhile, stands by its decision. For them, it’s about upholding public confidence and ensuring transparency — even when the cost may be high.

But with the future of armed policing in London hanging in the balance, the question remains: if all our firearms officers walk away, who will step in when the next threat arises?

Stay up to date with all of our latest updates and content by following us on our social media accounts!

We have created community pages where we will share our up-to-date stories happening in the area. Add the area closest to where you live.