It is three minutes after ten and you are listening to James O'Brien on LBC, where we begin this morning on slightly strange territory.

The contempt of court laws are pretty strict and generally pretty clear.

There is some wiggle room.

There always is with the law.

That's why we have lawyers.

If there wasn't any wiggle room, you wouldn't need lawyers, need lawyers would you just have it all handed down from on hire and we'd know exactly where we stood and what we could and couldn't do so we can't

talk about the case that has prompted conversations about armed police we can't talk about the specific case. We can't

really say anything about it, except oddly that the Home Secretary has done on Twitter, which to my

untutored eye, to my amateurish eye, looks at the very least to be profoundly unwise and very

unprofessional. But we're talking about

Suella Braverman. So there are perhaps no surprises there. The question really of what armed police

are unhappy about, however, is much broader than a single case, much bigger than a single case.

And I'm interested, frankly, in what is going on.

Because the idea of the police officers to whom we entrust an awful lot actually these are the

people most likely to be coming up against armed criminals and there's a debt of honor a debt

of gratitude there that I'm afraid has to trans and I know it's easier for perhaps a white bloke to say this

than some other members of our community but that has to transcend some of the criticisms and

concerns about the police in general which are greater I think at the moment than at any point

I can practically remember in my life but they do deserve our our protection. They deserve our respect and support in

many ways for the same reason I would argue that firefighters do. You know, nobody's perfect,

nobody's infallible. Everybody needs to be held to account. But there are life choices.

There are career choices that involve more danger, more personal danger, than the rest of us routinely face.

...