General Accoutrements Vest: Solution or Problem?

There Vest have been a number of articles, forum threads, and choir-practice conversations over the last few years in all Australian Police organisations about the inadequate accoutrement belts being issued to operational uniformed members.

The "inadequacy" of these belts is that they cannot carry the multitude of tools required for operational policing these days, and of greater concern, that these issue belts are actually causing serious injuries among officers. These injuries range from insomnia, back strains, sciatic aggravation, and a multitude of other injuries that in quite a few cases are considered to be a work-related injury.

Obviously, if a piece of equipment is causing injury, or is not up to the task required of it, then something should be done, yes?
But what options are there?

NSW Police has tried issuing a different type of belt, to see if that would fix the problem. For some people it has. But then you have the silly issue of the belt being used operationally is not the belt members are allowed to use when they undertake their OSTT / Firearms re-qualifications. Just another example of idiots running things.....but let's not go there.

Almost all Australian Police organisations have "trialled" an accoutrement vest for GD's members. Some of these trials saw operational members wearing the vests on duty and providing feedback. Other trial versions, and the only ones I have personally seen, were a case of the vest sitting in the office of a non-operational member, and entire decisions being based on that office environment.

Apparently the general consensus was that the vest was too "tactical" or "military" in appearance, and we all know how adverse our respective Police Managers are regarding our Police being seen as anything other than blue Care Bears. The fact that very similar vests are being worn happily by Ambulance Officers seems to be ignored by Police Management.

Somehow, another vest was sourced, and trialled. The "General Accoutrement Vest" (GAV) is made by an Australian company, Personal Protective Clothing, (PPC), in Victoria. Again, this vest has been "trialled" by operational Police, and I have yet to hear one Officer who has trialled it saying that they would wear it. In fact, the only comments I have received from testing Officers is that they refused to wear it after one day due to the fact that it was either too hot to wear, or it looked utterly ridiculous.

But they have been ignored. At least one Australian Police organisation has announced that these vests will be rolled out. The initial idea is that it is only going to be provided as an option to the smaller-stature officers, and possibly those with documented back injuries.

I have my concerns.

Firstly, and this needs to be addressed. The vest looks like either a bra on steriods, or something out of a Sado-Masochist's fantasy wardrobe ensemble. PPC's website states that the GAV provides the public with a "Unique Visual Memory". So does a clown costume, but that does not mean it is a good idea to have our frontline Police wearing a clown costume!

I have shown images of the GAV to Police Officers in Australia and overseas, as well as people who have never been Police Officers, and not one single person said that it provided a professional or even positive appearance. Those people who weren't too busy laughing were highly critical of the appearance of the GAV. One term used to describe the vest by a Qld Police Officer was "Gay Action Vest".

Police need all the help they can get in doing their job. Having the general public laughing at how they look does NOT help.

Secondly, and of more importance, is the ability of a GAV-wearing officer to utilise body armour. I have attempted to contact PPC to have them respond to this one concern, but they refuse to answer my e-mails or return my telephone calls. Maybe they were just too busy?

In regard to body armour, a number of points must be raised, which have not been done so in any prior article about the GAV.

Accoutrements: The equipment held by the GAV includes an Officer's radio, baton, cuffs, and ASR / OC. If the body armour is placed over the GAV, then that equipment cannot be used. Imagine being seriously injured and not able to call for help on your radio because it is underneath your body armour? What about trying to defend yourself against assault that does not justify you using your sidearm, but ONLY your sidearm is accessible as everything else is under your body armour?

Projectiles / Blunt Force Trauma. Body armour is designed to not only stop the penetration of a bullet, but to also disperse the impact of the bullet over a wide area, to prevent bones being shattered, organs badly bruised, or the shock of the bullet causing other serious injuries, (imagine the force of a bullet impacting over your heart?). The problem with having your accoutrements underneath body armour is that it causes the body armour to become uneven, which may allow bullet penetration, or more likely, the force of the bullet is not dispersed, and can cause pieces of your equipment to be punched into your body. Not really an acceptable situation.
Perhaps the GAV is designed to be placed over your body armour? Currently, to use body armour, all a Police Officer has to do is put the armour on.

If the GAV was to be used over body armour, this is what would have to happen - The GAV would have to be removed, (itself not a preferred option as the likelihood of losing kit is increased), put the body armour on, adjust the GAV to a larger size, and then put the GAV back on. A much more time consuming process, and if the situation justifies the use of overt body armour, then time is usually something you, or the public, do not have.

But why is the GAV being trialled? What is the justification in spending a very large chunk of the tax-payers money on trialling this ..... thing?

Current thinking by Police Managers in relation to the previously outlined Police belt issues is that the one and only solution is reducing the amount of weight on the belts. Even numerous Police Union / Association articles have not moved away from this thinking. NSW and Victoria Police have moved to the use of thigh holsters for their sidearms in their erroneous assumption that it will reduce the weight on the belt.

Police are problem-solvers. They are meant to think outside the box, so let's do that now.

If weight is the issue regarding Police belts, how can we fix that?

Well, who else wears similar weights on their belts?

US Police do. Canadian Police do. What do they do to reduce the weight on their belts? They use suspenders. Uncle Mike is just one company that makes suspenders for Law Enforcement belts. They are designed to transfer some of the weight of the belt to the shoulders, which is exactly what the GAV purports to do, and the suspenders are designed to release if some parasite decided to use those suspenders to hold onto an officer.
Instead of spending ridiculous amounts of money on an equally ridiculous looking vest, how about our Police management look at preventing injuries through having fit Police? That would actually show some concern about the health and well-being of our Police rather than just protecting the Safety Vest organisation from future lawsuits.

EN 471 Class 2 100% Polyester Security Vest