On Monday the Home Office released new figures on the use of Tasers by British police officers, and I doubt I was the only one previously unaware that use of Tasers by the police force was as common as the figures suggest. As the Guardian pointed out though, the most worrying aspect of the Home Office press release is the stress on the use of Tasers by non-firearms officers, an idea that, in the wake of recent criticisms of policing in this country, seems like a bad joke.

Clearly a non-lethal option is a good idea for those police dealing with armed and dangerous situations, where the officers involved are trained in the use of firearms and who know that their deployments will be heavily scrutinised. But the wider authorisation of Taser usage granted to all police forces from 1st December 2008 - albeit by 'specially trained units' - is a disturbing direction for British policing to take. Data on the exact circumstances in which Tasers are used is not currently collected, which should alarm us in the aftermath of the G20 protests and other demonstrations, where the police's definition of "reasonable force" is greatly at odds with our own. If the police cannot be trusted to keep their number IDs visible or their response proportionate at an event receiving a great deal of media coverage, still less should we trust them with looser controls on an incredibly painful devices that carries a risk of death.

If we are not to run the risk of Tasers being used casually as an alternative, not simply to shooting violent criminals, but to using conventional policing methods or even politely asking noisy music clubs to be quieter (as we find in Houston), we should insist on tighter controls and more information on the use of Tasers by police officers. Indeed, given the need for police, post-G20, to regain public trust, we should ask ourselves whether it would not be a better idea for the police to do without.