the snap general election thread

steampowered

I generally see myself as a Labour supporter, but am prepared to acknowledge the reality that crime overall has been falling (as it has been since the mid 90s).



The "crime survey" is the line you want to look at. The basis of "Police recorded crime" has changed so many times to force the police to record more incidents it is not a helpful statistic.

It is not helpful to look at year-on-year statistics, or to isolate just one type of crime.

The falls under Labour were much bigger, but to be fair there has been a general downward trend under the Conservatives too.

This is a pattern that has been replicated in pretty much every developed country in the world - I doubt it has anything to do with UK government policy. e.g. here are the figures for violent crime in the US, you'll notice a very similar pattern: http://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2016/07/Violent-Crime-Rate-Chart1.png

GreatApe

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

So under a Conservative government, with this heightened awareness, we've chosen to slash our spending on public services and cut police officers by circa 20,000



In the face of increased risk and terrorism around the world and predominantly as home secretary, our Prime Minister has reduced the police force.

That's the type of leadership she represents, weak on security, wobbly on defence

Nonsense

The police force and its resources should not be dictated by random events like the last 3 months to pretend that police numbers would have made a difference is lying to yourself and the public.

If you believe we need more police to deal with what the bulk of the police force deals with then make an argument for that. But of course that is not what you believe you believe in cheap point scoring.

I have no idea if we have too few or too many police, but I know that the recent events are not an metric to decide the figures.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Also taken from the Guardian 3 hours ago

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/05/karen-bradley-police-cuts-armed-officers-bbc-today-programme-london-bridge-attack

OK so lets try someone other than the Guardian and Diane Abbot's maths:-

https://fullfact.org/crime/have-armed-police-numbers-been-cut/

Labour's claim @ 20k (agrees albeit light)

Their check on it = 144k down to 123k = 21k right?

IveSeenTheLight

ThinkingOutLoud wrote: »

OK so lets try someone other than the Guardian and Diane Abbot's maths:-

https://fullfact.org/crime/have-armed-police-numbers-been-cut/

Labour's claim (agrees albeit light)

Their check on it = 144k down to 123k = 21k right?

There's clearly an error, I just showed you the source.
Interesting the same media source has such a difference in less than two hours of submission.
There no need to get obnoxious about it.

BobQ

Rinoa wrote: »

It was all done on borrowed money. PFI and smoke and mirror stuff whereby he kept re-defining his 'Golden Rule' to borrow more and more.

We're still paying the interest today.

Many people are still paying off their mortgages from that era. What does that prove?

ThinkingOutLoud_2

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

There's clearly an error, I just showed you the source.
Interesting the same media source has such a difference in less than two hours of submission

Thank you.
I agree they got it wrong.
Guardian rep for typos extends to numbers too.
Diana Abbot seems to have the same abilities as regards numbers anyway.

IveSeenTheLight

Just digging a little more as to the reason for the difference, one is talking about Police Officers, the other is talking about total police numbers

this link may help clarify further
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/544849/hosb0516-police-workforce.pdf

Police Workforce, England and Wales, 31 March 2016
There were 200,922 workers employed by the 43 police forces in England and Wales on 31
March 2016, a decrease of 6,807 or 3.3% compared with a year earlier.

So clearly discussing two differing statistics, clarified without the need to get so upset about it

BobQ

Conrad wrote: »

If Corbyn apologises for slavery, how many billions will it cost us all, that we can ill afford?

Speaking at Labour’s annual conference in Brighton, Mr Corbyn said: “I think we should apologise for the slave trade”

https://www.channel4.com/news/jamaica-calls-for-britain-to-pay-slave-trade-reparations

How much does it cost to say sorry?

I may be missing your point but your comment seems absurd.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Just digging a little more as to the reason for the difference, one is talking about Police Officers, the other is talking about total police numbers

this link may help clarify further

So clearly discussing two differing statistics, clarified without the need to be a !!!!!! about it

With respect, you are not exactly holding back and yet you are the one who cited two completely incompatible numbers. So every criticism being an autobiography....

So your new source talks about total policy workers - not feet on street or firearms officers with the right training for today's threat.

What we need to understand is if the use of better technology - better trained officers means we have better capability or not after that. Just as we can note their are around 700 more highly trained firearms offices this year, than last.

e.g. I'll bet 8 SAS men against your 30 regular army.

IveSeenTheLight

BobQ wrote: »

How much does it cost to say sorry?

I may be missing your point but your comment seems absurd.

He's assuming (unintentional or not) there would be a reparation cost, which there does not need to be to make an apology statement.