the snap general election thread

IveSeenTheLight

kabayiri wrote: »

Police resourcing should always be about evolving threats and demand.

Hmmm, you say that, but how does that correlate to us being at a severe level since 2014 an increase from substantial in 2010.

Our threat level has not gone down, yet our policing has?

ThinkingOutLoud_2

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

This is a debate forum, debate the post, question the statistics, but no need to go shouting out or making "Dianne Abbott" accusations when we can get to the root of the issue with discussion

My point stands that in an era where we face increased risk of attack and increased risk to our security, the Conservative governments leadership and much as the Home Secretary at the time, this government has opted to cut almost 20% of the Police Officers or Police Total Workforce (in the wider context;)).

That's great leadership

So with respect. We are entitled to different views.
I didn't childishly call you a vulgar name for female genitalia, I didn't post a an icon banging my head against the wall when you thought you had it right. How you think it is me that is shouting is funny because I don't think you are right.
So you have no moral high ground.

I did compare the numerical inaccuracy to Diane Abbott - seems fair enough. She also could not get her police numbers right.

I can't be bothered to suggest there is view other than yours as you will be unable to accept it.

Joe_Horner

Conrad wrote: »

Jeremy Corbyn opposes 'shoot to kill' policy
Asked if he was prime minister whether he would be happy to order police or military to shoot to kill if there was a terror attack on Britain's streets Mr Corbyn told the BBC he was "not happy with the shoot-to-kill policy in general"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-34836582/jeremy-corbyn-opposes-shoot-to-kill-policy

Yes, that's been doing the rounds for some time and, in case you've been so far up your own propaganda that you missed it, has been found by the BBC trust to be a misrepresentation where Kusenberg presented his answer to one question completely out of context as if it was his answer to a different one.

Their ruling was way back in January so it's not like an intelligent person as up-to-date on current affairs as you are hasn't had time to hear about it.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jan/18/bbc-trust-says-laura-kuenssberg-report-on-jeremy-corbyn-was-inaccurate-labour

Curiously, the BBC being the BBC decided that the appropriate place for their report of the finding / clarification of Corbyn's statement was in the "entertainment and arts" section:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-38666914


For the record, this was his full answer to a general question about allowing the police a shoot to kill policy - ie: not in response to a terror incident as your link suggests:

“I am not happy with the shoot-to-kill policy in general. I think that is quite dangerous and I think it can often be counterproductive. I think you have to have security which prevents people firing off weapons where you can and there are various degrees of doing things, as we know, but the idea you end up with a war on the streets is not a good thing. Surely you have to work to try and prevent these things happening. That has got to be the priority.”

That's a vastly different position than you're portraying.

kabayiri

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Hmmm, you say that, but how does that correlate to us being at a severe level since 2014 an increase from substantial in 2010.

Our threat level has not gone down, yet our policing has?

18 people have died due to knife crime in London alone in the last 6 weeks.

There was a young lad shot in Liverpool just a few days ago.

It's damn tricky, balancing something resource intensive like terrorism prevention with dealing with something developing like serious knife crime.

My son was out on Friday, when some men drove up in a car; told him and his friends to stay still and waved a large knife as they said it. You can imagine what we would seek police for, and it's just one more selfish desire.

IveSeenTheLight

ThinkingOutLoud wrote: »

So with respect. We are entitled to different views.

Indeed we are

ThinkingOutLoud wrote: »

I didn't childishly call you a vulgar name for female genitalia,

I apologise, I reacted to your post, but then thought better of it and corrected it.

ThinkingOutLoud wrote: »

I didn't post a an icon banging my head against the wall when you thought you had it right.

Neither did I

ThinkingOutLoud wrote: »

How you think it is me that is shouting is funny because I don't think you are right.

We both had cited correct stats, they were just referring to differing things.
Your shouting was putting it in large font.

ThinkingOutLoud wrote: »

So you have no moral high ground.

I'm not claiming I do.
I just hope we can debate things out better going forward

ThinkingOutLoud wrote: »

I did compare the numerical inaccuracy to Diane Abbott - seems fair enough. She also could not get her police numbers right.

I cited my source and on following up the question identified the reason for the differing figures.

My figures were correct in the context they were used.

It could have been construed as childish on your part to do this

ThinkingOutLoud wrote: »

I can't be bothered to suggest there is view other than yours as you will be unable to accept it.

Not at all, I can accept when reasoned debate and facts are put forward.

I've accepted we were talking about differing stats.
I have accepted your figure on police officers.

IveSeenTheLight

kabayiri wrote: »

18 people have died due to knife crime in London alone in the last 6 weeks.

There was a young lad shot in Liverpool just a few days ago.

It's damn tricky, balancing something resource intensive like terrorism prevention with dealing with something developing like serious knife crime.

My son was out on Friday, when some men drove up in a car; told him and his friends to stay still and waved a large knife as they said it. You can imagine what we would seek police for, and it's just one more selfish desire.

Indeed, these only go to suggest we need more policing, not less.

Joe_Horner

Of course, this was after the DWP declared him fit for work.....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/stephen-hawking-jeremy-corbyn-labour-theresa-may-conservatives-endorsement-general-election-a7774016.html

A_Medium_Size_Jock

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Yes, lets consider the facts

Violent crime rising in England and Wales, police figures show



There's a lot more reds and than greens there, so depends which statistic you want to use to manipulate your view.

It does not appear in this context that we are living in a safer society under this Conservative government

As well as spreading lies and deliberate partial truths on the "Fish" thread you want to start the same in this one?
I do note that many posters are having to point out your errors.
Me, I'm still waiting for an answer to my week-old question following your last lie in that "Fish" thread; any chance of a reply in there?
Do you need a reminder?


On to this as your quote - and yet again you choose very carefully only one area of crime, that of violent crime; what about the rest?
Well here is what the 27th April ONS crime survey says:

Comparable figures from the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) showed no statistically significant change compared with the previous year’s survey, with an estimated 6.1 million incidents of crime in the survey year ending December 2016.

Most main offence groups covered by the CSEW showed no statistically significant change compared with the previous year’s survey. Theft offences were the only exception and these fell by 10%.

The police recorded a total of 4.8 million offences in the year ending December 2016, an annual rise of 9%. However, the large volume increases driving this trend are thought to reflect changes in recording processes and practices rather than crime.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales/yearendingdec2016

Read the report.
Your "It does not appear in this context that we are living in a safer society under this Conservative government" is untrue according to that report, despite your attempt to manipulate the facts to suit yourself.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Indeed, these only go to suggest we need more policing, not less.

You still have not answered what services you will remove to pay for these "more police"?
Or would you just borrow more money to pay for them?
I wonder if you live your life with your own day-to-day spending for essentials on credit?

Conrad

Just a reminder on security, Jezza said if he as PM was asked to authorise a drone strike on a known terrorist on thier scope there and then, he would want more information.

If Nukes were heading our way he suggests he won't retaliate as that would kill many more people. What an incentive for the enemy to send a second lot of nukes to Finnish us off.