the snap general election thread

mayonnaise

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Oh dear.

Seems Theresa May was warned by Manchester police officers about the impact of her cuts.

And dismissed it as 'scaremongering'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=al2F1bkXAK0

That's fairly shocking...

Next she'll be telling victims of recent atrocities that there's no magic money tree. :mad:

Conrad

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

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?

I think there's a case for more police, but the issue is that Labour suggest the solution to all manner of things is more spending and that's were it gets ludicrous. Populism 101 is to offer masses of free money and many people cheer this on until it comes time for them to pay up, which they inevitably would under Labour.

Conrad

mayonnaise wrote: »

Next she'll be telling victims of recent atrocities that there's no magic money tree. :mad:

You make it sound all so simple, all we need is more spending, one wonders why so many terrorist attacks in mainland Europe, did they suffer Conservative cuts too?

Life must be amazing inside France given four years of socialism, right? Not sure then why Calise migrants wanted to leave.

Joe_Horner

Conrad wrote: »

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.

Absolutely right. Little bits of information such as:

• The reliability of the intel / targetting
• The chance of a strike being successful (is the target in the open, in buildings, in caves, in a bunker...
• The risk of damage to infrastructure needed by the innocent population
• The risk and scale of colateral casualties.
  
• Plus any number of other details which make up a real scenario rather than the blamket question he was asked.

Would be perfectly reasonable to require before authorising a strike.

If you start throwing missiles onto some guy who's holed up in the basement of a school full of kids that happens to be next to the only water treatment plant in the area then (a) you're unlikely to kill him and (b) you're goiing to !!!!off an awful lot of parents and older siblings.

Which, in case the gung-ho among you haven't realised, would be extremely counter productive!

Conrad wrote: »

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.

In case you haven't caught on, in an island as small as the UK the first lot would be game over for us anyway. But why stop at that if we can make the entire planet uninhabitable in a last petty act of revenge, eh?

Tromking

Conrad wrote: »

You make it sound all so simple, all we need is more spending, one wonders why so many terrorist attacks in mainland Europe, did they suffer Conservative cuts too?

Life must be amazing inside France given four years of socialism, right? Not sure then why Calise migrants wanted to leave.

Why can't you understand the difference between funding our public services properly to get the job done and wantonly spending money just for the sake of it, which seems to be your accusation against Labour's position?

masterwilde

conrad you are so wrong in finances. why not continue on the tories path. increase vat to 22.5 or 25% raise NI for the self employed to bring them inline.

Jeremy states he can do this without resorting to that, why? well he doesnt want people to go hungry, to have to use food banks, to have not have the correct heating in winter months.

you ofcourse think people should starve or freeze, just as long as they are not in debt.

Do you run a business by any chance? i used to... having debt is no bad thing, christ it helps all business out and should be expanded when rates fall low to give you the extra capital to get things done.

masterwilde

with regard to drone strikes. well why dont we reintroduce guns to the public hey. you think that the security services are completely legal? I would want to make damn sure i had the right person, with bang to right reasons and a guarantee that they intended to kill britons in order to give an order to strike.

kinger101

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Absolutely right. Little bits of information such as:

• The reliability of the intel / targetting
• The chance of a strike being successful (is the target in the open, in buildings, in caves, in a bunker...
• The risk of damage to infrastructure needed by the innocent population
• The risk and scale of colateral casualties.
  
• Plus any number of other details which make up a real scenario rather than the blamket question he was asked.

Would be perfectly reasonable to require before authorising a strike.

If you start throwing missiles onto some guy who's holed up in the basement of a school full of kids that happens to be next to the only water treatment plant in the area then (a) you're unlikely to kill him and (b) you're goiing to !!!!off an awful lot of parents and older siblings.

Which, in case the gung-ho among you haven't realised, would be extremely counter productive!



In case you haven't caught on, in an island as small as the UK the first lot would be game over for us anyway. But why stop at that if we can make the entire planet uninhabitable in a last petty act of revenge, eh?

But he was unable to say to that he envisaged a scenario in which he may authorize a strike. Sometimes decisions have to be made on incomplete information.

IveSeenTheLight

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Comment removed by Forum Team
- please try to keep the forums a nice place.

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:



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.

My comment is on safety.
If the risk of crime by stealing my bicycle or golf clubs are down but the risk of increased knife gun or terror attacks is up, I feel less safe in this society.

You cannot amend my perception of how safe we are from the data you have presented.

There is no manipulation, you just need to open your eyes a see the reality.

Go back and read the posts about knife crime and watch the video of the ex decorated policeman warning TM whilst Home Secretary and take note about the risks associated with reduced officers in the community.

Population is up
Knife crime is up
Gun crime is up.
Police numbers are down.

Its quite simple.

kinger101

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

My comment is on safety.
If the risk of crime by stealing my bicycle or golf clubs are down but the risk of increased knife gun or terror attacks is up, I feel less safe in this society.

You cannot amend my perception of how safe we are from the data you have presented.

There is no manipulation, you just need to open your eyes a see the reality.

Go back and read the posts about knife crime and watch the video of the ex decorated policeman warning TM whilst Home Secretary and take note about the risks associated with reduced officers in the community.

Population is up
Knife crime is up
Gun crime is up.
Police numbers are down.

Its quite simple.

I don't think beat bobbies have any impact on crime. Crime has been falling gradually over the last decade, and the danger with comparing one set of 12 m figures against another is that it's not safe from a statistical viewpoint to obtain a trend from two points.

The way in which police reduce most crimes isn't by catching people in the act, but gathering evidence to prosecute persistent criminals so they're locked up.

As for terrorism, the money is probably better going to M15 / GCHQ than regional police forces.