the snap general election thread

Joe_Horner

kinger101 wrote: »

But he was unable to say to that he envisaged a scenario in which he may authorize a strike.

That's an impressively convoluted way of saying absolutely nothing because it also logically implies the reverse case that he was unable to say that he couldn't envisage such a scenario.

Sometimes decisions have to be made on incomplete information.

Yes they do. But the level of information he was presented with in that interview was way below what could be used to justify a strike. He was effectively given "We can hit him now, do we do it?".

Does that mean "we can hit him now but it'll mean taking out the hospital he's just entered?" or "we can hit him now in the middle of the deserted field he's crossing?".

Without more information than the interviewer was willing to give that choice simply couldn't be made rationally, in which case the only correct answer is "no strike". Unless you're American maybe.

Yah_Boo_Sux

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.

The only simple fact is you again antagonising other posters, now in this thread I see as opposed to the Scottish one where you have been proven to be both deceitful and belligerent. As such the distasteful " stalkerish troll" comment very clearly applies much more to you than to the poster you infer these attributes.

If population rises does it not follow that crime will also rise, don't you think? So that the official statement that crime figures are mostly pretty similar to last year is quite remarkable, is it not? Oh and I for one certainly do not feel my safety to be more at risk now than in the past, nor does anyone I know (from a discussion following recent events).

It looks like you, just as the "ex decorated policeman" and his warning, are doing nothing more than attempting to justify your own myopic beliefs.

kinger101

Joe_Horner wrote: »

That's an impressively convoluted way of saying absolutely nothing because it also logically implies the reverse case that he was unable to say that he couldn't envisage such a scenario.



Yes they do. But the level of information he was presented with in that interview was way below what could be used to justify a strike. He was effectively given "We can hit him now, do we do it?".

Does that mean "we can hit him now but it'll mean taking out the hospital he's just entered?" or "we can hit him now in the middle of the deserted field he's crossing?".

Without more information than the interviewer was willing to give that choice simply couldn't be made rationally, in which case the only correct answer is "no strike". Unless you're American maybe.

Not really. It was a very simple question. If someone asked me if there are circumstances under which I would take a life, I would say "yes". Paxman asked a fairly straightforward question. He refused to answer.

IveSeenTheLight

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?

There's no need for you to wonder about my life.
I'm very comfortable and happy.

The UK budget is a vast one and I'm sure I could identify funds from somewhere or efficiencies to redirect the priority to our home security.

Very easily as an example, redirecting resources from the MoD that are never used would provide a much more visible and effective solution to security in the UK

Yah_Boo_Sux

A list of polls due before the election here.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-election-polls-factbox-idUKKBN18W28D?il=0

IveSeenTheLight

kinger101 wrote: »

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.

I think the main point made was less interaction with the community means less intelligence and less ability to mitigate risk

Yah_Boo_Sux

How about a touch of humour?
It looks like the thread needs it.


http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-election-may-scaffolding-idUKKBN18W27X?il=0

ukcarper

masterwilde wrote: »

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.

He states he can but can he, he and McDonnell are the only ones that think he can.

Joe_Horner

kinger101 wrote: »

Not really. It was a very simple question.

Yes it was. In fact, it was so childishly simple it reduced a very complex moral and tactical problem to the absurd level of a soundbite.

Fortunately not every political leader - including, obviously, Corbyn - thinks and communicates in tweets.

If someone asked me if there are circumstances under which I would take a life, I would say "yes". Paxman asked a fairly straightforward question. He refused to answer.

That wasn't what he was asked, it's an inaccurate paraphrase of it.

He was given a woefully incomplete scenario - specifically of a drone strike - told that was all he was getting, and asked his decision. That question is genuinely unanswerable without more context unless you're a psychopath, and he was right to refuse to answer it.

Another important consideration to add to my list above would be "are we also in position to detain the suspect?". If we were then an extrajudicial killing not only goes against every principle of our justice system, under which we tell the locals we're acting, but is completely counter productive even if the guy's guilty as sin because there's another martyr on his way to the Virgin paradise.

But, please, don't let little practical matters like that get in the way of your apparent bloodlust.

Yah_Boo_Sux

"2017 has to be one of the UK’s most surreal general elections."

With two appalling terror attacks in a short campaign,Theresa May’s brittle performance, the Conservative manifesto misfire, Jeremy Corbyn’s surprising popularity and the utter lack of debate about Brexit, polling day will come as a relief to some Conservatives. The trajectory is much where it was six weeks ago: we seem to be on track for a comfortable Tory win.

https://www.ft.com/content/45f871e6-4a13-11e7-a3f4-c742b9791d43