It's not crime that's fallen, it's the amount of crime that gets recorded that's fallen. If Police can't protect witnesses they feel less confident coming forward. Police also find less crime themselves due to less investigations. It's not a correlation with less crime it's correlation with less crime getting dealt with.
You know the answer to both is dependent on whether the change is for the good or not. So probably in both cases = good. I am not questioning an argument against Police cuts. I am questioning using this period of terror attacks to push that cause. If we need police great. Don;t pretend that police cuts are anything to do with the terror attacks though. And if we are in a period where crime is so low (in comparison to just 2 decades ago) then surely we shouldn't need as many police? The "counter terrorism" budget has been protected since 2010!!! I personally like more police for the reassurance aspect but that doesn't equate to needing them.
Do you have a link for that assessment? I read one the other day attacking the Tories and May for not meeting their promise of a further 1000 firearms officers across the UK. Failing to meet targets. There was no mention of the fact that Steve White (Chair of the Police Federation) said last year at the home affairs select committee: “officers don’t want to carry firearms because they are concerned that if they discharge it, they are going to get arrested for murder”. Backed up at the same committee by Chief Constable Simon Chesterman who agreed that potential recruits were "being deterred by fears they could spend years under investigation after a decision to fire on a suspect." It is very easy to attack the government without the context. We have opportunistic attempts to link the terrorist atrocities to the cut in police funds despite the counter-terrorism budget being protected since 2010 (and rising rather than remaining stagnant) and the security services being given extra staff. The 7/7 bombings happened at a point where police numbers were at their peak. Then we have the government attacked for not meeting their "armed officers" target despite the Police themselves saying they are struggling to get police officers to agree because our "civil rights" activists and courts go after them as if they are all blood thirsty murderers.
All i know is that what has caused this discussion about police cuts was that video of a senior met office policeman absolutely slating the cuts. Has anyone seen any police officers defending the tories? Genuine question.
The Commissioner of the Met, Cressida Dick, says the cuts are ok, but then she was helped into the job by Home Secretary, Amber Rudd....
Good. I don't tend to come on this thread, but this ****ing idiot has made me really, really angry with this. It's just outright lies. He is SUCH an embarrassment.
it's a regular pattern now. it's not immigrants that are performing terrorist attacks, it's the children of immigrants that are born in the UK / Europe. There is some second generation confusion, a misguided search for roots. It probably didn't happen with the Indians and Pakistanis in the 70s because they were rebelling against their parents, who may have tried to hold on to the old ways and had no influence from abroad. Now rebelling is the opposite, not pro your new country, which your parents have tried to adopt but a lack of identity?
Hmmm. I assume she knew how badly that was going but part of me wonders whether she thought she might just get away with it.
Tories were always going to win. But Abbott is awful and has been all her life. She needs to be dropped.
'Hi Jeremy? Jeremy? Yep it's, erm, bad news I'm afraid.....Diane's just done another TV interview' 'Oh for f*** sake, how did she get out?!' 'Sorry Jeremy, we were too busy having a meltdown about Virgil going to Liveprool we forgot ot keep watch on her for a few minutes.' 'Well.... how badly did it go?' '......We'll see you in 2022 when we'll have another go at this election thing.'
Been saying that for years but then half the politicians in there on all sides aren't there for the public good anymore. It's all about themselves and what they can get. They fight for good causes for their own glory. A few are very good actors but when they "achieve" something for a good cause they tour the studios to soak up the plaudits and make sure they get the credit on their CVs (people's memories) so that they can always refer back to their successes ignoring the things they failed on, ignored or plain and simple hid away because it suits. I know people will come on here and say Jeremy or Caroline Lucas are different but they aren't. They may not be anywhere near as bad as some and certainly not as bad as blaggers like Abbott but they still sell themselves out if it suits them. Have there ever been any that aren't in it for themselves? Jeremy just sounds like another populist to me. Selling a grand vision that he knows won;t be achieved and a chunk of it he doesn't even believe in. Abbott has only been in it for herself utilising her black roots and minorities to blag her way to the champagne lifestyle. Others use different tactics and strategies to get there but that is their goal. Their own egos and the trappings that go with it. Sell it to the people and let them believe they are trying to help us but they don't care. What we now have across the western world are all sorts of parties utilising populism. Who can convince the public they care the most wins the pot of gold. Normally the best actors get the top job. Blair, Cameron, Clegg were masters of the expressions. Angry face, concerned face, disgusted face, sympathetic face, caring face. Brown not so good. Farron's acting is terrible. May is absolutely wooden. Maybe Corbyn is one of the top top actors? Ahmed Sheik puts on a good concerned face too while she drives custom to her law firm fighting the cases she is "so concerned" about.
He might win in 2022 once Brexit is done. Brexit will give May a minimum of 5% extra and at the beginning of the campaign before she messed up maybe as much as 15% extra. Jeremy will be happy with that too. He wants Brexit but can't play that card because of his party's pressure and because he is utilising the youth vote. "Not my fault" he can say and the students can keep voting for him.
