|
Post by wagsastokie on Apr 8, 2018 10:54:24 GMT
I would argue there is sufficient police numbers in London They are just using them incorrectly How much money and police were wasted on the ted heath was a pedo scandle How much money and police have been used on the find maddie McCann debacle the ongoing Stephen Lawrence inquiry If the officers and money had been redirected a few years ago to stopping gang on gang violence You wouldn’t of seen this tread The above are just three examples I am sure you could find many more cases of the need of the met police to redirect resources Somehow I don’t see you looking to hard Ah, the old Tory classic response. Its not underfunding or resources, its waste and inefficiency. Used to say that about the NHS too. Now giving it more funds. Odd that! So let’s bash the Tory’s do you ever stop and think and come up with a properly thought out constructive reply So you’re quite happy the way the met police have spent there dwindling resources then Happy with the three examples I listed above I assume you must be It’s a sad world when people are happy to see money wasted on trying to prove Tory’s are historically child sex abusers Then protecting current day citizens
|
|
|
Post by chuffedstokie on Apr 8, 2018 11:07:33 GMT
That applies equally to Labour and Tory voters, though. It's why TDC tears his hair out on here, and why I would if I had any. I don't disagree, but you asked the question and I gave an answer. You have to remember that those of us who take part in these politics threads are the rarity. Most folk haven't got a clue about policies or politics in general. That's why papers and politicians say these things as they realise that its about as far and as deep as most people's interest goes. I don't think you should get to caught up by Miss Represented's frustration on here. He's another one who doesn't enjoy having his views challenged. In the spirit of fairness, however, he wasn't one of the posters leaping all over the German incident, so perhaps he's learning? If so, good on him. In response to your first paragraph, don't you believe it.
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Apr 8, 2018 11:56:39 GMT
There might, just might, be more beds available if Labour hadn't deliberately flooded the country with immigrants. On knife crime, how about some of these wank stains not carrying knives with intent to kill? You know, just for the hell of it? I see Sadiq has imposed stop and search, now. The racist bastard! Lol, don't remember regular crises in the NHS year after year prior to 2010! And Saint Theresa had it in her gift to reduce immigration during her six years as Home Secretary but didn't! Not sure you can really blame this on Labour eight years after they left power, Tricky, when funding and immigration control has been down to the Tories for the last eight years! Pretty Little Boother tells us knives don't kill nor guns so why not just arm everyone with one? The biggest deterrent to crime? Knowledge that you'll be caught. Take that away and no surprises what happens. No-one to blame for this but the cuts to police funding and numbers. It won't kill you to admit that this is basically the result of the Tories desire to put getting rid of the deficit above everything else, the NHS, crime, disability payments etc etc. I actually believe that if you want to own and carry either of those things, the only things stopping you should be previous custodial sentences for a violent crime.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Apr 9, 2018 8:13:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Apr 9, 2018 8:20:46 GMT
Ah, the old Tory classic response. Its not underfunding or resources, its waste and inefficiency. Used to say that about the NHS too. Now giving it more funds. Odd that! So let’s bash the Tory’s do you ever stop and think and come up with a properly thought out constructive reply So you’re quite happy the way the met police have spent there dwindling resources then Happy with the three examples I listed above I assume you must be It’s a sad world when people are happy to see money wasted on trying to prove Tory’s are historically child sex abusers Then protecting current day citizens If you've ever bothered to read my stuff previously (glib response expected ), you'll be aware that my position is that all these issues can be resolved through proper funding, which we should all contribute to through general taxation, with those able to afford to contribute more doing so. I've had this argument with Comical Todgi many times - you get what you pay for. Another example right here. The standard Tory response, because they generally hate the idea of taxation, is to blame it all on waste and inefficiency.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Apr 9, 2018 8:26:54 GMT
I don't disagree, but you asked the question and I gave an answer. You have to remember that those of us who take part in these politics threads are the rarity. Most folk haven't got a clue about policies or politics in general. That's why papers and politicians say these things as they realise that its about as far and as deep as most people's interest goes. I don't think you should get to caught up by Miss Represented's frustration on here. He's another one who doesn't enjoy having his views challenged. In the spirit of fairness, however, he wasn't one of the posters leaping all over the German incident, so perhaps he's learning? If so, good on him. In response to your first paragraph, don't you believe it. I do believe it, I see and hear it regularly on tv, radio, in person and on here. You would think, would you not, that someone regularly involved in political discussions on here would have just the tiniest bit of knowledge about what they were discussing? So how to explain Comical Todgi discussing the evil EU recently and telling us Liechtenstein "was fully in the EU"? And that from someone who is genuinely interested in politics lol. Imagine the levels of ignorance of those who find it boring!
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Apr 9, 2018 8:38:27 GMT
So let’s bash the Tory’s do you ever stop and think and come up with a properly thought out constructive reply So you’re quite happy the way the met police have spent there dwindling resources then Happy with the three examples I listed above I assume you must be It’s a sad world when people are happy to see money wasted on trying to prove Tory’s are historically child sex abusers Then protecting current day citizens If you've ever bothered to read my stuff previously (glib response expected ), you'll be aware that my position is that all these issues can be resolved through proper funding, which we should all contribute to through general taxation, with those able to afford to contribute more doing so. I've had this argument with Comical Todgi many times - you get what you pay for. Another example right here. The standard Tory response, because they generally hate the idea of taxation, is to blame it all on waste and inefficiency. I am never glib but you come across as condescending at times Did you watch the bbc report this morning when they backed tracked on the report and reluctantly had to put in that police forces That had the greatest cuts had not seen any increase in violent crime To say that cuts to police funding may have caused a increase in violent crime is the same as saying the change of London mayor could have caused a increase Both subjective and hard to prove I see you have not commented on whether you think the met police have spent there resources wisely
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Apr 9, 2018 9:48:34 GMT
Interview with former Met Police Chief about knife crime scathing of May and the impact of her policies Political control of the Police Service, May has moved constitutional independence of the Police to Central Govt. If the police come out publicly and express their views they will be sought out and sacked Their life and career is the hands of a party politician, i.e. the police and Crime Commissioner directly appointed by Theresa May
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Apr 9, 2018 11:31:31 GMT
If you've ever bothered to read my stuff previously (glib response expected ), you'll be aware that my position is that all these issues can be resolved through proper funding, which we should all contribute to through general taxation, with those able to afford to contribute more doing so. I've had this argument with Comical Todgi many times - you get what you pay for. Another example right here. The standard Tory response, because they generally hate the idea of taxation, is to blame it all on waste and inefficiency. I am never glib but you come across as condescending at times Did you watch the bbc report this morning when they backed tracked on the report and reluctantly had to put in that police forces That had the greatest cuts had not seen any increase in violent crime To say that cuts to police funding may have caused a increase in violent crime is the same as saying the change of London mayor could have caused a increase Both subjective and hard to prove I see you have not commented on whether you think the met police have spent there resources wisely Forgive me, I was anticipating the usual Leadbelly/Crappie type sarcastic response to my "if you've ever read my stuff before". If I come across as condescending, just rise above it and deal with what I've written. (I have to say, though, that the rightwingers on here are very easily offended and just a little precious! I don't see any non-rightwingers blocking posters because they dare to challenge them. Perhaps the right on here should be a little less precious about being challenged? The latest being felonious who always struck me as a bit more reasonable and sensible but made a bit of a fool of himself leaping onto a perceived Islamist attack (Merkels Lads thread if you want to check) and having been challenged just resorted to accusations of trolling! It's a bit pathetic! Was it not you who called followyoudown puerile and infantile for blocking posters who challenge them? So what if someone makes a political point you don't like, it won't kill you to acknowledge it sometimes or provide a counter-argument without gogin down the frankly childish route of crying "troll" and blocking posters!) I make no comment about the police spending other than to say that all large organisations will suffer from a degree of inefficiency, private or public sector. I also haven't done a study of their spending. I presume neither have you, so we aren't able to comment beyond groundless speculation. However, when the Home Office itself produces a report which acknowledges that police cuts have resulted in increased crime, I think we can safely say that they have!
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Apr 9, 2018 11:52:32 GMT
I am never glib but you come across as condescending at times Did you watch the bbc report this morning when they backed tracked on the report and reluctantly had to put in that police forces That had the greatest cuts had not seen any increase in violent crime To say that cuts to police funding may have caused a increase in violent crime is the same as saying the change of London mayor could have caused a increase Both subjective and hard to prove I see you have not commented on whether you think the met police have spent there resources wisely Forgive me, I was anticipating the usual Leadbelly/Crappie type sarcastic response to my "if you've ever read my stuff before". If I come across as condescending, just rise above it and deal with what I've written. (I have to say, though, that the rightwingers on here are very easily offended and just a little precious! I don't see any non-rightwingers blocking posters because they dare to challenge them. Perhaps the right on here should be a little less precious about being challenged? The latest being felonious who always struck me as a bit more reasonable and sensible but made a bit of a fool of himself leaping onto a perceived Islamist attack (Merkels Lads thread if you want to check) and having been challenged just resorted to accusations of trolling! It's a bit pathetic! Was it not you who called followyoudown puerile and infantile for blocking posters who challenge them? So what if someone makes a political point you don't like, it won't kill you to acknowledge it sometimes or provide a counter-argument without gogin down the frankly childish route of crying "troll" and blocking posters!) I make no comment about the police spending other than to say that all large organisations will suffer from a degree of inefficiency, private or public sector. I also haven't done a study of their spending. I presume neither have you, so we aren't able to comment beyond groundless speculation. However, when the Home Office itself produces a report which acknowledges that police cuts have resulted in increased crime, I think we can safely say that they have! Thank you for a considerd reply The home office leak was a couple of lines in a report nobody in the press has seen in full Likely to contribute to a rise does not in anyway mean that it is definitely the cause and may have no relation to the increase Sadly the only people who really know the reason is the people doing the stabbing and shooting
|
|
|
Post by stillgame4it on Apr 9, 2018 12:08:01 GMT
Lol, don't remember regular crises in the NHS year after year prior to 2010! And Saint Theresa had it in her gift to reduce immigration during her six years as Home Secretary but didn't! Not sure you can really blame this on Labour eight years after they left power, Tricky, when funding and immigration control has been down to the Tories for the last eight years! Pretty Little Boother tells us knives don't kill nor guns so why not just arm everyone with one? The biggest deterrent to crime? Knowledge that you'll be caught. Take that away and no surprises what happens. No-one to blame for this but the cuts to police funding and numbers. It won't kill you to admit that this is basically the result of the Tories desire to put getting rid of the deficit above everything else, the NHS, crime, disability payments etc etc. I actually believe that if you want to own and carry either of those things, the only things stopping you should be previous custodial sentences for a violent crime. On a (vaguely!) similar note, I think it is time all our law enforcement officers were armed. These savages think there is no real consequence of them carrying and using knives or guns. Apart from maybe getting arrested and sent to jail, which seems to be no deterrent at all to them, more like a badge of honor! A couple of rounds from a Glock might give them more to think about, and would save us £m's vs keeping them fed and entertained in prison! Carry a weapon and you risk facing the consequences .
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Apr 9, 2018 12:11:43 GMT
I actually believe that if you want to own and carry either of those things, the only things stopping you should be previous custodial sentences for a violent crime. On a (vaguely!) similar note, I think it is time all our law enforcement officers were armed. These savages think there is no real consequence of them carrying and using knives or guns. Apart from maybe getting arrested and sent to jail, which seems to be no deterrent at all to them, more like a badge of honor! A couple of rounds from a Glock might give them more to think about, and would save us £m's vs keeping them fed and entertained in prison! Carry a weapon and you risk facing the consequences . But then they all start carrying guns and we end up with 10,000 gun deaths a year like in the US?
|
|
|
Post by stillgame4it on Apr 9, 2018 12:15:41 GMT
On a (vaguely!) similar note, I think it is time all our law enforcement officers were armed. These savages think there is no real consequence of them carrying and using knives or guns. Apart from maybe getting arrested and sent to jail, which seems to be no deterrent at all to them, more like a badge of honor! A couple of rounds from a Glock might give them more to think about, and would save us £m's vs keeping them fed and entertained in prison! Carry a weapon and you risk facing the consequences . But then they all start carrying guns and we end up with 10,000 gun deaths a year like in the US? Not necessarily, the US is not the only country in the world where law enforcement officers carry side arms. We would not be coming from the same starting position as the US (right to bear arms, wild west romantic stories, etc) so there is a chance to do it better
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Apr 9, 2018 12:16:57 GMT
Forgive me, I was anticipating the usual Leadbelly/Crappie type sarcastic response to my "if you've ever read my stuff before". If I come across as condescending, just rise above it and deal with what I've written. (I have to say, though, that the rightwingers on here are very easily offended and just a little precious! I don't see any non-rightwingers blocking posters because they dare to challenge them. Perhaps the right on here should be a little less precious about being challenged? The latest being felonious who always struck me as a bit more reasonable and sensible but made a bit of a fool of himself leaping onto a perceived Islamist attack (Merkels Lads thread if you want to check) and having been challenged just resorted to accusations of trolling! It's a bit pathetic! Was it not you who called followyoudown puerile and infantile for blocking posters who challenge them? So what if someone makes a political point you don't like, it won't kill you to acknowledge it sometimes or provide a counter-argument without gogin down the frankly childish route of crying "troll" and blocking posters!) I make no comment about the police spending other than to say that all large organisations will suffer from a degree of inefficiency, private or public sector. I also haven't done a study of their spending. I presume neither have you, so we aren't able to comment beyond groundless speculation. However, when the Home Office itself produces a report which acknowledges that police cuts have resulted in increased crime, I think we can safely say that they have! Thank you for a considerd reply The home office leak was a couple of lines in a report nobody in the press has seen in full Likely to contribute to a rise does not in anyway mean that it is definitely the cause and may have no relation to the increase Sadly the only people who really know the reason is the people doing the stabbing and shooting I think if the Home Office is producing its own report on this and it states that reduced resources are likely to be having an impact, then it probably is the reason! And I think you can set a lot more store by something like that than, say, a speculative piece in The Sun or Daily Express, especially when it's an internal report! Basically, the government is gambling on cutting everything to get rid of the deficit before 2022 so that they can go into the next election saying see we are the only party which can successfully control the country's finances. They have decided that it doesn't really matter if more people die in the NHS or on our streets because most people aren't directly affected by it and don't really care. They do care about whether the economy as a whole is working. Pretty cynical but there you go.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Apr 9, 2018 12:21:36 GMT
But then they all start carrying guns and we end up with 10,000 gun deaths a year like in the US? Not necessarily, the US is not the only country in the world where law enforcement officers carry side arms. We would not be coming from the same starting position as the US (right to bear arms, wild west romantic stories, etc) so there is a chance to do it better Possibly, yes. Trouble is I think anything which makes it easier to kill people will just lead to more deaths generally. Used to be that carrying a knife was seen as cowardly and you sorted things out with a punch up. Very few died. Now, in London and inner cities, everyone carries a knife (apparently) and the murder rate is rising. Imagine if guns were freely available. I think sentencing needs to be a much tougher deterrent for just carrying a weapon. Of course the govt doesn't want to do that because we don't have enough prison spaces or warders. Again, resources - always the same issue - you get what you pay for!
|
|
|
Post by stillgame4it on Apr 9, 2018 12:40:58 GMT
Not necessarily, the US is not the only country in the world where law enforcement officers carry side arms. We would not be coming from the same starting position as the US (right to bear arms, wild west romantic stories, etc) so there is a chance to do it better Possibly, yes. Trouble is I think anything which makes it easier to kill people will just lead to more deaths generally. Used to be that carrying a knife was seen as cowardly and you sorted things out with a punch up. Very few died. Now, in London and inner cities, everyone carries a knife (apparently) and the murder rate is rising. Imagine if guns were freely available. I think sentencing needs to be a much tougher deterrent for just carrying a weapon. Of course the govt doesn't want to do that because we don't have enough prison spaces or warders. Again, resources - always the same issue - you get what you pay for! Not sure having armed officers would automatically translate into making guns more readily available for street gangs/criminals? We are all now familiar with armed officers at the airport. This has not resulted in a marked increase in (gun) crime at UK airports, and as far as I know there have not been any tragic errors resulting in innocent people being shot dead by mistake at our airports? Maybe the processes and protocols used by the airport officers are a blueprint for a controlled roll out to more public areas. For sure, not a quick-fix solution to the current street crime problems but I think it is time to move on from the "Dixon of DockGreen" good old British Bobby on the Beat view of policing. If armed officers on the streets deterred 25% of the weapon carrying street thugs, that could have saved quite a few lives already this year? (and as the father of a 19 year old who has gone to live and work in London, I am open to any ideas to stop these knife/gun carrying twats, however radical we need to be!)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2018 13:04:37 GMT
Thank you for a considerd reply The home office leak was a couple of lines in a report nobody in the press has seen in full Likely to contribute to a rise does not in anyway mean that it is definitely the cause and may have no relation to the increase Sadly the only people who really know the reason is the people doing the stabbing and shooting I think if the Home Office is producing its own report on this and it states that reduced resources are likely to be having an impact, then it probably is the reason! And I think you can set a lot more store by something like that than, say, a speculative piece in The Sun or Daily Express, especially when it's an internal report! Basically, the government is gambling on cutting everything to get rid of the deficit before 2022 so that they can go into the next election saying see we are the only party which can successfully control the country's finances. They have decided that it doesn't really matter if more people die in the NHS or on our streets because most people aren't directly affected by it and don't really care. They do care about whether the economy as a whole is working. Pretty cynical but there you go. Maybe the police and Labour could back up their request for increased police numbers by giving us numerous examples of where a police presence has prevented deaths\attacks. Another 'likely' reason for increased crime in certain areas of London is that MPs like Corbyn, Lammy and Abbott prefer to blame the government for everything rather than admit that it's the pisspoor culture and behaviour of their own fucking constituents. In their eyes the black\asian crime hotspots are nothing to do with the people themselves and everything to do with using them as an excuse to hand out more freebies. 'Hi, it's Geoff here from the local youth centre. Can you tell Akowsi that we'll be shut over the weekend because the boiler's packed in'. 'OK, I'll tell him. He'll probably go out and shoot someone instead.'.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Apr 9, 2018 15:27:56 GMT
I think if the Home Office is producing its own report on this and it states that reduced resources are likely to be having an impact, then it probably is the reason! And I think you can set a lot more store by something like that than, say, a speculative piece in The Sun or Daily Express, especially when it's an internal report! Basically, the government is gambling on cutting everything to get rid of the deficit before 2022 so that they can go into the next election saying see we are the only party which can successfully control the country's finances. They have decided that it doesn't really matter if more people die in the NHS or on our streets because most people aren't directly affected by it and don't really care. They do care about whether the economy as a whole is working. Pretty cynical but there you go. Maybe the police and Labour could back up their request for increased police numbers by giving us numerous examples of where a police presence has prevented deaths\attacks.Another 'likely' reason for increased crime in certain areas of London is that MPs like Corbyn, Lammy and Abbott prefer to blame the government for everything rather than admit that it's the pisspoor culture and behaviour of their own fucking constituents. In their eyes the black\asian crime hotspots are nothing to do with the people themselves and everything to do with using them as an excuse to hand out more freebies. 'Hi, it's Geoff here from the local youth centre. Can you tell Akowsi that we'll be shut over the weekend because the boiler's packed in'. 'OK, I'll tell him. He'll probably go out and shoot someone instead.'. Erm, how about every football match you've ever been to? This post would fit in better on the Cultural Enrichment thread, surely! You're saying it's the culture of the nature of certain constituents that is the problem?
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Apr 9, 2018 15:38:29 GMT
Possibly, yes. Trouble is I think anything which makes it easier to kill people will just lead to more deaths generally. Used to be that carrying a knife was seen as cowardly and you sorted things out with a punch up. Very few died. Now, in London and inner cities, everyone carries a knife (apparently) and the murder rate is rising. Imagine if guns were freely available. I think sentencing needs to be a much tougher deterrent for just carrying a weapon. Of course the govt doesn't want to do that because we don't have enough prison spaces or warders. Again, resources - always the same issue - you get what you pay for! Not sure having armed officers would automatically translate into making guns more readily available for street gangs/criminals? We are all now familiar with armed officers at the airport. This has not resulted in a marked increase in (gun) crime at UK airports, and as far as I know there have not been any tragic errors resulting in innocent people being shot dead by mistake at our airports? Maybe the processes and protocols used by the airport officers are a blueprint for a controlled roll out to more public areas. For sure, not a quick-fix solution to the current street crime problems but I think it is time to move on from the "Dixon of DockGreen" good old British Bobby on the Beat view of policing. If armed officers on the streets deterred 25% of the weapon carrying street thugs, that could have saved quite a few lives already this year? (and as the father of a 19 year old who has gone to live and work in London, I am open to any ideas to stop these knife/gun carrying twats, however radical we need to be!) Fair points. My point is this. When it was incredibly rare for officers to be armed, it was also incredibly rare for officers to be killed. You can check on the stats of this but Harry Roberts and the furore around him is a good example. As soon as you arm officers routinely, the bad guys will also arm themselves. How? I don't know, I don't move in those kind of circles I'm glad to say, but arm themselves they will. If they think they have a good chance of being shot they'll want to defend themselves/take a copper or bystander with them etc and it'll just become commonplace for weapons to be on the street. Inevitably, more people will get hurt. At the moment it is rare and shocking for a shooting to take place and still shocking for the degree of knife crime we're seeing, which is why we're talking about it. It's routine and commonplace in the States which has the highest level of per capita gun ownership anywhere. Anything below two or three deaths they don't even bother reporting (unless at a school). How nuts is that! I'd argue that simply having those weapons around and freely available doesn't make for a safer environment. If that was the case why not allow all countries to possess nuclear weapons? On the whole, I think the fewer weapons around the better. Carrying needs to be made a much more significant offence, like 15 years minimum. I think I'm right in saying most cops don't want to be armed. That may have changed recently, not sure?
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Apr 9, 2018 16:04:33 GMT
Not sure having armed officers would automatically translate into making guns more readily available for street gangs/criminals? We are all now familiar with armed officers at the airport. This has not resulted in a marked increase in (gun) crime at UK airports, and as far as I know there have not been any tragic errors resulting in innocent people being shot dead by mistake at our airports? Maybe the processes and protocols used by the airport officers are a blueprint for a controlled roll out to more public areas. For sure, not a quick-fix solution to the current street crime problems but I think it is time to move on from the "Dixon of DockGreen" good old British Bobby on the Beat view of policing. If armed officers on the streets deterred 25% of the weapon carrying street thugs, that could have saved quite a few lives already this year? (and as the father of a 19 year old who has gone to live and work in London, I am open to any ideas to stop these knife/gun carrying twats, however radical we need to be!) Fair points. My point is this. When it was incredibly rare for officers to be armed, it was also incredibly rare for officers to be killed. You can check on the stats of this but Harry Roberts and the furore around him is a good example. As soon as you arm officers routinely, the bad guys will also arm themselves. How? I don't know, I don't move in those kind of circles I'm glad to say, but arm themselves they will. If they think they have a good chance of being shot they'll want to defend themselves/take a copper or bystander with them etc and it'll just become commonplace for weapons to be on the street. Inevitably, more people will get hurt. At the moment it is rare and shocking for a shooting to take place and still shocking for the degree of knife crime we're seeing, which is why we're talking about it. It's routine and commonplace in the States which has the highest level of per capita gun ownership anywhere. Anything below two or three deaths they don't even bother reporting (unless at a school). How nuts is that! I'd argue that simply having those weapons around and freely available doesn't make for a safer environment. If that was the case why not allow all countries to possess nuclear weapons? On the whole, I think the fewer weapons around the better. Carrying needs to be made a much more significant offence, like 15 years minimum. I think I'm right in saying most cops don't want to be armed. That may have changed recently, not sure? This country is one of the few countries where the police ,police through consent They way to solve the problem is to restore the will of the youths in London to be policed And untill they are willing the problem sadly will not be solved How you go about that is anybody’s guess Arming police will achieve sod all acept maybe keep the police safer in the event of a random terrorist attack
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2018 8:25:22 GMT
Maybe the police and Labour could back up their request for increased police numbers by giving us numerous examples of where a police presence has prevented deaths\attacks.Another 'likely' reason for increased crime in certain areas of London is that MPs like Corbyn, Lammy and Abbott prefer to blame the government for everything rather than admit that it's the pisspoor culture and behaviour of their own fucking constituents. In their eyes the black\asian crime hotspots are nothing to do with the people themselves and everything to do with using them as an excuse to hand out more freebies. 'Hi, it's Geoff here from the local youth centre. Can you tell Akowsi that we'll be shut over the weekend because the boiler's packed in'. 'OK, I'll tell him. He'll probably go out and shoot someone instead.'. Erm, how about every football match you've ever been to? This post would fit in better on the Cultural Enrichment thread, surely! You're saying it's the culture of the nature of certain constituents that is the problem? Erm, I'm talking about knife and gun crime in London which is a completely different problem to policing a football match. You do understand the difference don't you? Football is a pre-arranged event between two known clubs from known cities playing at a known location. The police probably already know troublemakers and have intelligence. As far as I know, and I may be wrong, I don't believe that the police have the first clue as to where a shooting or stabbing will take place in London. Maybe we could recruit 300000 more police and have them everywhere, all over London, standing outside every bar, takeaway, club, shop and estate just waiting for the next offence to occur. Your post would fit better on the Bollocks thread but, unfortunately, I don't think there is one.
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Apr 12, 2018 10:09:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Apr 14, 2018 2:32:42 GMT
Is there actually anything wrong with targeting groups of black kids for stop and searches?
Why is this wrong?
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Apr 18, 2018 16:59:31 GMT
Erm, how about every football match you've ever been to? This post would fit in better on the Cultural Enrichment thread, surely! You're saying it's the culture of the nature of certain constituents that is the problem? Erm, I'm talking about knife and gun crime in London which is a completely different problem to policing a football match. You do understand the difference don't you? Football is a pre-arranged event between two known clubs from known cities playing at a known location. The police probably already know troublemakers and have intelligence. As far as I know, and I may be wrong, I don't believe that the police have the first clue as to where a shooting or stabbing will take place in London. Maybe we could recruit 300000 more police and have them everywhere, all over London, standing outside every bar, takeaway, club, shop and estate just waiting for the next offence to occur. Your post would fit better on the Bollocks thread but, unfortunately, I don't think there is one. Well, perhaps you should write more clearly lol All you asked for was what was written in your first para. It's pretty obvious that increased police presence at football matches does exactly what you asked for! Not sure why that wouldn't also be the case for violent crime. I'm pretty sure that if offenders knew they were going to be caught by the police they wouldn't commit the offence, whether that's knife crime or any other form of crime. Yes, you could recruit 300,000 more police and have them standing everywhere like you said and guess what, that would inevitably lead to a reduction in offences. You've just answered your own question there lol. Of course, we don't have the resources to do that, nor would the public like it so we try to strike a balance between the likelihood of being caught and over-policing. This is called the contractual society where most of us 'sign up' voluntarily not to break the law because we realise it benefits all of us to do so. However, the police and courts are there for those dickheads who don't 'sign up'. Remove this enforcement by degrees and the degree of non-compliance will increase. Obvious really.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2018 21:21:19 GMT
Is there actually anything wrong with targeting groups of black kids for stop and searches? Why is this wrong? Nothing whatsoever - as long as at the same time, you're stop-and-searching groups of white kids, and groups of asian kids, etc. I think the issue is that they are NOT stop-and-searching other groups in anywhere near the number. This will obviously be swayed by the ethnic make-up of area in which the police are operating. North London - I'd say that there was probably a higher proportion of black groups of kids, than there would be in say, Bristol. Same for Parts of SE London. Or, closer to home, in certain areas of Stoke, there would be a higher proportion of Asian kids grouping together. Has it not been established already that the Met Police (as an example) are/have been institutionally racist??
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Apr 19, 2018 16:21:30 GMT
Is there actually anything wrong with targeting groups of black kids for stop and searches? Why is this wrong? Nothing whatsoever - as long as at the same time, you're stop-and-searching groups of white kids, and groups of asian kids, etc. I think the issue is that they are NOT stop-and-searching other groups in anywhere near the number. This will obviously be swayed by the ethnic make-up of area in which the police are operating. North London - I'd say that there was probably a higher proportion of black groups of kids, than there would be in say, Bristol. Same for Parts of SE London. So you would accept that in those areas, there will be a higher proportion of black kids stopped? And even if they then start claiming racial harassment and smashing the place up, it should continue if in proportion to the make up of the local population? But then, to take it further, should it be proportionate to the rate of reported offences, ie if it is known that 80% of knife crime is committed by members of black groups, then 80% of stop and searches should be against those groups? Even in areas where the white/black mix might be 50/50? Personally, I think that would be sensible but it didn't go down too well the last time. Just as in the same way, if it is known that the vast majority of these crimes are committed by 'youths', it should mainly be 'youths' who are stopped and searched. Or should they stop a few OAPs as well to maintain some sort of balance?
|
|
|
Post by stillgame4it on Apr 19, 2018 16:32:20 GMT
Nothing whatsoever - as long as at the same time, you're stop-and-searching groups of white kids, and groups of asian kids, etc. I think the issue is that they are NOT stop-and-searching other groups in anywhere near the number. This will obviously be swayed by the ethnic make-up of area in which the police are operating. North London - I'd say that there was probably a higher proportion of black groups of kids, than there would be in say, Bristol. Same for Parts of SE London. So you would accept that in those areas, there will be a higher proportion of black kids stopped? And even if they then start claiming racial harassment and smashing the place up, it should continue if in proportion to the make up of the local population? But then, to take it further, should it be proportionate to the rate of reported offences, ie if it is known that 80% of knife crime is committed by members of black groups, then 80% of stop and searches should be against those groups? Even in areas where the white/black mix might be 50/50? Personally, I think that would be sensible but it didn't go down too well the last time. Just as in the same way, if it is known that the vast majority of these crimes are committed by 'youths', it should mainly be 'youths' who are stopped and searched. Or should they stop a few OAPs as well to maintain some sort of balance? If they have nothing to hide, why are they bothered about being searched if it helps protect everyone in their community from potential harm? Or is that a too simplistic point of view?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2018 18:08:22 GMT
Nothing whatsoever - as long as at the same time, you're stop-and-searching groups of white kids, and groups of asian kids, etc. I think the issue is that they are NOT stop-and-searching other groups in anywhere near the number. This will obviously be swayed by the ethnic make-up of area in which the police are operating. North London - I'd say that there was probably a higher proportion of black groups of kids, than there would be in say, Bristol. Same for Parts of SE London. So you would accept that in those areas, there will be a higher proportion of black kids stopped? And even if they then start claiming racial harassment and smashing the place up, it should continue if in proportion to the make up of the local population? But then, to take it further, should it be proportionate to the rate of reported offences, ie if it is known that 80% of knife crime is committed by members of black groups, then 80% of stop and searches should be against those groups? Even in areas where the white/black mix might be 50/50? Personally, I think that would be sensible but it didn't go down too well the last time. Just as in the same way, if it is known that the vast majority of these crimes are committed by 'youths', it should mainly be 'youths' who are stopped and searched. Or should they stop a few OAPs as well to maintain some sort of balance? The black people that you see on TV, complaining about blacks being stopped & searched, need to understand that if it's 'them' committing the majority of (e.g.) the knife crime, then they should expect to be stopped proportionately more often than other groups. If not, they can refuse to accept that fact, and throw in the 'race card', and I do think that there is some of that going on. But the facts will speak for themselves. I agree with your post btw 👍
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jun 3, 2018 11:06:08 GMT
I think if the Home Office is producing its own report on this and it states that reduced resources are likely to be having an impact, then it probably is the reason! And I think you can set a lot more store by something like that than, say, a speculative piece in The Sun or Daily Express, especially when it's an internal report! Basically, the government is gambling on cutting everything to get rid of the deficit before 2022 so that they can go into the next election saying see we are the only party which can successfully control the country's finances. They have decided that it doesn't really matter if more people die in the NHS or on our streets because most people aren't directly affected by it and don't really care. They do care about whether the economy as a whole is working. Pretty cynical but there you go. Maybe the police and Labour could back up their request for increased police numbers by giving us numerous examples of where a police presence has prevented deaths\attacks. Another 'likely' reason for increased crime in certain areas of London is that MPs like Corbyn, Lammy and Abbott prefer to blame the government for everything rather than admit that it's the pisspoor culture and behaviour of their own fucking constituents. In their eyes the black\asian crime hotspots are nothing to do with the people themselves and everything to do with using them as an excuse to hand out more freebies. 'Hi, it's Geoff here from the local youth centre. Can you tell Akowsi that we'll be shut over the weekend because the boiler's packed in'. 'OK, I'll tell him. He'll probably go out and shoot someone instead.'. Race baiters like Lammy and Abbott only think about votes. They all promote racism for their own benefit. What aren't black lives matter demonstrating against all these black people dying in the Capital? inews.co.uk/news/uk/london-murders-a-list-of-the-victims-killed-in-the-capital-so-far-this-year/amp/?__twitter_impression=trueSent from my SM-G955F using proboards just to annoy redwhitenblue
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 3, 2018 11:31:46 GMT
Maybe the police and Labour could back up their request for increased police numbers by giving us numerous examples of where a police presence has prevented deaths\attacks. Another 'likely' reason for increased crime in certain areas of London is that MPs like Corbyn, Lammy and Abbott prefer to blame the government for everything rather than admit that it's the pisspoor culture and behaviour of their own fucking constituents. In their eyes the black\asian crime hotspots are nothing to do with the people themselves and everything to do with using them as an excuse to hand out more freebies. 'Hi, it's Geoff here from the local youth centre. Can you tell Akowsi that we'll be shut over the weekend because the boiler's packed in'. 'OK, I'll tell him. He'll probably go out and shoot someone instead.'. Race baiters like Lammy and Abbott only think about votes. They all promote racism for their own benefit. What aren't black lives matter demonstrating against all these black people dying in the Capital? inews.co.uk/news/uk/london-murders-a-list-of-the-victims-killed-in-the-capital-so-far-this-year/amp/?__twitter_impression=trueSent from my SM-G955F using proboards just to annoy redwhitenblue Black and minority ethnic teenage boys and men were disproportionately affected, as both victims and perpetrators, the city mayor's office revealed. www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/02/london-sees-rise-knife-crimes-180224152346205.html
|
|