RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:Corbyn's comment about the cuts to police are more than a little pathetic in light of the attack on London. If he wants to campaign on law and order that's fine, and then the cuts to the police would be relevant, but when it comes to this area there has been an increased spending, indeed that's partly what's diverted funding and led to cuts elsewhere.

This is cheap from Corbyn, crass too, and he's tended to have the claim made that part of his appeal is that he's a decent wag

This.

If Labour had been delivering a consistent message that the state needed to invest much more in this area of protection and have still more invasive strategies to investigate our own citizens it'd be different, as is I'm reminded of the Tories posturing on Labour failings leading to the global financial crisis when I recall thinking I hadn't heard one speech from any Tory demanding more regulation on banking, and there was just no way it was party policy to even consider it.

He's been going on about the police cuts all year.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: This.

If Labour had been delivering a consistent message that the state needed to invest much more in this area of protection and have still more invasive strategies to investigate our own citizens it'd be different, as is I'm reminded of the Tories posturing on Labour failings leading to the global financial crisis when I recall thinking I hadn't heard one speech from any Tory demanding more regulation on banking, and there was just no way it was party policy to even consider it.

He's been going on about the police cuts all year.

But there haven't been cuts to anti-terrorism agencies. Funding has increased.

As for the Conservatives blaming the lack of regulation as leading to the financial crisis and laying this squarely at Labour's door, then, yes, utterly ridiculous. And I say that as a member of the party.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: This.

If Labour had been delivering a consistent message that the state needed to invest much more in this area of protection and have still more invasive strategies to investigate our own citizens it'd be different, as is I'm reminded of the Tories posturing on Labour failings leading to the global financial crisis when I recall thinking I hadn't heard one speech from any Tory demanding more regulation on banking, and there was just no way it was party policy to even consider it.

He's been going on about the police cuts all year.

And that's fine in the bigger picture of policing, be it community policing, traffic police or whatever, but it's not with regards to these acts of terrorism as they've seen increased funding in this area. Bringing up the 20,000 figure in relation to the attacks at London Bridge isn't relevant, and actually it's what makes it cheap

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:
If Labour had been delivering a consistent message that the state needed to invest much more in this area of protection and have still more invasive strategies to investigate our own citizens it'd be different, as is I'm reminded of the Tories posturing on Labour failings leading to the global financial crisis when I recall thinking I hadn't heard one speech from any Tory demanding more regulation on banking, and there was just no way it was party policy to even consider it.

He's been going on about the police cuts all year.

And that's fine in the bigger picture of policing, be it community policing, traffic police or whatever, but it's not with regards to these acts of terrorism as they've seen increased funding in this area. Bringing up the 20,000 figure in relation to the attacks at London Bridge isn't relevant, and actually it's what makes it cheap

Of course it's relevant. Why did we deploy soldiers if we had enough resources to protect us from terrorism?

Third attack was nothing sophisticated... Was knife wielding lunatics. Police with tasers should be able to handle it. But we have fewer on the streets.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
He's been going on about the police cuts all year.

And that's fine in the bigger picture of policing, be it community policing, traffic police or whatever, but it's not with regards to these acts of terrorism as they've seen increased funding in this area. Bringing up the 20,000 figure in relation to the attacks at London Bridge isn't relevant, and actually it's what makes it cheap

Of course it's relevant. Why did we deploy soldiers if we had enough resources to protect us from terrorism?

Third attack was nothing sophisticated... Was knife wielding lunatics. Police with tasers should be able to handle it. But we have fewer on the streets.

It's not relevant as the cuts to police numbers have hit home in traffic crimes, in cyber crime, in community policing... whereas the counter terrorism budget hasn't shrunk. So if he wants to address concerns about the loss of more than 20,000 police officers that's fine, but unless he wants to add them all to counter-terrorism efforts and ignore other areas then he's choosing to talk out of context as did Trump when berating the Sadiq Khan for saying there was no need to be alarmed. And I'll give you one more here, if the situation is so important he's willing to politicise grief but a few hours old, and he really wants to address the ramifications of losing 20,000 officers why is it so important that he only plans to add 10,000 back?

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
He's been going on about the police cuts all year.

And that's fine in the bigger picture of policing, be it community policing, traffic police or whatever, but it's not with regards to these acts of terrorism as they've seen increased funding in this area. Bringing up the 20,000 figure in relation to the attacks at London Bridge isn't relevant, and actually it's what makes it cheap

Of course it's relevant. Why did we deploy soldiers if we had enough resources to protect us from terrorism?

Third attack was nothing sophisticated... Was knife wielding lunatics. Police with tasers should be able to handle it. But we have fewer on the streets.

We deployed the army after the event, but to deal with it. That's because they have guns.

This line that we don't have enough police to cope with a terrorist attack is laughable. It's an extreme, incredibly rare event. The fact is that the army had to help with guarding high risk locations normally protected by armed police because those police were required on public transport and public areas. It was required in extremis and for a very short time. It's akin to saying we don't have enough armed forces personnel in the event of a Russian invasion and the armed forces budget therefore needs boosting to 3% of GDP.

Mellsblue wrote:This line that we don't have enough police to cope with a terrorist attack is laughable. It's an extreme, incredibly rare event. The fact is that the army had to help with guarding high risk locations normally protected by armed police because those police were required on public transport and public areas. It was required in extremis and for a very short time. It's akin to saying we don't have enough armed forces personnel in the event of a Russian invasion and the armed forces budget therefore needs boosting to 3% of GDP.

The fact is we have fewer armed police than in 2010.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:
And that's fine in the bigger picture of policing, be it community policing, traffic police or whatever, but it's not with regards to these acts of terrorism as they've seen increased funding in this area. Bringing up the 20,000 figure in relation to the attacks at London Bridge isn't relevant, and actually it's what makes it cheap

Of course it's relevant. Why did we deploy soldiers if we had enough resources to protect us from terrorism?

Third attack was nothing sophisticated... Was knife wielding lunatics. Police with tasers should be able to handle it. But we have fewer on the streets.

We deployed the army after the event, but to deal with it. That's because they have guns.

So do armed police but recent pledges to increase has not offset reductions since 2010.

Zhivago wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:This line that we don't have enough police to cope with a terrorist attack is laughable. It's an extreme, incredibly rare event. The fact is that the army had to help with guarding high risk locations normally protected by armed police because those police were required on public transport and public areas. It was required in extremis and for a very short time. It's akin to saying we don't have enough armed forces personnel in the event of a Russian invasion and the armed forces budget therefore needs boosting to 3% of GDP.

The fact is we have fewer armed police than in 2010.

I'm not disputing that. What I would dispute is that there are approx 1,000 less armed police but those moaning about it are quoting the irrelevant, in this context, figure of 20,0000 because it sounds better. Regardless, I'm asking why it's necessary to have all those armed police when in extremis we just call in the army for a few days. The police will have a moan because they want their budget increased, but then who doesn't. Are we to staff every public body as if an extreme act has occurred. Should we increase personnel numbers in the fire service and NHS to cope with a Russian bombing campaign? The facts are we had enough manpower to cope with the situation, whether that power was wearing army fatigues or police uniform is irrelevant.
As for police with tasers, add an extra 20,000, take away those not on duty, those sat behind a desk and then work out the number per square mile. I doubt the terrorists would suddenly think twice about their actions or be any less destructive unless we got very, very lucky.

Mellsblue wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:This line that we don't have enough police to cope with a terrorist attack is laughable. It's an extreme, incredibly rare event. The fact is that the army had to help with guarding high risk locations normally protected by armed police because those police were required on public transport and public areas. It was required in extremis and for a very short time. It's akin to saying we don't have enough armed forces personnel in the event of a Russian invasion and the armed forces budget therefore needs boosting to 3% of GDP.

The fact is we have fewer armed police than in 2010.

I'm not disputing that. What I would dispute is that there are approx 1,000 less armed police but those moaning about it are quoting the irrelevant, in this context, figure of 20,0000 because it sounds better. Regardless, I'm asking why it's necessary to have all those armed police when in extremis we just call in the army for a few days. The police will have a moan because they want their budget increased, but then who doesn't. Are we to staff every public body as if an extreme act has occurred. Should we increase personnel numbers in the fire service and NHS to cope with a Russian bombing campaign? The facts are we had enough manpower to cope with the situation, whether that power was wearing army fatigues or police uniform is irrelevant.
As for police with tasers, add an extra 20,000, take away those not on duty, those sat behind a desk and then work out the number per square mile. I doubt the terrorists would suddenly think twice about their actions or be any less destructive unless we got very, very lucky.

But we have had a terror level of 'severe'. You may think that all you need is special units to deal with terrorism, but losing bobbies off the beat means less intel from community sources.

Zhivago wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
The fact is we have fewer armed police than in 2010.

I'm not disputing that. What I would dispute is that there are approx 1,000 less armed police but those moaning about it are quoting the irrelevant, in this context, figure of 20,0000 because it sounds better. Regardless, I'm asking why it's necessary to have all those armed police when in extremis we just call in the army for a few days. The police will have a moan because they want their budget increased, but then who doesn't. Are we to staff every public body as if an extreme act has occurred. Should we increase personnel numbers in the fire service and NHS to cope with a Russian bombing campaign? The facts are we had enough manpower to cope with the situation, whether that power was wearing army fatigues or police uniform is irrelevant.
As for police with tasers, add an extra 20,000, take away those not on duty, those sat behind a desk and then work out the number per square mile. I doubt the terrorists would suddenly think twice about their actions or be any less destructive unless we got very, very lucky.

But we have had a terror level of 'severe'. You may think that all you need is special units to deal with terrorism, but losing bobbies off the beat means less intel from community sources.

Yep, this.

I keep hearing of community engagement as the key to stopping radicalisation. Going to a recognisable trusted community Bobby when voicing a concern is far more likely than calling a faceless number that seems to be all but unaccountable.

Mellsblue wrote:
I'm not disputing that. What I would dispute is that there are approx 1,000 less armed police

And there are issues here not just around the number of officers but the training, the reports/admin required around use of guns, the ongoing evaluations, the feeling they're used operationally and then hung out to dry without political support (and Corbyn has said plenty which would cause them to distrust him) and without senior police management support

Zhivago wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
The fact is we have fewer armed police than in 2010.

I'm not disputing that. What I would dispute is that there are approx 1,000 less armed police but those moaning about it are quoting the irrelevant, in this context, figure of 20,0000 because it sounds better. Regardless, I'm asking why it's necessary to have all those armed police when in extremis we just call in the army for a few days. The police will have a moan because they want their budget increased, but then who doesn't. Are we to staff every public body as if an extreme act has occurred. Should we increase personnel numbers in the fire service and NHS to cope with a Russian bombing campaign? The facts are we had enough manpower to cope with the situation, whether that power was wearing army fatigues or police uniform is irrelevant.
As for police with tasers, add an extra 20,000, take away those not on duty, those sat behind a desk and then work out the number per square mile. I doubt the terrorists would suddenly think twice about their actions or be any less destructive unless we got very, very lucky.

But we have had a terror level of 'severe'. You may think that all you need is special units to deal with terrorism, but losing bobbies off the beat means less intel from community sources.

It's been at severe for bloody ages but nothing has happened until the last couple of weeks. Still no answer to the 20,000 being wholly out of context or what is wrong with using the army in extremis.

For as many people who tell you less bobbies on the beat is a worry there will be as many if not more telling you it's a waste of manpower and money. Funding for terrorism specific activities has risen, if the Police thought bobbies on the beat were key to it they'd be out there.

There's quite a lot of research now that bobbies on the beat can help reduce crime, and that even if it costs X money up front it's cheaper than spending Y on investigating after the event, on court time, possibly even on jail time. But most of that research concentrates on schemes that operate in crime hotspots so it would be easier to see reductions, and sees significant police presence of circa 30 minutes a day, there's no way even an extra 40,000 police officers would see most people getting 30 minutes a day, and I've no idea if there's any confirmation that police officers on the beat supply better levels of indication as to whether some individuals are being radicalised

Maybe Corbyn could tell us why he's only looking to add 10,000 back from 20,000 losses, and what areas they'd be assigned to, would they all be bobbies, might some tackle the growing issues of cyber crime, might some help the now massive backlog in cataloguing the crimes of paedophiles, might some go into traffic divisions where accident investigation is limited to say the least, and so on and so on? Talking in generalities is easy, though I'd grant Corbyn at least took a hit in being willing to have Diane Abbot so often go before the cameras to tell people what it'd cost

This thread seems to be reflecting how the press treats Corbyn.

May as conservative home Secretary reduces frontline police by 20000 despite warnings from police association.

Comments are; why is Corbyn only looking to increase by 10k, and he has said "stuff" that would make the police uneasy.

canta_brian wrote:This thread seems to be reflecting how the press treats Corbyn.

May as conservative home Secretary reduces frontline police by 20000 despite warnings from police association.

Comments are; why is Corbyn only looking to increase by 10k, and he has said "stuff" that would make the police uneasy.

At the very least that's far too precious.

The comments have been that it's perfectly fair for Corbyn to raise the falling number of police officers, and we'll ignore for now I doubt anyone has been struck that Corbyn is a law and order sort of chap, but not in regards to counter terrorism as there simply haven't been cuts there. Unless Corbyn wants to say he'd not only add all those number back (and really if 20,000 losses are wrong why only add 10,000 back?) but he'd all them disproportionately to counter-terrorism.

Given even if Corbyn would actually add 20,000 police back, and his own comments suggest he'd only add half and even that might be relying on the work of Diane Abbot in this area so could be wholly wrong, most of those wouldn't go to counter-terrorism given all the areas those jobs were lost from. And I just don't see how adding officers back into all those divisions that aren't counter-terrorism allows Corbyn to reasonably suggest public safety when it come to the attack at London Bridge has been done on the cheap given the losses of 20,000 officers.

Corbyn might be thinking just spouting a figure has worked before, in such as lets give out NHS £350 million a week that the EU takes, so it might garner some votes. But it's pathetic.

Digby wrote:

canta_brian wrote:This thread seems to be reflecting how the press treats Corbyn.

May as conservative home Secretary reduces frontline police by 20000 despite warnings from police association.

Comments are; why is Corbyn only looking to increase by 10k, and he has said "stuff" that would make the police uneasy.

At the very least that's far too precious.

The comments have been that it's perfectly fair for Corbyn to raise the falling number of police officers, and we'll ignore for now I doubt anyone has been struck that Corbyn is a law and order sort of chap, but not in regards to counter terrorism as there simply haven't been cuts there. Unless Corbyn wants to say he'd not only add all those number back (and really if 20,000 losses are wrong why only add 10,000 back?) but he'd all them disproportionately to counter-terrorism.

Given even if Corbyn would actually add 20,000 police back, and his own comments suggest he'd only add half and even that might be relying on the work of Diane Abbot in this area so could be wholly wrong, most of those wouldn't go to counter-terrorism given all the areas those jobs were lost from. And I just don't see how adding officers back into all those divisions that aren't counter-terrorism allows Corbyn to reasonably suggest public safety when it come to the attack at London Bridge has been done on the cheap given the losses of 20,000 officers.

Corbyn might be thinking just spouting a figure has worked before, in such as lets give out NHS £350 million a week that the EU takes, so it might garner some votes. But it's pathetic.

Let's pretend for a minute that you are not entirely wrong.

Counter terrorism police will attempt to look for people trying to buy explosives, or trying to research bomb making techniques. But they can't do much to stop someone using a vehicle and a knife. To have any chance of stopping this kind of attack we need to have communication between community and law enforcement. So if the counter terror police numbers have remained the same we have to conclude that the cuts have cone from areas that counter terror are unlikely to be able to see. This is on the Conservative's watch and yet all we hear is criticism of Labour.

canta_brian wrote: Let's pretend for a minute that you are not entirely wrong.

Counter terrorism police will attempt to look for people trying to buy explosives, or trying to research bomb making techniques. But they can't do much to stop someone using a vehicle and a knife. To have any chance of stopping this kind of attack we need to have communication between community and law enforcement. So if the counter terror police numbers have remained the same we have to conclude that the cuts have cone from areas that counter terror are unlikely to be able to see. This is on the Conservative's watch and yet all we hear is criticism of Labour.

The prevent part of the government's counter terrorism seems to be the area that's help to identify those who might be likely to act, and the people involved in the latest attack may again have been known to prevent and the police. How many people the police are able to actually track given resources available, what decisions they've made about who to track, whether the measures available to the police are sufficient, whether we should return to control orders might all reasonably be up for debate. And yet what Jeremy has gone after is that resources have been cut, whereas in reality in this area spending has actually increased (though I'd not be surprised to learn more in line with inflation than real growth), and using cuts elsewhere in the police service to try and score points after such an attack seems both irresponsible and a little sick. Also it's Corbyn, the man who votes against security measures, the man against police shooting to kill, the man not in favour of prevent, and based on history in favour of the IRA who were well known for attacks on the British state, so from where is he drawing the inspiration that on this issue he's the one who should be holding forth with lines like the PM should resign for her record on this?

Yes it's true the Tories are getting plenty wrong, but Corbyn has no history of talking on this subject in a way which suggests he's any plans other than being nice to people in the seeming hope they'll be nice back, and I suspect many people just aren't buying that line, as (a) even if we were nice they'd still attack us, and (b) we've no interest in doing many of the things they'd want as their due.

We need to start looking at conservative performance over the 7 years they have been in power. Too many seem happy to give them an easy ride.

canta_brian wrote: We need to start looking at conservative performance over the 7 years they have been in power. Too many seem happy to give them an easy ride.

They've basically continued with a Labour policy with the Prevent part of the strategy, though the Tory/Lib-Dem government did scrap control orders. And I've not heard a sausage from Labour on what they'd do that's different, or that they'd suddenly be investing much more, maybe it's just me that's missed that.

I suspect most people think they'd all be much the same in this area.

canta_brian wrote:

We need to start looking at conservative performance over the 7 years they have been in power. Too many seem happy to give them an easy ride.

If you knew anything about Steven Hilton you'd know not to trust a word he says about anyone who isn't a Cameroon or, in fact, anyone who doesn't believe he's the oracle.

We do need to look at the Conservatives seven years and that will involve looking in the correct place. 20,000 less policemen isn't the correct place. It may well be that we've just been bloody unlucky recently and that no achievable £ figure would've prevented what's happened. All that 20,000 figure is is the largest figure that is remotely linked to issue. Which, as Diggers points out, is the sort of tactic that was so roundly derided after ending up on a red bus.

Digby wrote:[And I've not heard a sausage from Labour on what they'd do that's different, or that they'd suddenly be investing much more, maybe it's just me that's missed that.

I suspect most people think they'd all be much the same in this area.

I believe they are just going to chuck a shed load more money at it and then renationalise the police force.

Zhivago wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
The fact is we have fewer armed police than in 2010.

I'm not disputing that. What I would dispute is that there are approx 1,000 less armed police but those moaning about it are quoting the irrelevant, in this context, figure of 20,0000 because it sounds better. Regardless, I'm asking why it's necessary to have all those armed police when in extremis we just call in the army for a few days. The police will have a moan because they want their budget increased, but then who doesn't. Are we to staff every public body as if an extreme act has occurred. Should we increase personnel numbers in the fire service and NHS to cope with a Russian bombing campaign? The facts are we had enough manpower to cope with the situation, whether that power was wearing army fatigues or police uniform is irrelevant.
As for police with tasers, add an extra 20,000, take away those not on duty, those sat behind a desk and then work out the number per square mile. I doubt the terrorists would suddenly think twice about their actions or be any less destructive unless we got very, very lucky.

But we have had a terror level of 'severe'. You may think that all you need is special units to deal with terrorism, but losing bobbies off the beat means less intel from community sources.

Does it fuck.