Snap General Election called

[belgarion]

Maybe because reductions in community policing have made it more difficult to police the community.

Hold on, just being hypothetical here but if he was reported to the police, community bobby or otherwise, wouldn't
it have been passed along to the relevant department & so has absolutely feck all to do with whether there was a community
bobby or not.

Or maybe lower level behaviour would have been reported, the community bobby may have spoken at the same time to his imam and it might never have needed to reach anyone like the anti terrorism units(who appear to have missed him anyway).

With that last sentence are you suggesting that if a community PC had had a chat with Abedi's Imam that would have
stopped the attack, because if you are I think you are being a little bit naive.

[Mellsblue]

Maybe because reductions in community policing have made it more difficult to police the community.

Hold on, just being hypothetical here but if he was reported to the police, community bobby or otherwise, wouldn't
it have been passed along to the relevant department & so has absolutely feck all to do with whether there was a community
bobby or not.

Or maybe lower level behaviour would have been reported, the community bobby may have spoken at the same time to his imam and it might never have needed to reach anyone like the anti terrorism units(who appear to have missed him anyway).

Sounds full proof. Maybe, may have, might be.

[Zhivago]

Hold on, just being hypothetical here but if he was reported to the police, community bobby or otherwise, wouldn't
it have been passed along to the relevant department & so has absolutely feck all to do with whether there was a community
bobby or not.

Or maybe lower level behaviour would have been reported, the community bobby may have spoken at the same time to his imam and it might never have needed to reach anyone like the anti terrorism units(who appear to have missed him anyway).

Sounds full proof. Maybe, may have, might be.

You know what's fool proof... Vote for May and get more of the same strong and stable failure.

[Stones of granite]

Or maybe lower level behaviour would have been reported, the community bobby may have spoken at the same time to his imam and it might never have needed to reach anyone like the anti terrorism units(who appear to have missed him anyway).

Sounds full proof. Maybe, may have, might be.

You know what's fool proof... Vote for May and get more of the same strong and stable failure.

or, vote to have Dianne Abbott running the Home Office....

[canta_brian]

Sounds full proof. Maybe, may have, might be.

You know what's fool proof... Vote for May and get more of the same strong and stable failure.

or, vote to have Dianne Abbott running the Home Office....

Again, it's all criticism of Labour. The tories have had 7 years in power and seem to have achieved very little. Nobody thinks Diana Abbot is going to run anything to do with numbers, but if you think the tories are any better you are nuts. They have an uncosted manifesto which includes a net migration figure that they haven't come close to achieving in the last 7 years despite their "promises"

[canta_brian]

Hold on, just being hypothetical here but if he was reported to the police, community bobby or otherwise, wouldn't
it have been passed along to the relevant department & so has absolutely feck all to do with whether there was a community
bobby or not.

Or maybe lower level behaviour would have been reported, the community bobby may have spoken at the same time to his imam and it might never have needed to reach anyone like the anti terrorism units(who appear to have missed him anyway).

With that last sentence are you suggesting that if a community PC had had a chat with Abedi's Imam that would have
stopped the attack, because if you are I think you are being a little bit naive.

I think you are probably right on this. However the policies in place now are evidently failing.

[Mellsblue]

Or maybe lower level behaviour would have been reported, the community bobby may have spoken at the same time to his imam and it might never have needed to reach anyone like the anti terrorism units(who appear to have missed him anyway).

Sounds full proof. Maybe, may have, might be.

You know what's fool proof... Vote for May and get more of the same strong and stable failure.

I'm no fan of hers, but she's the best of a bad bunch.

[canta_brian]

Sounds full proof. Maybe, may have, might be.

You know what's fool proof... Vote for May and get more of the same strong and stable failure.

I'm no fan of hers, but she's the best of a bad bunch.

I think she's a nasty opportunist with no interests beyond her own.

[Mellsblue]

You know what's fool proof... Vote for May and get more of the same strong and stable failure.

I'm no fan of hers, but she's the best of a bad bunch.

I think she's a nasty opportunist with no interests beyond her own.

Good for you.

[Donny osmond]

You know what's fool proof... Vote for May and get more of the same strong and stable failure.

I'm no fan of hers, but she's the best of a bad bunch.

I think she's a nasty opportunist with no interests beyond her own.

Aren't all cabinet-level politicians?

I'm really torn in this election and this debate highlights why... May and the tories who are a right bunch of bastards and have been failing for 7years, or the fucking McDonnell and Abbott show.

God help us

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

[Stones of granite]

You know what's fool proof... Vote for May and get more of the same strong and stable failure.

or, vote to have Dianne Abbott running the Home Office....

Again, it's all criticism of Labour. The tories have had 7 years in power and seem to have achieved very little. Nobody thinks Diana Abbot is going to run anything to do with numbers, but if you think the tories are any better you are nuts. They have an uncosted manifesto which includes a net migration figure that they haven't come close to achieving in the last 7 years despite their "promises"

I'm not a fan of the Tories by any stretch of the imagination, but if you seriously believe that Dianne Abbott'slimitations run to purely innumeracy, then you are wilfully deluded.

This thread is about the General Election, is it not? And yet you don't accept that there should be criticise of one of the two donkeys in a 2 horse race? Fine. Don't expect to be taken seriously.

[Stones of granite]

You know what's fool proof... Vote for May and get more of the same strong and stable failure.

I'm no fan of hers, but she's the best of a bad bunch.

I think she's a nasty opportunist with no interests beyond her own.

We agree on that.
However, that is not limited to Theresa May.

[Digby]

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.

Get off the fence

[Mellsblue]

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.

Get off the fence

That made me lol

[Sandydragon]

Hold on, just being hypothetical here but if he was reported to the police, community bobby or otherwise, wouldn't
it have been passed along to the relevant department & so has absolutely feck all to do with whether there was a community
bobby or not.

Or maybe lower level behaviour would have been reported, the community bobby may have spoken at the same time to his imam and it might never have needed to reach anyone like the anti terrorism units(who appear to have missed him anyway).

With that last sentence are you suggesting that if a community PC had had a chat with Abedi's Imam that would have
stopped the attack, because if you are I think you are being a little bit naive.

This assumes that community policemen are actually spoken to by supporters of Islamic fundamentalism. It also doesn't take into account the use of PCSOs who fulfil many community roles that used to have a Constable instead.

Gathering intelligence is one workstream, yet in recent cases, intelligence on the terrorists was passed on. Was it not acted upon because of insufficient resources, or more likely because there was no justifiable reason to take further action.

There is a requirement for a certain level of confidence that someone is a real threat before surveillance is authorised. Covert, intrusive surveillance isn't done for the hell of it. Secondly, the prosecute someone, or even to undertake some kind of restrictive action requires evidence. As others have pointed out, the evidence might not be sufficient for a prosecution, or it might be too sensitive to use in court, but there has to be something.

If gobbling off about support how terrorists are justified in launching their attacks is going to result in close surveillance or limits on individual freedoms, then a few posters on this board over the years would have been in a spot of bother.

Our police and security service work according to the rule of law. That requires more than unsubstantiated comments on a person being a bit dodgy.

[canta_brian]

or, vote to have Dianne Abbott running the Home Office....

Again, it's all criticism of Labour. The tories have had 7 years in power and seem to have achieved very little. Nobody thinks Diana Abbot is going to run anything to do with numbers, but if you think the tories are any better you are nuts. They have an uncosted manifesto which includes a net migration figure that they haven't come close to achieving in the last 7 years despite their "promises"

I'm not a fan of the Tories by any stretch of the imagination, but if you seriously believe that Dianne Abbott'slimitations run to purely innumeracy, then you are wilfully deluded.

This thread is about the General Election, is it not? And yet you don't accept that there should be criticise of one of the two donkeys in a 2 horse race? Fine. Don't expect to be taken seriously.

I have no issue with criticism of Labour or their politicians. My point throughout this has been that when May faces criticism the UK press, and several members of this forum simply attempt to ignore this and move the point of attack to Corbyn.

And yes, I agree, they are all a shower

I'm no fan of hers, but she's the best of a bad bunch.

I think she's a nasty opportunist with no interests beyond her own.

We agree on that.
However, that is not limited to Theresa May.

[jared_7]

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

Is this guy lying? Ex police commissioner saying it's the everyday police that are in charge of monitoring the 23,000 low level "people of interest" that then feeds up to the terrorism area.

[Digby]

I'd say no, but mainly (and I don't object to this) he seems to be saying there should be more police, and this is a justification he can get coverage over. As an aside I doubt he's an ex commissioner speaking like that, which might also means he's less likely to speak bollocks of course.

That there should be more police is a message that could (and should imo) garner a lot of support. But that can and should standalone from events of the last couple of days

[Zhivago]

I'd say no, but mainly (and I don't object to this) he seems to be saying there should be more police, and this is a justification he can get coverage over. As an aside I doubt he's an ex commissioner speaking like that, which might also means he's less likely to speak bollocks of course.

That there should be more police is a message that could (and should imo) garner a lot of support. But that can and should standalone from events of the last couple of days

Why should it be kept separate? Are you suggesting with 100% confidence that it in no way hindered our security apparatus from preventing the terror attacks?

[belgarion]

I'd say no, but mainly (and I don't object to this) he seems to be saying there should be more police, and this is a justification he can get coverage over. As an aside I doubt he's an ex commissioner speaking like that, which might also means he's less likely to speak bollocks of course.

That there should be more police is a message that could (and should imo) garner a lot of support. But that can and should standalone from events of the last couple of days

Why should it be kept separate? Are you suggesting with 100% confidence that it in no way hindered our security apparatus from preventing the terror attacks?

How would 20,000 extra 'bobbies on the beat' prevented the latest attacks? If the reports about the police being told
about Abedi's radicalism & the London attackers links then it's the fault of the higher ups/MI5/Special Branch/anti-terrorism
departments for not dealing with them. The extra plods would have been irrelevant.

[twitchy]

[SerjeantWildgoose]

I suspect one or two of those comments may have been taken out of context.

[SerjeantWildgoose]

it's the fault of the higher ups ...

Ah, the higher-ups. Bunch of feckless bastards.

[Mellsblue]

I tried to do some work but it was boring. I'll leave this here to lighten the mood. Diane Abbott may be in the headline but politicians on both sides of the divide take a bashing:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/ ... 0606128946

[twitchy]

I suspect one or two of those comments may have been taken out of context.

GCHQ is recruiting.