RugbyRebels

Mikey Brown wrote:

kk67 wrote:I hadn't realized that May's plans to bring the Serious Fraud Office under the umbrella of the NCA has reappeared.
This is really not good. Under the plans that first got a good kicking from everyone in 2010, the SFO will be answerable to the Home Office. That means investigations into corruption such as Rolls-Royce, BAE, energy, financial services et al, will now be decided by politicians. More specifically, the Department of Trade, currently headed by Dr Liam Fox.
As the Eye points out with the UK currently being desperate to trade with anyone, the SFO losing it's independence and Dr.Foxy in charge, it seems that the UK's role as a haven for corporate corruption will continue.

Haven't I already told you it's those greedy bastard infants that are the real issue?

All law enforcement agencies are answerable to the Home Office. The SFO has been a national agency since it was created after The Roskill Report in the early 1980's so bringing it under the aegis of the NCA is hardly a huge change. Day to day operation and control of cases remains with the head of SFO. So long as the police are servants of the law and not at the whim of politicians.

Cheers Cas. The design consultant role is all yours.

twitchy wrote:

That's a clever piece of work.

Zhivago wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 71526.html

With or without bias now?

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 71526.html

With or without bias now?

Depends which poll. The ones assuming youth turnout on the same level as 2015 are clearly biased. This one I quoted I think does not make that assumption. So it's better. Obviously we should take them with a pinch of salt. Certainly I would not like to predict the exact outcome from any of the polls, but you can definitely use them to judge movement in opinion.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 71526.html

With or without bias now?

Depends which poll. The ones assuming youth turnout on the same level as 2015 are clearly biased. This one I quoted I think does not make that assumption. So it's better. Obviously we should take them with a pinch of salt. Certainly I would not like to predict the exact outcome from any of the polls, but you can definitely use them to judge movement in opinion.

A hung parliament would be an outcome I'd quite like to see, save in this day and age people being willing to strike compromise deals seems to be less and less in vogue. Maybe we'll see a few people forced to grow up on Friday, but I have my doubts. And tbh I'd still guess at a small gain in a Conservative majority, no way I'm voting for them, but being in a safe Conservative seat that's not going to make the blindest bit of difference thanks to FPP

The polls seem mainly to have the Tories on 45% which is about as high as any political party in over 50 years. The interesting thing is the switch to labour from elsewhere. The degree to which this is tactical voting or actual conversion will be interesting. What it is likely to mean is Corbyn in charge of Labour for the next few years as well.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:The polls seem mainly to have the Tories on 45% which is about as high as any political party in over 50 years. The interesting thing is the switch to labour from elsewhere. The degree to which this is tactical voting or actual conversion will be interesting. What it is likely to mean is Corbyn in charge of Labour for the next few years as well.

I can see it being another loony lefty, but I don't know at nearly 70 we'd have Corbyn wanting to stay on as opposition leader

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:The polls seem mainly to have the Tories on 45% which is about as high as any political party in over 50 years. The interesting thing is the switch to labour from elsewhere. The degree to which this is tactical voting or actual conversion will be interesting. What it is likely to mean is Corbyn in charge of Labour for the next few years as well.

Ukips collapse seems to be benefitting labour more at the moment. And to think of all those arguments with Hammy over ukip just hurting the tories.

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:The polls seem mainly to have the Tories on 45% which is about as high as any political party in over 50 years. The interesting thing is the switch to labour from elsewhere. The degree to which this is tactical voting or actual conversion will be interesting. What it is likely to mean is Corbyn in charge of Labour for the next few years as well.

Ukips collapse seems to be benefitting labour more at the moment. And to think of all those arguments with Hammy over ukip just hurting the tories.

It just doesn't make any sense. The natural place for UKIP supporters is the Conservatives as they are the ones promising controlled borders and no ECJ oversight. You'd have also thought that the Lib Dems would've collected plenty of hard Remainers as they are the only ones actually campaigning to retain the EU status quo. My only conclusion is that for the vast, vast majority of the U.K. Brexit is not very high up on their list of priorities. Or, and this is more likely, those who blamed their woes on the EU now see Corbyn returning the country to 'the good old days', which we know weren't particularly good, and/or offering them milk and honey with somebody else paying for it.

Mellsblue wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:The polls seem mainly to have the Tories on 45% which is about as high as any political party in over 50 years. The interesting thing is the switch to labour from elsewhere. The degree to which this is tactical voting or actual conversion will be interesting. What it is likely to mean is Corbyn in charge of Labour for the next few years as well.

Ukips collapse seems to be benefitting labour more at the moment. And to think of all those arguments with Hammy over ukip just hurting the tories.

It just doesn't make any sense. The natural place for UKIP supporters is the Conservatives as they are the ones promising controlled borders and no ECJ oversight. You'd have also thought that the Lib Dems would've collected plenty of hard Remainers as they are the only ones actually campaigning to retain the EU status quo. My only conclusion is that for the vast, vast majority of the U.K. Brexit is not very high up on their list of priorities. Or, and this is more likely, those who blamed their woes on the EU now see Corbyn returning the country to 'the good old days', which we know weren't particularly good, and/or offering them milk and honey with somebody else paying for it.

One of the oddities about ukip was the way they dragged in support from the left and right. Plenty of labour supporters of old weren't keen in the EU and were left behind by globalisation. Ukip took Tory support first, it plenty of labour voters went that way as well, partially over Europe and partially because the Labour Party didn't seem to speak for them anymore, and arguably still doesn't. Love him or loath him, Farage reached voters the main parties ignored. With Farage out of front line politics and us leaving Europe, ukip isn't the attraction anymore and perhaps tribal loyalties are coming back to the fore in lieu of an alternative.

Corbyn speech for tomorrow leaked. By his team this time I imagine.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40153536

He does seem to be getting better at getting his message across and countering the critics

canta_brian wrote:Corbyn speech for tomorrow leaked. By his team this time I imagine.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40153536

He does seem to be getting better at getting his message across and countering the critics

Security isn't Corbyns safe area, but I do wonder if anyone cares about facts anymore. Brexit revisited or will this be another fuss about nothing?

That 20000 less frontline police figure is hard for May to counter. Bringing out the magic money tree soundbite isn't an option with so many casualties.

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

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.

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.

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.