Jump to content

Recommended Posts

https://skwawkbox.org/2017/06/04/huge-senior-police-officer-says-may-lying-re-police-nossecurity-ge17-kirkham/


Basically, the increased numbers is due to pulling police onto longer hours and from other areas.


Cutting.

Damning.


By a Senior police officer.

Yawn. Ex Police officer.


Peter Kirkham - apparent self-appointed 'commentator'. Describes himself on Twitter profile as "Former police officer & commentator on policing issues. Top Rantologist. Fuckwit intolerant".


Here he is defending the indefensible of police conduct (Hillsborough cover up, Ian Tomlinson cover up, Jean Charles de Menezes cover up) and getting a roasting from Carole Malone of the Mirror on the BBC's Sunday Politics Show.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-24610229/police-trust-debate-carole-malone-and-peter-kirkham


He wasn't quite so mouthy then!

I dont understand people like this basically saying the police could have done a better job tham they did.


I think they did an amazing job at the weekend in the face of the most abhorrent attacks on our society and it is awful that what follows is not congratulation but instead the implicit criticism that there weren't enough of them and they should have done more.


It is shameful.

Crime has actually been dropping quite significantly overall so we don't need the absolute numbers and budget - how we allocate the resource for modern problems is a different issue but this is pure politics.


(see also fireman numbers relative to the significant fall in fires - still get the same emotive arguments).


Anyway, anyone posted Corbyn's views on shoot to kill or not prosecuting ISIS supporters yet today? - probably not on the middle-class, sanctimonious, Virtue signalling toss that dominates the EDF.

It's highly unlikely that any more police officers would have prevented the attacks the other day. Even Diane's 250,000 extra officers wouldn't have done that - greater intelligence service numbers might have made a difference.


I find it distasteful that immediately after the atrocity that just happened, Labour supporters are desperately trying to make political capital out of such horrors by implying (without actually saying) that reduced police numbers somehow contributed to what happened. I think it is disrespectful.


It's also pretty shameful when you think that Diane Abbott and John McDonnell were each recently calling for MI5 to be disbanded. JM even called for all armed police to be disbanded. Lucky he didn't get his way before Saturday night. Here he is...


https://twitter.com/SCLV_UK/status/583702644738416640/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2F

I didn't at all read into it any criticism of the police. Quite the opposite actually.


I'm a bit disappointed that messages are being misinterpreted to suit individual agendas.


So far (and after only three posts), it's


1) not fact because he's a leftie. It

2) fact but it doesn't matter as crime is falling

3) criticism of the job our police did on Saturday night

???? Wrote:

>

> Anyway, anyone posted Corbyn's views on shoot to

> kill or not prosecuting ISIS supporters yet today?

> - probably not on the middle-class, sanctimonious,

> Virtue signalling toss that dominates the EDF.


This!


No - complete silence. Just sniping about police numbers. Probably some sanctimonious crap to come in response to this, but there you go, that will just prove your point. Probably some big long clever words too, that we will be told we won't understand, because we are too simple, or too bigoted.

All of which is true, and none of which actually means he's wrong.


I'm interested to see if the govt are concerned enough to rebut his points, or if anyone else speaks up in agreement; if they have achieved an 'increase' by combing out other parts of the force and increasing shift length then that's not good. If that's what they've actually done, of course.


Corbyn has simply demonstrated again why he'd make a terrible PM...

Abe_froeman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I dont understand people like this basically

> saying the police could have done a better job

> tham they did.

>

> I think they did an amazing job at the weekend in

> the face of the most abhorrent attacks on our

> society and it is awful that what follows is not

> congratulation but instead the implicit criticism

> that there weren't enough of them and they should

> have done more.

>

> It is shameful.


Of course they did - 8 minutes - but at the expense of lower level crimes perhaps ?. and it's stopping the lower level crimes which stop the higher level crimes.


I did note the fact that "everyone" in the borough carries knives was shown to be wrong - we are all basically defenseless other than broken bottles etc.

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's highly unlikely that any more police officers

> would have prevented the attacks the other day.

> Even Diane's 250,000 extra officers wouldn't have

> done that - greater intelligence service numbers

> might have made a difference.

>

> I find it distasteful that immediately after the

> atrocity that just happened, Labour supporters are

> desperately trying to make political capital out

> of such horrors by implying (without actually

> saying) that reduced police numbers somehow

> contributed to what happened. I think it is

> disrespectful.

>

> It's also pretty shameful when you think that

> Diane Abbott and John McDonnell were each recently

> calling for MI5 to be disbanded. JM even called

> for all armed police to be disbanded. Lucky he

> didn't get his way before Saturday night. Here he

> is...

>

> https://twitter.com/SCLV_UK/status/583702644738416

> 640/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F

> %2F



It's simple enough to find out what police think

about the cuts outside of looking at what TM or JC stance is.

It is distasteful labour supporters are being accused of desperately trying to make political capital out of the horrors.And doing it without

Actually saying, what does that mean????

Disgusting.

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Johnsson also pretty awful on R4 this morning. The

> presenter actually pleaded with him to stop

> talking at one point.



He definitely does not have Theresa Mays back on this.


I'd tell her watch out for him.

Can we be sure that the police are *always* being deployed sensibly? I sometimes see what I think is an OTT response to relatively small incidents (4 vehicles, eight officers for an RTA, officers patrolling in threes) and wonder why this is the case. Would a national police force make better sense, or the amalgamation of certain forces to save resources? And, before I get shouted down, I acknowledge that all the services do very good jobs and should be applauded for their efforts and that I know people working in different police forces.)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...