The media really ***** me off sometimes

Dolph said:
The numbers vary between 1 and 2 million depending on source, but even at 2 million people, taking in to account the 2 day duration, it is still a disportionate spend.

The cost of policing last year was approx 8 million.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...ggyMAU&usg=AFQjCNHLjTB7gNV0whlJROX_mHHohwZFsA


Total policing budget for the UK is 11bn

https://fullfact.org/crime/police-funding-england-and-wales/

So per person per day policing budget is 11bn divided by 67 million x 365, which is roughly 45p per head per day.

If the festival costs 8 million to police the 2 million attendees over 2 days, that works out at £2 per head per day, or an additional £1.55, so that is a hugely disproportionate spend for the two days...
Click to expand...
I think, perhaps, one can consider his argument to be a little grasping when a 4x expenditure on policing a large annual event is presented as unreasonable, ahead of admitting that maybe cuts are getting a bit heavy.

I mean, are we really a country who is going to say that we can't provide appropriate policing to major, generally peaceful, festivities or, otherwise, we have to 'triage' our crime response on 'arbitrary' factors? That's where we're at with supporting cuts?
 
cheesyboy said:
I think, perhaps, one can consider his argument to be a little grasping when a 4x expenditure on policing a large annual event is presented as unreasonable, ahead of admitting that maybe cuts are getting a bit heavy.

I mean, are we really a country who is going to say that we can't provide appropriate policing to major, generally peaceful, festivities or, otherwise, we have to 'triage' our crime response on 'arbitrary' factors? That's where we're at with supporting cuts?
Click to expand...

Policing that event takes standard resource for the days concerned away from 6million people. If there is a need to manage expenditure more closely through restricting (or charging for) activities then the unnecessary events should be way up the list compared to just restricting access to justice for crime victims because they are not vulnerable enough...
 
Woden said:
Because the headline it's aimed purely at causing racial division. Why target non English speaking, when the chief mentions the disabled and elderly first?
Click to expand...

Because the prioritisation of those for whom English is a second language is the whole point. Some may try to phrase it as a more general debate about why any demographic should get priority but we all know full well what the real discussion is here. Even the use of the phrase "English as a second language" is a little euphemistic - I know plenty of people who fall into this category yet are fluent in English. What's being objected to here is clearly that those who don't have a good command of English will, as a result of being more vulnerable, be given priority.

I'm sorry but this is garbage. I have no issue with priority being given to those who are genuinely vulnerable through no fault of their own but those who can't be bothered to learn English? Note that this isn't about immigrants per se. Yes they will account for many in this category but there are also plenty of people who were born and raised in this country yet who don't have a good grasp of English because they've lived their entire lives in insular communities which speak a different language. Again, I'm sorry but I fall into the group of people who believe that English is our national language (with all due deference to Welsh etc) and that, if you live here, you should make an effort to learn it. For that reason, much as I hate the Daily Fail and their sensationalist methods, the underlying issue here is a valid one.

Sliver said:
Words fail me. Honestly, what the hell is going when your house number determines whether or not you receive justice. What's next? Blue eyed people exempt from murder prosecutions?
Click to expand...

Woohoo! I'm making a list! :D
 
Gigabit said:
Dowie ruins every thread I make.
Click to expand...

LOL what? :D how have I ruined anything here - I've made two posts (well three if you include this one) they're both on the previous page, both are on topic and neither are quoting you??? :confused:

If you want an echo chamber get back to your Brexit thread :p
 
Last edited:
GTiPUG said:
I don't get why you're so enraged, it's legitimately concerning.

If we're all seen as equals as this do gooder mentality would have us believe, why the hell should any demographic get priority?
Click to expand...

Because they're lying. They hate the idea of equality and know that the most effective way to oppose it is to corrupt it. All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.
 
Angilion said:
Because they're lying. They hate the idea of equality and know that the most effective way to oppose it is to corrupt it. All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.
Click to expand...

But if you want equality why don't you oppose one group getting priority over others?
 
GTiPUG said:
But if you want equality why don't you oppose one group getting priority over others?
Click to expand...

You do that if you want equality.

If you want inequality and realise that honestly opposing equality is less effective, you say that your favoured group getting priority is equality. That way you damage the very idea of equality, get wider support than you actually have because some people who support equality will be fooled and you get to suppress dissent by claiming that anyone who opposes the inequality you favour is opposing equality. It's like a virus infecting a host and using the host's own cells as both a hiding place from the host's immune system and as a factory to produce more virus. It's far more effective than honestly opposing equality. The only other way to "justify" inequality is to say that your favoured group in inherently superior and this deserves preferential treatement. That's a much harder idea to sell, at least to begin with.
 
This is about visits from the police after a crime has taken place, there's no mention of them not responding to a home invasion call because you sound like a Cockney.

If you click through from the Heil's story which is mainly pictures and using six sentences before saying "Sadiq Khan", you get a far better idea of what it's actually about https://www.standard.co.uk/news/cri...ddleaged-and-speak-good-english-a3619956.html
 
I know it's the gutter press but can anyone decipher the mails sub headline from the article?

Mayor Sadiq Khan said half of London's 'poorly used' police station front counters earlier this year

I've read it several times and I know it's late on Saturday but I just don't get it's meaning.
 
jas72 said:
I know it's the gutter press but can anyone decipher the mails sub headline from the article?

Mayor Sadiq Khan said half of London's 'poorly used' police station front counters earlier this year

I've read it several times and I know it's late on Saturday but I just don't get it's meaning.
Click to expand...

That sentence fragment doesn't have any meaning. What was said was that £10 million could be saved by closing half of London's police station front counters. Which might be true, but I question the wisdom of isolating the police from the general public even more.
 
Angilion said:
That sentence fragment doesn't have any meaning. What was said was that £10 million could be saved by closing half of London's police station front counters. Which might be true, but I question the wisdom of isolating the police from the general public even more.
Click to expand...

But what else are they supposed to do, they need to save the money because that's what the Government said. I just think of all the things to cut the Police and the NHS are the wrong things to be cutting, especially with security being a high-priority right now.
 
Gigabit said:
But what else are they supposed to do, they need to save the money because that's what the Government said. I just think of all the things to cut the Police and the NHS are the wrong things to be cutting, especially with security being a high-priority right now.
Click to expand...

There are lots of other things they could do, but they wouldn't drive the right narrative. I've already discussed some of them in this thread.

Once you get into accepting differential service based on arbitrary factors, the service becomes more and more aribtrary the next time savings need to be made. Just because you may agree with the current discrimination factors being proposed doesn't mean it would be restricted to those.
 
Dolph said:
There are lots of other things they could do, but they wouldn't drive the right narrative. I've already discussed some of them in this thread.

Once you get into accepting differential service based on arbitrary factors, the service becomes more and more aribtrary the next time savings need to be made. Just because you may agree with the current discrimination factors being proposed doesn't mean it would be restricted to those.
Click to expand...

You've said don't police the Notting Hill Carnival, can't see anything else.
 
Gigabit said:
You've said don't police the Notting Hill Carnival, can't see anything else.
Click to expand...

That was an example. Charging for supporting the events and activities where large groups of people are gathered due to an organised event was the actual point, as I am sure you were aware. Make groups responsible for the costs of increasing the risk of crime.

Surely that is a better solution than arbitrarily discrimination against crime victims? Are you really saying that if two houses are burgled and jewellery taken for example, that they should receive different levels of service based on factors unrelated to the crime?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom