Chat Forum
It is currently Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:24 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 581 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 3:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2883
bimboman wrote:
Newsome wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Newsome wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:

Perhaps explain how DANGEROUS having an extra 0.6 of a billion on police, which will be cheaper than the damage the rise in crime costs and well an increase in prison numbers, on a deficit of over 150 Billion is Bimboman?

It's a bad cut because it creates a false economy, where the alternative cost and cost of damage later on is bigger than maintaining the current costs. But as established that sort of thinking is well beyond your capacity to udnerstand.


He doesn't have a problem with what you said. It's because you blamed the Tories that's set him off.




No , I’d rather see something to back the theory rather than the guess work of a moron.


You want to see proof that sacking 20,000 coppers isn't a bad thing?



You know there’s been higher crime recently with lots more officers?


"I'm actually a police sergeant and I've seen no increase in crime" [/bimboman]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 3:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 50440
I’ll ignore what bimbo actually wrote and make a caricature of the position being discussed/newsome.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 3:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Posts: 34735
Location: For Wales the Welsh and Leinster
Adds policing to list


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 3:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 50440
c69 wrote:
Adds policing to list



For eldanski? , all I did was again ask a question and point out a published fact. You’re very thick for someone with multiple MBAs


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 3:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20127
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
Perhaps explain how DANGEROUS having an extra 0.6 of a billion on police, which will be cheaper than the damage the rise in crime costs and well an increase in prison numbers, on a deficit of over 150 Billion is Bimboman?

It's a bad cut because it creates a false economy, where the alternative cost and cost of damage later on is bigger than maintaining the current costs. But as established that sort of thinking is well beyond your capacity to udnerstand.




Why will that .6 of a billion be cheaper than the damage ? Show the workings on that and we can discuss it.

By all means maintain it was a false economy, you could actually show me the figures rather than your guess regarding my capacity to understand.


Violent Crime up 19% in one year:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46984559



Violent Crime costs the UK £124 Billion:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/100138 ... gests.html


Do the Maths and you'll see the rise in crime, in just one year cost the UK far more than the preventative cost of policing things. It's some 23 odd Billion a year vs the 0.6 Billion in police numbers. That's why so types of cuts are moronic, especially when they are essentially such insignificant amounts they don't even affect the deficit by 0.5%.

The fact is you drone on about bankrupting the UK or not affording things and oppose all not just the increases in spending in public services but the arguments against cuts as well. Spending well on Policing, Health and Education actually are preventative measures that costs the UK less or makes the UK more over time. A healtheir society costs the NHS less and incraeses the econmic activity, a well educated society earns more, innovates more and costs the state less in support, a well policed society costs less in crime.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 3:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20127
Newsome wrote:

He doesn't have a problem with what you said. It's because you blamed the Tories that's set him off.




No , I’d rather see something to back the theory rather than the guess work of a moron.[/quote]

You want to see proof that sacking 20,000 coppers isn't a bad thing?[/quote]


You know there’s been higher crime recently with lots more officers?[/quote]

"I'm actually a police sergeant and I've seen no increase in crime" [/bimboman][/quote]

"My friend the police officer says it's just poor people pretending to have committed crime to rip off the state for free prison accommodation and food."[/Bimboman]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 4:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Posts: 34735
Location: For Wales the Welsh and Leinster
:lol: madness


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 4:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2883
eldanielfire wrote:
Newsome wrote:

He doesn't have a problem with what you said. It's because you blamed the Tories that's set him off.




No , I’d rather see something to back the theory rather than the guess work of a moron.


You want to see proof that sacking 20,000 coppers isn't a bad thing?[/quote]


You know there’s been higher crime recently with lots more officers?[/quote]

"I'm actually a police sergeant and I've seen no increase in crime" [/bimboman][/quote]

"My friend the police officer says it's just poor people pretending to have committed crime to rip off the state for free prison accommodation and food."[/Bimboman][/quote]

"They have phones. They can't be poor." [/bimboman]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 4:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 50440
eldanielfire wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
Perhaps explain how DANGEROUS having an extra 0.6 of a billion on police, which will be cheaper than the damage the rise in crime costs and well an increase in prison numbers, on a deficit of over 150 Billion is Bimboman?

It's a bad cut because it creates a false economy, where the alternative cost and cost of damage later on is bigger than maintaining the current costs. But as established that sort of thinking is well beyond your capacity to udnerstand.




Why will that .6 of a billion be cheaper than the damage ? Show the workings on that and we can discuss it.

By all means maintain it was a false economy, you could actually show me the figures rather than your guess regarding my capacity to understand.


Violent Crime up 19% in one year:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46984559



Violent Crime costs the UK £124 Billion:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/100138 ... gests.html


Do the Maths and you'll see the rise in crime, in just one year cost the UK far more than the preventative cost of policing things. It's some 23 odd Billion a year vs the 0.6 Billion in police numbers. That's why so types of cuts are moronic, especially when they are essentially such insignificant amounts they don't even affect the deficit by 0.5%.

The fact is you drone on about bankrupting the UK or not affording things and oppose all not just the increases in spending in public services but the arguments against cuts as well. Spending well on Policing, Health and Education actually are preventative measures that costs the UK less or makes the UK more over time. A healtheir society costs the NHS less and incraeses the econmic activity, a well educated society earns more, innovates more and costs the state less in support, a well policed society costs less in crime.



Looks legit, now what does the 23 billion on the economy translate to tax receipts and spending .?


I love the fact you directly correlate 23 billion vs the spending amount btw. It does show your grasp of economics.

By the way , the government cost all crime at 50 billion ...


https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... s-of-crime


So actually it’s all much closer isn’t it?

And as for the other assertions. You may be right, however it’s the ageing population that’s causing many other expenses so keeping people alive longer is costlier in the long run.

Your linear thinking is so funny.


Actually the 0.6 billion has cost more if violent crime is the measure, 20% of 15 billion (see above) is 3 billion and we tax GDP at around 35% , which is more than the 0.6 not that much but more.


Last edited by bimboman on Sun May 26, 2019 5:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 4:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 50440
Newsome wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Newsome wrote:

He doesn't have a problem with what you said. It's because you blamed the Tories that's set him off.




No , I’d rather see something to back the theory rather than the guess work of a moron.


You want to see proof that sacking 20,000 coppers isn't a bad thing?



You know there’s been higher crime recently with lots more officers?[/quote]

"I'm actually a police sergeant and I've seen no increase in crime" [/bimboman][/quote]

"My friend the police officer says it's just poor people pretending to have committed crime to rip off the state for free prison accommodation and food."[/Bimboman][/quote]

"They have phones. They can't be poor." [/bimboman][/quote]

Oh dear making up things I’ve not said to make an argument. What a thicko.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 4:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6735
DragsterDriver wrote:
slick wrote:
I like haggis wrote:
slick wrote:
Thought Raab was very good on Marr earlier. Kept his temper in check and answered all the questions


I too would like to be friends with the PM.

Raab might win the "not Boris Brexiteer" so as good a chance as anyone. I don't think he has the personality though. He's too technical.

Talking politics podcast was good for this pattern - Thatcher character, Major dull, Blair character, Brown dull, Cameron character, May dull, next PM character?


I’ve been very critical of him on here but I thought he genuinely came across well in that interview.

Agree he can come across quite mechanical but I also know he went into politics with a genuine purpose to make things better and no real leadership ambitions. I guess you do quite easily get swept up in it all but, like a lot of politicians, there is a decent person under it all.

He will not be caught out having an affair


I do remember you not bigging him Up- have you seen the bbc4 brexit uncovered thing where May completely chopped his legs in Brussels? I bet he’d love to march back in there with a big shiteating grin.


Yes, that’s quite a driver I believe ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 6:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7630
Hopefully not RR

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 6:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2018 2:42 pm
Posts: 1097
^^What a load of kak, is this what is presented as serious political analysis now?

1. He is implying that someone is only upset if they cry :lol: looking at the journalist he looks like he bursts in to tears when his decaf soy latte spills on him, so it is not surprising that he only thinks people are upset if they cry.

2. Is he now making equivalences between events at which people 'should' cry for? It's idiotic logic, are people next going to be crucified for crying when their dog/cat dies but not when a terrorist attack kills hundreds halfway around the world? Resigning as Prime Minister is a huge moment in anyone's life, with things such as your children being born or your parents dying. Of course that will affect you more emotionally than bad things happening to any group of people that you don't know.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 6:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20127
bimboman wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
Perhaps explain how DANGEROUS having an extra 0.6 of a billion on police, which will be cheaper than the damage the rise in crime costs and well an increase in prison numbers, on a deficit of over 150 Billion is Bimboman?

It's a bad cut because it creates a false economy, where the alternative cost and cost of damage later on is bigger than maintaining the current costs. But as established that sort of thinking is well beyond your capacity to udnerstand.




Why will that .6 of a billion be cheaper than the damage ? Show the workings on that and we can discuss it.

By all means maintain it was a false economy, you could actually show me the figures rather than your guess regarding my capacity to understand.


Violent Crime up 19% in one year:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46984559



Violent Crime costs the UK £124 Billion:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/100138 ... gests.html


Do the Maths and you'll see the rise in crime, in just one year cost the UK far more than the preventative cost of policing things. It's some 23 odd Billion a year vs the 0.6 Billion in police numbers. That's why so types of cuts are moronic, especially when they are essentially such insignificant amounts they don't even affect the deficit by 0.5%.

The fact is you drone on about bankrupting the UK or not affording things and oppose all not just the increases in spending in public services but the arguments against cuts as well. Spending well on Policing, Health and Education actually are preventative measures that costs the UK less or makes the UK more over time. A healtheir society costs the NHS less and incraeses the econmic activity, a well educated society earns more, innovates more and costs the state less in support, a well policed society costs less in crime.



Looks legit, now what does the 23 billion on the economy translate to tax receipts and spending .?


I love the fact you directly correlate 23 billion vs the spending amount btw. It does show your grasp of economics.

By the way , the government cost all crime at 50 billion ...


https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... s-of-crime


So actually it’s all much closer isn’t it?

And as for the other assertions. You may be right, however it’s the ageing population that’s causing many other expenses so keeping people alive longer is costlier in the long run.

Your linear thinking is so funny.


Actually the 0.6 billion has cost more if violent crime is the measure, 20% of 15 billion (see above) is 3 billion and we tax GDP at around 35% , which is more than the 0.6 not that much but more.


Have you read the actual report? Your own report points out the cost of crime to individuals is 50 Billion and then there is costs to businesses on top. Your own link evaluates crime as above 50 Billion in costs alone :lol: :lol: :lol:

It doesn't evaluate the economic impact of crime as well. It has 3 areas:

Quote:
Costs in anticipation of crime, for example the cost of burglar alarms.
• Costs as a consequence of crime, for example the cost of property stolen or damaged.
• Costs in response to crime, for example costs to the police and criminal justice system.


It is literally a costing, not an evaluation of the over economic impact of crime you numpty. Besides even your conservative estimate which ignores crimes to business and wider economic impact. It is also 4 years out of date with crime having gone up since. Last year by 20% alone


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 6:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5505
Location: LOL! WISDOM!
eldanielfire wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
Perhaps explain how DANGEROUS having an extra 0.6 of a billion on police, which will be cheaper than the damage the rise in crime costs and well an increase in prison numbers, on a deficit of over 150 Billion is Bimboman?

It's a bad cut because it creates a false economy, where the alternative cost and cost of damage later on is bigger than maintaining the current costs. But as established that sort of thinking is well beyond your capacity to udnerstand.




Why will that .6 of a billion be cheaper than the damage ? Show the workings on that and we can discuss it.

By all means maintain it was a false economy, you could actually show me the figures rather than your guess regarding my capacity to understand.


Violent Crime up 19% in one year:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46984559



Violent Crime costs the UK £124 Billion:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/100138 ... gests.html


Do the Maths and you'll see the rise in crime, in just one year cost the UK far more than the preventative cost of policing things. It's some 23 odd Billion a year vs the 0.6 Billion in police numbers. That's why so types of cuts are moronic, especially when they are essentially such insignificant amounts they don't even affect the deficit by 0.5%.

The fact is you drone on about bankrupting the UK or not affording things and oppose all not just the increases in spending in public services but the arguments against cuts as well. Spending well on Policing, Health and Education actually are preventative measures that costs the UK less or makes the UK more over time. A healtheir society costs the NHS less and incraeses the econmic activity, a well educated society earns more, innovates more and costs the state less in support, a well policed society costs less in crime.

Does more police mean fewer murderers or robbers?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 7:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 50440
Quote:
Have you read the actual report? Your own report points out the cost of crime to individuals is 50 Billion and then there is costs to businesses on top. Your own link evaluates crime as above 50 Billion in costs alone :lol: :lol: :lol:

It doesn't evaluate the economic impact of crime as well. It has 3 areas:

Quote:
Costs in anticipation of crime, for example the cost of burglar alarms.
• Costs as a consequence of crime, for example the cost of property stolen or damaged.
• Costs in response to crime, for example costs to the police and criminal justice system.


It is literally a costing, not an evaluation of the over economic impact of crime you numpty. Besides even your conservative estimate which ignores crimes to business and wider economic impact. It is also 4 years out of date with crime having gone up since. Last year by 20% alone



You’ve reported something from 2012 from a think tank, I’ve produced something from the government.

I’d take a costing over an “evaluation guess” every time. It counts the economic impact perfectly well.

Anyway it’s 20% of 3 billion vs 0.6 billion. So fairly close.

I do see you’ve not addressed how your 124 billion figures actually correspond to tax income and expenditures from the government, the government report breaks down what crime and where turnover is lost.

Your so bad at economics aren’t you ?

The 124 billion includes the spending on police and courts and justice systems, if we spend more as you want the cost you’d like to reduce actually goes up. :lol:

F uck me you’re thick


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 7:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 50440
For eldanski :

Quote:
The cause of the decrease in violence is not abundantly
clear from examining data on violence alone. In fact, given
that police numbers have actually declined over the past ten years and there has been a recession, the result is seemingly counterintuitive. One way to confirm that changes in police numbers are not connected to the decrease in violence is to examine changes in the size of police forces compared to changes in violent crime in the same areas. There are 45 Police Force Areas in the UK, which enables this comparision.
Chart 28 shows the percentage change in the police employment rate vs the percentage change in violent crime in the UK, from 2003 to 2012.



Quote:
There is a very weak correlation (r=.2) between decreases in police numbers and increases in violent crime, which is not statistically significant. Similar correlations between reductions in police numbers and homicide, weapons crime, public disorder and the UKPI as a whole produced even weaker associations. This suggests that the reductions in police numbers have not played a significant role in either reducing or increasing crime. However, as the majority of the cuts to police numbers only occurred in the last three years, it is too early
to tell whether such cuts will lead to an increase in crime over time.



It’s a great report Eldanski, I’m glad you’ve made such good points.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 8:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 31127
Location: in transit
Hong Kong wrote:
Hopefully not RR


Perfect RR. 10/10.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 9:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16002
Just to give this thread a break from Bimbo V the world , I want to give my two pence worth on police spending. I am a Righty, but think the ‘will it effect actual crime levels’ is a bit of a red herring regarding spending on coppers or not - defence of the realm is pretty much the first responsibility of any government , and to me that includes the cops.
Cutting their budget and numbers is just plain bonkers, they are people too and having stressed , knackered , Ill motivated cops will hardly improve their effectiveness no matter the numbers. In austerity times I would have increased their budget and numbers, not cut them !

Health care actually can be a bottomless pit of money drain and saw its inefficiencies first hand when I was briefly a governor of a hospital . And education again can be a whole heap of spunking cash up the wall without much thought of effectiveness, so for these two sectors I don’t mind some public initiatives toward efficiency. (I think these cost cutting drives have gone on as far as they can tbf )

The argument about these three being preventative costs and actually cheaper in the long run is valid , and one I agree with.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 11:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20127
bimboman wrote:
For eldanski :

Quote:
The cause of the decrease in violence is not abundantly
clear from examining data on violence alone. In fact, given
that police numbers have actually declined over the past ten years and there has been a recession, the result is seemingly counterintuitive. One way to confirm that changes in police numbers are not connected to the decrease in violence is to examine changes in the size of police forces compared to changes in violent crime in the same areas. There are 45 Police Force Areas in the UK, which enables this comparision.
Chart 28 shows the percentage change in the police employment rate vs the percentage change in violent crime in the UK, from 2003 to 2012.



Quote:
There is a very weak correlation (r=.2) between decreases in police numbers and increases in violent crime, which is not statistically significant. Similar correlations between reductions in police numbers and homicide, weapons crime, public disorder and the UKPI as a whole produced even weaker associations. This suggests that the reductions in police numbers have not played a significant role in either reducing or increasing crime. However, as the majority of the cuts to police numbers only occurred in the last three years, it is too early
to tell whether such cuts will lead to an increase in crime over time.



It’s a great report Eldanski, I’m glad you’ve made such good points.


A government that cut police numbers and overseas a rise in crime doesn't want to connect the loss of police with rising crime FFS! :lol: :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 11:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 50440
eldanielfire wrote:
bimboman wrote:
For eldanski :

Quote:
The cause of the decrease in violence is not abundantly
clear from examining data on violence alone. In fact, given
that police numbers have actually declined over the past ten years and there has been a recession, the result is seemingly counterintuitive. One way to confirm that changes in police numbers are not connected to the decrease in violence is to examine changes in the size of police forces compared to changes in violent crime in the same areas. There are 45 Police Force Areas in the UK, which enables this comparision.
Chart 28 shows the percentage change in the police employment rate vs the percentage change in violent crime in the UK, from 2003 to 2012.



Quote:
There is a very weak correlation (r=.2) between decreases in police numbers and increases in violent crime, which is not statistically significant. Similar correlations between reductions in police numbers and homicide, weapons crime, public disorder and the UKPI as a whole produced even weaker associations. This suggests that the reductions in police numbers have not played a significant role in either reducing or increasing crime. However, as the majority of the cuts to police numbers only occurred in the last three years, it is too early
to tell whether such cuts will lead to an increase in crime over time.



It’s a great report Eldanski, I’m glad you’ve made such good points.


A government that cut police numbers and overseas a rise in crime doesn't want to connect the loss of police with rising crime FFS! :lol: :lol: :lol:



They’re quotes from your report.....


:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 11:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20127
backrow wrote:
Just to give this thread a break from Bimbo V the world , I want to give my two pence worth on police spending. I am a Righty, but think the ‘will it effect actual crime levels’ is a bit of a red herring regarding spending on coppers or not - defence of the realm is pretty much the first responsibility of any government , and to me that includes the cops.
Cutting their budget and numbers is just plain bonkers, they are people too and having stressed , knackered , Ill motivated cops will hardly improve their effectiveness no matter the numbers. In austerity times I would have increased their budget and numbers, not cut them !

Health care actually can be a bottomless pit of money drain and saw its inefficiencies first hand when I was briefly a governor of a hospital . And education again can be a whole heap of spunking cash up the wall without much thought of effectiveness, so for these two sectors I don’t mind some public initiatives toward efficiency. (I think these cost cutting drives have gone on as far as they can tbf )

The argument about these three being preventative costs and actually cheaper in the long run is valid , and one I agree with.



That's my point. I'm not one for senseless and endless government spending, I'm anti-magic money tree ideas, but Bimboman is pro-cuts and so anti-spending to moronic levels.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 11:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 50440
eldanielfire wrote:
backrow wrote:
Just to give this thread a break from Bimbo V the world , I want to give my two pence worth on police spending. I am a Righty, but think the ‘will it effect actual crime levels’ is a bit of a red herring regarding spending on coppers or not - defence of the realm is pretty much the first responsibility of any government , and to me that includes the cops.
Cutting their budget and numbers is just plain bonkers, they are people too and having stressed , knackered , Ill motivated cops will hardly improve their effectiveness no matter the numbers. In austerity times I would have increased their budget and numbers, not cut them !

Health care actually can be a bottomless pit of money drain and saw its inefficiencies first hand when I was briefly a governor of a hospital . And education again can be a whole heap of spunking cash up the wall without much thought of effectiveness, so for these two sectors I don’t mind some public initiatives toward efficiency. (I think these cost cutting drives have gone on as far as they can tbf )

The argument about these three being preventative costs and actually cheaper in the long run is valid , and one I agree with.



That's my point. I'm not one for senseless and endless government spending, I'm anti-magic money tree ideas, but Bimboman is pro-cuts and so anti-spending to moronic levels.



Cutting spending to not have a 175 billion pound deficit is moronic....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 11:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20127
bimboman wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
backrow wrote:
Just to give this thread a break from Bimbo V the world , I want to give my two pence worth on police spending. I am a Righty, but think the ‘will it effect actual crime levels’ is a bit of a red herring regarding spending on coppers or not - defence of the realm is pretty much the first responsibility of any government , and to me that includes the cops.
Cutting their budget and numbers is just plain bonkers, they are people too and having stressed , knackered , Ill motivated cops will hardly improve their effectiveness no matter the numbers. In austerity times I would have increased their budget and numbers, not cut them !

Health care actually can be a bottomless pit of money drain and saw its inefficiencies first hand when I was briefly a governor of a hospital . And education again can be a whole heap of spunking cash up the wall without much thought of effectiveness, so for these two sectors I don’t mind some public initiatives toward efficiency. (I think these cost cutting drives have gone on as far as they can tbf )

The argument about these three being preventative costs and actually cheaper in the long run is valid , and one I agree with.



That's my point. I'm not one for senseless and endless government spending, I'm anti-magic money tree ideas, but Bimboman is pro-cuts and so anti-spending to moronic levels.



Cutting spending to not have a 175 billion pound deficit is moronic....


You sure that means what you think it means?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 11:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 50440
eldanielfire wrote:
bimboman wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
backrow wrote:
Just to give this thread a break from Bimbo V the world , I want to give my two pence worth on police spending. I am a Righty, but think the ‘will it effect actual crime levels’ is a bit of a red herring regarding spending on coppers or not - defence of the realm is pretty much the first responsibility of any government , and to me that includes the cops.
Cutting their budget and numbers is just plain bonkers, they are people too and having stressed , knackered , Ill motivated cops will hardly improve their effectiveness no matter the numbers. In austerity times I would have increased their budget and numbers, not cut them !

Health care actually can be a bottomless pit of money drain and saw its inefficiencies first hand when I was briefly a governor of a hospital . And education again can be a whole heap of spunking cash up the wall without much thought of effectiveness, so for these two sectors I don’t mind some public initiatives toward efficiency. (I think these cost cutting drives have gone on as far as they can tbf )

The argument about these three being preventative costs and actually cheaper in the long run is valid , and one I agree with.



That's my point. I'm not one for senseless and endless government spending, I'm anti-magic money tree ideas, but Bimboman is pro-cuts and so anti-spending to moronic levels.



Cutting spending to not have a 175 billion pound deficit is moronic....


You sure that means what you think it means?



Yep, not have a deficit ..... if you cut spending then you reduce a deficit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 11:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20127
bimboman wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
bimboman wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
backrow wrote:
Just to give this thread a break from Bimbo V the world , I want to give my two pence worth on police spending. I am a Righty, but think the ‘will it effect actual crime levels’ is a bit of a red herring regarding spending on coppers or not - defence of the realm is pretty much the first responsibility of any government , and to me that includes the cops.
Cutting their budget and numbers is just plain bonkers, they are people too and having stressed , knackered , Ill motivated cops will hardly improve their effectiveness no matter the numbers. In austerity times I would have increased their budget and numbers, not cut them !

Health care actually can be a bottomless pit of money drain and saw its inefficiencies first hand when I was briefly a governor of a hospital . And education again can be a whole heap of spunking cash up the wall without much thought of effectiveness, so for these two sectors I don’t mind some public initiatives toward efficiency. (I think these cost cutting drives have gone on as far as they can tbf )

The argument about these three being preventative costs and actually cheaper in the long run is valid , and one I agree with.



That's my point. I'm not one for senseless and endless government spending, I'm anti-magic money tree ideas, but Bimboman is pro-cuts and so anti-spending to moronic levels.



Cutting spending to not have a 175 billion pound deficit is moronic....


You sure that means what you think it means?



Yep, not have a deficit ..... if you cut spending then you reduce a deficit.


Not if the spending produces more income. Then you make it harder to get rid of the deficit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 27, 2019 12:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 50440
Quote:
Not if the spending produces more income.






When did the 175 billion per annum overspend produce more income?


You keep claiming this then calling people who disagree morons, look by all means have your stupid opinions, but don’t confuse them with actual facts.


We’ve had a deficit for nearly 20 continuous years, by your measure we should be rolling in it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 27, 2019 12:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20127
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
Not if the spending produces more income.






When did the 175 billion per annum overspend produce more income?


I never claimed it did. I said certain parts of what we spend on generates or saves greater amounts then they cost and thus reduce the deficit even more. It's a concept morons don't appear to grasp.

Quote:
You keep claiming this then calling people who disagree morons, look by all means have your stupid opinions, but don’t confuse them with actual facts.


We’ve had a deficit for nearly 20 continuous years, by your measure we should be rolling in it.


5th biggest economy in the world out of some 200 aren't we?

But seriously you son't appear to understand the difference between cutting spending and cutting the deficit. If something generates more income then it costs, it will cut the deficit. If something saves more money then what it costs, it will cut the deficit more compared with cutting the measure.

You not only can't grasp this but you moronically keep referring to the entirety of the deficit as if I agree with all the spending that contributes towards it. You argue like an extremist and fundamentalist. It's one or the other. It isn't, it's about sensible management.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 27, 2019 7:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 12:24 am
Posts: 594
Location: Sydney (for now)
Reading people in some of these threads makes me realize that fundamental economics 101 should be compulsory in school, some truly embarrassing nonsense being written here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 27, 2019 7:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 50440
eldanielfire wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
Not if the spending produces more income.






When did the 175 billion per annum overspend produce more income?


I never claimed it did. I said certain parts of what we spend on generates or saves greater amounts then they cost and thus reduce the deficit even more. It's a concept morons don't appear to grasp.

Quote:
You keep claiming this then calling people who disagree morons, look by all means have your stupid opinions, but don’t confuse them with actual facts.


We’ve had a deficit for nearly 20 continuous years, by your measure we should be rolling in it.


5th biggest economy in the world out of some 200 aren't we?

But seriously you son't appear to understand the difference between cutting spending and cutting the deficit. If something generates more income then it costs, it will cut the deficit. If something saves more money then what it costs, it will cut the deficit more compared with cutting the measure.

You not only can't grasp this but you moronically keep referring to the entirety of the deficit as if I agree with all the spending that contributes towards it. You argue like an extremist and fundamentalist. It's one or the other. It isn't, it's about sensible management.



Here’s a clue , what time frame would spending on education of primary school age take to return a positive effect and would spending return more than he spend ?

The answer is 20 years or so, the answer is it isn’t a linear return as currently proven by the underemployed graduate issue in the Uk and it’s at least 20 years anyway, that’s 20 years of carrying each days spending as debt, that the deficit if you’re in that situation is absolute for that time and creates debt which in turn creates a repayment and interest burden.


Which bit of 175 billion of overspending wasn’t sensible management can you not grasp ? Which bit of that can’t you get.

For the record the UK tax burden is also at a 40 year high, there’s nothing left.

The UK is still massively in debt.

You’re an economic moron of amazing proportions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 27, 2019 9:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21227
Location: Gypsy Jack Nowell
I wonder what it would take for brexiteer Tory MPs to jump in with Farage? If we don’t leave in October there must be a reasonable chance of it happening?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 27, 2019 10:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20127
bimboman wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
Not if the spending produces more income.






When did the 175 billion per annum overspend produce more income?


I never claimed it did. I said certain parts of what we spend on generates or saves greater amounts then they cost and thus reduce the deficit even more. It's a concept morons don't appear to grasp.

Quote:
You keep claiming this then calling people who disagree morons, look by all means have your stupid opinions, but don’t confuse them with actual facts.


We’ve had a deficit for nearly 20 continuous years, by your measure we should be rolling in it.


5th biggest economy in the world out of some 200 aren't we?

But seriously you son't appear to understand the difference between cutting spending and cutting the deficit. If something generates more income then it costs, it will cut the deficit. If something saves more money then what it costs, it will cut the deficit more compared with cutting the measure.

You not only can't grasp this but you moronically keep referring to the entirety of the deficit as if I agree with all the spending that contributes towards it. You argue like an extremist and fundamentalist. It's one or the other. It isn't, it's about sensible management.



Here’s a clue , what time frame would spending on education of primary school age take to return a positive effect and would spending return more than he spend ?

The answer is 20 years or so, the answer is it isn’t a linear return as currently proven by the underemployed graduate issue in the Uk and it’s at least 20 years anyway, that’s 20 years of carrying each days spending as debt, that the deficit if you’re in that situation is absolute for that time and creates debt which in turn creates a repayment and interest burden.


Which bit of 175 billion of overspending wasn’t sensible management can you not grasp ? Which bit of that can’t you get.

For the record the UK tax burden is also at a 40 year high, there’s nothing left.

The UK is still massively in debt.

You’re an economic moron of amazing proportions.


WOW! Amazing. The poster who posted a link to claim crime costs the country 50 billion and didn't even read the link to see that it stated the 50 billion didn't include the billions on direct business costs nor the overall economic impact calls someone a moron. Of course you haven't addressed that because you are a liar.

Also for at least the 4th time you have replied to my statements with questions to situations I haven't even claimed I believe in and aren't even in my argument. Your only reply is to invent new arguments that are not anything I have discussed as some sort of. counter, shows how fake and full of lies your position is.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 27, 2019 10:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20127
Caley_Red wrote:
Reading people in some of these threads makes me realize that fundamental economics 101 should be compulsory in school, some truly embarrassing nonsense being written here.


I agree.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 27, 2019 11:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 50440
Quote:
WOW! Amazing. The poster who posted a link to claim crime costs the country 50 billion and didn't even read the link to see that it stated the 50 billion didn't include the billions on direct business costs nor the overall economic impact calls someone a moron. Of course you haven't addressed that because you are a liar.

Also for at least the 4th time you have replied to my statements with questions to situations I haven't even claimed I believe in and aren't even in my argument. Your only reply is to invent new arguments that are not anything I have discussed as some sort of. counter, shows how fake and full of lies your position is.




Flapping now, the two reports are clear in what and what isn’t included your report does state the weak correlations between police numbers and crime decreases though so it ruins your argument.

As for lies, lies and all that you’re an idiot, I’ve made clear arguments on where I disagree with your very very basic premises regarding linear spend and receive income.

I’ve proposed questions to try and get across the simplistic and in fact incorrect approach you take to the issue.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 27, 2019 11:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 50440
eldanielfire wrote:
bimboman wrote:
For eldanski :

Quote:
The cause of the decrease in violence is not abundantly
clear from examining data on violence alone. In fact, given
that police numbers have actually declined over the past ten years and there has been a recession, the result is seemingly counterintuitive. One way to confirm that changes in police numbers are not connected to the decrease in violence is to examine changes in the size of police forces compared to changes in violent crime in the same areas. There are 45 Police Force Areas in the UK, which enables this comparision.
Chart 28 shows the percentage change in the police employment rate vs the percentage change in violent crime in the UK, from 2003 to 2012.



Quote:
There is a very weak correlation (r=.2) between decreases in police numbers and increases in violent crime, which is not statistically significant. Similar correlations between reductions in police numbers and homicide, weapons crime, public disorder and the UKPI as a whole produced even weaker associations. This suggests that the reductions in police numbers have not played a significant role in either reducing or increasing crime. However, as the majority of the cuts to police numbers only occurred in the last three years, it is too early
to tell whether such cuts will lead to an increase in crime over time.



It’s a great report Eldanski, I’m glad you’ve made such good points.


A government that cut police numbers and overseas a rise in crime doesn't want to connect the loss of police with rising crime FFS! :lol: :lol: :lol:



Your report.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 27, 2019 11:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10312
Location: Best country in the world.
DragsterDriver wrote:
I wonder what it would take for brexiteer Tory MPs to jump in with Farage? If we don’t leave in October there must be a reasonable chance of it happening?


I think you can put your house on the fact that the UK will be leaving in Oct one way or the other.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 27, 2019 11:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19323
The Sun God wrote:
DragsterDriver wrote:
I wonder what it would take for brexiteer Tory MPs to jump in with Farage? If we don’t leave in October there must be a reasonable chance of it happening?


I think you can put your house on the fact that the UK will be leaving in Oct one way or the other.

You might as well. It won't be worth much soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 27, 2019 11:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 50440
The Sun God wrote:
DragsterDriver wrote:
I wonder what it would take for brexiteer Tory MPs to jump in with Farage? If we don’t leave in October there must be a reasonable chance of it happening?


I think you can put your house on the fact that the UK will be leaving in Oct one way or the other.



Any sterling sell on something “hopeful” or is the best we’ll get for a year or so?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 27, 2019 11:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20127
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
WOW! Amazing. The poster who posted a link to claim crime costs the country 50 billion and didn't even read the link to see that it stated the 50 billion didn't include the billions on direct business costs nor the overall economic impact calls someone a moron. Of course you haven't addressed that because you are a liar.

Also for at least the 4th time you have replied to my statements with questions to situations I haven't even claimed I believe in and aren't even in my argument. Your only reply is to invent new arguments that are not anything I have discussed as some sort of. counter, shows how fake and full of lies your position is.




Flapping now, the two reports are clear in what and what isn’t included your report does state the weak correlations between police numbers and crime decreases though so it ruins your argument.


Yes and you tried to issue a quote that didn't even have the total cost of crime. It isn't 50 billion by the evry evidence you produced.


Quote:

As for lies, lies and all that you’re an idiot, I’ve made clear arguments on where I disagree with your very very basic premises regarding linear spend and receive income.

I’ve proposed questions to try and get across the simplistic and in fact incorrect approach you take to the issue.


You claimed crime costs the country 50 billion. Your own report you linked to says it costs more. Your own calculations on this false low figure even shows the 20k police officers would save money on crime costs and your own report says it actually costs more and this must save more money than you calculated. You lied. Your a liar, disingenuous and dishonest. And everyone on this board knows it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 27, 2019 11:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20127
bimboman wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
bimboman wrote:
For eldanski :

Quote:
The cause of the decrease in violence is not abundantly
clear from examining data on violence alone. In fact, given
that police numbers have actually declined over the past ten years and there has been a recession, the result is seemingly counterintuitive. One way to confirm that changes in police numbers are not connected to the decrease in violence is to examine changes in the size of police forces compared to changes in violent crime in the same areas. There are 45 Police Force Areas in the UK, which enables this comparision.
Chart 28 shows the percentage change in the police employment rate vs the percentage change in violent crime in the UK, from 2003 to 2012.



Quote:
There is a very weak correlation (r=.2) between decreases in police numbers and increases in violent crime, which is not statistically significant. Similar correlations between reductions in police numbers and homicide, weapons crime, public disorder and the UKPI as a whole produced even weaker associations. This suggests that the reductions in police numbers have not played a significant role in either reducing or increasing crime. However, as the majority of the cuts to police numbers only occurred in the last three years, it is too early
to tell whether such cuts will lead to an increase in crime over time.



It’s a great report Eldanski, I’m glad you’ve made such good points.


A government that cut police numbers and overseas a rise in crime doesn't want to connect the loss of police with rising crime FFS! :lol: :lol: :lol:



Your report.


No your report, the one you missquoted because you lied or can't read.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 581 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], comets, CrazyIslander, Fat Old Git, Flyin Ryan, frillage, Google Adsense [Bot], Gospel, Morgan14, sunnybanana, swc, Ted., Wignu, Wilderbeast and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group