Planet Rugby Forum

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

Is she under a patio??

I like haggis wrote:We're still on the austerity was necessary rather than a decision to shrink the state and has been effective are we?

How much debt came from the govt buying banks out their debt? I don't remember Labour policy deciding what banks were up to.

Yes, yes bimbo, there's been no austerity and social clubs are more expensive than the bank bail out. Got you.

What debt came from Government buying “banks out their debt” , I’m confused by this as I don’t know what you mean happened.

It shrank the state ? What from and too?

openclashXX wrote:

ManInTheBar wrote: The Express* is claiming that dossiers on Mr Johnson’s private life and his main rival Dominic Raab are being prepared to “take them out of the race”.

This happened last time too - remember Stephen Crabb being forced to withdraw once the papers dug up the sexting scandal

You have to admire the press sometimes, they're like highly trained snipers with the ability to take out politicians at the legs and let the vultures of the British electorate devour them completely

I suspect more than a few of these failed leadership candidates will wind up with their careers virtually finished by the press coverage

Where is Max Hastings when his country needs him ... ?

happyhooker 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

Is she under a patio??

How long's he been married? His missus might still be giving the occasional blow job...

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.

Isn't the issue right now that 120K out of touch generally white older people who sre pro HB are going to determine the next PM for 70M people. And that they might take the UK out of the EU, while the future of the UK; young people, typpically want to stay in the EU.

In what way is this democracy?

Leffe wrote:Isn't the issue right now that 120K out of touch generally white older people who sre pro HB are going to determine the next PM for 70M people. And that they might take the UK out of the EU, while the future of the UK; young people, typpically want to stay in the EU.

In what way is this democracy?

Anyone is free to join the Conservative party.


The democratic vote in 2016 should take us out of the EU.

guy smiley wrote:This seems a good summary, Owen Jones speaking on Sky...

http://digg.com/2019/owen-jones-theresa-may-resignation

Guardian columnist Owen Jones delivered a spirited response to Theresa May's tearful resignation during a segment on Sky News that has riveted the internet. "I've got less than no sympathy for her," Jones said bluntly.

"I think our media can often express far more sympathy for the powerful —in her care she will lead no doubt a comfortable and affluent life to her very end, rather than the victims of their policies, who I'm afraid have been driven to misery, insecurity and turmoil as a direct result. Let's think about those people."

Sky News host Adam Boulton was taken aback by Jones's sharp response and asked if he could speak on a human level.

Jones replied, "I have spoken on a human level. I've spoken about the humanity of those who have suffered as a consequence of her policies."

video

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 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.

bimboman wrote:

Leffe wrote:Isn't the issue right now that 120K out of touch generally white older people who sre pro HB are going to determine the next PM for 70M people. And that they might take the UK out of the EU, while the future of the UK; young people, typpically want to stay in the EU.

In what way is this democracy?

Anyone is free to join the Conservative party.


The democratic vote in 2016 should take us out of the EU.

1 - & but mainly
2 -

bimboman wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:

backrow wrote:

Newsome wrote:Fair enough. I think she should be crucified for sacking 20,000 police officers. Crime rates suddenly rise

Ah but ask yourself, why did she sack that many cops? Answer - to save cash.
And why did cash need to be saved ? Because Labour almost bankrupted the country.

Lefties always seem to line up to bash the tories without any acceptance of root cause and effect of any subsequent austerity policies. (Not saying you are a lefty, don’t know you)

Fwiw I agree that reducing police spending was an awful decision and she was pretty much the worst Home Secretary and then PM ever.

While she had to swing the axe, it was Osborne who made all the depts of government have to make cuts. The thing is, last election Labout claimed 10k Police officers would cost 300 million. Having 0.6 of a billion on the deficit of 150 Billion plus (at the time) is basically nothing and not worth the rise in crime and unsafer streets. In fact lower crimes rates are conductive to business attractiveness and reduce criminal costs which are potentially greater, especially in a crashed economy with fewer people in work. It was an idiotic decision from the top and IMO Cameron and Osborn desire the lions share of the blame for forcing all gov depts to do so.

Eldanski is spending again.


What a clown.

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.

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.

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 udnerstand.

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.

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?

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?

eldanielfire wrote:

bimboman wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:

backrow wrote:

Newsome wrote:Fair enough. I think she should be crucified for sacking 20,000 police officers. Crime rates suddenly rise

Ah but ask yourself, why did she sack that many cops? Answer - to save cash.
And why did cash need to be saved ? Because Labour almost bankrupted the country.

Lefties always seem to line up to bash the tories without any acceptance of root cause and effect of any subsequent austerity policies. (Not saying you are a lefty, don’t know you)

Fwiw I agree that reducing police spending was an awful decision and she was pretty much the worst Home Secretary and then PM ever.

While she had to swing the axe, it was Osborne who made all the depts of government have to make cuts. The thing is, last election Labout claimed 10k Police officers would cost 300 million. Having 0.6 of a billion on the deficit of 150 Billion plus (at the time) is basically nothing and not worth the rise in crime and unsafer streets. In fact lower crimes rates are conductive to business attractiveness and reduce criminal costs which are potentially greater, especially in a crashed economy with fewer people in work. It was an idiotic decision from the top and IMO Cameron and Osborn desire the lions share of the blame for forcing all gov depts to do so.

Eldanski is spending again.


What a clown.

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.

What rise in crime are we talking about? Inner city knife crime?

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]

I’ll ignore what bimbo actually wrote and make a caricature of the position being discussed/newsome.

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

bimboman 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.

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.

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]

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]

eldanielfire wrote:

bimboman 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.

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.

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.

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 ...

Hopefully not RR

^^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 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.

bimboman wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:

bimboman 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.

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

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

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

eldanielfire wrote:

bimboman 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.

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?

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

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.

F uck me you’re thick

For eldanski :

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.

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.

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.

bimboman wrote:For eldanski :

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.

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!

eldanielfire wrote:

bimboman wrote:For eldanski :

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.

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!

They’re quotes from your report.....

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.

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....

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?

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.

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.

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.