strichener Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 2 minutes ago, kilbowie2002 said: National Crime Agency dont pay VAT, SFO dont, all agencies with police powers, the charging of VAT to PS is nothing short of political. I don't disagree with you and have stated this previously. It still does not absolve the Scottish government of responsibility for ensuring that Police Scotland were added to the exemptions list before embarking on their centralisation. The SG were actually informed of this in 2011 and were given an alternative structure that would have allowed a single police force that would have conformed to the s33 exemption BUT this would have resulted in less direct control by Holyrood and thus they made the political decision to proceed on a basis that would result in the body being liable to pay VAT. The NCS and the NCIS were both also liable for VAT when they existed whilst British Transport Police, Civil Nuclear Police Authority and the MOD Police Force also cannot recover VAT. Meantime, NI pay a VAT equivalent through a reduction in their block grant. So in short, Police Scotland is not the only force that cannot reclaim VAT. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Stubbs Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 2 hours ago, The Chlamydia Kid said: The western world has the lowest crime rates it's ever had. It's a worldwide trend. Stop trying to take political credit for it. The SNP are no more responsible for falling crime rates than they are for a good summer. Police numbers would have some impact on crime rates, detection and deterrence. However, The impact would not kick in at 1000 extra officers for a population of 5 million people. There are far more important issues influencing crime than the number of police officers available. At what number does the impact "kick in" exactly? This seems like a pretty well thought out, scientific analysis of the situation. Can't wait to read more. 1 hour ago, The Chlamydia Kid said: If you want to talk about cuts talk about the 100,000 fewer college places available because of the SNP. 100,000 scots denied the opportunity to progress in life. Impact doesn't kick in at 100,000 places. Don't worry about it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DublinMagyar Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 If you want to talk about cuts talk about the 100,000 fewer college places available because of the SNP. 100,000 scots denied the opportunity to progress in life. Yup, that was a nice wee discussion wasn't it? Fucking telt! No doubt you'll change the subject with some wonderful whataboutery and but but but .......... Without bothering to reflect and adjust your position accordingly. If you'd just say you like the Union no matter what the cost to Scotland and its people, you'd gain far more respect here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 Feels odd to attack the SNP on competency grounds when all the major parties are in disarray and the SNP alone are weathering the storm of the past year. The Tories are settling under May but did still take us out of Europe over a schoolboy dispute. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmc Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 Anyone who supports a unionist party right now attacking the snp govt on competency needs to invest in a far better irony meter. The three main wm parties between them couldn't organise a stag do at the playboy mansion with bill Gates Amex card. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 6 minutes ago, The Chlamydia Kid said: I've no idea how many litres of water it would take to make a paddling pool overflow but I know if I stood and pissed in it it wouldn't make a blind but of difference.... Oh dear. Crime levels are incremental i.e. one more crime increases them, one less crime decreases them. Overflowing or not overflowing is a binary situation. Water level is more analogous to crime level in your example. And yes, if you pissed in a paddling pool, it might not overflow but I guarantee you the water level would increase. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 1 minute ago, The Chlamydia Kid said: Not to any significant level. There is also only one factor influencing whether a paddling pool over flows- the volume or water/urine emptied in to it. The factors influencing crime rates are multiple. If we recruited 1milion police would the crime rate drop to non existent? Clearly not. I would think it would increase, corruption would be rampant. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 6 minutes ago, The Chlamydia Kid said: Not to any significant level. There is also only one factor influencing whether a paddling pool over flows- the volume or water/urine emptied in to it. The factors influencing crime rates are multiple. If we recruited 1milion police would the crime rate drop to non existent? Clearly not. That completely depends what you mean by significant, doesn't it? And yes, there are obviously lots of factors affecting crime rates. I'm wondering how many swerves you're going to attempt before just admitting you're talking complete and utter shite. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cream Cheese Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 TCK taking an absolute hammering in this thread. Sometimes you've just got to accept when you've been well and truly beaten. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DublinMagyar Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 I've no idea how many litres of water it would take to make a paddling pool overflow but I know if I stood and pissed in it it wouldn't make a blind but of difference.... And they're we have it confirmed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cream Cheese Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 4 minutes ago, The Chlamydia Kid said: Are you also claiming the extra handful of police in each area has had a measurable impact upon crime rates? Are you suggesting that police numbers have no measurable impact on crime? In that case, let's just take all police officers off the streets seeing as you think they don't make any measurable difference. Then you can have your anarchist utopia. Just don't go grassing when a bigger boy comes along and tans your wallet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Stubbs Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 48 minutes ago, The Chlamydia Kid said: Are you also claiming the extra handful of police in each area has had a measurable impact upon crime rates? Lucky we have figures published this week to work with here. That handful of police represents a 6% increase in police officer numbers under the SNP. This impact kicking in rate that you won't answer questions about is more than 6%? Hope my boss doesn't know that he can punt that percentage of us without any impact kicking in or at least two of us are gone 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 2 hours ago, The Chlamydia Kid said: Are you also claiming the extra handful of police in each area has had a measurable impact upon crime rates? This kind of stupidity might take a while to unpick. Crime rates are inherently measurable, in fact they only exist because we measure them. So one fewer crime recorded means a drop in the crime rate - that's very easy. As with most things, it's the link between cause and effect that's more difficult to prove. In fact, it's impossible. You've already admitted that 1000 extra officers, all else being equal should result in a drop in crime rates. At first you claimed it wasn't significant, which is meaningless. Now you claim it's not measurable, which is bullshit as all crime rates are are measurements. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 13 hours ago, The Chlamydia Kid said: No you would have to be an utter simpleton to believe that reductions in crime were achieved simply by recruiting more police officers I'm afraid. I will humour you and explain why. There are 32 local authority areas in Scotland. If you allocate 1000 police officers across each area that means an extra 31 officers per area. An officer presumably works 37 hours per week which means before you even consider annual leave each local authority area would have on average an extra 6.8 officers on shift at any point. Now how many of they extra 1000 are only performing front line patrol duties? Do you think that would have a significant impact on deterring crime? Your talking complete and utter dross just give up now and stop embarrassing yourself. You are taken in by SNP headline chasing policies. 3 hours ago, The Chlamydia Kid said: Are you also claiming the extra handful of police in each area has had a measurable impact upon crime rates? Why have you divided the number of officers by the number of counties? What relevance does this actually have to today's police force or to the 8 forces that existed before reorganisation? You might as well have divided by the number of doughnut shops in Glasgow to get a figure that would be just as relevant. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakedee Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 Apologies. There is an extra copper on the beat for around every 22500 individuals in the country (assuming none of them ever take an annual leave) much better eh? We'll have crime solved in no time.... So more police on the beat is no better or worse than less? Makes sense. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 27 minutes ago, The Chlamydia Kid said: Apologies. There is an extra copper on the beat for around every 22500 individuals in the country (assuming none of them ever take an annual leave) much better eh? We'll have crime solved in no time.... You any closer to calculating what number of extra coppers would eradicate crime? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakedee Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 You any closer to calculating what number of extra coppers would eradicate crime? None,it appears that it makes no difference whether you have 5 or 50,000 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 51 minutes ago, jakedee said: None,it appears that it makes no difference whether you have 5 or 50,000 Ah right, it just magically happens because we're part of the Western World. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted August 5, 2016 Share Posted August 5, 2016 It would appear that, in a medical first, chlamydia has affected the male brain. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted August 5, 2016 Share Posted August 5, 2016 Apologies. There is an extra copper on the beat for around every 22500 individuals in the country (assuming none of them ever take an annual leave) much better eh? We'll have crime solved in no time.... Well of course not but as people have already pointed out there isn't much more the government can do at a moment and an increase of officers at a time when other forces are downsizing was a campaign commitment and a success. Fair play to that SNP government delivering competency yet again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.