General Politics Thread

[strichener]

 

41 minutes ago, sons superhero said:

Just for the sake of discussion here, could  the reason for the drop in crime be the rise in the deployment of ARV's. That is just as valid as your assessment.

Read the Higgins quote again he is saying that there is no specific threat to the post office on Dumbarton High Street but its going to happen somewhere. Does that mean there is no threat?

ARVs have been in use in Scotland since 1977.  HMICS in it's review of armed policing stated "with the exception of the legacy Strathclyde Police area, many communities would not have been aware of ARV officers in their areas nor seen officers carrying firearms. This has been a contributory factor to the subsequent community impact arising from the decision by Police Scotland to implement a force-wide standing authority" and it is therefore unclear how this would have led to a drop in crime.  As is the case with much of Police Scotland's decisions, they have taken the Strathclyde Police way and implemented it without giving due consideration to how this would affect other areas that operated differently.

This threat argument is as relevant as the suggestion that we need trident for the defence of the UK.  The threat of a terror attack in the UK is not going to be swayed by the arming or otherwise of police officers.  Every country in Europe that has been subjected to these attacks already have all their officers armed and yet these attacks still occur.

[sons superhero]

The arming of police officers isn't to scare off a terrorist threat (as you state above) but to respond in an appropriate way. That is unless you want to let a possible terrorist attack to run amok so you can moan about the lack of approporiate response and why did they not save more lives.

[sons superhero]

I won't argue with the implementation of Strathpol's policies throughout the rest of Scotland but that wasn't your original point though was it. It was the militarisation of police and your use of a Tactical Firearms Officer image against one of Officers with wooden truncheons. I asked you what was the TFO deployed at in that image and where did the black and white image come from. 

You surely weren't taking two seperate incidents totally out of context and inappropriately use them support your premise that we now have a paramilitary Police Force and how dare Police Officers (no matter how minor the incident) get on with serving the public because they maybe in pocession of a pistol.

[strichener]

On 05/08/2016 at 23:32, sons superhero said:

The arming of police officers isn't to scare off a terrorist threat (as you state above) but to respond in an appropriate way. That is unless you want to let a possible terrorist attack to run amok so you can moan about the lack of approporiate response and why did they not save more lives.

If it is threat based, you will have to show me that analysis that showed the threat on Inverness High Street and the other 1300 deployments of armed officers that did not involve reports of a firearm.

[sons superhero]

Not sure if you are on the wind up. There is a difference between deployment and tasking. I will say again they are Police Officers first they serve the public in that role. What is it your really trying to get at? Do you not want any officers armed and wait for firearms teams to come from somewhere else or just don't want them doing their job. 

Inverness is a garrison town to start with, work it out yourself. 

Again no mention why you used those images. 

 

[strichener]

On 05/08/2016 at 23:54, sons superhero said:

I won't argue with the implementation of Strathpol's policies throughout the rest of Scotland but that wasn't your original point though was it. It was the militarisation of police and your use of a Tactical Firearms Officer image against one of Officers with wooden truncheons. I asked you what was the TFO deployed at in that image and where did the black and white image come from. 

You surely weren't taking two seperate incidents totally out of context and inappropriately use them support your premise that we now have a paramilitary Police Force and how dare Police Officers (no matter how minor the incident) get on with serving the public because they maybe in pocession of a pistol.

It doesn't actually matter to my argument where the picture came from but it was from the Brixton riots.   I never claimed any link between the pictures - that is something you are trying to do in an attempt to distort the actually point that I made.  Added to this, you are now claiming that I have alluded to a paramilitary Police Force (something completely different to the militarisation of the police) and that somehow we have to accept that armed police must carry a weapon overtly at all times.  Armed police perform a vital role in the force, that is not disputed but I can and do object to the compulsory wearing of firearms for officers deployed to normal police work. 

I am not sure if you are familiar with the standing authority but I am deeply suspicious of decisions that are not open to scrutiny by outside organisations.  In the case of the firearms authority, the police are operationally answerable to the PSA and yet the PSA have no position on the Police Scotland Armed Policing Monitoring Group.  The vast majority (6/8) forces prior to the amalgamation required the weapons to be kept in a locked safe in the ARV, a not unreasonable position given that they are providing armed response and the likelihood of an armed officer attending a firearms incident or threat is close to the same officer seeing the second coming during his shift.

[strichener]

5 minutes ago, sons superhero said:

Not sure if you are on the wind up. There is a difference between deployment and tasking. I will say again they are Police Officers first they serve the public in that role. What is it your really trying to get at? Do you not want any officers armed and wait for firearms teams to come from somewhere else or just don't want them doing their job. 

Inverness is a garrison town to start with, work it out yourself. 

Again no mention why you used those images. 

 

I give up, it is clearly you that is on the wind up.  Either that or you are just ignoring the posts that I make to justify your initial post.  That is two posts in a row that you have tried to throw this back at me as if I want to go back to the 1950s, you clearly ignored the part of my post where I clearly stated that I have no issue with armed police being deployed to incidents that require them.  In my own experience of the NE Scotland, I have never seen an armed officer outside of Aberdeen Airport and Grampian Police had ARVs before Police Scotland came into being.  I used those images as it clearly shows the change in policing in the last 30 years.

The images were used solely to show the difference between a police officer in 1980s and now.

[Moonglum25]

36 minutes ago, sons superhero said:

Not sure if you are on the wind up. There is a difference between deployment and tasking. I will say again they are Police Officers first they serve the public in that role. What is it your really trying to get at? Do you not want any officers armed and wait for firearms teams to come from somewhere else or just don't want them doing their job.

 

I would imagine that armed officers routinely attending to calls will not be happening.  i cannot see armed officers getting into a struggle situation that normal beat or response officers would get involved in.  There would be an almighty outcry if a gun was fired intentionally or otherwise in a situation like that or worse case scenario where an gun was taken from an officer while he was involved in a struggle. 

Until recently all armed officers, apart from airports and ports, were in ARV's and were a supplement to the numbers on the street.

The conception of Police Scotland has been a major mistake and should have gradually been phased in with the 8 forces reduced to 4 for a period of time then reduced to 2 and then full integration. The original concept was that best practice would be used from all forces however that has not happened and all areas have been Strathclyded. Where a senior officer objects he is transferred to another position and a Strathclyde officer is transferred into his position.

Numbers on the street have been greatly reduced by garrisoning officers in one particular station to cover all surrounding areas.  I know of places where the minimum resorces levels were 4 officers now being reduced to 2 officers covering that and an adjoining place.  There have been instances recently where the nearest back up to a crew asking for assistance is a good 20-30 minutes away. A long time if you are fighting with a group.

You cannot call an officer directly at a Police station any longer all calls have to go through 101 and are then rerouted out.

The claims about the reduction in crime levels are interesting and may well be down to current methods on how crime is recorded or not recorded. I have seen how crimes are manipulated in the past. Kilbowie may be too young in service to recall how milk bottle thefts and some vandalisms werte recorded to massage the figures. Basically if 10 cars were damaged in a street then there was pressure to record this as 1 undetected crime with 10 cars involved but if someone was caught then it would be recorded as 10 detected crimes. There is also an onus on taking crime reports over the telephone now which will also reduce the number of crimes recorded. I also spoke to an ex collegue a couple of days ago and he confirmed that it is sometimes taking days before officers respond to some calls and by that time the public are disallusioned and are no longer interested in reporting the crime.

Due to cost saving measures in one area for definate there is going to be a big reduction in supervsiory officers at Sergeant and Inspector level.

[Granny Danger]

Was reading some stuff there and just saw a reference to Jo Cox, it made me think how quickly she seems to have disappeared from public consciousness.  I'm not suggesting she be mentioned every day but I feel that equally she seems to have been forgotten too quickly.

 

[strichener]

18 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Was reading some stuff there and just saw a reference to Jo Cox, it made me think how quickly she seems to have disappeared from public consciousness.  I'm not suggesting she be mentioned every day but I feel that equally she seems to have been forgotten too quickly.

 

If only there were a thread on this very subject.

 

 

Oh there is.... Right here

[Granny Danger]

Kudos to BBC's Gary Robertson on radio this morning questioning Murdo Fraser.  Gave him the sort of grilling usually reserved for SNP politicians.

[Cream Cheese]

2 hours ago, Granny Danger said:

Was reading some stuff there and just saw a reference to Jo Cox, it made me think how quickly she seems to have disappeared from public consciousness.  I'm not suggesting she be mentioned every day but I feel that equally she seems to have been forgotten too quickly.

 

Sadly, this ain't all too unusual in modern times. Murders are treated like every other scandal these days. There's the initial shock which is then replaced with a fresh new scandal days later, making people forget all about the old one. That's why politicians and government get away with so many shockers. Because they just keep coming up with fresh new shockers to make you forget all about the old one's. It's endless.

[Gordon EF]

16 hours ago, Granny Danger said:

Was reading some stuff there and just saw a reference to Jo Cox, it made me think how quickly she seems to have disappeared from public consciousness.  I'm not suggesting she be mentioned every day but I feel that equally she seems to have been forgotten too quickly.

 

Mentioning her isn't particularly politically useful for anyone any more.

[Granny Danger]

54 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

Mentioning her isn't particularly politically useful for anyone any more.

You're probably right.

The murder of a politician in this country is, fortunately, such a rarity I thought it would have been a talking point for much longer.  It's seems almost disrespectful to her that it's not getting mentioned any more.

[Gordon EF]

16 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

You're probably right.

The murder of a politician in this country is, fortunately, such a rarity I thought it would have been a talking point for much longer.  It's seems almost disrespectful to her that it's not getting mentioned any more.

Don't want to be part of the whole 'it's a sign of the times' brigade but it does seem these days that people are way more interested in looking like they give a shit about terrible things than actually giving a shit about them. People fall over themselves now to outpour grief and 'solidarity' with every tragedy for a couple of days and then go back to not giving a shit.

What happened to Jo Cox was sad and it's obviously a novelty (for want of a better word) that an MP was murdered but the reality is something horrible happened to someone I didn't know. I didn't give any more or less of a shit about that than when horrible things happen to people I don't know every day.

If we're all honest with ourselves, nobody who didn't know her will really be affected by her death and will go back to not caring very quickly. I kind of find the mawkish grief and tributes more disrespectful in a way, given that deep down everyone knows they don't really care that much.

Perfect example being the quasi-worship of the line "we are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us". The reality is that it's actually a pretty bland and un-eloquent statement. Nobody dropped what they were doing and had some kind of epiphany when she said it and nobody would have given it a second thought if some lunatic hadn't killed her.

Edited August 12, 2016 by Gordon EF

[Sherrif John Bunnell]

It's hard to be sad about Jo Cox when we already have Cecil, Harambe and Kony 2012 to be upset about.

[Gordon EF]

Tbf, I'm sure Gunther was pretty upset about it. I heard him say he loves Cox.

Edited August 12, 2016 by Gordon EF

[capybara]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37059649

 

Not sure that the SNP would want a deal with Labour in Westminster. But Kez is ruling it out, and therefore Tory Govs for a long time to come.

[Zetterlund]

It seems one of the main political stories of today is that Nigel Farage now has a moustache. BusinessInsider has even highlighted it in case we're unsure where to look for a moustache.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/nigel-farage-moustache-ukip-2016-8

 

[Cream Cheese]

The moustache was always there. He just dabbed some camouflage make up over it during his reign as UKIP leader so he could come across as a regular "not fascist but...." bloke, who enjoys a pint down the local brewery.