Theresa May and police funding

[gunting]

Why are people playing down the fact that TM cut funding for police?

She told police off for scaremongering two years ago for predicting terror attacks due to cuts. I've seen Cressida Dick calling for more funding today. I've seen a police officer on Sky News highlighting this point and articles in newspapers from The Independent to The Daily Mail.

Conservative voters evade this question, and I feel it's an important one.

ok I'll step up to the plate: there are many theories about why the recent attacks happened, but there is no actual evidence that cuts in police numbers allowed these attacks to happen.

I'm not a fan of the cuts to police numbers, no, I think that's possibly one thing the tories need to backtrack on after due consideration about where resource needs to be added, but I don't think we have a clear enough picture yet to be making confident assertions about solutions. It's too early.

And I do think Corbyn and his team will do a better job overall? No.

Every police senior or ex one I've heard on tv has said the police cuts have nothing to do with with terror event or stop it again. Some are saying they've had a decline in the number of police willing to do armed response so that's stretching resources. Some police seniors are saying they like some more officers all round. With money short in most areas can we justify just blindly spending on more officers ? I don't know.

Many of police officers I have known often laughed about the walking the streets style community policing as a purley political exercise to appease the public. The reality is towns and cities are too large to police of foot, no use having officers 1 mile away if it's going to take the 20 mins to get there, and if they do grab someone they need more officers in cars to take them away.

Communities have gone in the big sprawling towns and cites as a rule, the days of knowing everyone on the street have gone. So what really does walking around the streets do.

Would Corbyn do better? I don't think so, especially as his chancellor what's to scrap Mi5 and the police special branch to help give you the 10,000 officers he keeps promising.

As we need more intelligence and monitoring services to hit cyber crime and hunt terrorists, I don't think all those extra police would change a thing.

I do know that companies like what's app should be allowing security services access which may result in the end of the end to end encryption. I know everyone starts going on about privacy, but really. The security services don't care if you like midget porn, make a fortune selling crap on the web whilst on the dole or like to talk dirty. 99.9% of all of our lives are no interest at all. They want terrorists and paedo rings. So unless your up to something like that, let the security services have the access, all of it. If having this enables even 1 person to be saved then surely it's worth us giving up on our obsession with privacy.

Corbyn is playing it well, the numbers are down and he's promising more, and the recent events have given him a great chance to say I'll fix it with more police. Public ally that's popular as we all go misty eyed over the old Bobbie on thebeat. But in reality his solution won't work, or will current approaches. Policing has been changing and it needs to change more to fit with the times. Not suggestions May will give that, but at least she gets we have to change the way we work not just poor more cash into a potential bottomless pit that we haven't got.

Well, current police officers are in purdah at the moment until the election has finished so cannot say anything on that issue, so your opening line is complete rubbish.

As for ex-police officers, the only one I have seen is Peter Kirkham and he's been quite vociferous on this point.

On your bottomless pit point, she had 6 years as Home Secretary to "change the way we work" and did nothing apart from cut the police numbers by 19.5%.

@Blandings was that a reply to me or the previous poster?

TM is horrific and should admit the mistakes she has made. Press are playing it down because they're owned by billionaires who benefit greatly from a Tory government.

Who wants a PM who wants to nuke the world and kill us all? Hardly a deterrent now, is it.

I am disgusted by all of them and will be voting to save the NHS and our children's education on Thursday by voting Labour. Xx

Who wants a PM who wants to nuke the world and kill us all? Hardly a deterrent now, is it.

Do you have a vague understanding of M.A.D. Or are you just some ignorant Corbynista?

MAD mutual assured destruction. The reason there had been peace and no big wars is because all the main players have nukes, and should one or the other be about to loose they'd use them, then every one would and everyone dies, no one wins. Hence nobody goes to war. So actually by supporting and keeping nukes it's insuring the peace. Corbyns stance would bring the chance of Europe or uk waging a full scale war more likely.

So actually she's ensuring peace with a pro nuclear stance. It's bonkers I know. It it works and has worked since the 50's.

By the way, billionaires don't care about governments, they come and go and they stay billionaires. Corbyn won't change that, he will however make the cost of living go through the roof, give in and tax the middle earners and so actually everyone will be worse off, plus loads of jobs will be lost. Middle to small businesses can't take a corp tax hike and £10 min wage, they'll reduce staff and or fold, less working, well done less tax revenue. You can't tax the rich enough to pay for it. Blind idealism and sycophants for comrade Corbyn . Omfg get a grip please

I don't think it's being played down, I hear it all the time.

But one thing that is often omitted is that the funding for counter-terrorism (including police) increased. So it's not as direct a link as sometimes portrayed. Especially if you start factoring in the increases for the security/intelligence services and the creation new structures and funding for Prevent.

For example, in the last Obourne budget, counter-terrorism funding went from around £11b to around £15b.

Now I don't know as much about how ordinary policing interfaces with counter-terrorism work. Nor why, when the money has run out, it's OK for Sidiq Khan to cut London police (he seems to have totally escaped criticism for that and his upcoming cuts, I heard them mentioned only once). But when someone else, whose money has run out, makes cuts they are nasty.

News has emerged overnight that MI5/CT police were indeed investigating one of the attackers but the investigation was halted/downgraded. This was 2 years ago, just at the time of the big budget increases. At present they explain it as absence of information he was planning an attack (which for this kind of attack must be possible)

One of the newer challenges is that the low-tech attacks need neither specialist equipment not long preparation answer to the question 'how did we not spot this?' Is likely to be very different for the two London attacks on bridges compared to that in Manchester.

Good points Meditrina

Read this thread if you want to see the effect the police cuts are having. It's horrifying.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/2946542-The-government-is-lying-about-police-numbers

@meditrina the counter terror budget has gone up, but Sadiq Khan says that community policing has gone down and some communities rely on those figures and trust them to share information.

Two things have been linked with no clear evidence: police cuts will have had adverse effects, certainly. Do we think that the police cuts led to the terrorist attacks? That's unclear and likely to remain so for some time. I do think anti-terrorist activity is getting more weight than ever before - and we're more successful at foiling attacks.

But it's only now that people seem to be concerned about the police cuts - because they may have increased the risk of a terror attack. We should also be discussing how the police cuts have increased the risk of being a victim of other crimes, because let's face it, that's more likely to affect Joe Public. Why is it only unacceptable if it has increased the terror risk, and not other risks?

More police = more intel

www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/chilling-video-warned-theresa-how-10510061

Not only that, the police have come out saying lack of resources and lack of intelligence are and will cause more problems down the line.

And there's more

Much, much more

Jeremy Corbyn has said he would allow 'police to use whatever force necessary'.

Why aren't the BBC publicly broadcasting this?

<a class="break-all" href="https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/38666914#ampshare=www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-38666914" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/38666914#ampshare=www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-38666914

Sorry Gunting it was in response to the previous poster. I agree with you, she's not getting nearly enough flak.