Corbyn

If anyone really thinks that police cuts had no affect on this then they really are blind.

The police response was magnificent, of that there is no doubt. However, it was a response and we need to be monitoring this people and stopping these plans at source.

It stands to any type of reason that if you cut tens of thousands of police numbers they can't do what they did before.

I just can't see how this can be up for debate ??

So back when there were 20,000 more police things like this wouldnt have happened right?

If anyone really thinks that police cuts had no affect on this then they really are blind.

The police response was magnificent, of that there is no doubt. However, it was a response and we need to be monitoring this people and stopping these plans at source.

It stands to any type of reason that if you cut tens of thousands of police numbers they can't do what they did before.

I just can't see how this can be up for debate ??

So back when there were 20,000 more police things like this wouldnt have happened right?

I'm not saying that. Are you saying that 20,000 extra police wouldn't help in reducing risk levels and increase the ability to monitor these known individuals ?

If you are saying that I'd like to know the justification !!

What nobody is willing to say is that these attacks happened with the Tories in power and are increasing. Something isn't working with the current policy, that's clear.

If anyone really thinks that police cuts had no affect on this then they really are blind.

The police response was magnificent, of that there is no doubt. However, it was a response and we need to be monitoring this people and stopping these plans at source.

It stands to any type of reason that if you cut tens of thousands of police numbers they can't do what they did before.

I just can't see how this can be up for debate ??

So back when there were 20,000 more police things like this wouldnt have happened right?

I'm not saying that. Are you saying that 20,000 extra police wouldn't help in reducing risk levels and increase the ability to monitor these known individuals ?

If you are saying that I'd like to know the justification !!

What nobody is willing to say is that these attacks happened with the Tories in power and are increasing. Something isn't working with the current policy, that's clear.

its impossible to say though right? because the worst terrorist attack on this country came in 2007 when the level of police was much higher.

im not an expert and neither are you in this matter. Where i do currently work, i know that changes in the way we have done things means we now operate more efficiently with fewer numbers of staff. and lets not pretend this is 20,000 police off the street either. i think attributing this as a reason for the recent attacks does a disservice to the current police force.

If anyone really thinks that police cuts had no affect on this then they really are blind.

The police response was magnificent, of that there is no doubt. However, it was a response and we need to be monitoring this people and stopping these plans at source.

It stands to any type of reason that if you cut tens of thousands of police numbers they can't do what they did before.

I just can't see how this can be up for debate ??

So back when there were 20,000 more police things like this wouldnt have happened right?

I'm not saying that. Are you saying that 20,000 extra police wouldn't help in reducing risk levels and increase the ability to monitor these known individuals ?

If you are saying that I'd like to know the justification !!

What nobody is willing to say is that these attacks happened with the Tories in power and are increasing. Something isn't working with the current policy, that's clear.

its impossible to say though right? because the worst terrorist attack on this country came in 2007 when the level of police was much higher.

im not an expert and neither are you in this matter. Where i do currently work, i know that changes in the way we have done things means we now operate more efficiently with fewer numbers of staff. and lets not pretend this is 20,000 police off the street either. i think attributing this as a reason for the recent attacks does a disservice to the current police force.

I don't know the answer to this question, but I can add to the discussion by saying that when I worked in a particular office I was one of just over a hundred working there. There are now less than twenty there, and it is being run in a more efficient manner despite losing around 80% of it's staff.

If anyone really thinks that police cuts had no affect on this then they really are blind.

The police response was magnificent, of that there is no doubt. However, it was a response and we need to be monitoring this people and stopping these plans at source.

It stands to any type of reason that if you cut tens of thousands of police numbers they can't do what they did before.

I just can't see how this can be up for debate ??

So back when there were 20,000 more police things like this wouldnt have happened right?

I'm not saying that. Are you saying that 20,000 extra police wouldn't help in reducing risk levels and increase the ability to monitor these known individuals ?

If you are saying that I'd like to know the justification !!

What nobody is willing to say is that these attacks happened with the Tories in power and are increasing. Something isn't working with the current policy, that's clear.

its impossible to say though right? because the worst terrorist attack on this country came in 2007 when the level of police was much higher.

im not an expert and neither are you in this matter. Where i do currently work, i know that changes in the way we have done things means we now operate more efficiently with fewer numbers of staff. and lets not pretend this is 20,000 police off the street either. i think attributing this as a reason for the recent attacks does a disservice to the current police force.

I don't know the answer to this question, but I can add to the discussion by saying that when I worked in a particular office I was one of just over a hundred working there. There are now less than twenty there, and it is being run in a more efficient manner despite losing around 80% of it's staff.

Steve, a big factor in the above is that there is nowhere for the feckless to 'hide' in a smaller group and those that remain can be monitored far more closely. Often, a smaller group can feel more empowered to make a difference too and that helps increase a sense of self-worth and by default workflow!

If anyone really thinks that police cuts had no affect on this then they really are blind.

The police response was magnificent, of that there is no doubt. However, it was a response and we need to be monitoring this people and stopping these plans at source.

It stands to any type of reason that if you cut tens of thousands of police numbers they can't do what they did before.

I just can't see how this can be up for debate ??

So back when there were 20,000 more police things like this wouldnt have happened right?

I'm not saying that. Are you saying that 20,000 extra police wouldn't help in reducing risk levels and increase the ability to monitor these known individuals ?

If you are saying that I'd like to know the justification !!

What nobody is willing to say is that these attacks happened with the Tories in power and are increasing. Something isn't working with the current policy, that's clear.

its impossible to say though right? because the worst terrorist attack on this country came in 2007 when the level of police was much higher.

im not an expert and neither are you in this matter. Where i do currently work, i know that changes in the way we have done things means we now operate more efficiently with fewer numbers of staff. and lets not pretend this is 20,000 police off the street either. i think attributing this as a reason for the recent attacks does a disservice to the current police force.

I don't know the answer to this question, but I can add to the discussion by saying that when I worked in a particular office I was one of just over a hundred working there. There are now less than twenty there, and it is being run in a more efficient manner despite losing around 80% of it's staff.

And that is a very valid point, any additional numbers would have to be properly deployed !!

However, we now have a situation where we have tens of thousands of "known individuals" that would benefit from investigation/monitoring. Are we seriously saying that additional numbers won't help ?

The 2007 attack was horrendous and planned, but in terms of numbers of current plots even the politicians on both sides accept that that is way more than back then.

We have to look at the whole picture but I really can't see an argument against more police other than the cost.

Even the Shadow Home Secretary on 5 Live this morning answered a direct question (rare from politicians of all sides !!) and stated clearly that she thought we need more armed police on our streets, I would guess that's a pretty popular view from the public right now.

If anyone really thinks that police cuts had no affect on this then they really are blind.

The police response was magnificent, of that there is no doubt. However, it was a response and we need to be monitoring this people and stopping these plans at source.

It stands to any type of reason that if you cut tens of thousands of police numbers they can't do what they did before.

I just can't see how this can be up for debate ??

So back when there were 20,000 more police things like this wouldnt have happened right?

I'm not saying that. Are you saying that 20,000 extra police wouldn't help in reducing risk levels and increase the ability to monitor these known individuals ?

If you are saying that I'd like to know the justification !!

What nobody is willing to say is that these attacks happened with the Tories in power and are increasing. Something isn't working with the current policy, that's clear.

its impossible to say though right? because the worst terrorist attack on this country came in 2007 when the level of police was much higher.

im not an expert and neither are you in this matter. Where i do currently work, i know that changes in the way we have done things means we now operate more efficiently with fewer numbers of staff. and lets not pretend this is 20,000 police off the street either. i think attributing this as a reason for the recent attacks does a disservice to the current police force.

I don't know the answer to this question, but I can add to the discussion by saying that when I worked in a particular office I was one of just over a hundred working there. There are now less than twenty there, and it is being run in a more efficient manner despite losing around 80% of it's staff.

And that is a very valid point, any additional numbers would have to be properly deployed !!

However, we now have a situation where we have tens of thousands of "known individuals" that would benefit from investigation/monitoring. Are we seriously saying that additional numbers won't help ?

The 2007 attack was horrendous and planned, but in terms of numbers of current plots even the politicians on both sides accept that that is way more than back then.

We have to look at the whole picture but I really can't see an argument against more police other than the cost.

Even the Shadow Home Secretary on 5 Live this morning answered a direct question (rare from politicians of all sides !!) and stated clearly that she thought we need more armed police on our streets, I would guess that's a pretty popular view from the public right now.

I suppose in an ideal world it would be great if we could employ thousands more police, doctors, nurses, lollipop men or ladies, ambulance drivers, in fact anything that would help save lives. Unfortunately, they all cost money and it is us who will have to pay for all this on top of all the other services we take for granted such as education, refuse collection, transport and a hundred and one other things.

If anyone really thinks that police cuts had no affect on this then they really are blind.

The police response was magnificent, of that there is no doubt. However, it was a response and we need to be monitoring this people and stopping these plans at source.

It stands to any type of reason that if you cut tens of thousands of police numbers they can't do what they did before.

I just can't see how this can be up for debate ??

So back when there were 20,000 more police things like this wouldnt have happened right?

I'm not saying that. Are you saying that 20,000 extra police wouldn't help in reducing risk levels and increase the ability to monitor these known individuals ?

If you are saying that I'd like to know the justification !!

What nobody is willing to say is that these attacks happened with the Tories in power and are increasing. Something isn't working with the current policy, that's clear.

its impossible to say though right? because the worst terrorist attack on this country came in 2007 when the level of police was much higher.

im not an expert and neither are you in this matter. Where i do currently work, i know that changes in the way we have done things means we now operate more efficiently with fewer numbers of staff. and lets not pretend this is 20,000 police off the street either. i think attributing this as a reason for the recent attacks does a disservice to the current police force.

I don't know the answer to this question, but I can add to the discussion by saying that when I worked in a particular office I was one of just over a hundred working there. There are now less than twenty there, and it is being run in a more efficient manner despite losing around 80% of it's staff.

And that is a very valid point, any additional numbers would have to be properly deployed !!

However, we now have a situation where we have tens of thousands of "known individuals" that would benefit from investigation/monitoring. Are we seriously saying that additional numbers won't help ?

The 2007 attack was horrendous and planned, but in terms of numbers of current plots even the politicians on both sides accept that that is way more than back then.

We have to look at the whole picture but I really can't see an argument against more police other than the cost.

Even the Shadow Home Secretary on 5 Live this morning answered a direct question (rare from politicians of all sides !!) and stated clearly that she thought we need more armed police on our streets, I would guess that's a pretty popular view from the public right now.

the only mention in..FUNDING FOR BRITAIN..is the 10k new police officers..expilicity described as to work on comunity beats.
a crowd pleaser more than a serious anti terror measure...which is what youd expect from the far left who have always been sceptical of intelligence/security services..
the attacks have of course changed the landscape for both parties. but to go and rant about the extra police when your intention was to sprinkle these beat bobbies {outdated btw } around the country when your own record voting on anti terror bills is shockingly bad..is a bit much..

If anyone really thinks that police cuts had no affect on this then they really are blind.

The police response was magnificent, of that there is no doubt. However, it was a response and we need to be monitoring this people and stopping these plans at source.

It stands to any type of reason that if you cut tens of thousands of police numbers they can't do what they did before.

I just can't see how this can be up for debate ??

So back when there were 20,000 more police things like this wouldnt have happened right?

I'm not saying that. Are you saying that 20,000 extra police wouldn't help in reducing risk levels and increase the ability to monitor these known individuals ?

If you are saying that I'd like to know the justification !!

What nobody is willing to say is that these attacks happened with the Tories in power and are increasing. Something isn't working with the current policy, that's clear.

its impossible to say though right? because the worst terrorist attack on this country came in 2007 when the level of police was much higher.

im not an expert and neither are you in this matter. Where i do currently work, i know that changes in the way we have done things means we now operate more efficiently with fewer numbers of staff. and lets not pretend this is 20,000 police off the street either. i think attributing this as a reason for the recent attacks does a disservice to the current police force.

I don't know the answer to this question, but I can add to the discussion by saying that when I worked in a particular office I was one of just over a hundred working there. There are now less than twenty there, and it is being run in a more efficient manner despite losing around 80% of it's staff.

And that is a very valid point, any additional numbers would have to be properly deployed !!

However, we now have a situation where we have tens of thousands of "known individuals" that would benefit from investigation/monitoring. Are we seriously saying that additional numbers won't help ?

The 2007 attack was horrendous and planned, but in terms of numbers of current plots even the politicians on both sides accept that that is way more than back then.

We have to look at the whole picture but I really can't see an argument against more police other than the cost.

Even the Shadow Home Secretary on 5 Live this morning answered a direct question (rare from politicians of all sides !!) and stated clearly that she thought we need more armed police on our streets, I would guess that's a pretty popular view from the public right now.

the only mention in..FUNDING FOR BRITAIN..is the 10k new police officers..expilicity described as to work on comunity beats.
a crowd pleaser more than a serious anti terror measure...which is what youd expect from the far left who have always been sceptical of intelligence/security services..
the attacks have of course changed the landscape for both parties. but to go and rant about the extra police when your intention was to sprinkle these beat bobbies {outdated btw } around the country when your own record voting on anti terror bills is shockingly bad..is a bit much..

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Plain stupid. One or 2 "comic" cartoons is Ok. But if you can't respond to an argument with a sensible comment then its better to not respond.
The stream of puerile jokes gives the impression that you are not old enough to vote!

If anyone really thinks that police cuts had no affect on this then they really are blind.

The police response was magnificent, of that there is no doubt. However, it was a response and we need to be monitoring this people and stopping these plans at source.

It stands to any type of reason that if you cut tens of thousands of police numbers they can't do what they did before.

I just can't see how this can be up for debate ??

So back when there were 20,000 more police things like this wouldnt have happened right?

To be honest Paul I think the police around the cities have been replaced by the most sophisticated cctv systems in the world and I believe the uk has almost a quarter of the worlds cctv which is incredible for the size of our island.
The special constables in communities would be hit and miss because as we saw yesterday one of the terrorists killed was known to his neighbours as a genuine upstanding member of the community and they had no idea he was radicalised

Piers Morgan comment today


Mrs May was publicly warned of the dire consequences of her actions at the 2015 Police Federation annual conference,

One-time Community Police Officer of the Year, Damian O’Reilly, pleaded with her to reverse cuts in local policing in Manchester.

‘I had to leave,’ he told her directly, ‘because the changes that have been imposed have caused community policing to collapse.’

He continued: ‘Intelligence has dried up. There aren’t local officers, they don’t know what’s happening. They’re all reactive, there’s no proactive policing locally. That is the reality ma’am.

Neighbourhood policing is critical to dealing with terrorism. We run the risk here of letting communities down, putting officers at risk and ultimately risking national security and I would ask you to seriously consider the budget and the level of cuts over the next five years.’

Mrs May’s response was to accuse O’Reilly and his colleagues of ‘scaremongering’ and to sneer: ‘This crying wolf has to stop. The last five years have shown that it is possible to do more with less.’

These words sound horrendously hollow today.

In fact, they sound shockingly reckless.

The only wolves I see on display are the lone wolf who attacked a pop concert in Manchester and the pack of wolves who attacked London revellers last night.

The only people I see crying are their myriad victims and their poor families.

Today, London was flooded with cops. I arrived back at lunchtime from a half-term holiday in France to be met by scores of heavily armed police patrolling City Airport.

On the cab ride home, it seemed like there were cops everywhere.

I was pleased. It made me feel safe.

But where the hell were they yesterday BEFORE this attack happened?

Where the hell will they be in a week or so when we all pack away our candles, end our vigils, bury our dead and move on again?

If anyone really thinks that police cuts had no affect on this then they really are blind.

The police response was magnificent, of that there is no doubt. However, it was a response and we need to be monitoring this people and stopping these plans at source.

It stands to any type of reason that if you cut tens of thousands of police numbers they can't do what they did before.

I just can't see how this can be up for debate ??

So back when there were 20,000 more police things like this wouldnt have happened right?

I'm not saying that. Are you saying that 20,000 extra police wouldn't help in reducing risk levels and increase the ability to monitor these known individuals ?

If you are saying that I'd like to know the justification !!

What nobody is willing to say is that these attacks happened with the Tories in power and are increasing. Something isn't working with the current policy, that's clear.

its impossible to say though right? because the worst terrorist attack on this country came in 2007 when the level of police was much higher.

im not an expert and neither are you in this matter. Where i do currently work, i know that changes in the way we have done things means we now operate more efficiently with fewer numbers of staff. and lets not pretend this is 20,000 police off the street either. i think attributing this as a reason for the recent attacks does a disservice to the current police force.

I don't know the answer to this question, but I can add to the discussion by saying that when I worked in a particular office I was one of just over a hundred working there. There are now less than twenty there, and it is being run in a more efficient manner despite losing around 80% of it's staff.

And that is a very valid point, any additional numbers would have to be properly deployed !!

However, we now have a situation where we have tens of thousands of "known individuals" that would benefit from investigation/monitoring. Are we seriously saying that additional numbers won't help ?

The 2007 attack was horrendous and planned, but in terms of numbers of current plots even the politicians on both sides accept that that is way more than back then.

We have to look at the whole picture but I really can't see an argument against more police other than the cost.

Even the Shadow Home Secretary on 5 Live this morning answered a direct question (rare from politicians of all sides !!) and stated clearly that she thought we need more armed police on our streets, I would guess that's a pretty popular view from the public right now.

Yet again Abbott is completely out of touch (probably her maths) with the public, common sense and most importantly the Police Force themselves.

Only certain (very few) want or are capable of carrying and discharging safely, high powered weapons in a public place. Or do you want 100's of semi skilled police shooting each other and the public in stressful situations of life and death?

The Police Commissioner said that there are enough armed police on duty 24 hours a day, every day. As proven by the FACT that in 8 minutes of the call on a busy Saturday night in our largest, busiest city, the threat was terminated. In 8 minutes many, many police were in the vicinity, the SAS had surrounded the area and even River Police were under the bridge to rescue any potential drowning victims.

Therefore it has been proven that there are enough trained police on duty at all times, procedures are in place that work and no other city in the world would have reacted so quickly and decisively as those in London last Saturday.

Lack of numbers is not an issue, but equipment, training and skills are the most important requirement. Having 20,000 extra police would not have made the slightest difference to preventing it or the outcome.

But yet again Corbyn and Abbott try to gain political points and show their lack of experience, knowledge and ability to manage our country. Our Police, intelligence and security forces must be terrified of them winning the election on Thursday.

Piers Morgan comment today


Mrs May was publicly warned of the dire consequences of her actions at the 2015 Police Federation annual conference,

One-time Community Police Officer of the Year, Damian O’Reilly, pleaded with her to reverse cuts in local policing in Manchester.

‘I had to leave,’ he told her directly, ‘because the changes that have been imposed have caused community policing to collapse.’

He continued: ‘Intelligence has dried up. There aren’t local officers, they don’t know what’s happening. They’re all reactive, there’s no proactive policing locally. That is the reality ma’am.

Neighbourhood policing is critical to dealing with terrorism. We run the risk here of letting communities down, putting officers at risk and ultimately risking national security and I would ask you to seriously consider the budget and the level of cuts over the next five years.’

Mrs May’s response was to accuse O’Reilly and his colleagues of ‘scaremongering’ and to sneer: ‘This crying wolf has to stop. The last five years have shown that it is possible to do more with less.’

These words sound horrendously hollow today.

In fact, they sound shockingly reckless.

The only wolves I see on display are the lone wolf who attacked a pop concert in Manchester and the pack of wolves who attacked London revellers last night.

The only people I see crying are their myriad victims and their poor families.

Today, London was flooded with cops. I arrived back at lunchtime from a half-term holiday in France to be met by scores of heavily armed police patrolling City Airport.

On the cab ride home, it seemed like there were cops everywhere.

I was pleased. It made me feel safe.

But where the hell were they yesterday BEFORE this attack happened?

Where the hell will they be in a week or so when we all pack away our candles, end our vigils, bury our dead and move on again?

so this guy basically quit his job?

Piers Morgan comment today


Mrs May was publicly warned of the dire consequences of her actions at the 2015 Police Federation annual conference,

One-time Community Police Officer of the Year, Damian O’Reilly, pleaded with her to reverse cuts in local policing in Manchester.

‘I had to leave,’ he told her directly, ‘because the changes that have been imposed have caused community policing to collapse.’

He continued: ‘Intelligence has dried up. There aren’t local officers, they don’t know what’s happening. They’re all reactive, there’s no proactive policing locally. That is the reality ma’am.

Neighbourhood policing is critical to dealing with terrorism. We run the risk here of letting communities down, putting officers at risk and ultimately risking national security and I would ask you to seriously consider the budget and the level of cuts over the next five years.’

Mrs May’s response was to accuse O’Reilly and his colleagues of ‘scaremongering’ and to sneer: ‘This crying wolf has to stop. The last five years have shown that it is possible to do more with less.’

These words sound horrendously hollow today.

In fact, they sound shockingly reckless.

The only wolves I see on display are the lone wolf who attacked a pop concert in Manchester and the pack of wolves who attacked London revellers last night.

The only people I see crying are their myriad victims and their poor families.

Today, London was flooded with cops. I arrived back at lunchtime from a half-term holiday in France to be met by scores of heavily armed police patrolling City Airport.

On the cab ride home, it seemed like there were cops everywhere.

I was pleased. It made me feel safe.

But where the hell were they yesterday BEFORE this attack happened?

Where the hell will they be in a week or so when we all pack away our candles, end our vigils, bury our dead and move on again?

so this guy basically quit his job?

And for a reason