Recruitment of 20,000 new police officers to begin 'within weeks' Watch

Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#21
Report 3 weeks ago
#21
(Original post by returnmigrant)
Its all a shameful con.
It's politics. It's what every side does.
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#22
Report 3 weeks ago
#22
(Original post by 999tigger)
He is a member of the Conservative party is he not?
His party that have overseen the police cuts in the first place.
I have never seen him protest about police cuts over the many years they have been taking place.
He has been in government, he has been an MP.

It isnt a damned if you do and damned if you dont situation, just instead of being a weasel admit the reason the police service has so few officers is because the conservatives cut them in the first place. It is highly relevant now because his party have been the ones cutting and thereby creating the situation you want to make them the heroes of.
Again, you're blaming him for a decision that was beyond his control. No one is suggesting that he should be viewed as a hero but adding another 20,000 officers is undoubtedly a good thing. Criticising him for doing something positive just comes across as unreasonably partisan.
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#23
Report 3 weeks ago
#23
(Original post by Underscore__)
Again, you're blaming him for a decision that was beyond his control. No one is suggesting that he should be viewed as a hero but adding another 20,000 officers is undoubtedly a good thing. Criticising him for doing something positive just comes across as unreasonably partisan.
I am pointing towards the Conservative party as they were the ones who made the decisions. He is a member of that party. Just stop being such a weasel and acknowledge the fact the cuts happened in the first place were due to decisions made by the party he supports and is the leader of. Not hard. It isnt about being partisan at all.
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#24
Report 3 weeks ago
#24
(Original post by 999tigger)
I am pointing towards the Conservative party as they were the ones who made the decisions. He is a member of that party. Just stop being such a weasel and acknowledge the fact the cuts happened in the first place were due to decisions made by the party he supports and is the leader of. Not hard. It isnt about being partisan at all.
No one is denying that the Conservative Party cut police numbers but they began doing so before Boris was an MP and when he became an MP he was bound by CMR so I'm not sure what you want him to have done. Even if he did nothing to try and prevent the number of police officers being cut he is not responsible for the policy. What he is responsible for is pledging to recruit 20,000 new officers which is positive. Criticising a politician while they're doing something positive is very clearly partisan.
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#25
Report 3 weeks ago
#25
(Original post by Underscore__)
No one is denying that the Conservative Party cut police numbers but they began doing so before Boris was an MP and when he became an MP he was bound by CMR so I'm not sure what you want him to have done. Even if he did nothing to try and prevent the number of police officers being cut he is not responsible for the policy. What he is responsible for is pledging to recruit 20,000 new officers which is positive. Criticising a politician while they're doing something positive is very clearly partisan.
Actually I would be pointing it irrespective of party, so you know what you can do with your partisan claims.
Claiming and doing are different things, we will have to see what his record is in a few years.
He backed the policy for cuts as well as his party, unless ofc you can provide some evidence of him voting against them?
0
reply
debbiemay78
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#26
Report 3 weeks ago
#26
Perfect time to check out a Professional Policing degree! I know they do it at my uni glyndwr in Wrexham.
:yeah:
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#27
Report 3 weeks ago
#27
(Original post by 999tigger)
Actually I would be pointing it irrespective of party, so you know what you can do with your partisan claims.
It makes your political leanings very clear when you criticise a politician for doing something positive.

(Original post by 999tigger)
Claiming and doing are different things, we will have to see what his record is in a few years.
Agreed, if, in the future, he has failed to deliver on his pledge then, by all means, hold his feet to the fire. As for right now, he's made a pledge that will hopefully be beneficial for society and he doesn't deserve criticism for that.

(Original post by 999tigger)
He backed the policy for cuts as well as his party, unless ofc you can provide some evidence of him voting against them?
:laugh: That's not how it works. If you want to show that he supported police cuts then it's on you to provide his voting record. I'm not denying he was in favour of cuts, I'm saying that you don't know if he was or wasn't.
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#28
Report 3 weeks ago
#28
(Original post by Underscore__)
It makes your political leanings very clear when you criticise a politician for doing something positive.

Agreed, if, in the future, he has failed to deliver on his pledge then, by all means, hold his feet to the fire. As for right now, he's made a pledge that will hopefully be beneficial for society and he doesn't deserve criticism for that.


:laugh: That's not how it works. If you want to show that he supported police cuts then it's on you to provide his voting record. I'm not denying he was in favour of cuts, I'm saying that you don't know if he was or wasn't.
He supported a government and party that did. Just be honest for once in your life.
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#29
Report 3 weeks ago
#29
(Original post by 999tigger)
He supported a government and party that did. Just be honest for once in your life.
:laugh: I take it you won't be providing his voting record to show whether he supported cuts to the police forces then.

As I've said, even if it were the case that he was in favour of cuts to the police, recruiting 20,000 is positive, therefore this isn't something to criticise him for.
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#30
Report 3 weeks ago
#30
(Original post by Underscore__)
:laugh: I take it you won't be providing his voting record to show whether he supported cuts to the police forces then.

As I've said, even if it were the case that he was in favour of cuts to the police, recruiting 20,000 is positive, therefore this isn't something to criticise him for.
I dont have to. Other than Brexit when has Boris voted against the government?
He hasnt recruited them yet.I wouldnt be fawning to him like you are when its his party that did the cuts in the first place, which you cant seem to admit. More emoticons if you wish , just sums you up.
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#31
Report 3 weeks ago
#31
(Original post by 999tigger)
I dont have to. Other than Brexit when has Boris voted against the government?
You seem to have a misunderstanding on where the burden of proof lies; you are claiming that he supported police cuts, it is therefore for you to provide evidence of that.

(Original post by 999tigger)
He hasnt recruited them yet.I wouldnt be fawning to him like you are
I think you need to look up the definition of the term fawning, it's not a synonym for defending.

(Original post by 999tigger)
when its his party that did the cuts in the first place, which you cant seem to admit.
1. I'm not sure why it means so much to you that I admit the Conservatives were the party who cut police numbers
2. I'm not sure why it really matters? As I've said countless times, he wasn't an MP when they began cutting.

(Original post by 999tigger)
More emoticons if you wish , just sums you up.
They sum up the seriousness with which I'm treating your argument.
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#32
Report 3 weeks ago
#32
(Original post by Underscore__)
You seem to have a misunderstanding on where the burden of proof lies; you are claiming that he supported police cuts, it is therefore for you to provide evidence of that.



I think you need to look up the definition of the term fawning, it's not a synonym for defending.



1. I'm not sure why it means so much to you that I admit the Conservatives were the party who cut police numbers
2. I'm not sure why it really matters? As I've said countless times, he wasn't an MP when they began cutting.



They sum up the seriousness with which I'm treating your argument.
Which really sums your ability to say anything credible because you are too busy fawning to Boris.
In context it does matter the fact that you claim its such a positive move by the Cons to try and recruit 20000 new police when its they that cut police numbers and contributed to the rising crime rate through their policies. He was still a member of the conservative party through this time.
0
reply
z-hog
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#33
Report 3 weeks ago
#33
It's a bit of a leap that Governments control the numbers of police on the streets, what they control is their budgets. When money is cut, it is for the police to determine what to put the knife to and I'd require an inspection of their books to see how much austerity applies to the top brass and their 'performance' bonuses and pension pots. In fact, they have a vested interest in slashing the flatfeet to put pressure on the Government of the day, combined with an organised campaign of whingeing about the lack of resources in the public arena. Every arm of the public services is ruthless at protecting their budgets, it's not as if the interest of the nation is the main thing to them.

It may be a postal code thing but yesterday there were four of them at the caff in the morning (a regular sight) and some guy on a bike got knocked down by a car just outside the house. Nothing much serious, natural for the ambulance to turn up but two police cars and half a dozen coppers doesn't suggest a lack of resources at all.
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#34
Report 3 weeks ago
#34
(Original post by 999tigger)
Which really sums your ability to say anything credible because you are too busy fawning to Boris.
As I said, maybe check the definition of 'fawning'; saying someone isn't deserving of criticism in a particular circumstance isn't fawning.

(Original post by 999tigger)
In context it does matter the fact that you claim its such a positive move by the Cons to try and recruit 20000 new police
I've never said that.

(Original post by 999tigger)
when its they that cut police numbers and contributed to the rising crime rate through their policies.
Careful, almost sounds like you're suggesting it's the Tories and not criminals who are responsible for the rise in crime.

(Original post by 999tigger)
He was still a member of the conservative party through this time.
I'm not really sure why you keep repeating this. I could become a member of the Conservative Party in five minutes, I still wouldn't have the power to influence policy. He wasn't an MP until 2016 by which point, cuts had been taking place for six years. You're yet to produce any evidence that he supported these cuts to the police budget.
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#35
Report 3 weeks ago
#35
(Original post by Underscore__)


Careful, almost sounds like you're suggesting it's the Tories and not criminals who are responsible for the rise in crime.



I'm not really sure why you keep repeating this. I could become a member of the Conservative Party in five minutes, I still wouldn't have the power to influence policy. He wasn't an MP until 2016 by which point, cuts had been taking place for six years. You're yet to produce any evidence that he supported these cuts to the police budget.
It is the governments responsibility to govern and be judged based on their policies. In this case law and order and its longstanding policies that have resulted in the slashing of police numbers. Their policy and they should accept responsibility that the lack of numbers due to their cuts have had a large effect on the current increase in crime.

Boris wasnt a member five minutes ago though, but a longstanding leading conservative throughout this time. It is all very well saying they will recruit more police, but its the cons who are responsible for the cuts in the first place. People should view it in that context.
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#36
Report 3 weeks ago
#36
(Original post by 999tigger)
It is the governments responsibility to govern and be judged based on their policies.

In this case law and order and its longstanding policies that have resulted in the slashing of police numbers. Their policy and they should accept responsibility that the lack of numbers due to their cuts have had a large effect on the current increase in crime.

Boris wasnt a member five minutes ago though, but a longstanding leading conservative throughout this time. It is all very well saying they will recruit more police, but its the cons who are responsible for the cuts in the first place. People should view it in that context.
We aren't talking about judging the government, we're talking about judging Boris but I'll address your point about government because it doesn't make your argument any stronger. The government is responsible for the decisions it makes and the government, not the individuals within the government, is to be judged on the decisions it makes. However, police cuts started in 2010, Boris wasn't part of the government until 2016, therefore, by your own words, he has nothing to do with police cuts any time before 2016. From 2016 to 2018 he was bound CMR and therefore his own personal beliefs can become unclear.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts

All the exam results help you need

1,026

people online now

225,530

students helped last year
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How are you feeling about GCSE Results Day?

Hopeful (180)
12.78%
Excited (116)
8.23%
Worried (264)
18.74%
Terrified (329)
23.35%
Meh (113)
8.02%
Confused (33)
2.34%
Putting on a brave face (190)
13.48%
Impatient (184)
13.06%

Watched Threads

View All