Let's privatise the police! Page 27

  • Page

    of 30 First / Last

  • LeoliansBro 24 Sep 2012 15:27:53 44,724 posts
    Seen 39 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    That's the same thing. They want more than they're being offered.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • MetalDog 24 Sep 2012 15:34:17 23,864 posts
    Seen 43 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    It's not the same thing though, is it? They need a certain number of trained firemen/women, stations and equipment to tackle fires in a given timeframe over a certain area. If you cut the number of trained staff, stations and engines, they will not be able to fight fire as effectively and as fast.

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • LeoliansBro 24 Sep 2012 15:40:26 44,724 posts
    Seen 39 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    You seem stuck in the idea that costs generally, and wages specifically, are a one-way street. They aren't.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • MetalDog 24 Sep 2012 15:44:54 23,864 posts
    Seen 43 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    You seem stuck in the idea that hundreds of millions of pounds in cuts can be taken directly out of people's hides with no consequences whatsoever.

    I didn't see such enthusiasm from you for individuals bearing the brunt during the banking crisis. Much talk of contractual obligations then, wasn't there?

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • LeoliansBro 24 Sep 2012 15:51:10 44,724 posts
    Seen 39 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    If these chaps are contractually entitled to whatever is being cut, why do they use tabloids as their tool to ominously predict the end-times if anyone checks whether they receive too much?

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • MetalDog 24 Sep 2012 15:56:17 23,864 posts
    Seen 43 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    You appear to have lost your mind. This is a couple of years out of date, but is unlikely to be all that inaccurate. Bear in mind, they can die doing this job.

    http://www.hantsfire.gov.uk/salary

    How much do you want to cut their pay to save the necessary funds so that they can keep all the engines and stations?

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • LeoliansBro 24 Sep 2012 16:00:30 44,724 posts
    Seen 39 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I haven't lost my mind. I just wanted to jump to the opposite conclusion to you, to show that one knee-jerk reaction is as invalid as another.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • MetalDog 24 Sep 2012 16:02:08 23,864 posts
    Seen 43 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    The warnings about cuts to all emergency services have been going on for a while now with multiple sources, where's the knee jerk?

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • LeoliansBro 24 Sep 2012 16:08:42 44,724 posts
    Seen 39 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I was just picking up this individual example. Of course there are cuts, the alternative is higher taxes which is an awful idea both politically and economically.

    Is it unreasonable, in the light of falling tax revenues, to ask all publicly funded departments to consider their financial requirements? Do you have evidence that the emergency services are being disproportionately penalised? If you'd said 'why are they cutting emergency services funding when they acn afford the Olympics?' I'd concede you had more of a point (although I'd still disagree).

    Your continual mantra in this thread is to highlight every example of a public service funding reduction as Tory awfulness / political ineptitude / outright corruption, when all you're doing is linking a string of partisan and emotive articles totally disconnected from the underlying financial realism.

    Edited by LeoliansBro at 16:08:59 24-09-2012

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Khanivor 24 Sep 2012 16:16:29 41,071 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I wonder if there's been a change in the number of engines and firemen needed to fight fires. And whether the number of fires is a statistic that has trended downwards due to increased knowledge and better building codes. Perhaps there is some similarity with the armed forces, which no longer need to be maintained at levels to fight the wars of 25 years ago.

    On the other hand, fire a few civil servants rather than frontline emergency services. I'd rather waste money on firemen and ambulance drives then pencil pushers. I'd also prefer to pay a little more tax than fucking die because of a budget cut.

    Edited by Khanivor at 16:16:49 24-09-2012
  • MetalDog 24 Sep 2012 16:19:02 23,864 posts
    Seen 43 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    To be honest, I don't give a monkeys that it's the Tories enacting the cuts - the groundwork for a lot of this was laid by Labour the last time they were in.

    What I would like to see are businesses paying their tax - that would be a fucking good start. Instead what I'm seeing are huge cuts to services I am glad to pay my taxes for, outsourcing to private companies that many ministers have financial ties to, failure to collect tax owed by major corporations, massive amounts of money being given in 'foreign aid' which is not actually aiding anyone except the elite of those countries, disabled people being put through hell in an effort to take away their benefits, etc, etc, ad nausium.

    I'm not seeing a convincing counter-argument to the wrongness of this situation.

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • LeoliansBro 24 Sep 2012 16:21:00 44,724 posts
    Seen 39 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    OK, I admit my last post was a little heated.

    The fact is: tax revenues are down.

    The knock on effect of this is one of three things. Raise taxes. Borrow more. Cut costs.

    Personally, I'm for borrow more. Which are you for?

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • MetalDog 24 Sep 2012 16:25:11 23,864 posts
    Seen 43 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Aren't we already borrowing more?

    I would be prepared to pay more tax. I would like to see it spent mostly on things that are of benefit to society - since that's sort of the whole point of them.

    If you absolutely must cut - cut the fat, don't start hacking off limbs so you can keep your beergut.

    Incidentally, wouldn't a little of all three be better than just lots of one?

    Edited by MetalDog at 16:27:00 24-09-2012

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • LeoliansBro 24 Sep 2012 16:29:33 44,724 posts
    Seen 39 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Absolutely, and it's entirely possible these cuts are part of a 'little of all three' policy. Looking at them in isolated terms misses the point.

    I'm with you on government and corporate ineptitude, I've all the time in the world for those nuggets of information. But the story on cuts generally needs to be aware of the bigger picture.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • MetalDog 24 Sep 2012 16:46:50 23,864 posts
    Seen 43 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I wouldn't be so angry if I were not fairly well convinced that these cuts are disproportionately harsh and being made with a mind to flogging off much of the services to the private sector, out of what I believe to be a misguided mindset of 'private is always better'. There's also the call centralising nonsense going on across the services despite the evidence showing that it is a poorer service than local call centres. The lack of heeding evidence is either crippling stupidity, hubris or corruption. Or perhaps a bit from all three.

    There's a list somewhere of all the MPs with financial links to private companies snapping up 'partnership contracts'. All three main parties have members with such, I'll see if I can find it.

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • MetalDog 24 Sep 2012 17:09:29 23,864 posts
    Seen 43 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Well, found one for healthcare at least. All three parties, some to a greater extent than others.
    Partisan source (I do try to mix up the link sources and avoid the more overtly leaning ones, but beyond the Telegraph, not many rightish sources are talking about this), links and facts that can be double-checked herein:

    http://socialinvestigations.blogspot.co.uk/p/mps-with-or-had-financial-links-to.html

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • LeoliansBro 24 Sep 2012 17:13:16 44,724 posts
    Seen 39 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    That's fair enough. Personal pocket lining is pretty disgusting.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • MetalDog 24 Sep 2012 17:20:07 23,864 posts
    Seen 43 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I think we're probably going to be stuck with lots of things being shit until we make it nigh impossible for people to make/raise money this way when serving as MPs. Even then you have a problem with people setting themselves up for cushy jobs on exit. Tricky, since they make the laws...

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • MetalDog 28 Sep 2012 13:38:49 23,864 posts
    Seen 43 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Home Office cannot define 'front line' policing.

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • Bremenacht 29 Sep 2012 01:40:35 19,328 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    MetalDog wrote:
    I wouldn't be so angry if I were not fairly well convinced that these cuts are disproportionately harsh and being made with a mind to flogging off much of the services to the private sector, out of what I believe to be a misguided mindset of 'private is always better'. There's also the call centralising nonsense going on across the services despite the evidence showing that it is a poorer service than local call centres. The lack of heeding evidence is either crippling stupidity, hubris or corruption. Or perhaps a bit from all three.
    There's also an assumption that any damage caused by reduced service will be picked up by the insurance industry, so it's a double-whammy really - you pay your tax so that private service companies can make risk-free profits and you pay higher insurance premiums to cover the damage done through poor service.

    I've always regarded paying tax as the best form of insurance, but people who are wealthy enough not to worry about needing public policing or fire response or public health care tend not to want to pay those taxes. They also tend to be from the same group of people who see money to be made from running those services, so it's double-win for them.

    I still think it's inevitable though. The only way to prove it's a bad idea (for most people) is to let them do it and eventually (if you're right) get too greedy and fuck things up.
  • Bremenacht 29 Sep 2012 02:36:20 19,328 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    It seems like kicking against the pricks sometimes, but as someone who's too lazy/cynical to do anything more than vote (or maybe not vote), I'm in no position to criticise someone who cares enough to try.
  • MetalDog 2 Oct 2012 07:15:54 23,864 posts
    Seen 43 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Air police on the centralisation of Police Air Support.

    They think it's a move towards privatising that service and explain why they think so.

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • Deleted user 2 October 2012 07:32:25
    As someone who knows more about helicopter aircraft availability than just about anyone in the country, there are a lot of gaps in their argument and criticisms.
  • MetalDog 2 Oct 2012 07:49:22 23,864 posts
    Seen 43 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Why not point them out in the comments and see if they fill them for you?

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • Megapocalypse 2 Oct 2012 07:56:43 5,491 posts
    Seen 17 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    As someone who doesn't have your knowledge of police helicopter availability but does have a decent amount of operational police experience, would you be able to explain those gaps as it looks like it makes sense to me.
  • Deleted user 2 October 2012 08:23:07
    Can't do it properly because I'm on my phone but the gist of it is that even if you reduce the total number of aircraft there are ways of increasing the number available at any time. Spares (quantity and location) maintenance activities and greater use if component redundancy being the key three.
  • Deleted user 2 October 2012 08:25:13
    The benefit of a national service should be the sharing of support assets and aircraft so there may well be more aircraft that can be used at any time. The call centre stuff sounds either exaggerated or it's a terrible idea, dunno on that one.
  • Megapocalypse 2 Oct 2012 08:41:06 5,491 posts
    Seen 17 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    The call centre stuff sounds similar to how cars are dispatched now. And it's terrible. Operators with no policing or local knowledge working off flow charts and trying to meet targets.
  • Page

    of 30 First / Last

Log in or register to reply