On a serious note I was kind of agreeing with what you were saying. I do agree peoples perception can be affected by what they read in the paper or view online but at the same time it canât be dismissed as just that.
Stats are an important gauge on society, however, stats themselves can be affected by numerous variables/interpretations and importantly if they were ever recorded in the first place.
Referring to my initial comment on âStatsâ. I think I responded to a poster trying to pull Rupert Lowe up on his comments about London being a jungle, on one recently published stat. I stated something along the lines of you could provide the public or me a stat that suggests we are living in safer environment and it means fuck all.
Just because stats based on one type of offence have dropped, it does not mean the Country is getting safer.
By your own words - and this is not a slight on you - you live in an area which has a low crime rate. So your experience/observations are completely different to a large percentage of the Country. For example, you asking a couple of local youths to stop being unruly is going to get a completely different response to those in inner city areas, Infact, you wouldnât say anything - are these instances recorded? The other day I pulled up at the traffic lights and looked at the car alongside me and the driver had a massive balloon in his mouth and it definitely wasnât birthday related, did I report it? No!
Look you are entitled to believe the Country is becoming a safer place on the back of a couple of recent figures that support your argument. All I ask is a bit of open mindedness to other people lived experience, to try and understand rather than just dismiss it.
Regarding the knife crime stat, again I will reiterate the METs reporting, in that they have changed the way knife crimes are recorded and so recent stats cannot be viewed in direct comparison to previous years. So I am not disputing the figures, I am just again stating that there is a disclaimer in the reporting. It maybe that the figures have been over recorded and that the recent figures are actually a true reflection.
A truly horrific and sickening incident. That is all that needed to be said!
You reading the story and thinking of an âexcellent article from a couple of weeks agoâ is a fucking low. To then post your thoughts on a public forum, using the incident to support your agenda is disgusting, completely unacceptable.
Itâs disgusting that the one of the most horrific news stories in my lifetime illicits 0 response from the bloke who picks and chooses which incident of human misery he seizes upon to advance his agenda.
This is a poltical thread. I made a political comment. You jumping to his defence all the time says far more about you than it does about me.
If any other politician selectively used such incidents to advance their agenda, I would have said the same thing. The thing is, most of them donât.
Whislt weâre at it, LynchâŚmaybe youâd like to comment on the decades of underfunding in the services that are explicitly intended to protect the most vulnerable.
How did a baby present to hopsital 3 times with unexplained injuries without any meaningful interventions? Why do I see one of these news stories every few months?
Maybe itâs because for the last 50 years weâve lived in a system where spending money on the services that protect the most vulnerable amongst us has been more or less abandoned so the very rich can literally bleed us all dry more and more with each passing year.
I fully acknowledge there are two people chiefly responsible for this horror. They have been dealt with by the justice system, as they should have been. I donât believe in capital punishment, they will likely be murdered in gaol. I donât really care.
But leaving it at that lets a whole society off the hook. This is EXACTLY the time to be asking more questions.
Yes, but my point was that people in the same street as me believe that crime in my village is out of control. We canât both be right, and the biggest difference between us, as far as I can tell, is the media we consume.
Starmer does it all the time. 'âThis isnât who we are, diversity and inclusion, we wont tolerate this, that and the other blah blah blahâ while saying fuck all about plenty of other incidents.
All politicians do it. Did the author of that artical research how every other party leader reacted to those murders and every other heinous crime that is committed on a weekly basis in this country? I very much doubt it.
Farage used Henry Nowakâs horrible death to call for violence.
He did it because the murderer was dark skinned.
Also, if any other political leader has been out there at any point addressing the nation and banging on about cold rage, or whatever the fuck it was, do please let me know. I canât find anything.
All politicians will speak out when it suits them and remain quiet when it doesnât. Do you agree? Like I said, I very much doubt the author bothered to research responses from all the other party leaders after murders, rapes and various other atrocities came to light.
Your last point adds nothing to the argument. He said his piece, if you donât agree with what he said thatâs fine, but heâs entitled to express an opinion regardless of what the other party leaders are saying (or not saying).
The facts about the Nowak murder, as far as can be made out by the public, seem to as follows:
Nowak was attacked by Digwa
The police arrive and begin assessment and containment of the scene
Digwa claimed he was attacked
Digwaâs brother, corroborated this
Nowak unfortunately died
In the end it seems that the criminal actions of two people who, by lingering at the crime scene, manipulated policing.
If there is a two tier policing system, this is not the poster child. The police were confronted by two witnesses that gave the same story - against one that was lying on the ground struggling to be coherent. Ultimately, it has resulted in an horrible outcome for Nowak and, of course, his family.
Farage saying what he said was just ugly, cheap political shenanigans. People in power, or in the public light, have a responsibility to ensure anything they say is considered and responsible. The cost of his words has already cost the tax payer millions of pounds though the need for extra policing and vandalism.
This was one of the barge poles I was talking about earlier - I was going to keep swerving this topic. Iâve said my two pence worth. I wonât engage in further pissing on this horrible tragedy.
Looks like the bond market is gearing up to deliver Burnham a kick in the 'nads as he walks in the door at No.10, Friday saw distinct upward pressure and yield is already at 4.85%, perilously close to that 5% threshold. There is just no fiscal room right now.
I think he has already committed to the same manifesto commitments on tax raising that Reeves has been following, and a Morningstar article said it was rumoured that he will protect the triple lock pensions and possibly pay out to Waspiâs. , I cant see him make the welfare cuts Reeves was counting on being made so iâm curious where he will find money to deliver more than what has been committed so far?
Itâs pretty likely. He is one of the few leading politicians with a positve popularity score. Plenty of labour MPs want Starmer out either because they dont like him or they feel he lacks the charm or policies to win enough votes at next election.
Also, there are a number of MPs who are willing to trigger the leadership contest to make it happen. I dont know rules on process or timing but it has been reported that MPs have called on Starmer to announce he will step down and give timings for that to happen. If he doesnt i expect the boat to be rocked soon enough now Burnham has been confirmed to be back as an MP.
I think that question is exactly why the yields started to climb, pricing in Burnhamâs unwillingness to do the things that were making Starmer unpopular, and therefore a worsening fiscal balance.
The lettuce should just get a Cabinet position these days.
.