LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65224008
Scottish Tory suggests tactical voting to oust SNP.
I don't understand his thought process here. If there is a seat the Scottish tories can't win, surely it is better the SNP win it than labour (from a Tory perspective). Assuming labour win power, surely its better for the Conservatives for there to be either a larger opposition or the SNP be part of a coalition than a larger labour majority.
I also wonder with these things if the party does let somebody say this to get the idea out there but then goes into full denial mode.0 -
Didn’t know which thread to put this into but junior doctors seeking a 35% rise to compensate years of below inflation pay rises when most of them only became doctors more recently is a bit of an odd one. If you accept your first job at a certain salary it is a bit ridiculous to then strike a few years later because your starting salary was too low and demand an increase to cover it.
I understand it’s a negotiating technique but it’s not a very good one.0 -
By that logic you could cut wages to juniors every third year and they would never be in their rights to complain.Pross said:Didn’t know which thread to put this into but junior doctors seeking a 35% rise to compensate years of below inflation pay rises when most of them only became doctors more recently is a bit of an odd one. If you accept your first job at a certain salary it is a bit ridiculous to then strike a few years later because your starting salary was too low and demand an increase to cover it.
I understand it’s a negotiating technique but it’s not a very good one.0 -
Not really as no-one would become doctors. Do you really think demanding 35% on the basis that pay rises were below inflation before you even started training is reasonable? It’s ludicrous.rick_chasey said:
By that logic you could cut wages to juniors every third year and they would never be in their rights to complain.Pross said:Didn’t know which thread to put this into but junior doctors seeking a 35% rise to compensate years of below inflation pay rises when most of them only became doctors more recently is a bit of an odd one. If you accept your first job at a certain salary it is a bit ridiculous to then strike a few years later because your starting salary was too low and demand an increase to cover it.
I understand it’s a negotiating technique but it’s not a very good one.0 -
In the wider context that they're just trying to re-align real wages to 2010 levels, sure.Pross said:
Not really as no-one would become doctors. Do you really think demanding 35% on the basis that pay rises were below inflation before you even started training is reasonable? It’s ludicrous.rick_chasey said:
By that logic you could cut wages to juniors every third year and they would never be in their rights to complain.Pross said:Didn’t know which thread to put this into but junior doctors seeking a 35% rise to compensate years of below inflation pay rises when most of them only became doctors more recently is a bit of an odd one. If you accept your first job at a certain salary it is a bit ridiculous to then strike a few years later because your starting salary was too low and demand an increase to cover it.
I understand it’s a negotiating technique but it’s not a very good one.
The highest paid servers in Pret get paid more than the lowest paid junior doctors. That, to me, seems a bit odd.
We all bitch and moan about the NHS, lord knows I do, but the solution isn't to pay the already underpaid staff less.
Do we want Doctors? Do we want British doctors? Then pay up.0 -
If you started university ten years ago, you are probably still a junior doctor.Pross said:Didn’t know which thread to put this into but junior doctors seeking a 35% rise to compensate years of below inflation pay rises when most of them only became doctors more recently is a bit of an odd one. If you accept your first job at a certain salary it is a bit ridiculous to then strike a few years later because your starting salary was too low and demand an increase to cover it.
I understand it’s a negotiating technique but it’s not a very good one.0 -
I've got no problem with them being paid more and even getting an above inflation rise. Putting 35% as the starting point feels like a surefire way of ensuring you don't even get to the negotiation phase though. They've accepted previous pay deals and are now effectively trying to renegotiate those.rick_chasey said:
In the wider context that they're just trying to re-align real wages to 2010 levels, sure.Pross said:
Not really as no-one would become doctors. Do you really think demanding 35% on the basis that pay rises were below inflation before you even started training is reasonable? It’s ludicrous.rick_chasey said:
By that logic you could cut wages to juniors every third year and they would never be in their rights to complain.Pross said:Didn’t know which thread to put this into but junior doctors seeking a 35% rise to compensate years of below inflation pay rises when most of them only became doctors more recently is a bit of an odd one. If you accept your first job at a certain salary it is a bit ridiculous to then strike a few years later because your starting salary was too low and demand an increase to cover it.
I understand it’s a negotiating technique but it’s not a very good one.
The highest paid servers in Pret get paid more than the lowest paid junior doctors. That, to me, seems a bit odd.
We all censored and moan about the NHS, lord knows I do, but the solution isn't to pay the already underpaid staff less.
Do we want Doctors? Do we want British doctors? Then pay up.0 -
When people talk about petty crime being virtually legalised, it’s stories like this.
If the address has hundreds of phones, is this not the kind of thing sting operations etc are for?
Police either cba or more likely are so under resourced they have to focus on serious crimes.0 -
I guess the flat doesn't have hundreds of stolen phones tracked to it on one day but that it has been linked to a lot of stolen phones over a period of time? Presumably, if the police go and recover the phone then they either find an empty flat or a flat with someone who 'bought the phone in a pub' and was unaware it's stolen?
Can phones be tracked when they are turned off? I'm amazed that a phone battery lasted long enough for it to be shipped off to China via Dubai and still be tracking.Ms Banham was also able to track her phone's location, as it moved from London to Dubai and then to Shenzhen in China, but there was no further contact from the authorities.0 -
We all know if our bike is stolen, even if we find it on facebook marketplace or somewhere else, the police won't help.
Same with phones. Petty theft is not investigated nor do they try to stop the criminals. They'll shrug and say to not lock it up x or have your phone out in public.0 -
I think the response is similarly lackluster if your car gets nicked, they'll shrug and say something about it probably already being loaded onto a container at Tilbury.0
-
I suspect if you or I had a hundred nicked phones they would pop round and we would go meekly.rick_chasey said:We all know if our bike is stolen, even if we find it on facebook marketplace or somewhere else, the police won't help.
Same with phones. Petty theft is not investigated nor do they try to stop the criminals. They'll shrug and say to not lock it up x or have your phone out in public.
If you your friends and family are horrible enough the police will leave you alone so long as you don’t do anything newsworthy0 -
-
Let's say the police turn up to the flat, there is someone in and they actually open the door and a handful of phones are found.
What is the likely outcome?
My guess us that the crim claims to have bought them in good faith from the proverbial guy down the pub and gets off.
If they are stupid/unlucky they get charged with handling stolen goods and get a slap on the wrists.0 -
TBH, I know f*ck all about policing, but investigating crime, arresting criminals and preventing crime is important, necessary, and what they should be doing.monkimark said:Let's say the police turn up to the flat, there is someone in and they actually open the door and a handful of phones are found.
What is the likely outcome?
My guess us that the crim claims to have bought them in good faith from the proverbial guy down the pub and gets off.
If they are stupid/unlucky they get charged with handling stolen goods and get a slap on the wrists.
The "it's hard to catch them" isn't really a good argument, is it? If it was easy, we wouldn't have to pay police.1 -
I suspect the police know full well who commits most of the crime in each area, but cannot get enough evidence to get over the burden of proof thresholds to have the CPS prosecute.rick_chasey said:
TBH, I know f*ck all about policing, but investigating crime, arresting criminals and preventing crime is important, necessary, and what they should be doing.monkimark said:Let's say the police turn up to the flat, there is someone in and they actually open the door and a handful of phones are found.
What is the likely outcome?
My guess us that the crim claims to have bought them in good faith from the proverbial guy down the pub and gets off.
If they are stupid/unlucky they get charged with handling stolen goods and get a slap on the wrists.
The "it's hard to catch them" isn't really a good argument, is it? If it was easy, we wouldn't have to pay police.0 -
Isn't that their job though?
I mean, the stats don't lie. Successful prosecutions are through the floor, the number of unsolved crimes are skyrocketing.0 -
Pretty similar to taxation where they just hammer the law abiding guy on paye.rick_chasey said:
TBH, I know f*ck all about policing, but investigating crime, arresting criminals and preventing crime is important, necessary, and what they should be doing.monkimark said:Let's say the police turn up to the flat, there is someone in and they actually open the door and a handful of phones are found.
What is the likely outcome?
My guess us that the crim claims to have bought them in good faith from the proverbial guy down the pub and gets off.
If they are stupid/unlucky they get charged with handling stolen goods and get a slap on the wrists.
The "it's hard to catch them" isn't really a good argument, is it? If it was easy, we wouldn't have to pay police.
The petty and major evaders are ignored as they are not worth the effort0 -
Yeah but that's not right is it? We all know deterance plays a role in crime and if you ignore petty stuff they will run rife with petty crime.
91,000 phones stolen in one city alone over one year, with only 2000 recovered. I mean, WTF.0 -
Christ, since when was I the "hard on crime" guy on here?
Crime is a crime and *all* crime should be punished according to the letter of the law, regardless of how petty or not. End of.
It's not really up to the police to decide which laws are worth enforcing and which aren't.0 -
It requires resources to catch them and if you have limited resources, I can imagine you soon stop chasing what you know will turn into dead ends.
I'm sure it would be possible to set up surveillance on the flat, watch who comes and goes, follow them around for a few days and maybe catch them in the act but it is probably pretty resource intensive
0 -
-
Many years ago I knew the 2nd in command of the Norfolk constabulary and he reckoned that 80% of all crime in Norwich was committed by three extended families.rick_chasey said:Christ, since when was I the "hard on crime" guy on here?
Crime is a crime and *all* crime should be punished according to the letter of the law, regardless of how petty or not. End of.
It's not really up to the police to decide which laws are worth enforcing and which aren't.
So “mr hard on crime” what would you do with that information?0 -
If you were in charge of the budget for Norfolk, buy them all nice houses in Cambridge or Ipswich, problem
solvedmoved elsewhere0 -
Like I said, I'm not gonna pretend I know anything about policing. Just because I finished Happy Valley and I love the Wire, True Detective and Line of Duty does not make me an expert on crime.surrey_commuter said:
Many years ago I knew the 2nd in command of the Norfolk constabulary and he reckoned that 80% of all crime in Norwich was committed by three extended families.rick_chasey said:Christ, since when was I the "hard on crime" guy on here?
Crime is a crime and *all* crime should be punished according to the letter of the law, regardless of how petty or not. End of.
It's not really up to the police to decide which laws are worth enforcing and which aren't.
So “mr hard on crime” what would you do with that information?
I can however, read headlines like Crimes hit high, but number solved by police at a low and Record low of just 5.8pc of crimes solved and think that that's a problem.
I then see if that tallies with either my own experiences (i'm fortunate enough to have not been a victim recently) or with people I know (lots of bikes and phone stolen) and in those cases the police did SFA.
0 -
It's systemic isn't it? The CPS are over-stretched so won't prosecute unless they are very confident of success so then the police, who are also over-stretched, probably think there is no point investigating when the CPS won't prosecute. There aren't enough prison places so custodial sentences often aren't given when they could / should be. When my daughter was supervising community service a lot of the offenders didn't bother turning up as they knew it would result in a recall that either wouldn't get heard in time or, in the worst case, they would just get a few extra hours. If you ever watch the police documentaries on TV you see obvious crimes caught on camera and when they do a recap at the end most of the criminals are either fined a nominal amount, released without charge or in a few cases chucked inside for a few months (usually only when they are already out on licence or have a long criminal record). It must get pretty disheartening as a police officer when you put all that effort into a case to see them back on the street with a fine of a few quid that they pay off in tiny installments.
That said, at the other end of the scale the police will spend huge amounts of time and resource on an arse covering exercise e.g. there was a death at one of the houses where my wife managed the care provision, all the paperwork regarding procedures and training were supplied on the day but the police and CPS took 4 years before deciding there would be no charges with various members of staff having to remain suspended on full pay in the interim. The coroner even criticised the delay. I'm sure the dead person having a senior police officer for a daughter played no part! See also various investigations into Covid restrictions being broken - I have no issue with politicians being brought to account for breaking rules they introduced but the resources thrown into those investigations just to hand out a few small fines was ridiculous.0 -
Not sure the police have ever been bothered about bikes being stolen, particularly in university cities, and especially in Oxford and Cambridge. However, they should be bothered about high end bike theft, but probably don't have a scooby about the true cost of top bikes.rick_chasey said:
Like I said, I'm not gonna pretend I know anything about policing. Just because I finished Happy Valley and I love the Wire, True Detective and Line of Duty does not make me an expert on crime.surrey_commuter said:
Many years ago I knew the 2nd in command of the Norfolk constabulary and he reckoned that 80% of all crime in Norwich was committed by three extended families.rick_chasey said:Christ, since when was I the "hard on crime" guy on here?
Crime is a crime and *all* crime should be punished according to the letter of the law, regardless of how petty or not. End of.
It's not really up to the police to decide which laws are worth enforcing and which aren't.
So “mr hard on crime” what would you do with that information?
I can however, read headlines like Crimes hit high, but number solved by police at a low and Record low of just 5.8pc of crimes solved and think that that's a problem.
I then see if that tallies with either my own experiences (i'm fortunate enough to have not been a victim recently) or with people I know (lots of bikes and phone stolen) and in those cases the police did SFA.
It is really frustrating though when they know that interning premanently a handful of scum would reduce the crime rates drastically overnight.0 -
mmm that sounds a bit like they should care about rich people being robbed but not poor people, which I don't think is what you mean.0
-
No, it's not what i mean at all.rick_chasey said:mmm that sounds a bit like they should care about rich people being robbed but not poor people, which I don't think is what you mean.
The impact is bad on anyone, but what I mean it that they won't bother about low value theft. If they think all bikes are just a few hundred quid from Halfords they won't bother, but they probably would bother if 30 cars worth £10k each were nicked in a short period.
Is the same effort put in to bang up the local scum bag as there is into the breakins at the likes of the Cavendishes and the Coles?0 -
Right. I guess the Cav thing was quite violent and they took them hostage etc.
I dunno, I think it's a critical part of police working properly is they investigate and try to get all criminals, and not enough resources is a political decision and inevitably the police end up making decisions like you guys are all describing (i.e. we won't investigate poor victims as the net value is trivial) and you let low level crime flourish.
I'm not really blaming the police per se - I'm sure they're doing the best they can (though, there are obviously other problems with the police), but that clearly isn't enough.0
