Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A Toxic Culture?

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited January 17 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A Toxic Culture?

In March 2017 PC Keith Palmer was killed while defending Parliament from a terrorist. In August 2019 PC Andrew Harper was killed while investigating a suspected burglary. These are only 2 of the 50 police officers killed between 1990-2010. Few of us face the risks ordinary police officers run. This does not excuse what is set out below. It does explain why it is so necessary, if their work and sacrifices are to be worthwhile and the public gets the policing it is entitled to, that the issues raised below be properly addressed. 

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Superb as usual.
  • Time to abolish the police and replace it with the purge.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 10,273
    OK second on first preferences, but under AV, who knows?
  • My OCD can’t deal with England declaring on 499.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 17,807
    Cyclefree for Police and Crime Commissioner...

    ... though is it possible to be elected to that post in more than one area at once ?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 17,807

    My OCD can’t deal with England declaring on 499.

    If you really OCD about it, consider law 15.3, “a captain shall notify the opposing captain and the umpires of any decision to declare or to forfeit an innings. Once notified, the decision cannot be changed. ..."
  • Nigelb said:

    My OCD can’t deal with England declaring on 499.

    If you really OCD about it, consider law 15.3, “a captain shall notify the opposing captain and the umpires of any decision to declare or to forfeit an innings. Once notified, the decision cannot be changed. ..."
    I can live with that because I was enjoying Wood batting and it was a no ball and Root wouldn’t have declared if he knew it was a no ball.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 17,807
    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree for Police and Crime Commissioner...

    ... though is it possible to be elected to that post in more than one area at once ?

    It might be an opportune moment for a few recently ex MPs to consider running in some of this year's elections. Some of them might even be able to do something useful.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 52,055
    Whole orchards of bad apples is right. Some fundamental problems which persist for whatever reason, possibly because raising them is seen as attacking good people, a reason a lot of deep problems don’t get fixed.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 17,807

    Nigelb said:

    My OCD can’t deal with England declaring on 499.

    If you really OCD about it, consider law 15.3, “a captain shall notify the opposing captain and the umpires of any decision to declare or to forfeit an innings. Once notified, the decision cannot be changed. ..."
    I can live with that because I was enjoying Wood batting and it was a no ball and Root wouldn’t have declared if he knew it was a no ball.
    The ball was dead, though, was it not, before the out decision was overturned thanks to a no ball ?
    So Root's original declaration ought to have stood.

    I can live with it because it was hilarious, but if you were truly OCD...
  • Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree for Police and Crime Commissioner...

    ... though is it possible to be elected to that post in more than one area at once ?

    I’ve already said when I become Prime Minister/Directly Elected Dictator I’m making Cyclefree Home & Justice Secretary with special responsibility for overseeing the city/financial services sector.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 52,055
    Nigelb said:

    My OCD can’t deal with England declaring on 499.

    If you really OCD about it, consider law 15.3, “a captain shall notify the opposing captain and the umpires of any decision to declare or to forfeit an innings. Once notified, the decision cannot be changed. ..."
    But if the basis on which the decision was made was flawed, does the decision fall automatically? Like prorogation? He declared because of a wicket, and there wasn’t a wicket, ergo the declaration never happened to be rescinded.

  • Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    My OCD can’t deal with England declaring on 499.

    If you really OCD about it, consider law 15.3, “a captain shall notify the opposing captain and the umpires of any decision to declare or to forfeit an innings. Once notified, the decision cannot be changed. ..."
    I can live with that because I was enjoying Wood batting and it was a no ball and Root wouldn’t have declared if he knew it was a no ball.
    The ball was dead, though, was it not, before the out decision was overturned thanks to a no ball ?
    So Root's original declaration ought to have stood.

    I can live with it because it was hilarious, but if you were truly OCD...
    I was more upset by this.

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/feb/14/england-australia-cricket-world-cup-error-james-taylor?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 17,807

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree for Police and Crime Commissioner...

    ... though is it possible to be elected to that post in more than one area at once ?

    I’ve already said when I become Prime Minister/Directly Elected Dictator I’m making Cyclefree Home & Justice Secretary with special responsibility for overseeing the city/financial services sector.
    Yes, but that might be never (OK, I'm a pessimist).
    There are actually elections this year.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 17,807
    edited January 17
    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    My OCD can’t deal with England declaring on 499.

    If you really OCD about it, consider law 15.3, “a captain shall notify the opposing captain and the umpires of any decision to declare or to forfeit an innings. Once notified, the decision cannot be changed. ..."
    But if the basis on which the decision was made was flawed, does the decision fall automatically? Like prorogation? He declared because of a wicket, and there wasn’t a wicket, ergo the declaration never happened to be rescinded.
    No. A declaration is a declaration, and the basis for it is irrelevant (as far as the laws are concerned).
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 17,807

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    My OCD can’t deal with England declaring on 499.

    If you really OCD about it, consider law 15.3, “a captain shall notify the opposing captain and the umpires of any decision to declare or to forfeit an innings. Once notified, the decision cannot be changed. ..."
    I can live with that because I was enjoying Wood batting and it was a no ball and Root wouldn’t have declared if he knew it was a no ball.
    The ball was dead, though, was it not, before the out decision was overturned thanks to a no ball ?
    So Root's original declaration ought to have stood.

    I can live with it because it was hilarious, but if you were truly OCD...
    I was more upset by this.

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/feb/14/england-australia-cricket-world-cup-error-james-taylor?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
    Sadly the umpire's mistake is final.
  • isamisam Posts: 29,895

    Nigelb said:

    My OCD can’t deal with England declaring on 499.

    If you really OCD about it, consider law 15.3, “a captain shall notify the opposing captain and the umpires of any decision to declare or to forfeit an innings. Once notified, the decision cannot be changed. ..."
    I can live with that because I was enjoying Wood batting and it was a no ball and Root wouldn’t have declared if he knew it was a no ball.
    If you watch Cricket and have OCD, are you ok with the decimal point in the overs bowled figure? Always bugs me that 0.3 is half way through an over, and 0.5 is 5/6ths. My remedy is to replace the decimal point with a comma
  • Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    My OCD can’t deal with England declaring on 499.

    If you really OCD about it, consider law 15.3, “a captain shall notify the opposing captain and the umpires of any decision to declare or to forfeit an innings. Once notified, the decision cannot be changed. ..."
    I can live with that because I was enjoying Wood batting and it was a no ball and Root wouldn’t have declared if he knew it was a no ball.
    The ball was dead, though, was it not, before the out decision was overturned thanks to a no ball ?
    So Root's original declaration ought to have stood.

    I can live with it because it was hilarious, but if you were truly OCD...
    I was more upset by this.

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/feb/14/england-australia-cricket-world-cup-error-james-taylor?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
    Sadly the umpire's mistake is final.
    Amen, as I remember that error in the World Cup final.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 17,807
    edited January 17
    isam said:

    Nigelb said:

    My OCD can’t deal with England declaring on 499.

    If you really OCD about it, consider law 15.3, “a captain shall notify the opposing captain and the umpires of any decision to declare or to forfeit an innings. Once notified, the decision cannot be changed. ..."
    I can live with that because I was enjoying Wood batting and it was a no ball and Root wouldn’t have declared if he knew it was a no ball.
    If you watch Cricket and have OCD, are you ok with the decimal point in the overs bowled figure? Always bugs me that 0.3 is half way through an over, and 0.5 is 5/6ths. My remedy is to replace the decimal point with a comma
    It is not a decimal point - any more than is the full stop at the end of this sentence.
    Or indeed the dot in rule 15.3 .
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 79,777
    edited January 17
    isam said:

    Nigelb said:

    My OCD can’t deal with England declaring on 499.

    If you really OCD about it, consider law 15.3, “a captain shall notify the opposing captain and the umpires of any decision to declare or to forfeit an innings. Once notified, the decision cannot be changed. ..."
    I can live with that because I was enjoying Wood batting and it was a no ball and Root wouldn’t have declared if he knew it was a no ball.
    If you watch Cricket and have OCD, are you ok with the decimal point in the overs bowled figure? Always bugs me that 0.3 is half way through an over, and 0.5 is 5/6ths. My remedy is to replace the decimal point with a comma
    My biggest problem in some older tests there used to be 8 ball overs, so I couldn’t process it.

    As a scorer annoyed me when umpires miscounted too.

    The 100 is going to break me with the final over being ten balls.
  • speedy2speedy2 Posts: 981
    As the Presidential election gets closer things will get dirtier:

    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/frank-biden-leveraged-famous-business-gain/story?id=68202529&cid=clicksource_77_2_hero_headlines_headlines_hed

    Now after Biden's son we get Biden's brother.
  • Damn right, these buggers made my life a misery last year with their actions.

    Greenpeace included with neo-Nazis on UK counter-terror list

    Exclusive: Non-violent groups named in anti-extremism training guide designed to catch would-be terrorists

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/17/greenpeace-included-with-neo-nazis-on-uk-counter-terror-list?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 13,228
    To be fair, it is not just the British plod that has a toxic culture. Just look at some of the US, or RCMP or Catalonia. Or look at hospitals in Shrewsbury, GOSU or Bury St Edmund's, Fire Services at Grenfell or Manchester Arndale. Not just public services either, such as the recent care home and psychiatric providers. Not forgetting the churches and mosques, or parliament itself.

    The problem is fundamentally about power, and that is intrinsic to the structure of society. Put people in power and some will abuse it.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    If anyone ever asks Why Brexit, show them this

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jan/17/eu-eyes-temporary-ban-on-facial-recognition-in-public-places

    Now, this proposed EU law might be good. Or bad. I dunno. But why is this even an EU power anyway? When did we hand this to them? When was our big national debate on giving this unaccountable organisation such huge influence on our lives, in such a crucial area?

    I must have missed it. Or we didn't have one

    And who proposed this new EU law banning face recognition? Where do these ideas for laws come from? They seem to appear like smoke, out of nowhere. They magically materialise, and they pass into EU law, and after that they can never be repealed. And our national debate is zero, and our sense of control is zero, and our input is precisely zero.

    This is why we must get out of the EU, and why Boris must refuse alignment. OUT OUT OUT
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 397
    Many of the above incidents cited by Cyclefree are the product of intense overt or covert pressure from the police's political masters to swing power and influence in one direction or another, or to prevent the corrollaries of disastrous policies from being comprehended by ordinary people.

    Perhaps there should be a greater separation of influence between those who govern us and those who police us so that the police can get on with the job without fear of politicial intimidation, demonisation or retribution, all of which have been endemic since the Blair government.
  • isamisam Posts: 29,895
    Nigelb said:

    isam said:

    Nigelb said:

    My OCD can’t deal with England declaring on 499.

    If you really OCD about it, consider law 15.3, “a captain shall notify the opposing captain and the umpires of any decision to declare or to forfeit an innings. Once notified, the decision cannot be changed. ..."
    I can live with that because I was enjoying Wood batting and it was a no ball and Root wouldn’t have declared if he knew it was a no ball.
    If you watch Cricket and have OCD, are you ok with the decimal point in the overs bowled figure? Always bugs me that 0.3 is half way through an over, and 0.5 is 5/6ths. My remedy is to replace the decimal point with a comma
    It is not a decimal point - any more than is the full stop at the end of this sentence.
    Or indeed the dot in rule 15.3 .
    People refer to 15.3 overs as "Fifteen point three" though, which is not the case for the full stop
  • nunu2nunu2 Posts: 1,352
    Trump's *job* approval rating is high in Wisconsin, which is likely to be the tipping point state. White working turnout is going to be higher in 2020 than 2016.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/amyewalter/status/1218185847985659906
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 52,055
    Cricket, pedantry and Brexit - is there anything more PB?
  • isamisam Posts: 29,895

    isam said:

    Nigelb said:

    My OCD can’t deal with England declaring on 499.

    If you really OCD about it, consider law 15.3, “a captain shall notify the opposing captain and the umpires of any decision to declare or to forfeit an innings. Once notified, the decision cannot be changed. ..."
    I can live with that because I was enjoying Wood batting and it was a no ball and Root wouldn’t have declared if he knew it was a no ball.
    If you watch Cricket and have OCD, are you ok with the decimal point in the overs bowled figure? Always bugs me that 0.3 is half way through an over, and 0.5 is 5/6ths. My remedy is to replace the decimal point with a comma
    My biggest problem in some older tests there used to be 8 ball overs, so I couldn’t process it.

    As a scorer annoyed me when umpires miscounted too.

    The 100 is going to break me with the final over being ten balls.
    Spoke to my next door neighbour earlier, and it turns out he was the Liverpool scout responsible for Minamino joining them for £7.5m
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 17,807
    Foxy said:

    To be fair, it is not just the British plod that has a toxic culture. Just look at some of the US, or RCMP or Catalonia. Or look at hospitals in Shrewsbury, GOSU or Bury St Edmund's, Fire Services at Grenfell or Manchester Arndale. Not just public services either, such as the recent care home and psychiatric providers. Not forgetting the churches and mosques, or parliament itself.

    The problem is fundamentally about power, and that is intrinsic to the structure of society. Put people in power and some will abuse it.

    I very much agree with that (schools are another example).

    The police, though, possess extraordinary powers over potentially any of us. That such abuses can take place so regularly, blatantly and repetitively, and effectively remain unresolved, ought to be a major political issue.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 17,807
    isam said:

    Nigelb said:

    isam said:

    Nigelb said:

    My OCD can’t deal with England declaring on 499.

    If you really OCD about it, consider law 15.3, “a captain shall notify the opposing captain and the umpires of any decision to declare or to forfeit an innings. Once notified, the decision cannot be changed. ..."
    I can live with that because I was enjoying Wood batting and it was a no ball and Root wouldn’t have declared if he knew it was a no ball.
    If you watch Cricket and have OCD, are you ok with the decimal point in the overs bowled figure? Always bugs me that 0.3 is half way through an over, and 0.5 is 5/6ths. My remedy is to replace the decimal point with a comma
    It is not a decimal point - any more than is the full stop at the end of this sentence.
    Or indeed the dot in rule 15.3 .
    People refer to 15.3 overs as "Fifteen point three" though, which is not the case for the full stop
    That was Law 15.3 ...
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 723
    Byronic said:

    If anyone ever asks Why Brexit, show them this

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jan/17/eu-eyes-temporary-ban-on-facial-recognition-in-public-places

    Now, this proposed EU law might be good. Or bad. I dunno. But why is this even an EU power anyway? When did we hand this to them? When was our big national debate on giving this unaccountable organisation such huge influence on our lives, in such a crucial area?

    I must have missed it. Or we didn't have one

    And who proposed this new EU law banning face recognition? Where do these ideas for laws come from? They seem to appear like smoke, out of nowhere. They magically materialise, and they pass into EU law, and after that they can never be repealed. And our national debate is zero, and our sense of control is zero, and our input is precisely zero.

    This is why we must get out of the EU, and why Boris must refuse alignment. OUT OUT OUT

    As it's an EU Commission draft proposal, that would be under the direction of the Security Commissioner, so blame this person:

    Sir Julian Beresford King KCVO CMG (born 22 August 1964), a British diplomat and civil servant who served as Ambassador to Ireland and France and Director General of the Northern Ireland Office. On 8 July 2016, he was nominated by David Cameron to succeed Jonathan Hill as the British European Commissioner.
  • kle4 said:

    Cricket, pedantry and Brexit - is there anything more PB?

    Pineapple not being an acceptable topping on pizza?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,613
    I have £40k.

    What should I (responsibly) do with it?
  • isamisam Posts: 29,895
    Nigelb said:

    isam said:

    Nigelb said:

    isam said:

    Nigelb said:

    My OCD can’t deal with England declaring on 499.

    If you really OCD about it, consider law 15.3, “a captain shall notify the opposing captain and the umpires of any decision to declare or to forfeit an innings. Once notified, the decision cannot be changed. ..."
    I can live with that because I was enjoying Wood batting and it was a no ball and Root wouldn’t have declared if he knew it was a no ball.
    If you watch Cricket and have OCD, are you ok with the decimal point in the overs bowled figure? Always bugs me that 0.3 is half way through an over, and 0.5 is 5/6ths. My remedy is to replace the decimal point with a comma
    It is not a decimal point - any more than is the full stop at the end of this sentence.
    Or indeed the dot in rule 15.3 .
    People refer to 15.3 overs as "Fifteen point three" though, which is not the case for the full stop
    That was Law 15.3 ...
    I know! But if we are halfway through the 16th over, people say "Fifteen point three" overs have been bowled, because it is written "15.3"
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 79,777
    edited January 17
    At least one defended Epstein maybe two.

    Trump team for impeachment trial to include Ken Starr, Alan Dershowitz and Robert Ray, a person familiar with the matter said. https://on.wsj.com/38kQSxD
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 17,807

    Many of the above incidents cited by Cyclefree are the product of intense overt or covert pressure from the police's political masters to swing power and influence in one direction or another, or to prevent the corrollaries of disastrous policies from being comprehended by ordinary people...

    Look again at Cyclefree's examples. Most of them really have very little to do with pressure from their political masters.
  • nunu2nunu2 Posts: 1,352

    I have £40k.

    What should I (responsibly) do with it?

    Let me invest it for you.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,613
    nunu2 said:

    I have £40k.

    What should I (responsibly) do with it?

    Let me invest it for you.
    I may regret asking this question..
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 17,807
    isam said:

    Nigelb said:

    isam said:

    Nigelb said:

    isam said:

    Nigelb said:

    My OCD can’t deal with England declaring on 499.

    If you really OCD about it, consider law 15.3, “a captain shall notify the opposing captain and the umpires of any decision to declare or to forfeit an innings. Once notified, the decision cannot be changed. ..."
    I can live with that because I was enjoying Wood batting and it was a no ball and Root wouldn’t have declared if he knew it was a no ball.
    If you watch Cricket and have OCD, are you ok with the decimal point in the overs bowled figure? Always bugs me that 0.3 is half way through an over, and 0.5 is 5/6ths. My remedy is to replace the decimal point with a comma
    It is not a decimal point - any more than is the full stop at the end of this sentence.
    Or indeed the dot in rule 15.3 .
    People refer to 15.3 overs as "Fifteen point three" though, which is not the case for the full stop
    That was Law 15.3 ...
    I know! But if we are halfway through the 16th over, people say "Fifteen point three" overs have been bowled, because it is written "15.3"
    "Fifteen comma three" would sound ridiculous.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 52,498
    Mr. Royale, a charitable donation to the Morris Dancer Wiffle Stick Oil and Bell Buff Polish Fund is the morally correct choice.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,574
    edited January 17

    isam said:

    Nigelb said:

    My OCD can’t deal with England declaring on 499.

    If you really OCD about it, consider law 15.3, “a captain shall notify the opposing captain and the umpires of any decision to declare or to forfeit an innings. Once notified, the decision cannot be changed. ..."
    I can live with that because I was enjoying Wood batting and it was a no ball and Root wouldn’t have declared if he knew it was a no ball.
    If you watch Cricket and have OCD, are you ok with the decimal point in the overs bowled figure? Always bugs me that 0.3 is half way through an over, and 0.5 is 5/6ths. My remedy is to replace the decimal point with a comma
    My biggest problem in some older tests there used to be 8 ball overs, so I couldn’t process it.

    As a scorer annoyed me when umpires miscounted too.

    The 100 is going to break me with the final over being ten balls.
    They are all ten-ball overs. Your OCD should be at peace as the decimal point is actually a decimal point!

    You can have two bowlers in each over though, which may cause a breakdown in itself.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    sarissa said:

    Byronic said:

    If anyone ever asks Why Brexit, show them this

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jan/17/eu-eyes-temporary-ban-on-facial-recognition-in-public-places

    Now, this proposed EU law might be good. Or bad. I dunno. But why is this even an EU power anyway? When did we hand this to them? When was our big national debate on giving this unaccountable organisation such huge influence on our lives, in such a crucial area?

    I must have missed it. Or we didn't have one

    And who proposed this new EU law banning face recognition? Where do these ideas for laws come from? They seem to appear like smoke, out of nowhere. They magically materialise, and they pass into EU law, and after that they can never be repealed. And our national debate is zero, and our sense of control is zero, and our input is precisely zero.

    This is why we must get out of the EU, and why Boris must refuse alignment. OUT OUT OUT

    As it's an EU Commission draft proposal, that would be under the direction of the Security Commissioner, so blame this person:

    Sir Julian Beresford King KCVO CMG (born 22 August 1964), a British diplomat and civil servant who served as Ambassador to Ireland and France and Director General of the Northern Ireland Office. On 8 July 2016, he was nominated by David Cameron to succeed Jonathan Hill as the British European Commissioner.
    Ugh. I am glad EU knobs like him will be history, very soon

    WHY on earth would SNP Scotland, having (say) gained indy from England, then seek to throw it all away and immediately join this thing, the EU, a far more opaque and distant Union, with much less democracy, a place where Scotland would have zero influence, unlike in London.

    It beggars belief. But we all know belief trumps logic.

    OK I'm gonna watch the next ep of the Morning Show. It is very good
  • nunu2nunu2 Posts: 1,352
    I just joined the Labour party so I can vote in their leadership elections.

    The thought of Wrong-Daily being in TV screens for the next five years fills me with dread. I will have to vote for the least annoying of the lot which (now that Brexit will get done) is SKS.

    He's pretty annoying but the best of a bad bunch.
  • isamisam Posts: 29,895
    Nigelb said:

    isam said:

    Nigelb said:

    isam said:

    Nigelb said:

    isam said:

    Nigelb said:

    My OCD can’t deal with England declaring on 499.

    If you really OCD about it, consider law 15.3, “a captain shall notify the opposing captain and the umpires of any decision to declare or to forfeit an innings. Once notified, the decision cannot be changed. ..."
    I can live with that because I was enjoying Wood batting and it was a no ball and Root wouldn’t have declared if he knew it was a no ball.
    If you watch Cricket and have OCD, are you ok with the decimal point in the overs bowled figure? Always bugs me that 0.3 is half way through an over, and 0.5 is 5/6ths. My remedy is to replace the decimal point with a comma
    It is not a decimal point - any more than is the full stop at the end of this sentence.
    Or indeed the dot in rule 15.3 .
    People refer to 15.3 overs as "Fifteen point three" though, which is not the case for the full stop
    That was Law 15.3 ...
    I know! But if we are halfway through the 16th over, people say "Fifteen point three" overs have been bowled, because it is written "15.3"
    "Fifteen comma three" would sound ridiculous.
    It would. I am not suggesting people say it, but that they should write it that way and say "Fifteen overs and three deliveries" rather than saying "Fifteen point three" when they mean "Fifteen and a half"
  • Anorak said:

    isam said:

    Nigelb said:

    My OCD can’t deal with England declaring on 499.

    If you really OCD about it, consider law 15.3, “a captain shall notify the opposing captain and the umpires of any decision to declare or to forfeit an innings. Once notified, the decision cannot be changed. ..."
    I can live with that because I was enjoying Wood batting and it was a no ball and Root wouldn’t have declared if he knew it was a no ball.
    If you watch Cricket and have OCD, are you ok with the decimal point in the overs bowled figure? Always bugs me that 0.3 is half way through an over, and 0.5 is 5/6ths. My remedy is to replace the decimal point with a comma
    My biggest problem in some older tests there used to be 8 ball overs, so I couldn’t process it.

    As a scorer annoyed me when umpires miscounted too.

    The 100 is going to break me with the final over being ten balls.
    They are all ten-ball overs. Your OCD should be at peace as the decimal point is actually a decimal point!

    You can have two bowlers in each over though, which may cause a breakdown in inself.
    Yeah I knew there was some weirdness.

    One of the reasons I’m boycotting the hundred.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 17,807

    At least one defended Epstein maybe two.

    Trump team for impeachment trial to include Ken Starr, Alan Dershowitz and Robert Ray, a person familiar with the matter said. https://on.wsj.com/38kQSxD

    Even the most blatant and disgusting of criminals is entitled to a defence.
    Some lawyers do seem to gravitate towards that kind of client, though.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,574

    Anorak said:

    isam said:

    Nigelb said:

    My OCD can’t deal with England declaring on 499.

    If you really OCD about it, consider law 15.3, “a captain shall notify the opposing captain and the umpires of any decision to declare or to forfeit an innings. Once notified, the decision cannot be changed. ..."
    I can live with that because I was enjoying Wood batting and it was a no ball and Root wouldn’t have declared if he knew it was a no ball.
    If you watch Cricket and have OCD, are you ok with the decimal point in the overs bowled figure? Always bugs me that 0.3 is half way through an over, and 0.5 is 5/6ths. My remedy is to replace the decimal point with a comma
    My biggest problem in some older tests there used to be 8 ball overs, so I couldn’t process it.

    As a scorer annoyed me when umpires miscounted too.

    The 100 is going to break me with the final over being ten balls.
    They are all ten-ball overs. Your OCD should be at peace as the decimal point is actually a decimal point!

    You can have two bowlers in each over though, which may cause a breakdown in inself.
    Yeah I knew there was some weirdness.

    One of the reasons I’m boycotting the hundred.
    It does seem like a wholly unnecessary "innovation".
  • Nigelb said:

    At least one defended Epstein maybe two.

    Trump team for impeachment trial to include Ken Starr, Alan Dershowitz and Robert Ray, a person familiar with the matter said. https://on.wsj.com/38kQSxD

    Even the most blatant and disgusting of criminals is entitled to a defence.
    Some lawyers do seem to gravitate towards that kind of client, though.
    I was always intrigued why a moralist like Ken Starr defended the pervert friend of Prince Andrew.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 397
    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    To be fair, it is not just the British plod that has a toxic culture. Just look at some of the US, or RCMP or Catalonia. Or look at hospitals in Shrewsbury, GOSU or Bury St Edmund's, Fire Services at Grenfell or Manchester Arndale. Not just public services either, such as the recent care home and psychiatric providers. Not forgetting the churches and mosques, or parliament itself.

    The problem is fundamentally about power, and that is intrinsic to the structure of society. Put people in power and some will abuse it.

    I very much agree with that (schools are another example).

    The police, though, possess extraordinary powers over potentially any of us. That such abuses can take place so regularly, blatantly and repetitively, and effectively remain unresolved, ought to be a major political issue.
    The politicians are the issue. The prevailing climate is dictated by them not the police in many of these cases. Officers who do not comply are passed over, sidelined, ostracised and rejected and otherwise penalised.

    Why on earth would police officers ignore hundreds of glaring cases of rape, trafficking and other serious crimes in the North and Midlands otherwise?

    Its blatant intimidation by politicians, who hold all the power and all the cards.


  • nunu2nunu2 Posts: 1,352
    Byronic said:



    This is why we must get out of the EU, and why Boris must refuse alignment. OUT OUT OUT

    I've always feared Boris will throw Leavers under the bus in terms of getting a proper Brexit as opposed to BINO, now he has a massive majority I still have this fear.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,613
    Superb article.

    My view is the police shouldn’t have been granted extra funds and officers (the 20,000 “new” ones) until the governance and leadership has been fixed to the satisfaction of the NAO and an independent government commission. No point chucking good money after bad.

    Another point, the elected police & crime commissioners haven’t worked. At all. No-one knows who they are or how to hold them accountable.

    Either they’re nobodies (who don’t do anything) or they’ve gone native and have been subject to producer capture, and I’ve seen one or two on TV trotting out the same old tired shibboleths.

    How many have led genuine fundamental change leading to a step-change in performance?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 7,616
    That is a great header, I have to say. A problem so deep-rooted must be about people, not systems and procedures, so perhaps the silver bullet lies in recruitment. Hire young people whose driving force is to make the world a better place rather than to wear uniforms and hold power over others. "Do-gooders" in other words is what we need. Really major on this quality during the recruitment process. Other things too of course - toughness, stability, physical fitness - but be clear that a palpable integrity and a genuine desire to make a difference are the sine qua non. Do not hire anybody into the police force who fails on that score, regardless of their other merits. If necessary, take recruitment to the police out of the hands of the police. Have it done by an independent 3rd party. And no, I don't mean Dominic Cummings. Were such a culture change to happen, and caught hold, we would surely see a big improvement in Police performance over time. Easier said than done - but then every benign reform of any substance to any large and complex institution is easier said than done. If such were not the case it would have already been done.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 17,807

    Anorak said:

    isam said:

    Nigelb said:

    My OCD can’t deal with England declaring on 499.

    If you really OCD about it, consider law 15.3, “a captain shall notify the opposing captain and the umpires of any decision to declare or to forfeit an innings. Once notified, the decision cannot be changed. ..."
    I can live with that because I was enjoying Wood batting and it was a no ball and Root wouldn’t have declared if he knew it was a no ball.
    If you watch Cricket and have OCD, are you ok with the decimal point in the overs bowled figure? Always bugs me that 0.3 is half way through an over, and 0.5 is 5/6ths. My remedy is to replace the decimal point with a comma
    My biggest problem in some older tests there used to be 8 ball overs, so I couldn’t process it.

    As a scorer annoyed me when umpires miscounted too.

    The 100 is going to break me with the final over being ten balls.
    They are all ten-ball overs. Your OCD should be at peace as the decimal point is actually a decimal point!

    You can have two bowlers in each over though, which may cause a breakdown in inself.
    Yeah I knew there was some weirdness.
    One of the reasons I’m boycotting the hundred.
    They should just call it Calvinball, and have done with it...
    https://calvinandhobbes.fandom.com/wiki/Calvinball
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,613
    kinabalu said:

    That is a great header, I have to say. A problem so deep-rooted must be about people, not systems and procedures, so perhaps the silver bullet lies in recruitment. Hire young people whose driving force is to make the world a better place rather than to wear uniforms and hold power over others. "Do-gooders" in other words is what we need. Really major on this quality during the recruitment process. Other things too of course - toughness, stability, physical fitness - but be clear that a palpable integrity and a genuine desire to make a difference are the sine qua non. Do not hire anybody into the police force who fails on that score, regardless of their other merits. If necessary, take recruitment to the police out of the hands of the police. Have it done by an independent 3rd party. And no, I don't mean Dominic Cummings. Were such a culture change to happen, and caught hold, we would surely see a big improvement in Police performance over time. Easier said than done - but then every benign reform of any substance to any large and complex institution is easier said than done. If such were not the case it would have already been done.

    Good post.

    The police operate a bit like a closed shop (scabs etc) in my view and pursue the path of least resistance to the easiest convictions, and not the right convictions.

    So many people have told me to be careful what I say to a police office as they love to use the honesty and integrity of middle-class minor offenders against them to up their detection/clear-up rates, and they know we’ll pay and turn up to court too.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 17,864
    Byronic said:

    a place where Scotland would have zero influence, unlike in London.

    Beside myself with excitement at all this influence Scotland has in London.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 397
    Nigelb said:

    Many of the above incidents cited by Cyclefree are the product of intense overt or covert pressure from the police's political masters to swing power and influence in one direction or another, or to prevent the corrollaries of disastrous policies from being comprehended by ordinary people...

    Look again at Cyclefree's examples. Most of them really have very little to do with pressure from their political masters.
    Sorry much of the above is p8ss and wind - there are three major themes and three only.

    1. Mcpherson
    2. Midland
    3. Rape, murder and trafficking in the Midlands and the north.

    Two of the three were the result of gargantuan abuse of power by politicians, and were not the fault of the police.

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 9,984
    Byronic said:

    If anyone ever asks Why Brexit, show them this

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jan/17/eu-eyes-temporary-ban-on-facial-recognition-in-public-places

    Now, this proposed EU law might be good. Or bad. I dunno. But why is this even an EU power anyway? When did we hand this to them? When was our big national debate on giving this unaccountable organisation such huge influence on our lives, in such a crucial area?

    I must have missed it. Or we didn't have one

    And who proposed this new EU law banning face recognition? Where do these ideas for laws come from? They seem to appear like smoke, out of nowhere. They magically materialise, and they pass into EU law, and after that they can never be repealed. And our national debate is zero, and our sense of control is zero, and our input is precisely zero.

    This is why we must get out of the EU, and why Boris must refuse alignment. OUT OUT OUT

    The proposed ban is on grounds that the technology infringes individual rights. It's a fundamental charter thing. The tension between protecting individual freedoms and allowing democratically accountable bodies to decide whatever they want comes up a lot with the EU, but not only the EU. The same tensions happen in the USA, the UK local governments and devolved governments.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 7,861

    I have £40k.

    What should I (responsibly) do with it?

    A very open question and it depends on all sorts of factors we don't know.
    Personally I'd sell a gas guzzler and buy a Tesla Model 3.
  • kinabalu said:

    That is a great header, I have to say. A problem so deep-rooted must be about people, not systems and procedures, so perhaps the silver bullet lies in recruitment. Hire young people whose driving force is to make the world a better place rather than to wear uniforms and hold power over others. "Do-gooders" in other words is what we need. Really major on this quality during the recruitment process. Other things too of course - toughness, stability, physical fitness - but be clear that a palpable integrity and a genuine desire to make a difference are the sine qua non. Do not hire anybody into the police force who fails on that score, regardless of their other merits. If necessary, take recruitment to the police out of the hands of the police. Have it done by an independent 3rd party. And no, I don't mean Dominic Cummings. Were such a culture change to happen, and caught hold, we would surely see a big improvement in Police performance over time. Easier said than done - but then every benign reform of any substance to any large and complex institution is easier said than done. If such were not the case it would have already been done.

    Good post.

    The police operate a bit like a closed shop (scabs etc) in my view and pursue the path of least resistance to the easiest convictions, and not the right convictions.

    So many people have told me to be careful what I say to a police office as they love to use the honesty and integrity of middle-class minor offenders against them to up their detection/clear-up rates, and they know we’ll pay and turn up to court too.
    Yah, never allow yourself to be questioned without a solicitor present, don’t accept the duty solicitor.

    Also never accept a caution.

    If they had such a strong case they wouldn’t offer you a caution.

    So many people have said the same thing, the rozzers say accept the caution and you can leave here without a stain on your character, you really don’t want a trial with your name in the papers.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 397
    edited January 17

    kinabalu said:

    That is a great header, I have to say. A problem so deep-rooted must be about people, not systems and procedures, so perhaps the silver bullet lies in recruitment. Hire young people whose driving force is to make the world a better place rather than to wear uniforms and hold power over others. "Do-gooders" in other words is what we need. Really major on this quality during the recruitment process. Other things too of course - toughness, stability, physical fitness - but be clear that a palpable integrity and a genuine desire to make a difference are the sine qua non. Do not hire anybody into the police force who fails on that score, regardless of their other merits. If necessary, take recruitment to the police out of the hands of the police. Have it done by an independent 3rd party. And no, I don't mean Dominic Cummings. Were such a culture change to happen, and caught hold, we would surely see a big improvement in Police performance over time. Easier said than done - but then every benign reform of any substance to any large and complex institution is easier said than done. If such were not the case it would have already been done.

    Good post.

    The police operate a bit like a closed shop (scabs etc) in my view and pursue the path of least resistance to the easiest convictions, and not the right convictions.

    So many people have told me to be careful what I say to a police office as they love to use the honesty and integrity of middle-class minor offenders against them to up their detection/clear-up rates, and they know we’ll pay and turn up to court too.
    Again that is the fault of politicians, and not the police. It was the politicians who set the targets the police have to use.

    It was the politicians who put the middle class in the dock by ramping up banning and minor offences.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,613

    I have £40k.

    What should I (responsibly) do with it?

    A very open question and it depends on all sorts of factors we don't know.
    Personally I'd sell a gas guzzler and buy a Tesla Model 3.
    I want to save /invest it, and not spend it.

    Does that help?
  • PhilPhil Posts: 124
    edited January 17

    nunu2 said:

    I have £40k.

    What should I (responsibly) do with it?

    Let me invest it for you.
    I may regret asking this question..
    The usual answer to this, for the vast majority of people goes as follows:

    Do you need the money in the next 2-3 years? If so, stick it in a savings account & accept a small loss to inflation.

    Otherwise, open a Vanguard ISA, stick £20k in their US/EU/UK stock market tracker. Wait three months for the new tax year. Stick the other £20k in. Walk away and forget about it until you need the money.

    Maybe keep 10% back as play money to invest in silly things if you feel the urge to "manage your own investments".

    Unless you have some personal insight into a particular field (I mean, you are commenting on a betting site...) that makes investing there worthwhile, avoid the temptation to manage your own portfolio at all costs. It ends badly for the majority of people. Even the ones that claim to have won big are often keeping quiet about the investments that didn’t make money (much like the betting world!).
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,613

    kinabalu said:

    That is a great header, I have to say. A problem so deep-rooted must be about people, not systems and procedures, so perhaps the silver bullet lies in recruitment. Hire young people whose driving force is to make the world a better place rather than to wear uniforms and hold power over others. "Do-gooders" in other words is what we need. Really major on this quality during the recruitment process. Other things too of course - toughness, stability, physical fitness - but be clear that a palpable integrity and a genuine desire to make a difference are the sine qua non. Do not hire anybody into the police force who fails on that score, regardless of their other merits. If necessary, take recruitment to the police out of the hands of the police. Have it done by an independent 3rd party. And no, I don't mean Dominic Cummings. Were such a culture change to happen, and caught hold, we would surely see a big improvement in Police performance over time. Easier said than done - but then every benign reform of any substance to any large and complex institution is easier said than done. If such were not the case it would have already been done.

    Good post.

    The police operate a bit like a closed shop (scabs etc) in my view and pursue the path of least resistance to the easiest convictions, and not the right convictions.

    So many people have told me to be careful what I say to a police office as they love to use the honesty and integrity of middle-class minor offenders against them to up their detection/clear-up rates, and they know we’ll pay and turn up to court too.
    Again that is the fault of politicians, and not the police. It was the politicians who set the targets the police have to use.

    It was the politicians who put the middle class in the dock by ramping up banning and minor offences.
    Nah, I don’t buy that. Any reasonable person would expect the police to crack down on crime and generally improve detection and clear up rates; it’s what they’re there for.

    It’s how they do it and what they focus on that’s the issue.
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 723
    Byronic said:

    sarissa said:

    Byronic said:

    If anyone ever asks Why Brexit, show them this

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jan/17/eu-eyes-temporary-ban-on-facial-recognition-in-public-places

    Now, this proposed EU law might be good. Or bad. I dunno. But why is this even an EU power anyway? When did we hand this to them? When was our big national debate on giving this unaccountable organisation such huge influence on our lives, in such a crucial area?

    I must have missed it. Or we didn't have one

    And who proposed this new EU law banning face recognition? Where do these ideas for laws come from? They seem to appear like smoke, out of nowhere. They magically materialise, and they pass into EU law, and after that they can never be repealed. And our national debate is zero, and our sense of control is zero, and our input is precisely zero.

    This is why we must get out of the EU, and why Boris must refuse alignment. OUT OUT OUT

    As it's an EU Commission draft proposal, that would be under the direction of the Security Commissioner, so blame this person:

    Sir Julian Beresford King KCVO CMG (born 22 August 1964), a British diplomat and civil servant who served as Ambassador to Ireland and France and Director General of the Northern Ireland Office. On 8 July 2016, he was nominated by David Cameron to succeed Jonathan Hill as the British European Commissioner.
    Ugh. I am glad EU knobs like him will be history, very soon

    WHY on earth would SNP Scotland, having (say) gained indy from England, then seek to throw it all away and immediately join this thing, the EU, a far more opaque and distant Union, with much less democracy, a place where Scotland would have zero influence, unlike in London.

    OK I'm gonna watch the next ep of the Morning Show. It is very good
    Anyone who equates the political and economic powers of a subordinate Scotland in the UK with being an independent nation in the EU clearly hasn't bothered to do even the most basic research.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 7,861

    I have £40k.

    What should I (responsibly) do with it?

    A very open question and it depends on all sorts of factors we don't know.
    Personally I'd sell a gas guzzler and buy a Tesla Model 3.
    I want to save /invest it, and not spend it.

    Does that help?
    Yes.
    What Phil said - or Nutmeg (with their socially responsible fund) and a risk setting of your choice.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 7,616
    isam said:

    If you watch Cricket and have OCD, are you ok with the decimal point in the overs bowled figure? Always bugs me that 0.3 is half way through an over, and 0.5 is 5/6ths. My remedy is to replace the decimal point with a comma

    Right lines but hyphen better, I feel.

    2,4

    2-4

    See?
  • PhilPhil Posts: 124
    NB. Vanguard also offer mixed bond/stock funds which act like the usual recommendations for pension funds (ie slowly shift to progressively larger allocation to bonds over time) if this is retirement money.

    They may not set the pulse racing, but you probably don’t ever want your pension fund to do that.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,613

    Byronic said:

    a place where Scotland would have zero influence, unlike in London.

    Beside myself with excitement at all this influence Scotland has in London.
    Less than 10 years ago ‘Scotland’ provided the PM and the Chancellor, and the transport, health and defence secretary a few years before. The ‘Scottish’ PM was also influential in responding to the global financial crisis through the institutions of the UK, and thereby the world. In the coalition government, is they provided the very influential ‘Scottish’ Chief Secretary of the Treasury, who was one of the core quad of decision makers.

    Scottish MPs helped the government stay in office in the last parliament, and made a great contribution in Westminster. In the present parliament, the Chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster is Scottish and Scottish fishing interests will feature large in the Brexit negotiations.

    True, Scotland isn’t supplying many MPs for all the big offices of state right now - that’s what happens if you vote for separatists - but there’s nothing stopping them changing that in future and becoming very influential again.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 397

    kinabalu said:

    That is a great header, I have to say. A problem so deep-rooted must be about people, not systems and procedures, so perhaps the silver bullet lies in recruitment. Hire young people whose driving force is to make the world a better place rather than to wear uniforms and hold power over others. "Do-gooders" in other words is what we need. Really major on this quality during the recruitment process. Other things too of course - toughness, stability, physical fitness - but be clear that a palpable integrity and a genuine desire to make a difference are the sine qua non. Do not hire anybody into the police force who fails on that score, regardless of their other merits. If necessary, take recruitment to the police out of the hands of the police. Have it done by an independent 3rd party. And no, I don't mean Dominic Cummings. Were such a culture change to happen, and caught hold, we would surely see a big improvement in Police performance over time. Easier said than done - but then every benign reform of any substance to any large and complex institution is easier said than done. If such were not the case it would have already been done.

    Good post.

    The police operate a bit like a closed shop (scabs etc) in my view and pursue the path of least resistance to the easiest convictions, and not the right convictions.

    So many people have told me to be careful what I say to a police office as they love to use the honesty and integrity of middle-class minor offenders against them to up their detection/clear-up rates, and they know we’ll pay and turn up to court too.
    Again that is the fault of politicians, and not the police. It was the politicians who set the targets the police have to use.

    It was the politicians who put the middle class in the dock by ramping up banning and minor offences.
    Nah, I don’t buy that. Any reasonable person would expect the police to crack down on crime and generally improve detection and clear up rates; it’s what they’re there for.

    It’s how they do it and what they focus on that’s the issue.
    And I don't buy that the police set their own priorities. Rochdale/Manchester and the testimony of offices like Maggie Oliver shows overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

    Whatever the rights and wrongs of Mcpherson, governments have used it to take an almightly power grab of police independence. It was tolerated by the public because of the desperate state the police were portrayed as being in.

    What we see now are the effects of that power grab.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,613
    sarissa said:

    Byronic said:

    sarissa said:

    Byronic said:

    If anyone ever asks Why Brexit, show them this

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jan/17/eu-eyes-temporary-ban-on-facial-recognition-in-public-places

    Now, this proposed EU law might be good. Or bad. I dunno. But why is this even an EU power anyway? When did we hand this to them? When was our big national debate on giving this unaccountable organisation such huge influence on our lives, in such a crucial area?

    I must have missed it. Or we didn't have one

    And who proposed this new EU law banning face recognition? Where do these ideas for laws come from? They seem to appear like smoke, out of nowhere. They magically materialise, and they pass into EU law, and after that they can never be repealed. And our national debate is zero, and our sense of control is zero, and our input is precisely zero.

    This is why we must get out of the EU, and why Boris must refuse alignment. OUT OUT OUT

    As it's an EU Commission draft proposal, that would be under the direction of the Security Commissioner, so blame this person:

    Sir Julian Beresford King KCVO CMG (born 22 August 1964), a British diplomat and civil servant who served as Ambassador to Ireland and France and Director General of the Northern Ireland Office. On 8 July 2016, he was nominated by David Cameron to succeed Jonathan Hill as the British European Commissioner.
    Ugh. I am glad EU knobs like him will be history, very soon

    WHY on earth would SNP Scotland, having (say) gained indy from England, then seek to throw it all away and immediately join this thing, the EU, a far more opaque and distant Union, with much less democracy, a place where Scotland would have zero influence, unlike in London.

    OK I'm gonna watch the next ep of the Morning Show. It is very good
    Anyone who equates the political and economic powers of a subordinate Scotland in the UK with being an independent nation in the EU clearly hasn't bothered to do even the most basic research.
    Scotland isn’t “subordinate”, this is utter hogwash.

    Scots have exactly the same rights and privileges* as the English as citizens of the U.K. Exactly the same. It’s just there are more English than Scots - that’s it.

    (*arguably they have more as they have a fully devolved parliament as well covering the vast majority of domestic policy areas, which the English don’t have, given Scots the best of both worlds.)
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 9,984

    I have £40k.

    What should I (responsibly) do with it?

    I always had an idea of investing in a woodland. You would see the trees growing, feel an ownership of it and get some satisfaction from helping the planet in a small way. The wood would be worth something eventually as well.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,613
    Phil said:

    nunu2 said:

    I have £40k.

    What should I (responsibly) do with it?

    Let me invest it for you.
    I may regret asking this question..
    The usual answer to this, for the vast majority of people goes as follows:

    Do you need the money in the next 2-3 years? If so, stick it in a savings account & accept a small loss to inflation.

    Otherwise, open a Vanguard ISA, stick £20k in their US/EU/UK stock market tracker. Wait three months for the new tax year. Stick the other £20k in. Walk away and forget about it until you need the money.

    Maybe keep 10% back as play money to invest in silly things if you feel the urge to "manage your own investments".

    Unless you have some personal insight into a particular field (I mean, you are commenting on a betting site...) that makes investing there worthwhile, avoid the temptation to manage your own portfolio at all costs. It ends badly for the majority of people. Even the ones that claim to have won big are often keeping quiet about the investments that didn’t make money (much like the betting world!).
    Thanks.

    That’s actually genuinely very helpful.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 25,074
    edited January 17
    Phil said:

    nunu2 said:

    I have £40k.

    What should I (responsibly) do with it?

    Let me invest it for you.
    I may regret asking this question..
    The usual answer to this, for the vast majority of people goes as follows:

    Do you need the money in the next 2-3 years? If so, stick it in a savings account & accept a small loss to inflation.

    Otherwise, open a Vanguard ISA, stick £20k in their US/EU/UK stock market tracker. Wait three months for the new tax year. Stick the other £20k in. Walk away and forget about it until you need the money.

    Maybe keep 10% back as play money to invest in silly things if you feel the urge to "manage your own investments".

    Unless you have some personal insight into a particular field (I mean, you are commenting on a betting site...) that makes investing there worthwhile, avoid the temptation to manage your own portfolio at all costs. It ends badly for the majority of people. Even the ones that claim to have won big are often keeping quiet about the investments that didn’t make money (much like the betting world!).
    Mostly agree with this, but would add:

    1. An alternative to putting it in an ISA is to put it into a pension fund (either an existing pension fund or open a SIPP, which is very easy to do). That way it immediately gets increased by the currently very generous tax relief. (For a £40K contribution you would need to check your annual allowance, though, depending on what other pension contributions you've made through your employer). Of course, that assumes you can lock away the £40K until retirement age. Or you can stick some in an ISA and some in a pension.

    2. On the point about insight into a particular field, it's usually best not to go down that route. The academic research shows that people who invest in an industry about which they know a lot do worse than those who just invest in a general fund. That is probably because they over-estimate their own knowledge or give too much emphasis to one point (such as "Company X has a great technology"). [Having said that, my best ever investment was in a field I'm an expert in...]
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 17,864

    Byronic said:

    a place where Scotland would have zero influence, unlike in London.

    Beside myself with excitement at all this influence Scotland has in London.
    Less than 10 years ago ‘Scotland’ provided the PM and the Chancellor, and the transport, health and defence secretary a few years before. The ‘Scottish’ PM was also influential in responding to the global financial crisis through the institutions of the UK, and thereby the world. In the coalition government, is they provided the very influential ‘Scottish’ Chief Secretary of the Treasury, who was one of the core quad of decision makers.

    Scottish MPs helped the government stay in office in the last parliament, and made a great contribution in Westminster. In the present parliament, the Chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster is Scottish and Scottish fishing interests will feature large in the Brexit negotiations.

    True, Scotland isn’t supplying many MPs for all the big offices of state right now - that’s what happens if you vote for separatists - but there’s nothing stopping them changing that in future and becoming very influential again.
    You're obviously one of them thar ethno nats.
    I'm not.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 7,616
    edited January 17
    nunu2 said:

    I just joined the Labour party so I can vote in their leadership elections.

    The thought of Wrong-Daily being in TV screens for the next five years fills me with dread. I will have to vote for the least annoying of the lot which (now that Brexit will get done) is SKS.

    He's pretty annoying but the best of a bad bunch.

    I do hope you'll be sticking around but I'm guessing not. Still, in my book what are doing here is fine so long as you are a person who might vote Labour next time, depending on this and that. If you are somebody who wouldn't do that in a million years then, no, I'm sorry but I disapprove of your actions.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 25,074
    edited January 17
    Byronic said:

    If anyone ever asks Why Brexit, show them this

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jan/17/eu-eyes-temporary-ban-on-facial-recognition-in-public-places

    Now, this proposed EU law might be good. Or bad. I dunno. But why is this even an EU power anyway? When did we hand this to them? When was our big national debate on giving this unaccountable organisation such huge influence on our lives, in such a crucial area?

    I must have missed it. Or we didn't have one

    And who proposed this new EU law banning face recognition? Where do these ideas for laws come from? They seem to appear like smoke, out of nowhere. They magically materialise, and they pass into EU law, and after that they can never be repealed. And our national debate is zero, and our sense of control is zero, and our input is precisely zero.

    This is why we must get out of the EU, and why Boris must refuse alignment. OUT OUT OUT

    I think you might be making a rather fundamental error there, namely of assuming that getting OUT OUT OUT would mean we're not going to be subject to that sort of EU law. If it comes under citizens' digital rights, which I think it would, then I'd be extremely surprised if we end up not signing up to their regulations: GDPR and all that stuff is simply too important to the 'level playing field'.

    The fact is, the EU is next door to us and it is a regulatory super-power - even powerful enough to impose its regulation on US mega-corporations. Ain't no getting away from that.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 9,760

    Byronic said:

    a place where Scotland would have zero influence, unlike in London.

    Beside myself with excitement at all this influence Scotland has in London.
    Less than 10 years ago ‘Scotland’ provided the PM and the Chancellor, and the transport, health and defence secretary a few years before. The ‘Scottish’ PM was also influential in responding to the global financial crisis through the institutions of the UK, and thereby the world. In the coalition government, is they provided the very influential ‘Scottish’ Chief Secretary of the Treasury, who was one of the core quad of decision makers.

    Scottish MPs helped the government stay in office in the last parliament, and made a great contribution in Westminster. In the present parliament, the Chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster is Scottish and Scottish fishing interests will feature large in the Brexit negotiations.

    True, Scotland isn’t supplying many MPs for all the big offices of state right now - that’s what happens if you vote for separatists - but there’s nothing stopping them changing that in future and becoming very influential again.
    You're obviously one of them thar ethno nats.
    I'm not.
    What does that mean?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 9,984
    Byronic said:

    ...

    WHY on earth would SNP Scotland, having (say) gained indy from England, then seek to throw it all away and immediately join this thing, the EU, a far more opaque and distant Union, with much less democracy, a place where Scotland would have zero influence, unlike in London.

    It beggars belief. But we all know belief trumps logic.

    Oh, I don't know. Assuming [as Leavers don't obviously, but there you go] that the rUK will at some point want participation in something European, an independent Scotland like Malta, Estonia etc would have a blocking vote while England would have no formal influence at all.

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,613
    FF43 said:

    I have £40k.

    What should I (responsibly) do with it?

    I always had an idea of investing in a woodland. You would see the trees growing, feel an ownership of it and get some satisfaction from helping the planet in a small way. The wood would be worth something eventually as well.
    I’m not interested in virtue signalling.

    Do you have any serious suggestions?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,613

    Byronic said:

    a place where Scotland would have zero influence, unlike in London.

    Beside myself with excitement at all this influence Scotland has in London.
    Less than 10 years ago ‘Scotland’ provided the PM and the Chancellor, and the transport, health and defence secretary a few years before. The ‘Scottish’ PM was also influential in responding to the global financial crisis through the institutions of the UK, and thereby the world. In the coalition government, is they provided the very influential ‘Scottish’ Chief Secretary of the Treasury, who was one of the core quad of decision makers.

    Scottish MPs helped the government stay in office in the last parliament, and made a great contribution in Westminster. In the present parliament, the Chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster is Scottish and Scottish fishing interests will feature large in the Brexit negotiations.

    True, Scotland isn’t supplying many MPs for all the big offices of state right now - that’s what happens if you vote for separatists - but there’s nothing stopping them changing that in future and becoming very influential again.
    You're obviously one of them thar ethno nats.
    I'm not.
    Astoundingly weak riposte, even for you.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 17,807

    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    To be fair, it is not just the British plod that has a toxic culture. Just look at some of the US, or RCMP or Catalonia. Or look at hospitals in Shrewsbury, GOSU or Bury St Edmund's, Fire Services at Grenfell or Manchester Arndale. Not just public services either, such as the recent care home and psychiatric providers. Not forgetting the churches and mosques, or parliament itself.

    The problem is fundamentally about power, and that is intrinsic to the structure of society. Put people in power and some will abuse it.

    I very much agree with that (schools are another example).

    The police, though, possess extraordinary powers over potentially any of us. That such abuses can take place so regularly, blatantly and repetitively, and effectively remain unresolved, ought to be a major political issue.
    The politicians are the issue. The prevailing climate is dictated by them not the police in many of these cases. Officers who do not comply are passed over, sidelined, ostracised and rejected and otherwise penalised.

    Why on earth would police officers ignore hundreds of glaring cases of rape, trafficking and other serious crimes in the North and Midlands otherwise?

    Its blatant intimidation by politicians, who hold all the power and all the cards.
    What had political intimidation or pressure to do with corruption at the SFO; the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad; the Met; Cleveland; etc ?

    And the recently reported Manchester case seems to have been the result of the Chief Constable not giving a damn, rather than any particular political pressure.

    Sure, politicians impose targets which are perhaps unnecessary, or downright counterproductive - and there was undoubtedly a climate of misguided political correctness towards minority cultures which contributed to what happened in Rotherham, Rochdale etc. - but there is an institutional rottenness in the police which is if anything a result of political neglect, not pressure.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 9,760
    sarissa said:

    Byronic said:

    sarissa said:

    Byronic said:

    If anyone ever asks Why Brexit, show them this

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jan/17/eu-eyes-temporary-ban-on-facial-recognition-in-public-places

    Now, this proposed EU law might be good. Or bad. I dunno. But why is this even an EU power anyway? When did we hand this to them? When was our big national debate on giving this unaccountable organisation such huge influence on our lives, in such a crucial area?

    I must have missed it. Or we didn't have one

    And who proposed this new EU law banning face recognition? Where do these ideas for laws come from? They seem to appear like smoke, out of nowhere. They magically materialise, and they pass into EU law, and after that they can never be repealed. And our national debate is zero, and our sense of control is zero, and our input is precisely zero.

    This is why we must get out of the EU, and why Boris must refuse alignment. OUT OUT OUT

    As it's an EU Commission draft proposal, that would be under the direction of the Security Commissioner, so blame this person:

    Sir Julian Beresford King KCVO CMG (born 22 August 1964), a British diplomat and civil servant who served as Ambassador to Ireland and France and Director General of the Northern Ireland Office. On 8 July 2016, he was nominated by David Cameron to succeed Jonathan Hill as the British European Commissioner.
    Ugh. I am glad EU knobs like him will be history, very soon

    WHY on earth would SNP Scotland, having (say) gained indy from England, then seek to throw it all away and immediately join this thing, the EU, a far more opaque and distant Union, with much less democracy, a place where Scotland would have zero influence, unlike in London.

    OK I'm gonna watch the next ep of the Morning Show. It is very good
    Anyone who equates the political and economic powers of a subordinate Scotland in the UK with being an independent nation in the EU clearly hasn't bothered to do even the most basic research.
    I agree. The former position as so advantageous as to be beyond comparison with the latter.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 9,984

    Byronic said:

    If anyone ever asks Why Brexit, show them this

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jan/17/eu-eyes-temporary-ban-on-facial-recognition-in-public-places

    Now, this proposed EU law might be good. Or bad. I dunno. But why is this even an EU power anyway? When did we hand this to them? When was our big national debate on giving this unaccountable organisation such huge influence on our lives, in such a crucial area?

    I must have missed it. Or we didn't have one

    And who proposed this new EU law banning face recognition? Where do these ideas for laws come from? They seem to appear like smoke, out of nowhere. They magically materialise, and they pass into EU law, and after that they can never be repealed. And our national debate is zero, and our sense of control is zero, and our input is precisely zero.

    This is why we must get out of the EU, and why Boris must refuse alignment. OUT OUT OUT

    I think you might be making a rather fundamental error there, namely of assuming that getting OUT OUT OUT would mean we're not going to be subject to that sort of EU law. If it comes under citizens' digital rights, which I think it would, then I'd be extremely surprised if we end up not signing up to their regulations: GDPR and all that stuff is simply too important to the 'level playing field'.

    The fact is, the EU is next door to us and it is a regulatory super-power - even powerful enough to impose its regulation on US mega-corporations. Ain't no getting away from that.
    It's a good point and if we do eventually get data adequacy status, it will be exactly as you say. The UK, unlike now, would have no influence at all on the rules. Right now, though a data adequacy settlement is not looking good, which is going to be a big problem for UK companies doing any kind of business with EU customers.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 57,131
    @Casino_Royale Pay off the mortgage or add it to your pension pot.
  • isamisam Posts: 29,895

    Byronic said:

    If anyone ever asks Why Brexit, show them this

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jan/17/eu-eyes-temporary-ban-on-facial-recognition-in-public-places

    Now, this proposed EU law might be good. Or bad. I dunno. But why is this even an EU power anyway? When did we hand this to them? When was our big national debate on giving this unaccountable organisation such huge influence on our lives, in such a crucial area?

    I must have missed it. Or we didn't have one

    And who proposed this new EU law banning face recognition? Where do these ideas for laws come from? They seem to appear like smoke, out of nowhere. They magically materialise, and they pass into EU law, and after that they can never be repealed. And our national debate is zero, and our sense of control is zero, and our input is precisely zero.

    This is why we must get out of the EU, and why Boris must refuse alignment. OUT OUT OUT

    I think you might be making a rather fundamental error there, namely of assuming that getting OUT OUT OUT would mean we're not going to be subject to that sort of EU law. If it comes under citizens' digital rights, which I think it would, then I'd be extremely surprised if we end up not signing up to their regulations: GDPR and all that stuff is simply too important to the 'level playing field'.

    The fact is, the EU is next door to us and it is a regulatory super-power - even powerful enough to impose its regulation on US mega-corporations. Ain't no getting away from that.
    Richard, have you ever listened to Giles Fraser's podcast "Confessions"? I enjoyed the Roger Scruton and Maurice Glasman episodes, I'd be interested to hear what you thought
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 25,074
    isam said:

    Richard, have you ever listened to Giles Fraser's podcast "Confessions"? I enjoyed the Roger Scruton and Maurice Glasman episodes, I'd be interested to hear what you thought

    No, I haven't, sorry.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 6,148
    Afternoon all :)

    I think there is a fundamental debate about the kind of policing we want - some might like an armed officer on every street corner. Others simply prefer a policeman (or woman) "pounding the beat" instead of going round in groups in vans.

    The closure and sale of so many Police stations under the Coalition and subsequently is, I think, regrettable as the Police station was potentially a place of refuge or safety (the same was true of ticket offices in tube stations - they were of course to be closed to provide "exciting retail opportunities" - more Johnsonian bollocks).

    The disconnection between Police and community may be more obvious in areas of London like mine - Mrs Stodge goes to the Neighbourhood Police meetings and comes back telling me crime is rampant and brandishing reports showing me it isn't.

    A lot of criminality isn't judged to be criminal - personally, I'd hunt down every fare dodger and exterminate them but that's a shade draconian even for this mealy-mouthed wishy-washy liberal. So much of nuisance behaviour falls into the "civil" category - fly-tipping is another huge problem. The death penalty for fly tipping may again be too much for the namby-pamby soft on crime Tories but it's the kind of irritation that irritates (well, it would).

    It's the notion that low-level criminality no longer matters - we had that ludicrous moron Greg Hands pontificating in the Standard this week that we should vote for the useless Shaun Bailey in the London Mayoral election and he would instigate the approach on crime that worked for Giuliani in New York in the 90s.

    Yeah, right. One Tory mayor closes Police stations and cuts Police numbers, the next one will apparently bring in a policy where you'll be arrested for walking on the cracks in the pavement - fine, you can get carted off to the nearest Police station - oh, wait....
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,613
    Pulpstar said:

    @Casino_Royale Pay off the mortgage or add it to your pension pot.

    You see, I don’t want to do that.

    First, I’m paying only 2% interest on my mortgage and think I can do better. Also, I lose almost all liquidity when I do that until i remortgage.

    Second, if I add it to my pension pot I can’t touch it (I don’t think) until I’m 55 and I will probably want it before then to fund my kids education.

    I think stocks and shares ISAs are probably the answer.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 17,807

    kinabalu said:

    That is a great header, I have to say. A problem so deep-rooted must be about people, not systems and procedures, so perhaps the silver bullet lies in recruitment. Hire young people whose driving force is to make the world a better place rather than to wear uniforms and hold power over others. "Do-gooders" in other words is what we need. Really major on this quality during the recruitment process. Other things too of course - toughness, stability, physical fitness - but be clear that a palpable integrity and a genuine desire to make a difference are the sine qua non. Do not hire anybody into the police force who fails on that score, regardless of their other merits. If necessary, take recruitment to the police out of the hands of the police. Have it done by an independent 3rd party. And no, I don't mean Dominic Cummings. Were such a culture change to happen, and caught hold, we would surely see a big improvement in Police performance over time. Easier said than done - but then every benign reform of any substance to any large and complex institution is easier said than done. If such were not the case it would have already been done.

    Good post.

    The police operate a bit like a closed shop (scabs etc) in my view and pursue the path of least resistance to the easiest convictions, and not the right convictions.

    So many people have told me to be careful what I say to a police office as they love to use the honesty and integrity of middle-class minor offenders against them to up their detection/clear-up rates, and they know we’ll pay and turn up to court too.
    Again that is the fault of politicians, and not the police. It was the politicians who set the targets the police have to use.

    It was the politicians who put the middle class in the dock by ramping up banning and minor offences.
    Nah, I don’t buy that. Any reasonable person would expect the police to crack down on crime and generally improve detection and clear up rates; it’s what they’re there for.

    It’s how they do it and what they focus on that’s the issue.
    And I don't buy that the police set their own priorities. Rochdale/Manchester and the testimony of offices like Maggie Oliver shows overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

    Whatever the rights and wrongs of Mcpherson, governments have used it to take an almightly power grab of police independence. It was tolerated by the public because of the desperate state the police were portrayed as being in.

    What we see now are the effects of that power grab.
    So why does there seem to be little or no change in the occurrence of police corruption before and after McPherson ?
  • isamisam Posts: 29,895

    isam said:

    Richard, have you ever listened to Giles Fraser's podcast "Confessions"? I enjoyed the Roger Scruton and Maurice Glasman episodes, I'd be interested to hear what you thought

    No, I haven't, sorry.
    Fair enough! If anyone wanted to hear a left wing case for Brexit, I think Glasman expresses it very well in that interview
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 652

    Byronic said:

    If anyone ever asks Why Brexit, show them this

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jan/17/eu-eyes-temporary-ban-on-facial-recognition-in-public-places

    Now, this proposed EU law might be good. Or bad. I dunno. But why is this even an EU power anyway? When did we hand this to them? When was our big national debate on giving this unaccountable organisation such huge influence on our lives, in such a crucial area?

    I must have missed it. Or we didn't have one

    And who proposed this new EU law banning face recognition? Where do these ideas for laws come from? They seem to appear like smoke, out of nowhere. They magically materialise, and they pass into EU law, and after that they can never be repealed. And our national debate is zero, and our sense of control is zero, and our input is precisely zero.

    This is why we must get out of the EU, and why Boris must refuse alignment. OUT OUT OUT

    I think you might be making a rather fundamental error there, namely of assuming that getting OUT OUT OUT would mean we're not going to be subject to that sort of EU law. If it comes under citizens' digital rights, which I think it would, then I'd be extremely surprised if we end up not signing up to their regulations: GDPR and all that stuff is simply too important to the 'level playing field'.

    The fact is, the EU is next door to us and it is a regulatory super-power - even powerful enough to impose its regulation on US mega-corporations. Ain't no getting away from that.
    Correct. It has, for instance,made standard internet use an immeasurably worse experience for everyone in the entire world with the "consent to cookies" nonsense.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 9,984

    FF43 said:

    I have £40k.

    What should I (responsibly) do with it?

    I always had an idea of investing in a woodland. You would see the trees growing, feel an ownership of it and get some satisfaction from helping the planet in a small way. The wood would be worth something eventually as well.
    I’m not interested in virtue signalling.

    Do you have any serious suggestions?
    No. You could either have made some bland and polite response or ignored my comment entirely, but hey.
  • PhilPhil Posts: 124


    Mostly agree with this, but would add:

    1. An alternative to putting it in an ISA is to put it into a pension fund (either an existing pension fund or open a SIPP, which is very easy to do). That way it immediately gets increased by the currently very generous tax relief. (For a £40K contribution you would need to check your annual allowance, though, depending on what other pension contributions you've made through your employer). Of course, that assumes you can lock away the £40K until retirement age. Or you can stick some in an ISA and some in a pension.

    2. On the point about insight into a particular field, it's usually best not to go down that route. The academic research shows that people who invest in an industry about which they know a lot do worse than those who just invest in a general fund. That is probably because they over-estimate their own knowledge or give too much emphasis to one point (such as "Company X has a great technology"). [Having said that, my best ever investment was in a field I'm an expert in...]

    Re: 1) So this is a tricky one. Pension fees are higher, even for the cheapest SIPP providers & the income you take on retirement is taxable. Flip side is that you get a tax rebate on anything you invest, if you’ve paid income / NI tax that year. On the other hand ISA investment comes out of taxed income, but the income from them is completely untaxed.

    So pensions get taxed on exit & ISAs on entry. Which means which is preferable is a bit hit or miss. If you're a contractor & run your own limited company then you get to skip employers NI as well as all the other taxes which makes pensions win out, but for everyone else, I think the extra freedom & lower cost of ISAs means that they edge out pension funds.

    On 2) Totally a fair point: it’s actually really hard to know that you have a genuine edge. Investing in market trackers is the sane thing to do for almost everyone.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 42,624
    Lock ‘em up... lock ‘em up!


    Thanks cyclefree :)
  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 2,201

    Pulpstar said:

    @Casino_Royale Pay off the mortgage or add it to your pension pot.

    You see, I don’t want to do that.

    First, I’m paying only 2% interest on my mortgage and think I can do better. Also, I lose almost all liquidity when I do that until i remortgage.

    Second, if I add it to my pension pot I can’t touch it (I don’t think) until I’m 55 and I will probably want it before then to fund my kids education.

    I think stocks and shares ISAs are probably the answer.
    You are correct that you can not access until 55, do not believe the ads that say you can they are scammers.

    Also if you are interested in learning how to invest then it is good fun and just like betting enjoyable when you pick a winner especially if you get a 10 bagger or above.

    If you go the fund route check the costs, seeing as computers make most of the decisions nowadays decide whether you want to pay over the odds to perhaps be the next Woodford.

    Along with Vanguard already mentioned another source of low cost funds is iShares (run by Barclays).
  • PhilPhil Posts: 124

    FF43 said:

    I have £40k.

    What should I (responsibly) do with it?

    I always had an idea of investing in a woodland. You would see the trees growing, feel an ownership of it and get some satisfaction from helping the planet in a small way. The wood would be worth something eventually as well.
    I’m not interested in virtue signalling.

    Do you have any serious suggestions?
    Woodland is a perfectly good investment. It’s land that grows stuff that you harvest & sell. What’s not to like?

    But like everything else, you can lose your shirt if you don’t know what you’re doing!
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,613
    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    I have £40k.

    What should I (responsibly) do with it?

    I always had an idea of investing in a woodland. You would see the trees growing, feel an ownership of it and get some satisfaction from helping the planet in a small way. The wood would be worth something eventually as well.
    I’m not interested in virtue signalling.

    Do you have any serious suggestions?
    No. You could either have made some bland and polite response or ignored my comment entirely, but hey.
    I’m not a millionaire. It was obvious I wanted to invest.

    You posted something that you wanted to say something about you instead.

  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 397
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    To be fair, it is not just the British plod that has a toxic culture. Just look at some of the US, or RCMP or Catalonia. Or look at hospitals in Shrewsbury, GOSU or Bury St Edmund's, Fire Services at Grenfell or Manchester Arndale. Not just public services either, such as the recent care home and psychiatric providers. Not forgetting the churches and mosques, or parliament itself.

    The problem is fundamentally about power, and that is intrinsic to the structure of society. Put people in power and some will abuse it.

    I very much agree with that (schools are another example).

    The police, though, possess extraordinary powers over potentially any of us. That such abuses can take place so regularly, blatantly and repetitively, and effectively remain unresolved, ought to be a major political issue.
    The politicians are the issue. The prevailing climate is dictated by them not the police in many of these cases. Officers who do not comply are passed over, sidelined, ostracised and rejected and otherwise penalised.

    Why on earth would police officers ignore hundreds of glaring cases of rape, trafficking and other serious crimes in the North and Midlands otherwise?

    Its blatant intimidation by politicians, who hold all the power and all the cards.
    What had political intimidation or pressure to do with corruption at the SFO; the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad; the Met; Cleveland; etc ?

    And the recently reported Manchester case seems to have been the result of the Chief Constable not giving a damn, rather than any particular political pressure.

    Sure, politicians impose targets which are perhaps unnecessary, or downright counterproductive - and there was undoubtedly a climate of misguided political correctness towards minority cultures which contributed to what happened in Rotherham, Rochdale etc. - but there is an institutional rottenness in the police which is if anything a result of political neglect, not pressure.
    Oh please, please.

    Oliver's testimony says that they were expressly told some communities in the north were effectively untouchable

    Do you really think the chief of any police force would dream up the policy to immunise some communities from any form of sanction by the law whatsoever - -all by his or her lonesome??

    Its a stinking rank political decision by politicians anxious to scapegoat officers for their own decisions.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 25,074
    edited January 17
    On topic: Excellent article, as one would expect.

    One aspect which doesn't get enough attention in the media is how much the culture varies between different police forces. Certainly in the past it has - West Midlands were of course notoriously bad, and the Met not always much better (although the Met are under special pressures). I suspect that it remains the case that there is a big gulf between the best and the worst of our police forces, and it would be interesting to know why, and how the best practice can be used to improve the worst forces.
This discussion has been closed.