Boris Johnson interview on R4 Today this morning

[portlock seagull]

He's an absolute child. The spat he had the other day with Labour MP was embarrassing. Wish he'd crawl away from the political
Scene. As the OP says, car crash interview. Guy is an idiot and a dangerous one.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I disagree. All the Police chiefs Ive seen critiquing the cuts have said that since 2010 policing has become almost entirely reactive and they don't have the resources or man power to act on bits of information given to them by members of the public etc. Its all very well saying counter terrorism measure have been improved but if the front line police feel they are too stretched to pass or act on information then that is a very serous issue. Many serving Police officers have said this, so unless you know better than them I would suggest you are completely wrong and May has serous questions to answer.

Anyone arguing with a word of this is in denial, or a moron.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Johnson Foreign Secretary, Fallon Defence Secretary....we're in safe hands.

As an aside, how good is Krishnan Guru-Murthy as an interviewer? I thought the dropping in of the Johnson quote as a continuation of the Corbyn quote was a masterful piece of interviewing where he not once had to get aggressive in a Paxman style way.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I disagree. All the Police chiefs Ive seen critiquing the cuts have said that since 2010 policing has become almost entirely reactive and they don't have the resources or man power to act on bits of information given to them by members of the public etc. Its all very well saying counter terrorism measure have been improved but if the front line police feel they are too stretched to pass or act on information then that is a very serous issue. Many serving Police officers have said this, so unless you know better than them I would suggest you are completely wrong and May has serous questions to answer.

That's a big if. As far as I am aware there has been no causal link between lack of Police numbers being a factor in any of these successful recent attacks (unless you know better). The Police and security services did have the information on at least one of these terrorists it's how they dealt with it. Not criticising them by the way they have a fiendishly difficult job prioritising the potential threat. I would think assessing the threat would be a job for counter terrorism police/security services departments which have seen increased funding.

 

[simmo]

Never forget that if the Tories do lose and Boris finds himself looking for a new career on Friday morning, he can always take up the beautiful game...........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWIUp19bBoA

 

[Simster]

Anyone arguing with a word of this is in denial, or a moron.

Nope, I can't agree with that. Lord Carlile, who acted from 2001 to 2011 as the UK's Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, was quoted yesterday as follows:

The cuts in community policing are a legitimate issue to bring up in an Election but they are nothing to do with terrorism.

I tend to agree. Let's have the debate on police numbers, but not the opportunistic linking of this to terrorism. We have never had bobbies on every street corner, ready to deal with terrorist threats and never will.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Never forget that if the Tories do lose and Boris finds himself looking for a new career on Friday morning, he can always take up the beautiful game...........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWIUp19bBoA

Or smashing into little kids...

 

[glasfryn]

Johnson Foreign Secretary, Fallon Defence Secretary....we're in safe hands.

As an aside, how good is Krishnan Guru-Murthy as an interviewer? I thought the dropping in of the Johnson quote as a continuation of the Corbyn quote was a masterful piece of interviewing where he not once had to get aggressive in a Paxman style way.

another one who should not be let out on his own

 

[glasfryn]

Nope, I can't agree with that. Lord Carlile, who acted from 2001 to 2011 as the UK's Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, was quoted yesterday as follows:



I tend to agree. Let's have the debate on police numbers, but not the opportunistic linking of this to terrorism. We have never had bobbies on every street corner, ready to deal with terrorist threats and never will.

it is about bobbies on the beat gleaning information to pass up, the more of them the more information they get.
its called community policing

 

[Southy]

it is about bobbies on the beat gleaning information to pass up, the more of them the more information they get.
its called community policing

Exactly this. Watch this clip of an ex Community Policeman of the year warning May directly about exactly this a few years ago. Chilling to watch now. She has blood on her hands.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gary1]

Nope, I can't agree with that. Lord Carlile, who acted from 2001 to 2011 as the UK's Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, was quoted yesterday as follows:



I tend to agree. Let's have the debate on police numbers, but not the opportunistic linking of this to terrorism. We have never had bobbies on every street corner, ready to deal with terrorist threats and never will.

Who's to say he's right. Just because he had a job with a fancy title doesn't mean he's correct on this.

 

[The Large One]

I tend to agree. Let's have the debate on police numbers, but not the opportunistic linking of this to terrorism. We have never had bobbies on every street corner, ready to deal with terrorist threats and never will.

Of course we've never had 'bobbies on every street corner', and it's missing the point.

It's about the whole concept of effective community policing. Of being the first in the line of ensuring the state is there to protect you as best as possible. Of the community having someone to turn to in times of trouble or concern. Of having a member of the police to know what's going on in communities - not just on a terrorist level, but on a petty crime level; on a social concern level; on a public safety level and so on...

The police services themselves are supposed to be politically neutral (not individuals of course - the service as a whole), so if they are saying they're missing gathering vital information due to lack of resources, who is anyone else to counter that? Certainly the Home Secretary from 2010-16 doesn't have that answer.

 

[Triggaaar]

When she called him out and put him under pressure to answer her question on him also voting against anti terror legislation, he carefully responded with her full name, making sure everyone heard 'Hussein'. He really is a vile piece of work.

Is it possible he was saying her full name to slow down his reply to give himself time to think of how to reply?

 

[Simster]

Nope, you're the one missing the point. The point *I* am making is that the 20,000 police cuts have nothing to do with terrorist prevention, according to the former independent reviewer of terrorism policy. If you ask me whether cutting numbers this drastically is a good idea, well I agree with your point of view.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

[The Large One]

Nope, you're the one missing the point. The point *I* am making is that the 20,000 police cuts have nothing to do with terrorist prevention, according to the former independent reviewer of terrorism policy. If you ask me whether cutting numbers this drastically is a good idea, well I agree with your point of view.

Meanwhile, a former SIO for the Met ('believe me, he's no lefty' - Own Jones), someone who had to deal with crime in all forms on a daily basis, fundamentally disagrees.

 

[Simster]

Meanwhile, a former SIO for the Met ('believe me, he's no lefty' - Own Jones), someone who had to deal with crime in all forms on a daily basis, fundamentally disagrees.

Policeman in "cutting police numbers is bad" shock.

As I say, I agree that cutting 20,000 officers is absurd for many reasons. BUT if an independent ombudsman of ten years with no axe to grind either way believes specifically it is not a fundamental reason for better terrorism​ prevention, I'd be inclined to agree with him.

 

[glasfryn]

Exactly this. Watch this clip of an ex Community Policeman of the year warning May directly about exactly this a few years ago. Chilling to watch now. She has blood on her hands.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

says it is a private video apparently

 

[The Large One]

Policeman in "cutting police numbers is bad" shock.

As I say, I agree that cutting 20,000 officers is absurd for many reasons. BUT if an independent ombudsman of ten years with no axe to grind either way believes specifically it is not a fundamental reason for better terrorism​ prevention, I'd be inclined to agree with him.

He was a independent reviewer of legislation in the House of Lords, where he sat as a Lib Dem Lord. In other words, he looked at terrorism from the legal end.

He's offering a political opinion, rather than an operational one. I'll more go with the verdict of the people at the sharp end.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

Just as, surely Abbott would be sidelined. But, we really shouldn't be presented with such a crappy choice.

I would argue that applies whoever wins the election.

Never can I recall a more uninspiring choice in my lifetime.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CheeseRolls]

Nope, I can't agree with that. Lord Carlile, who acted from 2001 to 2011 as the UK's Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, was quoted yesterday as follows:



I tend to agree. Let's have the debate on police numbers, but not the opportunistic linking of this to terrorism. We have never had bobbies on every street corner, ready to deal with terrorist threats and never will.

The argument isn't really about having bobbies on every street corner to prevent terrorists, it is about the gap between reports of radicalisation and the follow up intelligence, which is typically local policing led. in the first instance there is a need to screen genuine cases of concern from malicious accusations and the question is, are there sufficient officers to do this quickly and effectively.