Whatever your political persuasion, defend your corner here. All we ask is that you voice YOUR opinion, rather than just post a link to a half-hour youtube video. Politics can get a bit lively, and if you prefer a less combative debate, please post in the Politics for Moderates section instead.
ApusApus wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2017 7:27 pm
I happen to agree with you that Brexit is wrong but I disagree with you on how we deal with it ........... I'm on the side that wants Team UK to get on with the democratic will of the UK voters & get the best deal we can! Do you really want the UK to come out of this on their knees, as all your posts seem to suggest this?
Hudswell, the cuts in armed forces, I think are more linked to modern times. Were are the threats to our UK security? Should we ever interfere in others’ politics again? Surely Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan have taught us lessons we should have learned eons ago. We aren’t a world force, world police force or purveyors of democracy for other countries. We need to convcentrate on only home problems. I’d therefore rather another 10,000 more police, Clinicians and Teachers, than arme forces.
However, leaving the EU will incerease our risk? Don’t you think? If you were an independent risk assessor, had brexit lowered or increased our future security?
Happy in Cyprus wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2017 12:22 am
Well, glad to see that you agree Brexit was wrong. Others take note.
The vote to leave was one of the most collective errors of judgement a country has ever made, except perhaps Tony Blair's decision to endorse Dubya's foray into Iraq, plus other disasterous wars which the UK and USA have needlessly gotten themselves embroiled with.
Team UK has not got a cat in hells chance against the collective might of 27 onging member states, who firmly - and rightly - believe in the values of the EU and the resurgence of the EU economy as a whole.
How many times have I said over the past year - and been widely ridiculed for it - "in the forthcoming negotiations, the EU holds all the aces".
All the stories coming from the first round of negotiations this week bear out my long-held belief. The UK will sooner or later have to cave in on most, if not all, of it's red lines.
You don't continue to fight a losing battle. The UK will lose both the battle and the war in it's confrontation with the EU.
And you expect me to support it's stance just because I am British by birth?
Well I'm glad you weren't in charge in WW2 as we would have capitulated after Dunkirk!
You obviously have a different understanding of the meaning of the word "negotiation" but at the end of the day the "mighty" EU doesn't hold all the aces & never has ............. other than in your imagination!
Happy in Cyprus wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2017 12:22 am
Well, glad to see that you agree Brexit was wrong. Others take note.
The vote to leave was one of the most collective errors of judgement a country has ever made, except perhaps Tony Blair's decision to endorse Dubya's foray into Iraq, plus other disasterous wars which the UK and USA have needlessly gotten themselves embroiled with.
Team UK has not got a cat in hells chance against the collective might of 27 onging member states, who firmly - and rightly - believe in the values of the EU and the resurgence of the EU economy as a whole.
How many times have I said over the past year - and been widely ridiculed for it - "in the forthcoming negotiations, the EU holds all the aces".
All the stories coming from the first round of negotiations this week bear out my long-held belief. The UK will sooner or later have to cave in on most, if not all, of it's red lines.
You don't continue to fight a losing battle. The UK will lose both the battle and the war in it's confrontation with the EU.
And you expect me to support it's stance just because I am British by birth?
Well I'm glad you weren't in charge in WW2 as we would have capitulated after Dunkirk!
You obviously have a different understanding of the meaning of the word "negotiation" but at the end of the day the "mighty" EU doesn't hold all the aces & never has ............. other than in your imagination!
Happy dreaming!
Shane
Never mind Dunkirk. If Britain had been prepared to negotiate with the German regime, on the lines they had suggested (where the Germans kept control of Europe, as now!!, and Britain kept its Empire) WW2 could have been avoided and millions of lives saved.
If there had been a referendum in early 1939 "Do we declare war on Germany? Y/N" I reckon the vote would have been a definite NO.
Geoff.
geoffreys wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2017 9:11 am
If Britain had been prepared to negotiate with the German regime, on the lines they had suggested (where the Germans kept control of Europe, as now!!, and Britain kept its Empire) WW2 could have been avoided and millions of lives saved.
If there had been a referendum in early 1939 "Do we declare war on Germany? Y/N" I reckon the vote would have been a definite NO.
Geoff.
You are probably not old enough to remember; I am! As often, you talk codswallop. We did negotiate with Germany, resulting in Neville Chamberlain's 'Peace in our time', but that did not last more than a year, despite the UK's warning in 1938 to Joachim von Ribbentrop not to continue their expansionist policy, culminating in the Axis attack, with the USSR, on Poland on 1 September 1939, one year later. War was declared by the UK just two days later.
geoffreys wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2017 9:11 am
If Britain had been prepared to negotiate with the German regime, on the lines they had suggested (where the Germans kept control of Europe, as now!!, and Britain kept its Empire) WW2 could have been avoided and millions of lives saved.
If there had been a referendum in early 1939 "Do we declare war on Germany? Y/N" I reckon the vote would have been a definite NO.
Geoff.
You are probably not old enough to remember; I am! As often, you talk codswallop. We did negotiate with Germany, resulting in Neville Chamberlain's 'Peace in our time', but that did not last more than a year, despite the UK's warning in 1938 to Joachim von Ribbentrop not to continue their expansionist policy, culminating in the Axis attack, with the USSR, on Poland on 1 September 1939, one year later. War was declared by the UK just two days later.
The problem was that Churchill was a war-monger. Chamberlin was not. It is well documented fact that the Germans wanted to negotiate but Churchill did not. Bit like Trump character-wise.
Every war there has ever been could have been avoided by the 2 sides meeting and negotiating and compromising.
No war ever achieves anything.
Geoff.
The problem was that Churchill was a war-monger. Chamberlin was not. It is well documented fact that the Germans wanted to negotiate but Churchill did not. Bit like Trump character-wise.
Geoff.
What the heck has Churchill to do with it? He was not even in the Cabinet, not even as a junior minister. It was only after war broke out that he was appointed as First Lord of the Admiralty. He became PM in May 1940. He certainly was in no position to influence Chamberlain's negotiations with the Axis.
The problem was that Churchill was a war-monger. Chamberlin was not. It is well documented fact that the Germans wanted to negotiate but Churchill did not. Bit like Trump character-wise.
Geoff.
What the heck has Churchill to do with it? He was not even in the Cabinet, not even as a junior minister. It was only after war broke out that he was appointed as First Lord of the Admiralty. He became PM in May 1940. He certainly was in no position to influence Chamberlain's negotiations with the Axis.
Who announced on the radio to the British people in 1939 that we (UK) was at war with Germany?
Geoff.
geoffreys wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2017 2:21 pm
Who announced on the radio to the British people in 1939 that we (UK) was at war with Germany?
Geoff.
The Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. Neville Chamberlain. I remember it well!
Churchill made a short speech in the HoC later on the same day, as a private member.
Thanks for that, bit before my time (I was born in the war, in 1944).
I still think rushing into a war like that could and should have been avoided, a lesser evil was available perhaps?
Geoff.
I take your points. I think threats today are faced better as a group, such as NATO and as the EU (potentially), as individual countries of the size of the UK cannot afford the massive investments we made in the past.
Modern warfare is also fast becoming remotely controlled and the days of manned fighters etc. May well disappear over the next decade.
Investment in clever technologies can have a spinoff in terms of the economy as well. We have disgracefully armed many despots over the years as well. We used to be the largest supplier of land mines, for example. Our position re Saudi is also shocking. We have become like the local whore, lifting our skirts to anyone with money.
Last edited by Jimgward on Tue Jul 25, 2017 5:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.
No-one rushed into war, except the Germans whose greed for territory knew few bounds. France and the UK had alliances with Poland with guarantees that if a country attacked Poland,...
... in the event of any action which clearly threatened Polish independence, and which the Polish Government accordingly considered it vital to resist with their national forces, His Majesty's Government would feel themselves bound at once to lend the Polish Government all support in their power. They have given the Polish Government an assurance to this effect.
This was the direct spark that caused the war, but the Austrian Anschluss, Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, Silesia and other occupations formed the overture. Everything was tried to discourage Germany from invading Poland, to no avail. With the treaty in place, the UK and France had no choice but to declare war.
May I respectfully suggest that if you have no knowledge of European history from 1936, that you may prefer to abstain from your show of ignorance.
Just going back a few posts re numbers of police reductions. I just read a book - 'Catching a serial killer' by Steve Fulcher, a former SIO. I saw him on breakfast TV telling how, in spite of catching the killer, and seeing him jailed for life, he was dismissed for breaching PACE during the case. It was an extremely detailed account of the investigations, and it showed me just how many devices and systems such as CCTV, ANPR, Telephony tracking etc etc are used now which supplement the numbers of police on the ground.
I'm not saying this in defence of reduction in numbers, simply that there are other facts to take into account when discussing these reductions, facts which in reality either replace large numbers of police or free large numbers of police to be working in areas requiring physical input.
It's a relevant point re technology uses to play a part in crime prevention and conviction....
However, I do know the police are very short in numbers to monitor anything digital and most CCTV images are inadmissible due to poor quality. They are used more to establish a persons position to collaborate other evidence.
I don't want more police, for the sake of numbers. I want a safer environment. Everywhere has changed and the UK is no longer an innocent place, what with knife crimes, drugs and other temptations. Schools in many areas even have manned police points. I want bobbies on the beat for two reasons, as a deterrent and to raise their profile and perception with young people. I want a return to the days when a local bobbie knew many of the people in the area, not just the neds.
Jim it was actually all of these techy systems which cornered the murderer. The girl was tracked via cctv from shops, banks, offices etc from the club in which she was last seen until she stopped by a car, unfortunately it's headlights obscured any view of her or the cars make, number etc. However, tracking cctv after this point proved she had gone no further down the road. Another specialist team was charged with identifying the make, model etc which completely defeated the cops viewing the cctv and ANPR. ANPR was then checked but resulted in no showing of the car. The bright cop checking the ANPR had the hunch to check patrol cars in the area, and bingo the killer was picked up on one of them. The telephony pings had already limited the area where the girl had travelled. I had the impression that the actual numbers of police checking these systems was quite small, and in the end it was an individual cop who had the hunch to check the patrol car ANPR. Steve Fulcher himself said that he could not have identified the car from ANPR on the footage, but the experience of the cop monitoring the ANPR picked it out.
Again, I'm not knocking or supporting reductions of numbers, but the depth and level of these sort of checks, all of which were instrumental in tracking this killer, would in the past have taken simply dozens of bobbies on the ground. And I feel this needs to be accepted in the equation when looking at numbers.
Further investigations in the case are ongoing, albeit scaled down, but it's possible this man murdered several more women, he was actually charged with two, which classed him as a serial killer and thereby meant he was imprisoned for life with no parole. Sadly, it also cost the career of the man who charged him.
Yes, they'll push the boat out with all the technology and resources for a high-profile case but, for each of those, there are hundreds of crimes committed on the streets that are simply ignored. Only the bobby on the beat can know what goes on in his area.
Apparently according to one Police Inspector,can't remember which area,but it was on tv yesterday,75% of his police time is taken up by responding to those addicted to the awful zombie drug which is a massive problem in the UK.
My OH was a' Bobby on the beat', he maintains to this day that it is the best way to police the UK. As has been said, he knew the people on his beat, he had his ear to the ground, knew the criminal element, and where he could go for information.
I, and probably many of my generation was told as a child, that if I was ever frightened about anything, to go to the nearest policeman, because he was my friend. How sad that the children of today do not have the same safety net that we did. Trevor is correct, Bobbies on the beat are history, and we are worse off for it.
Jackie
It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog.
