• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

A Political Thread pt. 2

odw26 said:
I think the government are in a really difficult position at the moment when it comes to things like this, because successive governments have either generally ignored the issues surrounding immigration, or kicked the can down the road, and it's rearing it's ugly head once again. Whether that's because they view it as a genuine political minefield or because it's a convenient distraction technique is another topic. Because of this, I think they're pretty much damned if they do, and damned if they don't. Do they release information about perpetrators which could lead to very dangerous consequences- riots, targeted attacks, vigilantism, etc? Or do they withhold information in order to negate the possibility of a violent backlash, which only leads to speculation and affirms the belief that some have of the government not releasing information that doesn't fit with their supposed "narrative". The Southport riots ultimately happened because of the latter- an information vacuum was created, which was jumped on and filled in by the far right, and we all saw how that played out.

I live in Bournemouth, and recently, and publicly, a self-described "vigilante" group has been established in order to try to keep the town centre safe, as they believe the police are not doing a very good job. I believe those setting the group up have done so with positive intentions- Bournemouth town centre is not a very pleasant place to walk through during the day, much less so at night. As such, there's been a lot of public support for this group. For the record, I did walk through the town centre on Friday night, and I saw at least four pairs of police officers visibly walking around and interacting positively with the public, so I don't agree with the suggestion the police aren't doing their job. However, I think it's very obvious that this is only going to go in one direction, and that it will end with someone getting assaulted, or much worse, for the colour of their skin. It's such a dangerous position we're now in where people think this sort of thing is acceptable that I don't necessarily think the government are overreacting by placing large sentences on people for rioting, or stirring up misinformation. However, for this to be an effective response, it does also require the government to tackle the issues which are causing genuine distress to their public, otherwise we will continue to see dissent, phrases thrown around like "two-tier policing", etc, and dangerous overreaction to events.
Click to expand...

I 100% agree on the Tory government and immigration, and id put a large portion of blame at theor door, as i would Tony Blair and his reform in the late 90s...

Its also a difficult issue dealing with large scale social disruption, but I dont think Starmer has worked the media well. The 2 tier Kier moniker has stuck because hes weak on certain issues.

Im also conflicted on vigilantism, by its very nature it is a shameful dereliction of duty by the police, to have this become a trend, but its also misguided as a venture.

If we look at the peado hunters on YouTube as an example, there is a danger that they get the wrong person, but at the same time they do catch genuine criminals, thay the police just dont investigate.

The police stats are also shamefull in theor response to crime, either waiting days or totally no showing in cases of theft or property damage, ive had first hand experience of this recently, 2 kids jumping my fence trying to get my motorbike. Luckily the dogs made enough noise for me to get out there and chase them off, but the station 250 yards from me were too busy to review ring doorbell cameras or follow up.

I think where my, and a lot of others frustrations are, is the police inability, or lack of willing to address serious crime, but their absolute passion to target middle class words on social media. And I get the statistics of criminalisation of those who post naughty words are small in the grand scheme of things, but when someone can write stupid words and delete them within the hour, even words calling for action/violence, and be sentenced the same as someone who rapes a child, there is an issue.

I think Starmer has created a scenario of his own doing, bypassing due process for protestors, and rioters, deeming groups terrorists, firing MPs for dissenting etc, all shows how insecure he is, nothing he has shown in government emits strength, and thats the problem.

Rumours are Blair has warned him he has 6 months to rectify the issues, or hes out.
 
dirty harry said:
snip
Click to expand...

Yeah, I get that about vigilantism. I guess it comes down to the old adage: does getting one wrong justify all the one's you correctly put away? Unless you're the innocent one wrongly accused, I don't think anyone can really answer that.

When it comes to policing, I understand it's a semantic argument, but I think they're pretty switched on when it comes to "serious crime", but it depends on your definition of serious crime. When it comes to sexual abuse, murder, assault, etc., I think they're on it; when it comes to the sort of middle level of crimes, thievery, shoplifting, burglary, etc., I think that's when the police can get stuck with the "unbothered" tag. Of course, that makes no difference when you're actually a victim of those types of crimes, because then you can get really disenfranchised with the system and get the impression they just don't care.

I don't think the saying the police have a "passion" for targeting social media abuse is entirely justified, although I don't think it is completely unjustified, either. I think, firstly, that social media is a fairly new invention in the grand scheme of things, and I'd like to think that governments and the legal system are still coming to terms on how to handle it, so it is going to look like the police are specifically targeting it, because it's something that hasn't happened before. Of course, this can very easily lead down nefarious avenues , "think speak", "1984", etc. Fundamentally, though, if you say something racist/sexist/homophobic etc. online compared to in person, should there be any real difference to how it's policed? Historical offences is a very different conversation. Secondly, I think it's interesting to note that only 2.5% of "malicious communication offences" result in a conviction, which is well below the national average for crime (8.8%). That's despite the police knowing who the perpetrator is in most instances. Those stats are taken second hand from a Times article last year which is now behind a paywall.

The examples listed of sentences are two very extreme instances, of course child rape is a much more serious offence. I think this is quite an interesting read on public perception of sentence lengths:

And sexual offences still carry by far the longest average sentence in the UK:
www.statista.com

England and Wales prison sentence length by offences 2024| Statista

In 2023/24 the average custodial sentence length for sexual offences in England and Wales was 69.5 months, or just over five years, the most of any broad offence type in that year.
www.statista.com www.statista.com
 
odw26 said:
Yeah, I get that about vigilantism. I guess it comes down to the old adage: does getting one wrong justify all the one's you correctly put away? Unless you're the innocent one wrongly accused, I don't think anyone can really answer that.

When it comes to policing, I understand it's a semantic argument, but I think they're pretty switched on when it comes to "serious crime", but it depends on your definition of serious crime. When it comes to sexual abuse, murder, assault, etc., I think they're on it; when it comes to the sort of middle level of crimes, thievery, shoplifting, burglary, etc., I think that's when the police can get stuck with the "unbothered" tag. Of course, that makes no difference when you're actually a victim of those types of crimes, because then you can get really disenfranchised with the system and get the impression they just don't care.

I don't think the saying the police have a "passion" for targeting social media abuse is entirely justified, although I don't think it is completely unjustified, either. I think, firstly, that social media is a fairly new invention in the grand scheme of things, and I'd like to think that governments and the legal system are still coming to terms on how to handle it, so it is going to look like the police are specifically targeting it, because it's something that hasn't happened before. Of course, this can very easily lead down nefarious avenues , "think speak", "1984", etc. Fundamentally, though, if you say something racist/sexist/homophobic etc. online compared to in person, should there be any real difference to how it's policed? Historical offences is a very different conversation. Secondly, I think it's interesting to note that only 2.5% of "malicious communication offences" result in a conviction, which is well below the national average for crime (8.8%). That's despite the police knowing who the perpetrator is in most instances. Those stats are taken second hand from a Times article last year which is now behind a paywall.

The examples listed of sentences are two very extreme instances, of course child rape is a much more serious offence. I think this is quite an interesting read on public perception of sentence lengths:

And sexual offences still carry by far the longest average sentence in the UK:
Click to expand...


If you don't have any of or a combination of forensic evidence, witness evidence or someone who can ID the suspect it becomes problematic.

You can have all the cctv in the world or ring doorbell footage. You are reliant on someone thinking that's Bob from 32 The High Street. Teams will put the data etc together but your average responce cop has another 101 things to remember as well.

By sheer volume the police move on to the next job where they hope they have the evidence to get a crime detected.

It's a numbers game and currently they don't have the time or resources to visit every job or do the reassurance bit. Even more so when people are taken off shifts for public order duties.
As I've said before it's why you rarely see cops walking a beat now. It's great for reassurance but senior officers don't measure or get measured on prevented crimes. It's not seen as a worthwhile use of an officer on 40k plus per year
 
Last edited:
Saintjay said:
If you don't have any of or a combination of forensic evidence, witness evidence or someone who can ID the suspect it becomes problematic.

You can have all the cctv in the world or ring doorbell footage. You are reliant on someone thinking that's Bob from 32 The High Street. Teams will put the data etc together but your average responce cop has another 101 things to remember as well.

By sheer volume the police move on to the next job where they hope they have the evidence to get a crime detected.

It's a numbers game and currently they don't have the time or resources to visit every job or do the reassurance bit. As I've said before it's why you rarely see cops walking a beat now. It's great for reassurance but senior officers don't measure or get measured on prevented crimes. It's not seen as a worthwhile use of an officer on 40k plus per year
Click to expand...

But knocking on doors to warn people against protesting is worthwhile?

I'd agree with you if it were not the case that officers are utilised to bully the population, and not turn up to theft or petty crime events.

If the claim is that police dont have resources, then why do they waste those valuable resources on 12000 arrests per year for section 1, and 127 ?
 
Saintjay said:
snip
Click to expand...

I completely understand that, and it's a real shame to see just how badly the police force has been decimated- it's why it was a pleasant surprise to see so many police officers walking around Bournemouth last Friday, because, having worked in a bar in the town centre, you rarely saw that a couple of years ago.

Unfortunately, so many of our biases and perceptions come from personal experience, so if you have been a victim of a robbery, had your phone stolen in the street etc., and you feel as though the police haven't put much effort into looking into the offence, and then you see Joe Bloggs has just been arrested/convicted of a status put on social media, which I believe garners more public attention than many other offences because it's a nice, inflammatory headline designed to get the "country's gone mad" "woke nonsense" crowd roused, then it's easy to see why you are unhappy about the apparent lack of effort put into your own case, whether the lack of effort is an accurate perception or not. You haven't got the vindication- the justice- you feel you deserve from an integral part of society- the system hasn't worked for you.
 
odw26 said:
I completely understand that, and it's a real shame to see just how badly the police force has been decimated- it's why it was a pleasant surprise to see so many police officers walking around Bournemouth last Friday, because, having worked in a bar in the town centre, you rarely saw that a couple of years ago.

Unfortunately, so many of our biases and perceptions come from personal experience, so if you have been a victim of a robbery, had your phone stolen in the street etc., and you feel as though the police haven't put much effort into looking into the offence, and then you see Joe Bloggs has just been arrested/convicted of a status put on social media, which I believe garners more public attention than many other offences because it's a nice, inflammatory headline designed to get the "country's gone mad" "woke nonsense" crowd roused, then it's easy to see why you are unhappy about the apparent lack of effort put into your own case, whether the lack of effort is an accurate perception or not. You haven't got the vindication- the justice- you feel you deserve from an integral part of society- the system hasn't worked for you.
Click to expand...
Thats great except the statistics reflect those feelings...

Take London, since 2016 snatch thefts have more than tripled, in fact phone and bag thefts were up 150% between 2024 and 2023.

London has become a ces pit that a number of other countries now put out traveller warnings about. UAE and Mexico give their people travel advice about London, not to mention Grance Canada, Aus, NZ and many more...

That isnt perception
 
ncurd said:
@TRF_Olyy seriously I've had enough and have had multiple members of the guy wrecking threads with comments designed rage and bait. Its not enough to ignore because how much he derails thread can we please for the love of god do something about it? Otherwise these political threads are a waste of time.
Click to expand...
#MeToo
 
dirty harry said:
Thats great except the statistics reflect those feelings...

Take London, since 2016 snatch thefts have more than tripled, in fact phone and bag thefts were up 150% between 2024 and 2023.

London has become a ces pit that a number of other countries now put out traveller warnings about. UAE and Mexico give their people travel advice about London, not to mention Grance Canada, Aus, NZ and many more...

That isnt perception
Click to expand...
Wow. Didn't know it was that bad. Are those government figures? Genuine question
 
McTallshort said:
Wow. Didn't know it was that bad. Are those government figures? Genuine question
Click to expand...

Easily Google able. I have family in both India and in laws in Germany who both want to know if its safe to fly into London! They request i pick them up as they land in most cases due to the media influence (well that and reality, I dont want to be in london for a second more than I need to).
 
dirty harry said:
snip
Click to expand...

I think you're making a case against a point no one is making. What I'm saying, and what I think @Saintjay was alluding to, is that because of the rise in those types of crime, the police don't have the resources to effectively look into each case and make a conviction. You could absolutely argue that more can be done to prevent these types of crime, and that resources would be better allocated elsewhere, but once the crime has been committed and, as you're pointed out, there are a lot of them, it's very difficult to thoroughly look into each of those cases when you're getting inundated with them.
 
odw26 said:
I think you're making a case against a point no one is making. What I'm saying, and what I think @Saintjay was alluding to, is that because of the rise in those types of crime, the police don't have the resources to effectively look into each case and make a conviction. You could absolutely argue that more can be done to prevent these types of crime, and that resources would be better allocated elsewhere, but once the crime has been committed and, as you're pointed out, there are a lot of them, it's very difficult to thoroughly look into each of those cases when you're getting inundated with them.
Click to expand...

I 100% agree with this stance, but the increase in these crimes, compared to the increase in police officers turning up at people's homes to discuss social media posts, or intent to attend protests absolutely adds to the perception that police only want to deal with easy criminalisations, and not actual crimes.

If the police are so stretched, and i believe they are, the prioritise theft, burglary, assault and the like over intent to protest posted on X.
 
www.huffpost.com

New Video Appears To Show When Israeli Settler Killed Palestinian Activist In West Bank

The footage shows Yinon Levi firing his gun toward the cameraman, Awdah Hathaleen, during a confrontation last month with unarmed Palestinians.
www.huffpost.com www.huffpost.com

apnews.com

A settler allegedly killed a Palestinian, and there's video. Israel released him to house arrest

A radical Israeli settler accused of shooting and killing a Palestinian activist during a confrontation with unarmed Palestinians in the occupied West Bank has been released to house arrest.
apnews.com apnews.com
 
dirty harry said:
Easily Google able. I have family in both India and in laws in Germany who both want to know if its safe to fly into London! They request i pick them up as they land in most cases due to the media influence (well that and reality, I dont want to be in london for a second more than I need to).
Click to expand...
Pulled em out your arse didn't you?
 
McTallshort said:
Pulled em out your arse didn't you?
Click to expand...
Thats more what I expected from you...

Don't worry about searching facts


Or truth,

www.lbc.co.uk

Foreign governments warning their citizens about visiting Britain amid soaring crime levels | LBC

France, Canada, New Zealand, the UAE, Australia and Mexico are some of the countries who have warned their citizens about travelling to Britain.
www.lbc.co.uk www.lbc.co.uk

Just have a whinge about something you dont want to believe.
 
dirty harry said:
Thats more what I expected from you...

Don't worry about searching facts


Or truth,

www.lbc.co.uk

Foreign governments warning their citizens about visiting Britain amid soaring crime levels | LBC

France, Canada, New Zealand, the UAE, Australia and Mexico are some of the countries who have warned their citizens about travelling to Britain.
www.lbc.co.uk www.lbc.co.uk

Just have a whinge about something you dont want to believe.
Click to expand...
Oh I'm more than happy when presented with the facts unfortunately you don't have a great track record when it comes to adding links that justify whatever point it is you're making.
 

Similar threads

Which Tyler
Proposed law changes - 2024 edition
Replies
9
Views
4K
AlRums
AlRums
JohnKA
ARK - The State
Replies
1
Views
3K
JohnKA
JohnKA
RoosTah
Is South African Rugby afraid of Rugby League?
2
Replies
26
Views
7K
TRF_stormer2010
TRF_stormer2010
snoopy snoopy dog dog
Brett Gosper: 3 Year Residency Rule to be changed?
2 3
Replies
44
Views
10K
Bruce_ma gooshvili
Bruce_ma gooshvili
TRF Mr Fish
All Black Watch - Week 2
Replies
10
Views
2K
TRF Mr Fish
TRF Mr Fish

Latest posts

Sponsored
UnlistMe
Back
Top