If demand exceeds supply you have to ration resources. You can’t reduce police resources & then criticise them for not doing everything. For same reason, frontline officers are being prevented from delivering the service they want to give & then they’re being criticised. Unfair.
-
-
Replying to @brianpaddick
Is it as simple as demand and supply? The nature of crime has changed. Some crime has fallen, some is up. Huge investment in technology and new working practices is needed. The answer isn't just more people or money, which doesn't necessarily create forces fit for the future.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RichTWarms
Loss of & lack of human resources means little/no visible policing presence on streets = real & significant increase in violent crime. Lack of investment in technology means poor response to new crime types. Both the result of failure of government to provide sufficient resources
5 replies 2 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @brianpaddick
Is that correlation or causality evidence you're quoting? I know feet on streets has been shown to reduce some times of crime, and traffic police reduction means little enforcement of poor behaviour of all types of road user. But how many police understand statistical analysis?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RichTWarms
Too many variables to scientifically prove causation but recently ex-offender told me lack of Safer Neighbourhood Team made her feel less safe & she now carries a knife for protection.
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @brianpaddick
That's an anecdote. Takes you to Brexit: "Well your evidence might say... But in my area, I've seen... Those People doing / not doing... You must do something". Not good politics or policing. Too many variables in working out how to cure disease too? Hard graft evidence matters.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @RichTWarms
What evidence do you have that increase in violent crime is not due to a reduction in police resources?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @brianpaddick
I'm slightly incredulous to be asked that question in return from a serving politician and Liberal Democrat. Progress is made on hypotheses, study, numbers, evidence - not on hunches and anecdote. Good governance, science, use of resources. This isn't a tit for tat conversation.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
A reasonable hypothesis is one that provides a strong & simple explanation for the observation. It stands unless & until there is evidence to disprove it or there is a stronger or simpler hypothesis. In the absence of an alternative or evidence, my hypothesis stands. Your move.
-
-
Replying to @brianpaddick
Wow. I think it's best left there if you have no evidence. Disappointed in standards of our democracy. Not against fair resourcing. Far from it. Against polarised debate and spending based on anecdote without statistical causation evidence . "Your move" I'd expect from Trump.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.