Manchester happened because we cut the police force

So what can we do? And what have we got wrong? Jon Snow hit two targets entirely appropriately on Channel 4 last night when interviewing Mucahel Fallon. He laid two charges against him. The first was that that last two governments, and maybe Labour before that, had been negligent in reducing police numbers: 19,000 police officers have gone since 2010. The number of armed police has halved.

This, Jon Snow suggested, is why we have troops on the street. Government cuts have forced us to the situation where people untrained for the task are now protecting key installations from attack. This, he rightly said, represents a failure of government to undertake its most basic duty.


We appear to be back where we were in 2003 just before Brown started the splurge the wealth of the nation upon more state dependents.

32 thoughts on “Manchester happened because we cut the police force”

  1. Armed police are volunteers. It might well be that a few of them have decided not to volunteer after watching their colleagues get thrown to the wolves every time they shoot somebody no matter how justified it might be e.g. Mark Duggan. And which set of people has been the most vociferous in attacking armed police after incidents like that? Jon fucking Snow and his ilk.

  2. One of the Twitter lot spent most of yesterday posting job adverts from various police forces. When you see the job title, description, and salary attached to each, you will be hard pressed to believe that “cuts” are the issue.

  3. Government cuts have forced us to the situation where people untrained for the task are now protecting key installations from attack.

    Makes you wonder what the military does train for.

  4. One of the things we got wrong is not to have hanged the likes of Jon fvcking Snow from the end of Westminster Pier by his ridiculous socked ankles until he could whine no more.

  5. Bloke in Wiltshire

    Fuck that noise. The police have plenty of resources to knock on doors of people posting offensive things on Twitter or warning people not to do things that aren’t even a crime. When you have money to do that, you have money to do your real job.

  6. Where’s the money they’ve been handing to centrol gov from their highway robbery racket gone?

    If that ain’t paying off for them, how about they drop it and do some real policework?

  7. So a 14% reduction in police numbers & an 18% cut in police spending, over 7 years, has resulted in a 6% fall in crime, just counting the latest year.
    I like those numbers.
    Can’t we sack them all?

  8. “A failure of government to undertake its most basic duty.”

    The main thing that stops governments from undertaking their most basic duties is politicians frittering away limited resources on things that aren’t duties at all.

  9. On this morning’s Daily Politics, John Prescott confirmed the answer to all our problems is ‘lots’ more public servants. … I liked Suzanne Evans rejoinder, “John, although a brain surgeon, even you would admit…

  10. Of course, Ritchie being Spud immediately assumes evil corporation tells people to randomly fuck off, rather than thinking he’s get a scam call from India

    Perhaps they were inviting him to seek inspiration for one of his blog posts?

  11. Face it, we can’t monitor 3,000 nutters 24/7.

    As Colonel Richard Kemp is now openly saying, we need to deport as many of them as fast as possible to make the numbers more manageable.

    And then deport all the others ASAP.

    Of course this would require abolishing the Human Rights Act, which Theresa May indicated in the Tory manifesto, would remain for at least 5 more years.

  12. dearieme

    Quite. Ernest Gowers, Complete Plain Words: “Dependants are dependent on the person whose dependants they are.”

  13. @BraveFart

    Exactly, Jon Snow asking what can we do about the problem when his gang’s left-wing cockrot is the root cause. That’s some brass neck.

  14. Johnnydub said: “Face it, we can’t monitor 3,000 nutters 24/7.”

    There are usually reports of these people being ‘known to the authorities’ to varying degrees. I assume, the security services being reasonably competent and all that, that the authorities have considered the possibility that jihadis would seek to become informants about others in order to obscure their own plans, and guard against it.

  15. A person decides to commit mass murder.

    WTF does the number of police officers have to do with it? It is a complete non sequitur.

    Here’s a clue: a person about to commit mass murder looks around to make sure there are no cops around before he starts.

    It is physically impossible to have cops EVERYWHERE. So the notion that you can prevent mass murder by having more cops must be discarded. AND, you need to examine the motives of those suggesting more cops are needed.

    5,000 troops on the street is nominal. They are there for appearance, not to stop mass murder. It simply can’t be done.

  16. If we had 19,000 more police officers and more of them armed – the bomber was quite capable of doing the same thing.

    We’ve used soldiers multiple times to guard buildings. They can do that. In fact that’s part of what those soldiers are trained for.

    Means the police that would otherwise have to guard those buildings can be used to do other police work.
    Its also a highly visible deterrent – doesn’t actually make you safer but gives a visible idea that government is doing something.
    Any terrorist with a bit of smarts will find a different target or come back a different day.
    Or maybe try taking out one squaddie rather than a hall full of kids.

  17. I don’t think any terrorist organisation has ever been stopped by officers at the front line. There are three ways:

    1) infiltrate or penetrate them at source;

    2) negotiate;

    3) waiting for the terror to have no long-term effect and the bombers get sick of dying for nothing.

    The options available here are 1) and 3).

  18. Chester, after 11/9 there were apparently people stopped by the police in America for Driving while Arab.
    But stopping them for terrorism offences? Usually you won’t hear of that unless the police / government want to use it as PR.
    They can say ‘we stopped 4 attacks this year’ which may well involve police arrests of terrorist. But the details won’t become public much of the time.

  19. I would have thought an event of that size there would be some police presence, certainly assume they would be aware of it and plan for the change in traffic/crowds etc.

  20. Bloke in North Dorset


    “We’ve used soldiers multiple times to guard buildings. They can do that. In fact that’s part of what those soldiers are trained for.”

    Yes, it’s called Militray Aid to the Civil Powers (MACP) and is one of the first things you learn about as a recruit. My first experiences of it was helping to search fields near Harrogate after Donald Neilson (aka Black Panther) shot a sub-post master in 1974.

    Another is the more well known Military Aid to the Civil Cimmunity e.g. Helping out when there’s been some flooding.

  21. @Chester

    Correct. And I’m pretty sure (1) is already going on. Since we’ve been waiting >1300 years for (3), I’m not holding my breath.

  22. Front line cops have certainly stopped situations from getting worse. That bird in Texas who organised a “draw Muhammad” competition (I had to admit I laughed), couple of chaps from the religion of pieces turned up all truculent-like and ended up getting flat-packed by a local sheriff. Happened a few times in France and Northern Ireland too to my knowledge.

    (Incidentally, in the Texas incident I believe the FBI were almost egging the two shooters on; strangely little has come out about this to date.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *