Cameron: "Cuts will change our way of life"

[VladimirIlyich]

It would be quite ironic if this street sweeper was a) Privately Employed and working for a private firm doing council jobs due to tendering rules and/or b) Just working his contracted hours as many people have to work bank holidays for no more than their normal hourly rate.

 

Maybe asking them if turning off the street lighting to save money has resulted in any deaths would be a better reason to write a letter to them?

[Lurtz]

It would be quite ironic if this street sweeper was a) Privately Employed and working for a private firm doing council jobs due to tendering rules and/or b) Just working his contracted hours as many people have to work bank holidays for no more than their normal hourly rate.

 

Maybe asking them if turning off the street lighting to save money has resulted in any deaths would be a better reason to write a letter to them?

 

Well not really. The street lighting on motorways and trunk roads is controlled by the Highways Agency who work on behlaf of the DofT, not local government.

[dickie mint]

Well not really. The street lighting on motorways and trunk roads is controlled by the Highways Agency who work on behlaf of the DofT, not local government.

 

 

Get yourself a lady friend and get a life.

[mattyq]

The wasted resources i see are the millions on the dole; the tax dodgers and multinationals who take from us and give nothing back; and the inept government following an a failed ideology that enriches the few at the expense of the many

[Stu Monty]

Really, you think that's what Lurtz is engaging in? :whatever:

 

It's a bit daft when someone can't even criticise local government unnecessarily paying double time without everyone jumping on him and calling him a rabid right winger.

 

If you paid everyone double wages all the time, we could only hire half as many people and councils could only do half as much for the same amount of money. It's obviously wasteful when a council's major function is to provide a public service.

 

You have evidence of this, right?

 

Remember the last time that I said I'd do your reading for you, and bring you relevant details, if you were willing to pay me for this service? Possibly following the last time you played this "It's all scaremongering!!" tactic (and then had to try and construct an argument that stated investigating crime, gathering evidence, forensics and detaining prisoners weren't core policing functions). Take those yellow rosettes of your eyes petal. There's a whole world of information out there if you actually want to look for it, but alas, there's the rub.

 

Like I say. If you want the evidence it'll be a tenner for wasting my time, fetching facts that will just bounce right off your yellow forcefield.

 

The actual tender document outlining the outsourcing of core policing didn't satisfy you last time, why on earth would I bother again?

[Strontium]

Like I say. If you want the evidence it'll be a tenner for wasting my time, fetching facts that will just bounce right off your yellow forcefield.

 

 

Facts never "bounce off" anything. And the idea that I should pay you for you to bother to substantiate your own arguments is as hilarious as it was the first time.

 

The actual tender document outlining the outsourcing of core policing didn't satisfy you last time, why on earth would I bother again?

 

 

How bemusing. I seem to recall sharing your unease at privatisation of police functions.

[dennis tooth]

That's not what it's about though is it thomo. It's about asking questions about wasted resources. It's not about one bloke in a sweeping van. Like I say, fair fucks to him but it's the bigger picture isn't it. IF this is a case of wasting resources, what else are they throwing money at which doesn't need doing? Are they throwing money for overtime around like a drunk centurian in a whorehouse or is this a contractual anomaly? Well hopefully we'll find out won't we.

 

What do you think of the pedestrianisation of Norwich city centre?

 

I'll be honest, I'm dead against it.

[Stu Monty]

Facts never "bounce off" anything. And the idea that I should pay you for you to bother to substantiate your own arguments is as hilarious as it was the first time.

 

How bemusing. I seem to recall sharing your unease at privatisation of police functions.

 

Yeah, you tend to be bad at recalling. That's a pretty clear problem to most people. You called it scaremongering and then tried to make out it wasn't a big issue as they wouldn't actually outsource core functions. Like they are doing. You did that because the fact it's happening makes the organisation you and your family have put a lot of time into look bad. Simple but true.

 

I'd dig out the posts but, you, I and everyone else aware of Post-Coalition SD know that would be a pointless venture. We all know already.

 

You demand to be informed of these bad things then when informed declare it cherry-picking. I'm not sure what volume of information you require to sate you but if you have no desire to dig into the piles of information uncovered by good investigative journalists (and you clearly don't, not at all, you'd rather grab the Orange book as a comforter) and wish to have a researcher at your command, you'll have to pay for that service.

 

Like I've said before, I don't know if you being ignorant of what's happening would be better than you being aware and misrepresenting it in the name of a political allegiance. It probably would be but I think it's the latter. I think most people on here do too. Sadly.

 

"They won't privatise core police functions; it's scaremongering!"

[VladimirIlyich]

Well not really. The street lighting on motorways and trunk roads is controlled by the Highways Agency who work on behlaf of the DofT, not local government.

 

Well this is another part of the same road that Sect complained about the lighting being switched off to save money on another thread so I'll tell him to reserve his wrath for the Highways Agency instead.

[Strontium]

Yeah, you tend to be bad at recalling. That's a pretty clear problem to most people. You called it scaremongering and then tried to make out it wasn't a big issue as they wouldn't actually outsource core functions. Like they are doing. You did that because the fact it's happening makes the organisation you and your family have put a lot of time into look bad. Simple but true.

 

I'd dig out the posts but, you, I and everyone else aware of Post-Coalition SD know that would be a pointless venture. We all know already.

 

 

I'm not even sure what it is I'm being accused of here, but here are some posts that I actually did go to the trouble of digging up, because I figured at least one of us should be arguing from a position of evidence.

 

But of course outsourcing of a handful of police functions isn't privatisation of the police. Of course it isn't. Having the police canteen run by a private company isn't privatisation of the police. Having Office Depot supply the police stationery isn't privatisation of the police. Etc etc.

I wouldn't say pretty much all, but it's clear there's a lot "on the table". That doesn't mean everything will be privatised. As the document makes clear, only some activities will be contracted out and that some activities (the bulk of them) will continue to be done by the police.

 

At most I will stretch to calling it partial privatisation.

 

Interesting to note that any contracts will have to be rubber stamped by the new police commissioner. So if you don't want any police functions to be privatised, go ahead and vote for someone who won't countenance it.

Quite obviously, I would be extremely uncomfortable with privatisation of any core police functions. I don't know a lot about it, it's not a government thing, this is something the police are doing.

 

 

Seems my recollection was pretty accurate after all.

 

"They won't privatise core police functions; it's scaremongering!"

 

 

So which police forces have privatised core police functions? I mean, if you're arguing that they have been, then you must have a source for it.

[Anny Road]

Like I say. If you want the evidence it'll be a tenner for wasting my time, fetching facts that will just bounce right off your yellow forcefield.

 

 

Ha the commie has gone capitalist. Sounds like Red Ken.

 

Of course I'll attend the annual Morning Star dinner, but I want ice cold Bollinger. Melon balls a pink dressing room.

[Thomo123]

Oh dear. The sunshine bus has just arrived and dickie's driving. I'm off to bed.

 

Flaneur - you've just proved what a load of shit you're talking about by dragging that conversation up and posting it. Well done. Like I said - wrong.

 

Night divs.

 

x

 

Edit: Thomo. Yes. And that's the big picture. But how do we change the big things? I've no idea, have you? Voting for this government or that governmant makes not a jot of difference from what I can see. One of them fucks the country in a slightly different way to the other. They're all cunts in my book and I don't know how to make a difference.

 

Its definately not a simple solution. Personally i dont think anything will change until we are all totally fucked....all you can do is educate yourself aswell as those around you. Its got to start somewhere....the birds in your office for a start :whistle:

[Stu Monty]

I'm not even sure what it is I'm being accused of here, but here are some posts that I actually did go to the trouble of digging up, because I figured at least one of us should be arguing from a position of evidence.

 

Seems my recollection was pretty accurate after all.

 

Yes, that recollection of initially calling the whole thing scaremongering, then squirming about and making bizarre claims that people who go to the effort of making sure things are on the table in a privatisation push don't actually want to privatise those things. Inventing themes in the document like that it "makes clear only some will be contracted out" because that's an idea you're more comfortable with. It sits better with your view on how things work. Then hilariously making out the police force did this of their own accord without direction from goverment. Apparently if I wasn't in the room at the time I can't make the obvious statement that these sort of things (wedge documents from one force under the name of all other forces in the land) don't get done without agreement from above. It takes either staggering naivety or willful denial to fight that fight. I think it's the second with you.

 

You'll keep trying to take the edge of what's happening and misrepresent is because you feel more comfortable doing that given the hours of your life you've put into the party allowing it to happen.

 

Like I say, if you wanted to be enlightened, you would be. You don't want to be. You'd rather pretend it's not happening. I could give you a dozen exaples and you'd call it cherry picking. You'd say that's BAD privatisation, not GOOD privatisation. We'd get nowhere because you don't want to get anywhere.

 

You're ignorant or mendacious to what's going on, I think it's the second and I'm not willing to keep up dancing with you to keep up the charade that you give a fuck what the "facts" are.

[Strontium]

You are an absolute prize twat, you know that?

 

Me being ignorant or mendacious aren't the only two options, there's also option three: Stu Monty is full of shit.

 

For instance:

 

Inventing themes in the document like that it "makes clear only some will be contracted out" because that's an idea you're more comfortable with. It sits better with your view on how things work.

 

It's not something I've invented, it's pulled straight from the tender document:

 

It is anticipated that the strategic partner will also directly manage some services with the forces. However, for reasons of policing specialism, operational risk and public confidence, some activities will necessarily continue to be delivered by police forces.

 

 

So where's the invention? What part of "some activities will necessarily continue to be delivered by police forces" don't you understand?

 

 

You'll keep trying to take the edge of what's happening and misrepresent is because you feel more comfortable doing that given the hours of your life you've put into the party allowing it to happen.

 

 

It's fair to say you don't know the first thing about me. "Hours of my life I've put into the party"? Puhlease. I reckon I've put about 10 hours into "the party" so far this year. That's about as much time as I've spent scratching my balls. I don't have the investment you seem to think that I do.

[VladimirIlyich]

Haha,I love it when Stronts acts all offended and calls somebody a twat and then in a page or two tries to take the moral high ground by saying it was another poster who made it personal.

[Stu Monty]

It's fair to say you don't know the first thing about me. "Hours of my life I've put into the party"? Puhlease. I reckon I've put about 10 hours into "the party" so far this year. That's about as much time as I've spent scratching my balls. I don't have the investment you seem to think that I do.

 

See, you're a slippery one when it comes to facts. Your life didn't start this year and the investment I think you have is that of someone who has not only had his parents representing the yellows for years but also stood to get on the council. So, you know, a decent investment in not having them become a laughing stock.

 

I probably shouldn't have said "Inventing themes" as it's more of creating the narrative you want in your head from the document. You see a post about privatising the police force: you immediately call it scaremongering regardless of the fact you haven't got any information to hand. Then, even though you apparently have deep concerns about this, you make no effort to follow up this concern by informing yourself (as usual you demand the evidence so you can, hopefully, fingers crossed, find a way to dismiss it and continue with the odd wordlview you have on privatisation).

 

That you, a man with deep concerns over privatising core policing functions, could look at that document listing everything that's up for sale and then fall back onto the child-like belief that it's okay because the people who want this to happen won't sell it all, they'll keep SOME of it, is telling of your motives in these discussions. As does your following claims that this is a police thing and has nothing to do with government.

 

When confronted with the realites of privatisation you bizarrely ignore and dismiss them, and then call it cherry picking. That only comes from ignorance to the reality of what is going on or mendacity.

 

Now given I made that school comment a while ago, a curious person who cares about these sort of things wouldn't need me to inform them. Someone who actually wanted to know what I was referring to could have informed themselves easily.

 

I presume you'd still rather I did your legwork though. That's the problem here. There are none so blind...

[Stu Monty]

One that seems to have flown under the radar a bit:

 

House of Commons General Committee : Draft Social Security (Civil Penalties) Regulations 2012 (19 June 2012)

 

£50 fine for not giving the correct details to the DWP. Not particularly a bad idea; but if only they could work as tirelessly to try and dissuade tax avoidance from the very rich.

 

If only Cameron had someone at the family dinner table he could chat with who knew what the loopholes were that needed to be closed. You know, like a father figure.

[Strontium]

See, you're a slippery one when it comes to facts. Your life didn't start this year and the investment I think you have is that of someone who has not only had his parents representing the yellows for years but also stood to get on the council. So, you know, a decent investment in not having them become a laughing stock.

 

 

This year, last year, whatever year. I've only ever stood to make up the numbers, didn't stand this year, and neither of my parents are even members of the party any more. Hell, my father even used the exact words "laughing stock" about Nick Clegg on the BBC six o'clock news last May. I have virtually no "investment" to speak of. As I said, you obviously barely know the first thing about me.

 

I probably shouldn't have said "Inventing themes" as it's more of creating the narrative you want in your head from the document. You see a post about privatising the police force: you immediately call it scaremongering regardless of the fact you haven't got any information to hand.

 

 

It would be insanity to privatise the police force. Politicians aren't insane, therefore it's not going to happen. This is how logic works. You're a fine one to talk about creating the narrative you want in this instance.

 

Then, even though you apparently have deep concerns about this, you make no effort to follow up this concern by informing yourself (as usual you demand the evidence so you can, hopefully, fingers crossed, find a way to dismiss it and continue with the odd wordlview you have on privatisation).

 

 

The last thing I read about this said that both West Mids and Surrey (the two forces mentioned in this tender document) had knocked the idea on the head. I'm not aware of any change since then, which is why I'm requesting evidence of any new developments. Not because I'm too lazy to look for myself, but because I would have expected to read something about it if there had been any new developments.

[Magic Sponge]

Monty has got a hard on for privatisation.

 

'You're not Jason Bourne, your real name is David Webb'.

[KopOut]

Should be a good read.

 

Positive Money » Where Does Money Come From? (Book)

[Section_31]

Monty has got a hard on for privatisation.

 

'You're not Jason Bourne, your real name is David Webb'.

 

What was your experience of private firms in your army days mate? Did you come up against them often?

[VladimirIlyich]

 

What was your experience of private firms in your army days mate? Did you come up against them often?

 

I thought the Army was now a Private firm?

[TheBitch]

Politicians aren't insane...

 

 

 

I dunno about that, man. You seen them ones in the U.S.?

[Thomo123]

 

I dunno about that' date=' man. You seen them ones in the U.S.?[/quote']

 

http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gnm/op/sWVnmxu3Iwg-CN7UW24NA7A/view.m?id=15&gid=world/2012/aug/30/paul-ryans-speech-audacious-untruths&cat=most-read

 

 

Indeed......

[Skidfingers McGonical]

It would be insanity to privatise the police force. Politicians aren't insane, therefore it's not going to happen. This is how logic works. You're a fine one to talk about creating the narrative you want in this instance.

 

I wouldn't hold your breath on that Stronts.

 

They already tender contracts with West Midlands for Training their force. And that is a fact as my arl fella runs some of the training on a regular basis.

 

There are other aspects of the force all around the country that are being pushed to look at the possibility.

 

And politicians may not be insane when they start out on the political ladder, but once they move up the ladder in the political world and the money men start dictating how they will only donate to the party if there is something in it for them.

 

Hence the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.