The Tory way of governance

The police have also requested that peadophiles be group into risk and no risk, because they don't have e man power to deal with it. Apparently just looking at a child being abused doesn't count as risk. Never mind a child has had to suffer in the first place.

Paedophile!

I agree there is plenty of room for improvement but my perception is that there is a vast change and one of the reasons - and one of the proofs - is that there are now more women in senior positions. Head of the Met even!
The priority given to domestic abuse will vary between forces - and the priorities are set by (elected) police and crime commissioners. So we can complain to them. Just dropped a line to Writetothem.com to ask if they can add PCCs to their useful website.
If you want a reminder of how much policing has changed, watch the first series of Life on Mars if you can track it down.
One thing I did notice, when the school where I was a governor had dealings with Thames Valley - police used to go around in pairs. Even if they were having a meeting with a headteacher and chair of govs. Whereas the community policing people (can't remember their job title) were out on their own on their push bikes. On one occasion there was a scary fight outside the school and while teachers moved towards the fray to help, the chap on the bike retreated up the road.
Or if you want a laugh (and if you were a fan of Shameless and enjoy a fairly rough and ready kind of humour) watch No Offence on Channel 4 catch up. Best female cop series since Cagney and Lacey (we did love C and L back in the 20th C didn't we folks. Saturday nights were never the same...)

Another Tory policy in crisis.

www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/theresa-may-welfare-cuts-million-children-poverty-institute-fiscal-studies-uk-government-a7606236.html

Going to rise by 900,000 by 2022. Doesn't matter what definition of poverty you use, it's a despicable policy.

whitewave - I read the interview with the senior police officer, having read/heard the shorthand which suggested he was saying offenders who "simply" looked at images of children didn't pose a direct threat to children
What was clear from the interview was the senior officer stated the police are overwhelmed by the number of investigations into historical/current sexual abuse of children. He talked about the need to prioritise where to put limited resources. He did not say that men/women looking at such images didn't pose a thread, what I heard was he said they didn't (necessarily) need to be imprisoned. There would need to be a comprehensive risk assessment. He acknowledged that many individuals who start by looking at images of children being sexually abused, go on to abuse live children.

What I can't get my mind around is the level of paedophilia in the country. What on earth has happened???

With the Tories budget next week I thought it would be good to see John McDonnell's speech today but I cannot find any of it except on Facebook however the questions asked afterwards are here

If you go to the Labour FB page you can see the speech.

labourlist.org/2017/03/mcdonnell-the-nhs-is-in-a-state-of-profound-crisis-because-the-tories-ignore-it/

The speech.

Probably always been there whitewave. The only thing that has changed is the internet and the easy availability of visual images.
Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henry VII was married off to an older man at 12 and gave birth to Henry at 13.
And it's only about 150 years since boys and men were imprisoned together... back in the time of Great Expectations.

The point is I can't see how the police officer can say that where the idiot is just looking but not touching there is less risk. What about the child being looked at, isn't he/she a victim?

whitewave, that's the key point, that the image is of a real child, who was being abused so yes, the individual looking at that image is contributing to that abuse. As for your question about the extent of abuse of children, it's always been significant in all societies. I suspect that the easy access to images of that kind of abuse on line, along with ease of access to various types of pornography will lead to an increase in the sexual abuse of children and of adult sexual partners.
Men (and women) who access images of children being abused do so because they find it sexually arousing. Once images have been viewed, it's more than possible that the excitement gained needs to increase so more depraved images are viewed and the perpetrator my find his/her people out their on the dark web or they may find children in their family or friendship circle are easy to draw into sexual behaviour which escalates along with the child's fear of telling anyone.

The police officer was, if I understood him properly, suggesting that a risk assessment would determine whether someone looking at images posed an immediate risk to children, what the level of that risk developing was etc. I have friends who work with perpetrators, I worked with victims/survivors. I am not enthusiastic about current perpetrator programmes because I believe that one's sexual interest tends to be fixed.

www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/canada-is-giving-a-home-to-1200-yazidi-refugees/

Another reason to feel ashamed of the government.

Tories reassuming the nasty party mantle.

www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/03/bereavement-benefits-cut-to-help-people-readjust-to-life-as-single-parents

Quite incredible reasoning.

Thanks for putting the speech up Jen.

Next week, the Chancellor will stand up in Parliament to deliver his first – and last – spring Budget.
He will no doubt want to paint a rosy picture of progress since the Autumn Statement, just a few months ago.
But if progress has been so significant, and all is going so well – why is the government continuing to pursue spending cuts?
From the NHS to social care, from prisons to education, our public services are in crisis.

Good question - where is the Tory answer?

inews.co.uk/essentials/news/banning-food-distribution-calais-gifting-unattended-children-traffickers/

Just been reading this. Yes, it's in France, but they've gone back to Calais because of the Tories washing their hands of the problem.

I saw that headline yesterday but did not read the article. For a month or so many children who have gradually gone back to Calais are sleeping outside the town in wood and scrubland. The volunteers have been going around in the dark looking for them and distributing clothing and blankets etc and some food but of course it cannot be the hot meals they were giving previously.

Obviously the sort of news that it's unhealthy for us to read, but it's more unhealthy for the children of Calais.

Why do the Tories not see that they would get some kudos for sorting this out, and for allowing the EU citizens who have been living here to stay?

May already has the backing of every brexiteer. If she wants the backing of the remain group, it's easy to get just by being a bit conciliatory.

250,000 said to be on the march for the NHS today.
Will the Tories take any notice?

inews.co.uk/essentials/news/health/nhs-march-placards-cuts-london-corbyn/

' The Department of Health insists that its plans will help sustain the NHS for future generations, with a spokesperson saying: “We are committed to the NHS which is why we’re investing £10bn in its own plan for the future, including £4bn extra this year to transform services and improve standards of care.” '

What did they miss out of this?
How long have they been saying it?
How many times have they been told they are lying?
They must have very selective hearing.

Maybe the Tories don't need any more kudos?

Petra when going into a negotiation in which you are hoping for a win-win outcome it is never a good idea to antagonise your opponent and always a good idea to build those positive vibes. The starting point for the UK is not good - why would the other governments be seriously peed off with us and the leaders that caused this state of affairs.
Heading for a lose-lose at the moment.

There is an article in the Economist (March 4 -10) which talks about the NHS and says there is "little dispute about the present system's dire condition" and that Mays government has three possible choices, having already raided the separate capital budget for long-term investment moving £950m into its revenue budget in 2015-2016 which they say they will probably have to do again. The three long-term possibilities are:

Put in more cash. As a percentage of GDP spending on the NHS has been falling steadily since 2010. Mr Hammond has repeatedly said there is no new money available so may find this difficult.

The second suggestion they give is to promote new models of care in the NHS using the STPs that are being drawn up. The article points out that recent reports say that these lack executive authority, a constant vision and would need pooled budgets commissioned by a single body.

The article sees the last suggested solution is the most controversial - raising more money by either a social insurance system or inheritance levy. It draws on the German example of deduction from pay or, thinking of the young, without houses or pensions, a levy on estates worth over a certain amount.

It points out that everything is on the table currently and suggests the government is prepared to think the unthinkable - we shall soon see.

Everything on the table? They forgot to tell the Department of Health spokesperson.

www.indy100.com/article/warnings-homeless-charities-government-housing-benefit-cuts-young-people-7611016

Another u-turn on her Downing Street statement.

Do you think May will take any notice of Gove?

www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/04/brexit-campaigners-theresa-may-guarantee-eu-citizens-rights