Michael Moore on the Election

izzythepush wrote:

You did not give the source, just some horseshit about the home office figures. My source had a link so it was proof I wasn't talking bollocks. It amazes me that you think anyone from the UK would actually believe such nonsense. You have to be really stupid to think that's going to fly.

7 police shootings last year, not 160,000. That was an obvious lie, the sort a kid would tell.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-use-of-firearms-statistics-england-and-wales-april-2015-to-march-2016/police-use-of-firearms-statistics-england-and-wales-april-2015-to-march-2016

Quote:

Home Office firearms incident figures for the year April 1 2015 to 31 March 2016

Headline figures

There were a total of 14,753 police firearms operations in the year ending March 2016; this represents a slight increase of 68 (0.5%) police firearms operations when compared with the previous year.

In the year ending March 2016, 85% of firearms operations involved Armed Response Vehicles (ARVs), compared with 84% in the previous year.

There were seven incidents in which police discharged firearms in the year ending March 2016, up from six incidents in the previous year.

There were 5,639 authorised firearms officers (AFOs) on 31 March 2016; a decrease of eight AFOs when compared with the previous year

There were 126,766 police officers in England and Wales on 31 March 2016.

A "police firearms operation" is any operation in which the use of firearms has authorised. This does not necessarily mean that weapons were drawn or used.

The United Kingdom had a murder rate of 0.9 per 100,000 inhabitants in 2013, whereas the United States rate was 3.9 per 100,000.

No link, and your Telegraph story, (also no link,) is about a rise in the use of armed units which is now under review.

Still nothing to back up your spurious figure of 15,000. The real figure is seven. Put up or shut up.

Anecdotal evidence from a highly dubious source means nothing. Sounds about as true as your 15,000 bogus figure.

Contrex didn't make the claim. You did and you couldn't provide a link, and the figure Contrex sourced is far lower than 15,000. And it's about deployment not use. You set out to mislead suggesting 15,000 incidents. The real figure is seven.

Don't you know how to post links? There are threads on it.

I think it's a common tactic.

You knew your figures were misleading so you didn't provide a link. When the true figure is 7, inflating incidences by 47 is dishonest. You're not filling out an expenses claim now, so less of the fantasy.

In answer to your original question, and remembering that the figure 14,753 refers to deployments, and includes routine deployments like guarding parliament, royalty, airports etc. I don't think that 14753 is at all excessive with a population of 66.1 million.




You were being dishonest by trying to suggest that shootings by police in Britain were far more common than they really are. The real figure is 7, and it's the only one that bears analysis.

Your blowhard posts aren't fooling anyone. You didn't provide a link for the same reason you didn't use the quote function for your Torygraph article, you don't know how to do it. Instead of being honest and asking for help you continue with this nonsense. Having a big gob and a gun may help you persuade shackled prisoners that black is white, but it cuts no ice here.

If you can't debate facts and figures, (not fantasy and prejudice,) honestly, you shouldn't be debating anything at all. In that respect you need to take a leaf out of Thomas Gradgrind's book, although in other respects, stubborn pig-headedness, and an inability to see the big picture, you're just like him.