If the BBC admits something negative about a Tory minister, it’s a signal event – and it seems that Home Secretary Amber Rudd’s attempt to claim that the rise in serious and violent crime has nothing to do with police cuts was a step to far for at least one BBC journalist – Danny Shaw.
Mr Shaw had already been on something of a roll this morning, tweeting of his surprise that Rudd should claim she hadn’t seen the Home Office’s – her own department’s – report stating that police cuts were likely to be a cause of the crime rise and the questions it raised:
But he went further at lunchtime when talking to BBC News’ Carol Walker – pointing out that Rudd had ‘sidestepped’ questions about the complete absence of any mention of cuts in the one hundred and fourteen-page report on Tory policing plans:
Ms Rudd’s wilful ignorance of the obvious effects of 21,000 fewer police officers on the streets of England and Wales has already drawn fire from Labour front-benchers, at least one of whom wondered on social media whether she was being deliberately misleading or completely incompetent.
Over on Sky News last New Year, one expert commentator was scathing of Tory claims, telling viewers, “It’s horrendous out there” and insisting that the situation is entirely because of the government’s cuts:
Amber Rudd seems to think Police cuts have no effect on violent crime… Perhaps we should listen to people that actually know about these things?
Oh, I don't know, like… Police officers? pic.twitter.com/ymwSZpFI2a
— EL4C (@EL4JC) April 9, 2018
Amber Rudd can stick her head in the sand and avoid questions all she wishes. The reality is obvious to laypeople and police experts alike – and so obvious even the BBC struggles to avoid facing it:
Cuts kill – and policing cuts are no different.
The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.
If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
Because of her obvious incompetence I was prompted to have a quick look at her career prior to being an MP. Just a quick glance at her Wikipedia page and this article in the Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/sep/21/amber-rudd-monticello-ill-fated-step-complicated-career-bahamas-leaks
It appears to reveal a career built on nepotism and the directorships of several rather dodgy companies, including offshore investment companies, which all seem to have folded under various clouds. (odd she doesn’t seem to want to talk about this)
I must admit I was somewhat surprised, its hardly the career history you would expect from a Home Sec.
I disagree, it’s entirely what I would think about anything these Tory ministers past history hold, along with the Home Sec!
You forgot to mention she was a “BIT ACTOR”!
In my opinion, she was “CRAP” at that to!
Rudd also said that Police Commissioner Dick said there was no correlation between the rise in crime and the cuts.In fact Dick refused to be drawn in to a political argument ,but did agree the force was stretched.
Number of police is one of the reason for recent dreadful killings, of course. But the government policies disunite communities, is the real reason for the problem. If communities are united less likely these incidents happen and could prevent. In my opinion, in general bullying and favouritism are encouraged than discouraged from top people to bottom. You can see in the Parliament debate. Who is bullying whom?
Makes me wonder how rudd ever got the job…
https://youtu.be/wyqBEvcCKy8
And they call themselves the party of ‘law and order’.
Richard Dennis.