Funding problems at Glasgow Rape Crisis

[Udayana]

I was talking to a social worker yesterday about this case and he said it’s inhumane. In his experience a lot of these decisions are made by tick box and bare data rather than looking at individual projects on their merits and the the humans involved at the forefront of the decision making process.

He also made the point that prevention is always, always cheaper. Why axe something that may relieve at least some of the demand on the crisis service, not to mention saving young lives from the consequences of sex crime?

These points seem fine in general, but to deal with any particular case you need the facts pertaining directly to it.

[Nearly Sane]

What balderdash! Both organisations were probably entirely honest and correct throughout. It is just that the "debate" was not based on any verified facts.
 
And as for approving or condemning the outcomes of entirely hypothetical cases .. ? Really?

  How did you assess probability here? Given that bot h contradict each other how could they both be correct.


And hypothetical cases are often used, do you just throw your hands up when asked a hypothetical, and go 'Really!' Really? Also not really clear what hypothetical you are referring to.