By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Kerouac to be banned? Yes or No? on 15:36 - Jun 21 by londonlisa2001
We have more police at the moment than we did in the 1980s. About 125,000 compared to 114,000 in 1980.
That’s far fewer than in 2010 (about 145,000) , but still higher than there ever used to be. Just as an example, in 1961 there was one police officer in England and Wales for every 807 people, now there’s 1 for every 450 people.
Do you feel safer? Or do you think there is a lot more crime? And if so, why? Will more and more investment in more and more police change it for the better, or will looking at the way our society is and changing that be a better use of resource?
The police have enormous resources invested in drugs, cyber crime, gang crime. Are the police best placed to deal with these issues?
Nobody has said anything about overnight. People are saying this can’t carry on - more police, more prison, more crime, more police in some never ending vicious circle that doesn’t make any of us safer. And affects some communities even worse than others.
It’s not Marxism. It’s common sense. It’s not working at the moment.
[Post edited 21 Jun 2020 15:40]
We also have a larger population and a bigger crime problem.
Kerouac to be banned? Yes or No? on 19:18 - Jun 21 by Kerouac
We also have a larger population and a bigger crime problem.
I quoted population number per police officer.
And you answer with ‘we’ve a larger population’. Lol.
And the ‘we’ve a bigger crime problem’ is the whole point of what I’ve said.
Adding more and more police doesn’t reduce the level of crime. Increasing prison numbers doesn’t reduce the level of crime.
Unless you believe that a baby born in 2020 is inherently more likely to be ‘bad’ than a baby born in 1950, there must be societal reasons why there is more crime. The purpose of ‘defund the police’ is trying to find ways to stop criminality rather than catching criminals. Throwing more money and resource at catching people and punishing them isn’t working - it’s never ending. Taking that money and trying to prevent people becoming criminals through education, support, community, family, opportunity, giving them hope, ambition and aspiration for their future is more sensible.
It’s exactly the same argument around health in this country. We have more and more need for more and more money in the NHS while we do little to prevent people becoming ill in the first place (we’ve removed playing fields and sports for kids, encouraged sedentary lifestyles, poor nutrition, poor living environments, we are talking about reducing food quality even further) which would be far more sensible in the longer term as a solution.
Where do you end - 200,000 police, 500,000 police? How big a percentage of the population locked up? It’s a nonsensical way of running things.
Kerouac to be banned? Yes or No? on 15:57 - Jun 22 by londonlisa2001
I quoted population number per police officer.
And you answer with ‘we’ve a larger population’. Lol.
And the ‘we’ve a bigger crime problem’ is the whole point of what I’ve said.
Adding more and more police doesn’t reduce the level of crime. Increasing prison numbers doesn’t reduce the level of crime.
Unless you believe that a baby born in 2020 is inherently more likely to be ‘bad’ than a baby born in 1950, there must be societal reasons why there is more crime. The purpose of ‘defund the police’ is trying to find ways to stop criminality rather than catching criminals. Throwing more money and resource at catching people and punishing them isn’t working - it’s never ending. Taking that money and trying to prevent people becoming criminals through education, support, community, family, opportunity, giving them hope, ambition and aspiration for their future is more sensible.
It’s exactly the same argument around health in this country. We have more and more need for more and more money in the NHS while we do little to prevent people becoming ill in the first place (we’ve removed playing fields and sports for kids, encouraged sedentary lifestyles, poor nutrition, poor living environments, we are talking about reducing food quality even further) which would be far more sensible in the longer term as a solution.
Where do you end - 200,000 police, 500,000 police? How big a percentage of the population locked up? It’s a nonsensical way of running things.
Fair play you are right there, I didn't bother to read the rest of your post after the first line or two, which is not something I normally do and wasn't very bright. I've just had a gutsful of it all at the moment.
Re: your point We can't possibly say what has changed, there are too many factors involved. Perhaps you're right. Perhaps more police on the streets means that more crime is policed which = more arrests. Perhaps less police did a better job of keeping a lid on violent crimes because they were allowed to police , stop and search in the areas where the knife crime most occurs for example. Perhaps our streets were safer in the 1950s because society had different cultural values to now.
I don't know and you don't know...but what I do know is that when our police force was cut after the financial crash, the parties on the left condemned those cuts... and now they support a movement that wants to defund the police. This way of thinking is why the Left has ceased to be trusted.
I agree with most of what you say on the NHS but then you spoil it with statements like; - "encouraged sedentary lifestyles", nobody has encouraged it, a deliberate malicious act. It is just a fact of moving up the chain to a post industrial society. Therein lies the problem with the left, they assume that they know what is going on in other people's minds and that what is going on in other people's minds is not good, the result of nasty motives...which puts me in mind of the David Starkey line on this; "If you can hear the dog whistle then it is you who is the dog"
Kerouac to be banned? Yes or No? on 15:57 - Jun 22 by londonlisa2001
I quoted population number per police officer.
And you answer with ‘we’ve a larger population’. Lol.
And the ‘we’ve a bigger crime problem’ is the whole point of what I’ve said.
Adding more and more police doesn’t reduce the level of crime. Increasing prison numbers doesn’t reduce the level of crime.
Unless you believe that a baby born in 2020 is inherently more likely to be ‘bad’ than a baby born in 1950, there must be societal reasons why there is more crime. The purpose of ‘defund the police’ is trying to find ways to stop criminality rather than catching criminals. Throwing more money and resource at catching people and punishing them isn’t working - it’s never ending. Taking that money and trying to prevent people becoming criminals through education, support, community, family, opportunity, giving them hope, ambition and aspiration for their future is more sensible.
It’s exactly the same argument around health in this country. We have more and more need for more and more money in the NHS while we do little to prevent people becoming ill in the first place (we’ve removed playing fields and sports for kids, encouraged sedentary lifestyles, poor nutrition, poor living environments, we are talking about reducing food quality even further) which would be far more sensible in the longer term as a solution.
Where do you end - 200,000 police, 500,000 police? How big a percentage of the population locked up? It’s a nonsensical way of running things.
Spot on Lisa I've read a few of ur posts and u see the bigger picture it's a fact of life. Some are more intelligent and quicker in their thoughts than others
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
