Tory Home Secretary claims police cuts have nothing to do with crime.

Printable View

10-04-2018, 10:07 PM
hungryfront

Tory Home Secretary claims police cuts have nothing to do with crime.

Amber Rudd (from the party that managed to lose its majority in 2017, despite the fact their leader timed the election in her favour after promising she wouldn't hold an election in 2017) has claimed that cutting police numbers doesn't lead to a rise in crime. The facts of the matter are that a smaller police force means that more crime will be inevitable. Whilst the right continue to blame Sadiq, they ignore the basic fact that crime prevention does actually prevent crime.

Cutting police numbers changes the mentality of criminals, meaning they're likely to believe they can get away with whatever they want. This, combined with a rising population (and therefore more tax being payed by default), would surely mean more police are needed? Not according to Amber Rudd. It is frankly uncomprehensible that the Home Secretary of one of the most successful countries in the world (despite the immense cuts by the current government) doesn't understand that police and crime have a link. If they didn't, we'd all be much better off with no police and our tax money being put into the NHS. Careful - soon she'll be claiming hospitals have nothing to do with healthcare.

Amber Rudd and her predecessor, the then-Home Secretary Theresa May have between them cut 21000 police officers in Britain since 2011. Somehow, readers of the Daily Mail don't seem to get this and are instead blaming crime on the "bloody immigrants". It's a shame that Theresa May pledged to get immigration numbers down to 100,000 but got them to 330,000 (which is 330% of what she promised.)

Wake up, Britain.
10-04-2018, 10:51 PM
FlyingJesus

Quote:

Originally Posted by hungryfront

Amber Rudd (from the party that managed to lose its majority in 2017, despite the fact their leader timed the election in her favour after promising she wouldn't hold an election in 2017)

Both Labour and Conservatives had hugely increased vote shares, with Conservatives increasing their (winning) popular vote by nearly 2.5million

Quote:

Originally Posted by hungryfront

has claimed that cutting police numbers doesn't lead to a rise in crime. The facts of the matter are that a smaller police force means that more crime will be inevitable.

Interesting that you use the word fact to mean "a magical psychic projection", while ignoring the inconvenient truth that Rudd was actually using facts (as in real statistics and history) to defend her point

Quote:

Originally Posted by hungryfront

Whilst the right continue to blame Sadiq

Really

Quote:

Originally Posted by hungryfront

they ignore the basic fact that crime prevention does actually prevent crime.

Yes clearly, as shown by the fact that we've never had any crime before now :) :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by hungryfront

Cutting police numbers changes the mentality of criminals, meaning they're likely to believe they can get away with whatever they want.

This is completely daft unless you believe that we previously had 100% surveillance of the entire country at all times with a police officer stationed every 50 feet down every road. Spontaneous crime happens in the dark and/or behind closed doors more often than not, and no number of police will change that

Quote:

Originally Posted by hungryfront

This, combined with a rising population (and therefore more tax being payed by default)

That's not how tax works. Kids don't pay tax, and a rising population actually means that there's less per head to go around, not more

Quote:

Originally Posted by hungryfront

would surely mean more police are needed? Not according to Amber Rudd. It is frankly uncomprehensible that the Home Secretary of one of the most successful countries in the world (despite the immense cuts by the current government) doesn't understand that police and crime have a link. If they didn't, we'd all be much better off with no police and our tax money being put into the NHS.

Of course there's a link, but no, feet on the streets is not the only way to police a country. It's not even the most efficient. By far the best way to deal with crime is through actual preventative measures in terms of intelligence and planning, not having a beat bobby run around with a truncheon going 'ello 'ello 'ello like a bad 1920s film. Cuts to finances do not necessarily mean cuts to efficiency, especially when you have utterly useless wastes of cash like the Police & Crime Commissioner roles

Quote:

Originally Posted by hungryfront

Careful - soon she'll be claiming hospitals have nothing to do with healthcare.

Back to those psychic predictions of yours I see

Quote:

Originally Posted by hungryfront

Amber Rudd and her predecessor, the then-Home Secretary Theresa May have between them cut 21000 police officers in Britain since 2011.

Yep, and crime decreased rapidly for a long time under those cuts. Goes to show that it's not as closely related as you seem to believe

Quote:

Originally Posted by hungryfront

Somehow, readers of the Daily Mail don't seem to get this and are instead blaming crime on the "bloody immigrants". It's a shame that Theresa May pledged to get immigration numbers down to 100,000 but got them to 330,000 (which is 330% of what she promised.)

So what you're saying is that immigration went sky high at the same time as crime level increases, but the only thing that causes crime is not having a policeman looking over your shoulder. Righto. I'm certainly not of the opinion that "bloody immigrants" as you say are to blame for our troubles, but that's what your own figures are showing in this paragraph, so I'm a little confused as to why you've written that out

Quote:

Originally Posted by hungryfront

Wake up, Britain.

Good idea. Time to wake up and stop using The Guardian as a life coach
10-04-2018, 11:38 PM
-:Undertaker:-

A general point on the Police.

In my view, the Police Forces in this country have never been better funded and yet we hardly see them patrolling the streets, and when they do they are in the ridiculous American style body armour - from when the sinister Blair government discarded the traditional uniforms and decided to militarise them. Even worse, and a step further in Scotland the neo-Blairite SNP have centralised their former Police Forces.

Now sadly the Police are far more interested in sitting behind desks, researching 'hate' crimes on Twitter or by Tommy Robinson and catching speeding motorists than they are of policing the streets and preventing crime which was their original intended purpose. So I wouldn't say the problem is funding, the problem is what the Blair government did to the Police Forces of this country as institutions and whether we will be able to rescue them from the damage that still haunts us today.

I will never forget the chilling moment a few years ago when I was attending a guest lecture on freedom of speech, when - completely unironically - a Policeman from the Yorkshire Police Force stood up in the middle of a free speech lecture and told everybody to report any "hate speech" (which he classified as being simply anti-LGBT) they heard from fellow students, friends, family. That hit me.
11-04-2018, 07:11 AM
Hannah

Unfortunately I am struggling to understand where you are coming from. You are saying that if we had more police, there would be no crime? I mean, we had more police before and crime was still there. Another misunderstanding people seem to have is that with social media and other social technological advances, we see more reporting of the crimes that were happening previously, but not so widely reported. Obviously, it may appear that there is more crime, and there very well may be - but it's hard to judge with lack of prior reporting.

Quote:

Cutting police numbers changes the mentality of criminals, meaning they're likely to believe they can get away with whatever they want.

Regardless of police, this is most criminal's mentality and always has been. Why would they do anything if they didn't think there was a chance they'd get away with it?

Quote:

Amber Rudd and her predecessor, the then-Home Secretary Theresa May have between them cut 21000 police officers in Britain since 2011. Somehow, readers of the Daily Mail don't seem to get this and are instead blaming crime on the "bloody immigrants". It's a shame that Theresa May pledged to get immigration numbers down to 100,000 but got them to 330,000 (which is 330% of what she promised.)

What exactly are you trying to say here? It appears that your statement is a little contradictory. You seem to have the same mindset as the 'readers of the Daily Mail'. (Just for myself, what figures are you using to work out that percentage?)