Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

10,000 Police Posts To "disappear"


Recommended Posts

yep, as usual, the w4nkers in charge of the cutting programs aim for the services people actually use.

their own, overpaid, over benefitted and over pensioned trough jobs remain and costs are minimally cut.

so so predictable...you could set your watch by it.

Me, I say all public sector jobs above 25K receive a 50% cut.

Agree with your sentiments but wouldn't that mean someone on 26k getting 13k and thus less paid than someone on £25k? cool.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

And what about Community Safety teams in local government? I hope some cuts are made here as well. My local council has seemingly plastered over every free space with ads trying to cut crime by telling us to close and lock our doors.

I don't know what else these guys do, but I doubt they are "value for money."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with your sentiments but wouldn't that mean someone on 26k getting 13k and thus less paid than someone on £25k? cool.gif

thanks for making me clarify...Im sure you know my position...its salaries cut by 50% over 25K.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know a South Wales Police Inspector, currently 49 but 50 this year, about to retire with a pension, so I was told, of 25K a year... which is more than the average wage in Wales.

must be nice to be given equivalent of an £800,000 pension at the age of 50

I bet he got a whopping lump sum aswell

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my issues, is the wasted court time, the new system which uses this CCTV system in prison to avoid moving prisoners backwards and forwards to courts seems like a good idea on paper and probably would be if it worked. Problems with the system in the first place holds things up, but as its difficult to gauge how many people might get banged up over the weekend its hard to assess the impact on court time for scheduled cases.

So the issue of dealing with the criminals caught over the weekend means often the cases scheduled for the morning especially Mondays are often not heard until Monday afternoon. This then means you have police hanging around often on overtime drinking tea and coffee.

The court process on the whole needs to be made efficient including the solicitors who only deal with one issue at a time and seek to drag the cases out for as long as possible.

Yes, one of m'learned friends was telling me recently that a bad lawyer could hold up a case for days on end.

But a really good one could string it out for months....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are civies still king of the roost?

there was a canteen where I worked but only for the 9-5 ers. not open for early turn lunch or late turn lunch.

open for the civies and the senior ranks.

still, we had a key to the bar though.

Civilians are facing the axe too. A lot of them have had to reapply for their jobs and moral is very low. No bars any more either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With all the new "Community support Officers" doing the beat now, maybe we dont need as many plod?

They get paid a decent wage for doing not a lot. They are pointless and if any cuts need to be made, they should be the first to go. They are good for standing on scenes for hours at least I suppose. Obviously they cannot arrest, do not know the law, cant take statements and can only give out minor fixed penalty notices. Some forces give them more power which is a bit scary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Civilians are facing the axe too. A lot of them have had to reapply for their jobs and moral is very low. No bars any more either.

reapply for their jobs??...what a cop out...if you'll excuse the pun.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ironically this takes the police force numbers back to pre Thatcher levels.

It was the Tory government of the 1980s that greatly increased police pay and numbers for the very good reason that they needed them onside when the monetarist squeeze inevitably caused trouble on the streets and opposition from the unions.

I can not help thinking this is going to blow up in the Governments face. The strategy as far as I can see is blitzkrieg spending retrenchment on all fronts. There are plenty of reasons for thinking this is not going to work. First, as with operation Barbarossa in 1941 early successes are likely to be lost because forward impetus is lost in attacking in too many places and not concentrating on a key target. Second, the government risks creating more enemies than necessary. Library services and the Forestry Commission may look like soft targets but have already stirred up more vocal and coherent opposition than I suspect Cameron and his chums were expecting. None of these individual groups has much in common but what might occur is a general resistance to the government to harden across disparate sectors. In addition, the regime will soon suffer form attritional losses and general 'war' weariness as its policy makers are forced to fight everywhere.

e

What i'm sure some of the older 'Bill' will tell you on here many of those rises were compensation for Thatcher/Tories taking away 'perks of the job'.

One example was

Lower pay but you got 'subsidised' Police Housing with the job!

Like council housing - Thatcher flogged it all orf!

People have forgotten this!

Edited by erranta
Link to post
Share on other sites

Its the police constable who chooses how they spend their forces budget. The CC could opt for less toys imo.

Seperate point, why arent more people happy about losing their police state? Or have their fears of crime and violence been well and truly manipulated by the state? :blink:

I agree actually, less conceited policemen, less flash cars, less cameras watching us. Lock up the proper career criminals and leave the ordinary Law Abiding Citizen (good film that ;) ) alone.

The only problem is that by reducing the number of police, it surely means more bullies will be looking to move into our offices, where they'll give you a "kettling" for using their mug.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is how to tackle this problem?

Magistrates donate their time for free so is it right for lawyers to play these games dragging things out which only serves their bank balance?

Some of them appear to be very unethical like this one who stole £1.4m!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-12299584

Is there a correlation between more money and higher rates of corruption individually and thus across society? I think so.

I think its a good thing the govt have reduced the amount of funding for free legal advice imo but its not the solution just a bandage which can still discriminate those who really need it.

I've known cases for relatively simple matters take over 2 years to be heard at court, with several adjournements because the defence play the game, hoping witnesses drop out.

The system is a joke.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I complained to the BBC about the misleading headline and that it should contain the phrase "Labour claim"

The response I got back was:

"Thanks for your email. We are constrained by length in our headlines so rather than include the source of the claim we often use quote marks to make clear it is a claim that is being reported, rather than the BBC claiming something as a fact. It is standard style for us to write headlines like that and then make clear, as was made very clear on all outlets in this case including in the intro to the news website story prominently who had made the claim."

Off to write another complaint in response!

Andy

Edited by Andy D
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always said make all drugs legal and self funding. The state outlets can then keep a better eye on you, to make sure its not taking over your life for starters, plus like tobacco it can contribute more to the NHS and other state costs, although debatable whether alcohol pays for itself.

In the US cannibas is the no1 cash crop, plus just after the 1930's depression, the prohibition was repealed as they the US govt needed the revenue from alcohol to fund things like the Roosevelts New Deal programme.

With regards to the issue of schizophrenia which is often trumped out by vested interests, if kids are allowed to smoke cannibas at a young age the risk of developing it in later life increases, however if they wait until they are about 21 their brains dont stop developing until around 25, then their risk of going scizo is considerably less.

Finally Skunk which often causes the scizo attacks has a vital ingredient missing over normal cannibas and that is Cannabidiol or CBD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabidiol. CBD is being used to treat people who suffer from scizo attacks as well now! How Ironic. :lol:

Normal cannibas has CBD present so you dont get your paranoid scizo attacks.

With regard to things like heroin, many many people function perfectly normally on heroin, even those who have had hospital surgery will have had a form of heroin called morphine and how many of them have gone out looking for it and become addicted?

The problems arise where there isnt the support network. Therefore if the state sold it, then there would be the support network right from the start so people can discuss their problems becuase most forms of drug taking is just self medication like some want a tipple of alcohol for example.

The other problem with heroin and other drugs to some degree is what they are cut with. Its the impurities that increases the costs to the NHS so its another roundabout way to remove the self inflicted costs we as a society impose on ourselves.

LSD has also been successfully used for treating depression and a 50% success rate for getting off heroin!

How many of you remember the hooliganism of the 80's on the football terraces? Do you know why it died out? E, football fans started popping pills on the terraces and its stopped the numbers fighting!

The alcohol companies have a lot to answer for as they seek to maintain their hold on society with their drug in the eyes of the state, yet just look at how it screws up your town centre, local parks on a weekend in the evening! How many of you would love to be able to go out and enjoy your town centres, parks and other open spaces in an evening not fearful of meeting drunk teenagers looking for a fight???

The bottom line is you will never alter human nature so you will always have your (young) thrill seekers and those who self medicate. By legalising them all, you keep them in the loop so you can keep an eye on them before things become too much of a problem. Its not good imo sweeping problems under the carpet, its best to bring them out in the open and admit the states war on drugs has been a fantastically costly failure and seek a new approach imo.

Its also worth reading some Mark Eastons blog. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/08/drugs_policy_the_british_system.html

When I've had discussions like this with Americans, even retired US cops agree with me on the legalise it all and make it self funding becuase of the points and others I've raised above. Ask any copper would they rather deal with a pub full stoners (cannibas smokers) or a pub full of alchol users. The majority (imo 99%) would say the stoners as they are less hassle.

People need to educate themselves and tackle their state fuelled fears of drugs imo!

one man's poison is another man's medicine

+1

One of the best posts I've read on here. Agree with every word.

The so called "war on drugs" is one of the single biggest, laughable failures in human history. What impact has it had on drug use? I would have said minimal to nil. Whats the cost? Millions of lives ruined, many people who are not criminals being criminalised, probable increase in crime, funding of terrorism and other hostile activities. Not to mention the many multiples of billions of dollars wasted globally on this.

The thing I really dislike is the fact that the majority of drug users (in the UK at least) are recreational users, the majority of whom are not criminally minded (many are well educated, hold down good jobs and even set up families). The issue is that these people are facing potentially a criminal record (and the problems this bring including denial for jobs, immigration issues etc.) for what in most cases should be down to personal choice.

In 9999/10000 cases, the criminal proceedings for such a person will have a considerably greater negative impact than the effects of the drug use itself. Addicts to Heroin/Crack etc need support to come off of these substances, rather than being criminalised (which leads to a negative downward spiral anyway).

The bad joke that is the war on drugs needs to end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

+1

One of the best posts I've read on here. Agree with every word.

The so called "war on drugs" is one of the single biggest, laughable failures in human history. What impact has it had on drug use? I would have said minimal to nil. Whats the cost? Millions of lives ruined, many people who are not criminals being criminalised, probable increase in crime, funding of terrorism and other hostile activities. Not to mention the many multiples of billions of dollars wasted globally on this.

The thing I really dislike is the fact that the majority of drug users (in the UK at least) are recreational users, the majority of whom are not criminally minded (many are well educated, hold down good jobs and even set up families). The issue is that these people are facing potentially a criminal record (and the problems this bring including denial for jobs, immigration issues etc.) for what in most cases should be down to personal choice.

In 9999/10000 cases, the criminal proceedings for such a person will have a considerably greater negative impact than the effects of the drug use itself. Addicts to Heroin/Crack etc need support to come off of these substances, rather than being criminalised (which leads to a negative downward spiral anyway).

The bad joke that is the war on drugs needs to end.

But I doubt it ever will in this country

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 429 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.