Doesn't go far enough
 

www.skynews.co.uk/Extra funding.
Funding To Tackle Youth Violence

The news that the government will give extra funding to fight Youth Violence and knife crime, does not go far enough.

What the government has to do is find extra funding to put more police officers on the street, to curb this youth problem, they need something to do.

Put extra funding into finding ways of getting the youths off the streets, ie jobs, opening community centres, which have been closed
In various parts of this country you have youths roaming the streets causing anti social behaviour as they have nothing to do but cause trouble.

Unemployment is bad all over the UK, that money can go into getting business up and running that can take youths off the streets.

Charities will enjoy this input of cash, but again the government must do more to curb this problem. We have a community Centre near us that has been closed for the past five years due to lack of funding, by day it is used as a furniture shop.

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

http://news.sky.com/story/1030482/kn...youth-violence :)

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

How far does the government go Arthur ? do they just keep pumping money into schemes absolving parents and the kids of their own responsibility ?.

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

What the government have to do is to find funding to get youths and young adults off our streets.

NOT every young kid is a thug, but tell me how many youths re-offend as there is nothing to do, but cause trouble, you only have to watch these Tv shows about street crime, and the majority are of young adults on the streets after 10/11 pm at night.

We have to have a government that can find the money that can gets this young adults back into jobs, but there isn't anything out there for them to do this.

Its ok for the government to find the funds, but they have to do more to get people out there that will make sure that young adults have something to do.

I worked in Feltham Remand Centre, and l cannot believe the amount of kids that re-offend, yes they get training inside, but then its left up to an overstretched probation service to make sure they stay out of trouble.

I know of young adults that have been in an out of YOI for most of the young lifes, Its these youths that need help, and this is where you need the funding to find work for them, if you look at it to keep a young adult in prison it is approx £1.500 If you took this on the outside, it would be half that amount to put him him a job and save the tas payer money.

As for the parent situation, yes it is up to the parent to guide there son or daughter, but if they are punished by the parent, then you get into the 'don't hit kids etc brigade'.

We need more police officers on the streets, and this can only be done by putting the funding there.

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

With respect arthur that is all a load of rollocks ,if people offend that is their fault if they re-offend that is their fault not the governments .Being bored or out of work does not give a person the right to rob, steal,smash or terrorize

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

:clap:

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

Exactly, I'm bored and out of work and yet I don't go out robbing. Although I would probably get more money if I did do that. Parents have to take some responsibility though for the gang culture.

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

Martyr and Will, l agree with what you are saying BUT, young offenders will not give a damn on who they assault, rob, and no it doesn't give them the right to steal, smash or terrorise, BUT, if they are running about the streets this what they will do to get there kicks.

Young offenders will feel big that they are running round in a gang, and think they are jack the lad, only to get nick for ASB.

What has to happen is that have MORE police on the street, with a zero tolerance and will then start on getting these youths into doing something useless.

What young people is jobs, but the government needs to do more about solving the problem of youth crime.

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

over the last 20 or so yrs the various governments have thrown money at the problem ,giving money to youth schemes ,more police ,tougher sentences ,even holidays for the little scroats but it has not worked so why keep throwing money at it .The answer lies within the families of these people not the corridors of parliament

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

The problem usually starts long before they get to employment age, therefore the responsibility lies firmly with the parents not government.

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

a lot of these young toe-rags just need a good back hand around the head ,they've grown no sorry been dragged up by older toe rags with no idea of morals or discipline ,it needs stopping before they spawn another generation :mad:

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

What l would do is this:
Any money given by the government would be to find employment for the young adults, BUT this cannot happen as we know that some companies have given up on the Work Free for benefit.

We have to open up community Centres where these young adults can go, as at the moment l don't think that there are any open due to the cutbacks.

We must find something that they can do, but some young adults just want to go an cause aggro, this is where the extra money should go - extra policing on the streets, and this won't happen due to cutbacks.

Make YOI or Prison more tougher than what they are, when young adults go to prison, they should go in for training schemes and before they are released - find jobs for them in local businesses that are prepared to take them on. IF they don't have employment when they get released early, then they have to report daily to a Centre, where continuous training will be given.

The major problem on our streets is that young adults don't have anything to do, Yes parents must play a part in the guidance of the kids, but sometimes this won't happen.

When l was a kid, if l committed any sort of ASB or crime, not only would l get a clip round the ear by our local booby, we would get a whack from my dad, and you wouldn't sit down for a week - sadly today that is NOT allowed by the do gooders of this country, who sad to that you shouldn't hit kids. It didn't do me any harm.

Or put them in the armed services.

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

Arthur, I agree a clip around the ear and a whack from my dad never did any harm either.

But, and you knew there was going to be a but... I never had government setting up schemes for something to do when I was younger, just like others of my age I found something to do. This something to do didn't involve congregating in large groups, being loutish, threatening, committing vandalism or mugging people. etc etc. (I see this in parts of Cardiff where people are afraid to walk)

Parents and young adults are the ones who need to deal with the problem.

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

we do not need **** in the armed services -i say knock it out of them don't bother talking or pandering to them just go straight to cracking heads .

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

Or them in Borstal, if they are still running them.

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

Where should this funding come from Arthur?

Is it perhaps

A) By cutting funding from other projects

Or maybe

B) By raising taxes

Then again, it could be

C) The magic money tree

Go on, tie yourself in knots, I could do with a laugh.

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

Well to start with the politicians can stop having such big lunches .....Harumph :)

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

My parents never raised a finger to me or my sister, and we have never been in trouble with the law, as we were raised to respect others

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

The funding can come from, all the savings from budget cuts that they have made.

The government must realise that to put this project into place, its not a question of throwing so many thousands of pounds into it, to stop this happening they must place a funding that can put more coppers on the beat, its that simple.

This government waste millions of pounds on silly things, such as MPs luxuries, cut there expenses, where an MP put in an expense claim for buying a newspaper.

Its no good putting money into such a big issue and expect people to change overnight as this won't happen.

I know that l keep going on about putting more bobbies on the streets, but by 2015 there will be LESS pc's on the street due to cutbacks.

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

That's just backwards logic Arthur ,if they do that what about the rising debt ,how do we pay that off?

.

Already done that ,didn't work .....next

Told you he would say that Chris :D

So that means that parents are going to have to bring their little scroats up properly doesn't it

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

More police needed to reduce youth crime?

With the upcoming reductions in police numbers, in 2015 we will be back to the number of police we had in 2006 - I don't remember widespread anarchy around then.....

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

New years resolution for Hugh ,

stop introducing facts into Arthurs threads ,it spoils the fun

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

I was interested to read this article

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...pils-told.html

I don't think every school leaver should expect to be a lawyer, but with the forthcoming extension of education to age 18, it might be encouraging for many students to think a more realistic entry to decent jobs may be available, without thinking they have to amass a huge debt by going to Uni.

In my opinion, money spent giving young people hope that they may have a future, is far better than spending it on police forces to contain the frustration the youth currently feel because they think it isn't worth bothering...

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

Seconded

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

It's something I and others on this forum have advocated for a while now .In my opinion apprenticeships and lots of them in a wide range of skills is what is needed and i think they teach a much better and wider ranging skill set than a degree .

Quote:

In my opinion, money spent giving young people hope that they may have a future, is far better than spending it on police forces to contain the frustration the youth currently feel because they think it isn't worth bothering

Couldn't have put it better myself

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

I agree with this`as well, I have had a few graduates placed with me, it's usually on at a time but I have had two at a time and although the majority have been very good, some have been not so good.

The difference is not what score they gained when they graduated it's just as much about the practical ability they have to go with it. One in particular had a first class honors degree in electronics, and he really didn't know the basics or have any idea how to apply what he had learned but he did 'know it all'. On the other hand one had a first class degree in a different subject and through his interest in electronics he was much better than the one with the electronics degree.

I believe a balance of academic study and practical experience produces the most valuable employee.

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

the savings are being made in order to bring national debt under control. Without those savings, the amount of money the country owes will continue to rise.

The country already owes more than ONE TRILLION POUNDS. Exactly how much bigger do you think that number should be allowed to get before this country begins spending within its means?

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

Oh dear god no! I had the misfortune to be obliged to serve with Y.O.P. and Y.E.T.I. 16 and 17 year olds who were given the option "RAF or Prison".

All but one were the biggest waste of food and oxygen I had ever met. No respect for anyone, no respect for their uniform, no respect for the Service.

And they just refused to accept any punishment dished out to them, and often didn't even bother turning up for duty. One, I'm sure, was constantly drunk, despite being underage.

Even the "Rock Apes (RAF Regiment) couldn't do anything with them!

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

What Taf said....

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

Yes but they are more likely to do it when unopposed and no repurcussions.

I think you have too much faith in individuals, there is a lack of law enforcement presence on the streets.

---------- Post added at 07:59 ---------- Previous post was at 07:57 ----------

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/rame...b_2007552.html

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

I don't see that article contradicting the claim that the deficit has exceeded a trillion. Perhaps you could explain what you think it proves?

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

For another view on Mr Patel's thoughts....

Linky

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

The reason for lack of law enforcement on our streets, is quite simple, the police service has been cut to the bone, and they are getting rid of more officers next year.

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

Arthur, after the reductions, we will still have the same number of police we had in 2006 - were we cut to the bone then?

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

What lack of law enforcement anyway ,you make it sound as if everyone is getting mugged everytime they go outside .Personally i don't think the streets are any more dangerous than they where say 10-15 yrs ago

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

Yes, but Arthur reads the red-tops, where everyday is the end of the world...

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

Maybe not cut to the bone,but still less law enforcement than other comparable countries.

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

Hugh, my son works for the police, they used be front line officers, but they are not, they are pressed really hard to keep up with 'l' calls, and yet cannot.

They are closing police stations each day, you MUST have law enforcement on the streets in www.thesun.co.uk today page 9, it states that frontline officers spend less time on the streets due to paperwork.

The cutbacks in the police service are hard hitting. Next year there are plans to make a further 5.000 police officers redundant.
I can never understand why members seem to have this idea that there are bobbies on the street and they can deal with crime, well l can assure you that they are overstretched.

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

Its contradicting the claim that the deficit is some huge urgent problem that has to be dealt with no matter what.

Whilst this government feels the deficit is more important than economic growth, prosperity and human rights laws. Or rather they putting that message across so they can push their ideoligy agenda. Its a bit harder to strip human rights, reduce wages, sell of the nhs when the economy is all rosy. This so called crisis is the perfect platform for them.

Is that clear enough now?

You cant look at absolute numbers. Its more the %.

eg. a 10k loan for someone on £70 a week would be a big problem for them, they wouldnt handle the replayments and likely default, but to a millionaire it be pocket change.

Seems they have been found out again here on more lies/spin.

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/...160#more-12160

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

I bet we had more on the beat in 2006, the government and police service seem to think they can sack all the backroom staff and get police on twice the cash to do the job and no one will notice the difference, eight minutes an hour on average officers spend on the beat now and that figure will get worse.

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

but you can't look at absolute numbers can you ?.That link is based on one interpretation ,give those figures to 10 other people and you will get 10 more interpretations .IDS is absolutely right in attacking the tax credit system, it is responsible for a lot of hardship ,doesn't work ,is over complicated ,expensive to run and unneeded .There are better and more efficient ways to put money into peoples pockets that doesn't involve putting half the working population on benefits .In short that the tax credit system needs to go

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

Police can't be made redundant.

They may not replace anymore police when they retire, but policeman and women will not receive a P45 in the post.

To use the phrase "redundant" is an attempt use an emotive word.

---------- Post added at 11:54 ---------- Previous post was at 11:53 ----------

Well instead of gambling, produce some facts.

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

It is a huge, urgent problem no matter how you look at it.

I don't mean to patronise you, but looking at the Treasury's definition of defecit helps my point. Deficit is defined as the difference between the Government's incomings and outgoings. The Government's outgoings need to be paid regardless of whether they have the income or not. If they don't, the deficit adds to the debt.

Most people know that if you are heavily in debt, the last thing you should be doing is adding to it.

I don't have a problem with the Government reducing the deficit (and hopefully the debt as well), but I feel they are being a bit blinkered. They are looking at cutting the outgoings while seemingly ignoring the income.

I think, as a matter of urgency, they need to sort out the loopholes in the tax laws being exploited by the likes of Apple and Starbucks (after all, the billions in taxes this is potentially costing would certainly enable them to reduce the deficit considerably if not eradicate it). They then need to start investing in getting our industries moving again.

In terms of the outgoings, I would recommend that they seriously consider reducing the aid given to foreign countries. If a country has enough money spend on a Space programme (as India apparently does), it does not need aid from us.

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

There is also a number of experts who think the government is too pre occupied with clearing the debt .Their argument is that as long as the debt is serviceable then don't worry about as much as they are .

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

Debt isn't the problem. We're likely always going to be in debt and that's ok.

The deficit is the problem but how to deal with it is where the disagreement is. You can cut as much as you can but you don't want to harm growth, the deficit will be a lot higher if unemployment is high and income is low. When the economy recovers we'll hopefully see benefits drop and tax income rise. That will be a lot more effective that cutting on the margins.

India is being cut out anyway but Foreign aid is such a negligible amount of our spending, it's become a smokescreen.

We all know where the real spending is, that's the elderly and pensions followed by healthcare. The Government should be more aggressive in raising the pension age.

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

Ok rafa

http://www.london24.com/news/crime/cuts_in_metropolitan_police_staff_labelled_a_panic _measure_1_1699040



http://www.unison.org.uk/policeandjustice/pages_view.asp?did=12477

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

In both of those links, police staff are being made redundant, not police officers.

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

Yes, that's the point I was making, that it's now police officers doing the backroom roles instead of being out catching crooks and they're on twice the cash, still as long as some shyster politician can look down a camera and say they haven't cut any front line police officers.

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

Same happening in the MOD, civilian positions have been cut but there is a noticeable increase of people dressed in green filling these positions.

The bigger issue with MOD posts is they are generally an 18 month postings. In my experience soldiers generally have one goal and that's promotion, and they will use the posting to enhance their promotional prospects. This can mean that long term issues are brushed under the carpet to concentrate on simple non-issues that are achievable in the timescale to make themselves look good.

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

Yet. Except part of the 'independent' winsor report includes the option for Police officers to be subject to compulsary severance aka. redundancy.

The only difference is in name to exclude Police officers from claiming the same rights other employees have.

And as others have mentioned there are more and more civilian posts being made redundant, the work doesn't disappear and there are only so many officers on light duties so front line officers are being shunted into offices to take up the slack.

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

what are better ways?

the tax credit system is no more complex than the income tax system. I think this complexity word is been used cheaply to try and get rid of any public expenditure that helps the poor.

either way you distracting from the point they lied.

---------- Post added at 08:52 ---------- Previous post was at 08:44 ----------

some good valid points made there.

The pension spending I agree with, its simply huge. But it wont get touched in any way other than raising the pension age or making existing taxpayers get a private pension, they wont cut existing pensioners, political suicide. the sick and vulnerable of working age and young unemployed even tho they a tiny fraction of the pension spending are a softer target.

foreign aid is interesting, currently the foreign aid budget is higher than whats spent on the unemployed, the government repeatedly considers foreign aid as affordable and has protected it from cuts, yet the money spent on the unemployed is apparently unaffordable, doesnt compute.

Growth is key to all this. If one does austerity, then its gaurantueed recession, then this will ultimately grow any deficit, especially when done alongside tax cuts.

some people eg. are ok with cutting the deficit as long as it isnt payed for by via increased personal taxes, its fine as long as it comes from other people's pockets. I cant stand self serving people.

Growth will naturally erode a deficit. Which is what happened during labour's tenure up until 2008, the deficit was shrinking until the banking crisis. Which proves the rubbish blurted out about public spending means very little, its a red herring.

If you have to balance the books, it is sane to throw money into the bin?

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

for child tax credits we can go back to the old system of claiming for kids in your tax code .for working tax credits a threshold of between £10-15,000 ,already proposed by some


The income tax systemis over complicated and not fit for purpose .That is accepted by every financial institution that has ever commented on it including some in government .The complexity of both systems leave them wide open to fraud and error costing billions a year

They haven't lied at all,that is your opinion because you have read 1 article that fits your opinion and ignored all other sources that disagree with you .

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

Actually my opinion was formed before the article, I only looked for the article so I had a url to post on that matter.

Typically I use official departmental figures as my source of info, they often dont match up to minister's statements.

I dont understand how you can find income tax over complex, its actually an extremely simple, different tiers dependent on income, whats complex about that? What you rather say is you want a flat rate tax as it doesnt tax the wealthy so much.

What would you say if I thought the way different people get paid different amounts depending on where they live, what they do, who they know etc. too complex and I proposed everyone who works gets a fixed rate salary as its simpler, would you like that?

The only thing I agree with you on is fraud is easy, but it will always be easy when people can fiddle their income figures.

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

you must be the only person in the uk who thinks the tax system is simple ,the only time it could be classed as simple is if you are PAYE and someone does the work for you .As for running a business and trying to claim tax credits without ending up in debt to the HMRC that is practically impossible and even the advisers don't know their way around the system .The reason why rich people pay far less tax by % than the rest of us mere mortals is because the system is so complicated

And yes a flat rate of tax is much preferable to the stupid system we have now ,simply because the rich will pay more tax .There is already a thread about a flat rate of tax which is far more on topic than discussing that here i will be happy to debate it with there

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

Why would the rich pay more tax on a flat rate system?

The tax rate would be set lower for them, and its still dependent on them declaring their income.

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

The saddest part of this horrible government, id that the whole morale of the police service is under threat.

I know that yes, Police officers cannot be made redundant, HOWEVER, they are asked to leave after 30 years services, when they don't want to leave. Civil staff are always under threat of being offered redundancies.

They will always find a way of getting rid of you in the job to cut costs, young PCs that start now are on a £3.000 less than what a regular officer gets and that after there probation this only goes up by a fraction.

I know of two PCs who have been in the job less than two years, and they have told me that the morale in the job is at an all time low, and people just don't want to do it anymore.

What l think is wrong is that all the cutbacks that has been brought on by this horrible government is that, you need MORE officers on the beat, as the general public does not know what the police have to put up with, paperwork, station closures, vehicle problem and the stress that comes with it, yes they get paid good money, but l believe that these brave guys and girls that put there lives on the line for us, should get decent money for what they have to put up with.

Just think in a couple of years, if this government have there way, you won't have a police service - you will will have a private company running it.

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

As usual, you talk complete rubbish. If you genuinely believe half the stuff you post on this forum, the insides of your head must be a very dark and depressing place.

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

Weren't the government planning to get G4S to take over some parts of policing?

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

I don't know where you live Damien, but if you get THE EVEING STANDARD in London, you read that.

This is what is going to happen to the police service in London. Due to cutbacks the Met Police is having to find major cutbacks and people will almost certainly lose there jobs. Remember the Tottenham riots several months ago, well l was there and it the most scariest thing that l ever saw and the government want to cut policing.

You cannot have a private company run this sort of work its totally impossible, look what happen at the Olympics, total chaos.

WE need to do what they did in America, they DOUBLED there police service, and we should be doing the same here.

Next time you call 999, see what happens then. Crime will almost ceratinly go up, and the general public, thats you and me will feel unsafe when you walk the streets.

I called the police yesterday, when l was in Hounslow and no one turned up as they had no officers spare - this is what is happening in London - so if you think thats complete rubbish, think about it.

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

you need to read up on the principle of a single tax rate ,it's all in the link i posted
but a quick taster for you is that with a single tax rate most if not all the loopholes open to high earners via their accountants will be closed .At the moment with a good accountant someone who is supposed to pay 50% will probably pay less that 20%

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

999 will probably have a fee attached the company citing it has to balance the books.

---------- Post added at 15:23 ---------- Previous post was at 15:22 ----------

Loopholes can be closed on the existing system as well, it doesnt require a flat rate to do that.

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

Yes they can but it is a lot easier and cheaper if there is a single tax rate .A single tax rate means that taxes like NI contributions can be abolished .A single tax rate will mean that everyone above a certain pay level will pay the correct tax no loopholes no clever little tax schemes .

Re: Doesn't go far enough
 

BY the way I do accept your argument for self employed and business owners, tax credits is simple on PAYE but complex on self employed. The benefit system has the same issue as well, claiming any income related benefits when self employed has issues. But from what I understand proposed changes such as universal credit wont fix those complications, the issue been when people have a variable income thats hard to predict and keep steady over a long period of time.

The only 3 reasonable ways I can see this been dealt with is.

1 - person submits estimaed earnings start of tax year and gets annual reward based on that estimate, at end of year however person may owe money back to hrmc/dwp if overpaid or other way round if under paid. Current system for tax credits works this way? but not for benefits such as housing benefit which are far messier than tax credits.
2 - person submits earnings at end of financial year and as such gets reward in arrears at end of year but the reward is accurate as is actual earnings, this should reduce mistakes fraud etc. but person has to live without help for a year.
3- similiar to #2 but done more regular like monthly, to simplify it the figures can be submitted without proof monthly over the internet or phone, to ensure continuity, but annually at end of each year proof has to be sent to qualify continued entitlement.