Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Xaccers
My point is that for the money you get a heck of a lot more with an aditional policeman than you do with a gatso, after all, when was the last time a gatso caught anyone doing anything other than driving over the limit?
As for popularist policies, surely the police should be tackling things which actually affect the comunity rather than concentrating on things which get them the most money for least effort or matters which the community don't care about.
For instance, if the police tackled the most common crime, and that turned out to be littering but most people were affected by burglaries.
Which would you prefer they went for?
Tackling the most common crime, or tackling something popularist which actually affects people's quality of life?
|
Er, gatsos are designed solely to catch people driving over the limit (or jumping lights) and then, because people insist on breaking the law (and then whining about getting caught), they generate revenue (or as you put it, the most money for the least effort). And they save lives. All round a pretty good investment. Already said I'd like to see more police - and I'd be happier if gatso revenues were going towards that aim and not into wider Treasury coffers. Speeders don't like cameras because they are more effective than wandering policemen/women at the specific job they do. They're lousy at doing the jobs they're not designed to do though. And I think you'll find the community often does care about speeding; that's why people, like me, lobby for more not less of them in our neighbourhoods (I agree speeding is less of an issue on motorways, but then most speed traps aren't on motorways) because of the selfish actions of so many drivers. But I still think Howard's proposal is nuts.
PS Probably me but I don't really understand your argument about tackling the most common crime. Then again I was convicted of littering in my wayward youth!