Doesn't go far enough

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

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

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?

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

Linky

[Arthurgray50@blu]

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.

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

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

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.

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

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

[Will21st]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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

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

[Arthurgray50@blu]

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.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Chris

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?

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

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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.....

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.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

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

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

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

The cutbacks in the police service are hard hitting. Next year there are plans to make a further 5.000 police officers redundant.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

I bet we had more on the beat in 2006, .

Well instead of gambling, produce some facts.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

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

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.

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 .

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.