Political point scoring on police funding cuts

  oresome 10:16 05 Jun 2017
Locked

Does anyone believe that giving the police more resources will prevent terrorist acts like we've experienced recently?

Certainly the latest act required little in the way of planning or the purchase of specialist materials that may have raised suspicion.

Even if we'd had the resources to keep a very close watch on the perpetrators could we have prevented them driving a vehicle at pedestrians or using kitchen knives?

Of course the police would like more money as would every other publicly funded organisation and no doubt some good would come from it, but we have to be realistic and look at the cost and likely benefit.

  BT 17:46 05 Jun 2017

We don't need thousands more police officers on the streets to combat terrorism

What we need are Police officers who don't have to spend vast amounts of their valuable time dealing with Domestic disputes and drunken out of control yobs invading the streets, and have time to spend on the really important things.

  bremner 14:50 06 Jun 2017

BT

In respect of domestic disputes that is one of the dumbest most ridiculous things I have read here for along time. You clearly have absolutely no idea of the impact on the tens of thousands of victims and how it shatters their lives and which, over 100 times a year, results in their murder.

  Govan1x 17:35 06 Jun 2017

Can only assume then that you think we are better of loosing 20.000 policemen, Does that make you feel safer or less safe.

Maybe a few of them patrolling the streets at the right time could have saved a few lives.

  Forum Editor 17:51 06 Jun 2017

It's the easiest thing in the world to criticise a policy using hindsight.

  x123 18:11 06 Jun 2017

Quite a lot of reported crime is not recorded as there is not the man power. Not minor crime but

Rape,traffic smuggling, violence.

enter link description here

  Forum Editor 18:40 06 Jun 2017

Police funding cuts have been dragged into the election arena by the Labour party because of the recent terrorist atrocities, but even if we had double the number of police the atrocities would still have occurred.

Sheer numbers of Police don't deter criminals - the prospect of being caught does that, and increases in the number of police officers don't necessarily increase the rate of detection. technology does that - forensic science coupled with better intelligence. We need better trained officers before we start taking on thousands more and training them as we do now.

Failure to record crime should not be because we don't have enough police officers - record keeping is admin work and should be done by civilian staff. Perhaps we need more of them.

  bremner 19:30 06 Jun 2017

123

It is not that the forces did not have resources to record the crimes it was that having had the matters reported to them they did not record a crime as per the National Crime Reporting Standards. They often recorded the incidents in other ways as enquiries, logs or intelligence. For example NCRS says a rape must recorded when an allegation is made irrespective of evidence, on some occasions forces only recorded once there was evidence.

  alanrwood 19:38 06 Jun 2017

Police funding cuts have been dragged into the election arena by the Labour party because of the recent terrorist atrocities, but even if we had double the number of police the atrocities would still have occurred.

That is a pretty broad claim without as I see it any any data to support it. It may be your opinion but I don't see it being a proven fact. How can anyone say whether these attacks could have been prevented or not by additional police. I don't know the answer to that so I can't see how your statement can be justified.

  Forum Editor 22:50 06 Jun 2017

"alanrwood"

"That is a pretty broad claim without as I see it any any data to support it."

I invite you to tell me how having more police officers would possibly have prevented a man walking into an arena lobby in Manchester and detonating a suicide bomb, or how it would have prevented three men from driving a van onto a pavement on London bridge and mowing down pedestrians.

Come up with a viable explanation and I might reconsider my statement. Until you do, I stick by what I said. Large numbers of police officers on the streets may look reassuring and make people feel safer, but it isn't what stops terrorists committing atrocities. The reason it isn't is because fighting terrorism is the hardest thing in the world - terrorists can hide in plain sight, almost anyone could be the enemy. There are around 32,000 officers in the metropolitan police force - it's the biggest in the UK, and one of the biggest in the world. The Paris prefecture has around the same number of officers. We have seen two recent terrorist incidents in London, and only today a man was able to walk up to a police officer outside Notre dame in Paris and attack a police officer with a hammer, shouting 'This is for Syria'.

You fight terrorism by having excellent intelligence, so you are better equipped to stop them before they have a chance to carry out atrocities. Put more money into the intelligence services, put more money into counter terrorist police units, and into specialist internet forensics units. Improve information sharing systems with anti-terrorist units in other countries.

Do all of that, instead of knee-jerking into flooding the streets with more police officers.

  oresome 12:36 07 Jun 2017

It's been argued that police on the street as well as offering public reassurance, develop a relationship with the community they serve and are the eyes and ears of the intelligence service.

I think this is largely wishful thinking and very expensive for little gain.

Recent attacks have been unsophisticated, requiring little in the way of planning or procurement of materials and perhaps little in the way of communication with a network of others.

How do you stop a lone fanatic walking out of the house with a hammer and attacking a police officer before the event occurs?

Certainly the best way to counter such activity cannot be decided during an election campaign or whilst emotions run high following an atrocity and politicians must be seen to be doing something.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Oppo Reno 2 Z review: Hands-on

TikTok and how to use it for illustration success

macOS Catalina Review: New MacOS update turns your Mac into an entertainment hub

Les meilleures coques pour iPhone 11, 11 Pro et 11 Pro Max (2019)