I understand that, which is kind of why I pointed out your attitude was quite confrontational. Simply highlighting the hypocrisy of your complaint.
I never stated that these people were the only ones suffering social deprivation. Im not sure what point you are trying to make other than other people also having social deprivation and acting in a similar way, which is pretty much my point. Sees a strange way of arguing against me by simply showing other examples of the same thing.
Maybe that’s how you feel, but that doesn’t make it reality. They can choose not. They can choose to take everything the can get their hands on from your society. They can beg, borrow, steal, work for, earn, whatever that choice is theirs. If your society is unfair and loaded against them its fairly hypocritical for you to argue that their aren’t being fair. And those sporadic outbursts of criminality can be condemned, you can speak in the harshes terms you can about them it really isn’t important because harsh words and punishment isn’t going to stop it happening again.

And its easy to bang on about the greater good, when you are part of the greater getting the good.


Im not defensive about it. If you feel the need to infer im a communist to try and help your point feel free. Im not sure where I have expressed anything close to communist idealogy but hey, simple people need simple labels. Nuance can be difficult for some people and if that’s what need to be able to contribute im comfortable with you doing so

that would the case in which the CPS said "A 15-year-old defendant has been charged with robbery, rape and sexual assault following an incident late in the evening of 9 August in Woolwich, London, and has appeared in Camberwell Green magistrates' court," a spokesman for the CPS said. "We did not allege in court that there was any connection between this incident and the public disorder that had taken place earlier in Woolwich."

and the Police said "[The alleged assault] is not being dealt with as disorder related," a spokeswoman for the Metropolitan police said. "This is a stand alone investigation."


I wouldn’t rest it on your knee while your doing it. With all that jerking you could have an accident

Not to sure what you are waffling on about, but if you click on the link provided,

It's highlighted in blue if that helps....

That link somehow took me to a different (incorrect knee jerk reaction from the wail) story previously, that’s what I addressed.

Im happy to address the story you linked to once you explain what possible relevance it has to any thing

The 20% is over 4/5 years. So you are saying that it is impossible to make 5% budget savings p.a. and still maintain front line services?

Most businesses have already achieved this since 2007. It is just the public services that now need to catch up.



I didn't say it was simple. But to make an average 5% p.a. savings accross the whole budget while maintaining front line police services (which only effect 12% of officers at any time) has got to be a possibility.

You detail the budget and I will show you where to make the savings.

Why do you continue with this 5% pa line? By that logic the Police can make 100% savings in 20 years can they not?
It's got nothing to do with how much per year is cut and you know it, it's the total amount - the 20% - that is the problem, as virtually all police chiefs have acknowledged.


Have they now? That's very interesting. If most businesses have achieved 20% savings since 2007 you'll be able to list plenty of them then won't you? I'll ask the question again, which businesses have reduced by 20% whilst increasing the service they provide?


Not quite, but you certainly implied it would be easy.







Of course it has. For one year, maybe even 2 years. After that I would suggest that it gets incredibly difficult. As would any sensible businessman. No businessman would suggest cuts can continue indefinitely whilst increasing the service you provide.

Also, you, I & everybody knows it doesn't just affect 12% of officers. Because that 12% not necessarily "frontline" officers as Mr Cameron chose to describe it, but is actually officers who are "visible & available". So officers who are, for instance, dealing with an arrest in the police station (so actually are on duty and doing a useful and necessary job) are not counted in that 12%. Also any budget change affects every single officer as you well know.

The Chief Inspector of Constabulary concluded that two thirds of Police Officers and PCSO's are on "frontline" work whilst a third work in "middle office" or "back office" roles. To get those officers out on to the street would require an increase in budget (ie to hire civilian back office staff to take over the jobs they were doing) not a decrease. In fact decreasing the budget will merely lead to that ratio of police in back office jobs increasing as the civilian staff are laid off.

There are several sources that have come up with figures as to how many officers & staff will be lost from these cuts
If you don't know the details of the budget already how do you know 20% of savings can be made whilst increasing service?

If you are going to attempt a 20% cut in your budget over a 5 year spell, surely year one is when there is the most fat to to dispose off?

12% year one
4% year two
2% year three
and the remaining 2% over the next two years

I read that 80% of the Police costs are labour costs, then the first place you would look is at the overtime bill, closely followed by staffing levels. Put all staff on a yearly hours flat rate contract and review how they spent those hours. ie, the amount of time spent at shift changeovers. Get rid of subsidised police canteens and the practice of travelling back to the Nick for a lunch break.

And with 43 separate Police Forces all doing their own thing, couldn't a single agency get substantial savings on all that expensive kit they need?
Source your total fleet from one car manufacture and the savings would be enormous. Same with IT equipment, stationery, uniforms etc etc

Just a few random thoughts. I'm pretty sure as a figure of 20% has already been banded about, there will have been a working model somewhere in HMG to show how it can be achieved.

Getting a ticked off national Police Force to gracefully accept changes in its working conditions is another matter.

You're right in that the vast majority of the police budget is spent on wages. That being the case then the cost cutting measures for IT, cars etc won't have that much impact. Also some will be unworkable. A centralised procurement system might well be cheaper, but generally leads to a poorer service since every Police force from the Highlands down to Cornwall would have to apply and use a centralised system. This generally leads to equipment not being acquired quickly enough/not the right equipment etc. This is a reduction in the service that the Police will provide. Something which the government has denied will happen.

I think most people would accept some kind of reduction in service from the police if it's necessary to reduce their budget along with all others to reduce the deficit. It is the complete and utter denial from government that a 20% reduction can be made whilst actually improving the service that people like myself regard with such disdain.

Also, I think you'll be lucky to find a model within the Home Office or Treasury for these cuts. The cuts were thought up quickly after the election in order to try and capitalise on the Oppositions' disorganisation and the initial love-in between the Conservatives & Lib Dems. HMG's model is part of their wonderful "localism" and "de-centralise" policies - ie leave it to the councils and local forces to work it out.

The issue isn't exactly poverty IMO, it's lack of stimulus. Kids might be able to afford the various mod cons that their generation demands but if their greatest aspiration and inspiration involves a pair of gym shoes and/or a mobile telephone then by comparison rioting and looting must be very exciting pastimes. Government cuts that further reduce their alternatives might well turn out to be a very false economy.

Because the proposed budget cuts are spread over a few years as follows

Here you go again back to your 20% mantra. I am talking about 5% p.a. and repeat most businesses will have already addressed this since the first crisis.

If you are in business you should already know this. Do you work for a company or the public sector?





But I never said it would be easy. Possible certainly.



Why do you state “indefinitely” when the proposals are clearly for a limited period. As I stated each year you have the chance to make savings in different areas. I take it you have not any experience of doing this?



Are you implying that a reserve officer is currently on hand to replace a “frontline” officer who is taking a leak?

The Police obviously do not want to lose budget and to keep stating that there will be cuts to “frontline officers” is an emotional and unproven argument to win public support by scare stories.

If front line officers only represent 12% of the workforce and you are only looking to make an 8% saving in year one, then why make this the first cut. This scare story has been floated before any serious review of where other saving can be made. You have obviously bought into this spin.

The company I work for had done nothing of the sort.

In fact, if some of the things we spend money on were spent in the public sector there would be huge outcry, massive outcry, about wastage. Im pretty sure police officers dont get close to the 'perks' the company I work for give out. In my experience there is a damn sight less 'wastage' in the public than the private sector.