Should the funding of the police force be cut?
The Government have released a White Paper stating that by 2014 the police force should make annual savings of £500 million. There are numerous ways the Government have put forward to achieve this, but are the savings too ambitious without compromising on the quality and safety of our society?
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
£500 million is only 5% of the Government grant!
Whilst this sum of money may sound like a huge cut to all of us citizens, the reality is, it is only 5% of what the Government gives to the police force. BBC home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said the government has invested record amounts in policing over the past decade. The saving of £500 million a year will be an attempt of the Government’s to claw back some of the money it has previously invested in the police force. Therefore, the cuts are actually a lot more achievable than they first sound. Plus its not always about the price. I mean seriously, are we going to put a price on the allowance of crime. We should always be willing to spend what is necessary for the police force to stop as much crime as possible.
we are not worried about the grand scheme. we are worried about public safety. some people don't want to die we need more cops in the hiz house.
We are in a recession and unproductive spending should be cut in every organisation
During a recession every organisation has to become more efficient to survive the cold weather of the economic climate. The police have previously enjoyed substantial investment with little or no improvement in their services. What we need to see is ineffective spending cut and new cheaper ideas to be bantered around to see how best to structure or police force. During a recession is the perfect time to conduct such a trial of new ideas. In 1996–97 total gross police revenue expenditure amounted to £8,578 million. In 2006–07 the equivalent expenditure was £12,015 million, an increase of 40% (£3,437 million). This increase has seen the police funding go on hiring new officers, of which are community support officers, with no legal powers. Therefore crime rate has stayed at a same level because these officers cannot do anything forceful. These pointless officers were introduced in 2003 and have no effect except giving the youths of today an opportunity to mock them and mock the police force. Secondly the amount spent on brand new police cars is out of this world. What is wrong with buying cars that are a few years old? Why is there a need to buy brand spanking new cars for 50,000 pound per car when all officers do is stick there blue lights on to get home early to smash them up? The fact is the police committee are laughing in the faces of all tax payers. If we are going to cut money, then find somewhere else to cut it, not a department that keeps me you and everyone else safe.
This is talking about the police force as if it is a money making organisation. The police are nothing like other businesses that are facing the recession; the police force is not a business. It is a public service which the public pay for. We need to have police on the streets working to the best of their ability regardless of whether there is a recession or not. In fact, we need more money to be spent on policing during a recession as more people are likely to turn to crime to fund themselves.
We should lower the proof needed for a conviction.
Money is currently being wasted in the police force by paying police officers to collect evidence to get a conviction. The threshold needed is that of ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’. To get a jury to convict on the basis of there being ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ that the person did commit the crime, a vast amount of evidence is needed. This threshold is too high. Instead, a lower threshold should be set. For civil law, the threshold is ‘on the balance of probabilities’. If this were the criminal threshold in order to secure a conviction then the police would need to collect less evidence and therefore would be paid the same amount but spend more time being police than being hair collectors.
This is not a satisfactory solution to the funding problems of the police at all. The reason why there is a differing level of standard of proof for civil torts than criminal offences is because so much more is on the line in criminal proceedings. To lose a civil case means that you will have a county court judgement against your name for a sum of money, often a very meagre amount. However, with criminal proceedings the stakes are much higher. We cannot put a price on justice. We cannot lower the standard of proof as that would make it more likely that people will get convicted wrongfully. This in turn will lead to more appeals and more people in prison. Both of which would cost the government more money than they would have saved on the police hours of collecting evidence. Therefore, this solution fails on a moral view and a practical view.
Arm the Cops
Issue guns to the cops.This action will reduce justice and court costs.A dead criminal,is a good criminal.
what side are u on??? we should not cut the funding of the police force because then we would not be able to spend the money on weapons and more recruits
Yes, too many.
Yes there are far too many police doing very little. Too many are paid fantastic money too sit and watch motorists......the easy option. And too many are on TV, there were 8 different police in action type programs on one week, and there was not much work seen then.
No because then you would be unemploying many people and with the recession they would have a hard life and struggle to the point to where they themselves would become criminals trying to survive
PCO's a waste.
What a ridiculous waste of money and space the plastic police are.
argumentation and evidence please!
The majority of citizens I feel would say shed some jobs and the remainder expand their workload. Senior proven police to be armed. Remove PCO's entirely.
you mean pcso's? reasoning?
The neutral voters are unsure of the question and how this vote works. But far too many police not on the job except too much unnecessary paperwork.
how can everybody agree for the funding if the police force be cut. we need more money for emergency services not less. what would happen if you were in trouble and the police couldnt help because they did not have enough people to help u or they do not have enough weopans to save u
Single patrolling police can hurt our safety and theirs
The ministers have proposed savings by only having one patrolling officer instead of two. However, surely everyone can see the devastation that this could cause. How can a single patrolling police officer be expected to deal with gang violence and groups on their own? When speaking to one individual a police officer could get attacked from behind if they do not have the appropriate support. Surely this was the feasible logic behind having two officers at all times. Though savings would be made, devastation would be caused by an increase in crime against officers.
Single patrolling is effective and a logical step which achieves two key objectives in this current climate - it achieves 'more with less', increasing the effectiveness of the Police without pouring more money in, and also increases the visibility and consequent public confidence in the Police. Consider this - most of the time on the beat, police officers main task is not to actually arrest criminals, it's to deter them with their presence and reassure the public. Even when they are tackled with a direct confrontation, the scenario the op has proposed are few and far between, and in some areas especially (e.g. rural areas) would be highly unlikely to occur, meaning often what is dealt with with two officers can be dealt just as efficiently as one. It improves the effectiveness of the Police as it can double the amount of officers patrolling in different area's at different times - a massive public benefit which would increase the Police's operational and crime-fighting/deterring capacity. Instigating a system of default single foot patrols can in essence double the amount of officers patrolling.
Furthermore, an increase in officers on the street would result in an increased visibility of the force. This would in turn increase public confidence, and by making sure officers are only grouped when actually necessary, the public face of the police force expands as does it's crime-fighting ability.
Senior officers should be able to make their own budget decisions
These are the officers who have the experience and know what is needed in the policing system in order to keep detecting crime. They should be the ones that decide how the budget is spent rather than a bunch of ministers in barely worked suits deciding from a paper perspective. In this way, those who are aware can make informed decisions, based on the area that they patrol around. This would be a much more accurate and safe way to tailor the budget to the needs of the local community.
This it not relevant to the debate itself. While police should perhaps have greater control of their own budgets, what is being discussed here is the size of the police budget as a whole. If you gave each department control over how much money they received from the Treasury, then we would have chaos!
Senior officers warn that cutting vital over time is not a good move
£400 million was spent on overtime in the last year on the police force, but senior officers warn against this money being cut back. This should surely be the biggest fear of all when ministers talk of cuts to the police force. We need officers on the streets, and we need people to work over time if that is what is required for reasons of safety. It might cost more, and we might be able to save by cutting back on over time, but this is not what is in the best interests of society. Whilst ministers have battered this idea around, they have not stated how the cutting of overtime should be compensated for.
Of course senior police officers would object, its not their money its only the taxpayers. There are very few police about now that do it as a vocation, its just a job to too many. get rid of the useless pco,s.
The current recession will fuel crime, the police force needs all the help it can get, not funding cuts
It is not in public interest to cut spending on the police force, for the exact reason that we are currently int he grip of a recession. Job losses and money struggles are exactly the triggers to cause MORE crime, as people will be pushed more to provide for their family and the tension will cause trouble. The Times Online gives recent statistics showing a steady rise in domestic burglaries, and fraud and forgery cases have risen by 16% in the last year. Surely it follows that we would need MORE police to control this? Recession or no, the government should not cut expenditure on public services that benefit everyone, like the police force, ambulance service or education.
How many police especially plastic ones have we ALL seen avoiding situations ?, plenty. Cut down on the staff and insist the remainder are more vigilant and not afraid to do the job. << how is this a counterargument - the counterargument should be that the recession has not fueled crime. And what on earth are 'plastic police' they sound cheap as they dont need to be paid but probably not very effective.
Cutting of funds to the police means endangering our soceity
We should remember what the job of the police is! It is to protect society, that includes everyone!There job is to catch those criminals:the murderers, the thieves, etc. And cutting off funds to the police will cause crime rates to increase. That means more people killed, more things stolen and more. This somewhat effects the economy and more people killed means fewer potential employee. So those companies that make the clothes and everything, they might have fewer employees, which will cause slower production rates and slower profit gaining rates. Additionally, if criminal activity is high, than tourist won't come to that place, which will have a bad effect on tourism related profits. All this will have a negative effect on us. And it's not just economy, it's us! Would you like to live in a place where criminal activity rates are high, I'm sure many wouldn't. So you see, the funding of police forces mustn't be cut!
This assumes that cuts have to mean reductions in officers tackling crime rather than more efficiency. It is possible that reductions in red tape could give the savings necessary and simply result in a shift from time in the office to being out solving crime.
What do you think?