Comments on: Huhne: scrap ID cards and put 10,000 bobbies on the beat. Three reasons why he’s wrong

By: Alex

Alex — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:08:50 +0000

Another reason why it’s wrong to say “put the money saved towards 10000 police”, is that even with the money, you can’t just magic 10,000 extra policemen out of thin air.

By: Robert C

Robert C — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:50:26 +0000

Not well phrased, but you get the drift. I will wait for the politically correct brickbats to be hurled in due course.

By: Robert C

Robert C — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:48:38 +0000

Also, police always hide behind the excuse of being overloaded with paperwork, when in fact they just need better management and a kick up their lazy, overfed backsides to get out and catch some crims. IMHO, of couse.

If indeed it is true that 80% of crimes are committed by the products of these ex council estates, the long-term solution is to stop the “production line” so to speak, by asking all women on benefits incapable of supporting children to have contraceptive implants until such time as they have the money to support their own children.

By: Terry Gilbert

Terry Gilbert — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:19:43 +0000

As a former probation officer, I agree with much of what Nick Davies said. If only that could become as mainstream as scrapping ID cards.

‘Better trained police’ would be a better mantra than ‘more police’.

By: Vespasian

Vespasian — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:58:53 +0000

Of course, all this assumes that the £5 billion is taxpayers money that could be spent on something else. If you scrape the surface it quickly becomes apparent that it isn’t taxpayers money at all. The £5 billion covers the cost of issuing ID cards and passports over the next ten years plus the administration of the scheme, but it’s all recouped through the sale of passports and now ID cards. The net cost to the taxpayer over ten years is £0. The costs are covered by the sales – and it’s illegal for the passports service to make a profit.

To put it another way, unless you’re selling something to people, then why would they hand over their cash? The only way to raise this sort of money to pay for extra police is to either cancel something where the cost isn’t covered by sales, or raise a tax to pay for it. using ID cards is superficially attractive, but doesn’t bear out any sort of intelectual analysis.

By: Andrew Suffield

Andrew Suffield — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:29:24 +0000

Nobody has ever solved the crime problem, and deterrence is widely known to be junk.

I don’t think there’s any justification given (or existing) for that journalist’s claim that “patrols don’t inhibit them, detectives don’t catch them” though. We’re talking about the vast majority of stupid, inept, habitual crime here – they get caught all the time, and spend their lives in and out of jail.

You know what stops drug-related criminals? Ending prohibition; regardless of whether or not it’s the “right thing to do”, it doesn’t *work* and it generates a lot of supporting crime along the way. But of course nobody can suggest that.

By: Geoffrey Payne

Geoffrey Payne — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:26:23 +0000

All good questions. However as to the question of the number of police, all I can say in a very subjective way there is nothing more frustrating on a Saturday night when a local gang is throwing bricks at your window and you phone the police and the reply is that they are too busy to come…