Policing for who?

[SFTPhotography]

As above, you need to dig a little deeper and think a lot wider.

If you earn £20k how much of it will you spend on 'living', if you earn £200k how much will be left unspent?

There's more to a 'tax burden' than income tax. Surely you're more intelligent than this?

A lot more but so what? Just because a lot more is left remaining from the £200k earner than from the 20k earner doesn't mean the 200k earner should be taxed higher in relative terms to the 20k earner. Sure the 200k earner will have more disposible income, that is as it should be, they are richer and that wealth has to be enjoyed as they've made it

Income tax, morally, should be a flat rate.

 

[Phil V]

A lot more but so what? Just because a lot more is left remaining from the £200k earner than from the 20k earner doesn't mean the 200k earner should be taxed higher in relative terms to the 20k earner. Sure the 200k earner will have more disposible income, that is as it should be, they are richer and that wealth has to be enjoyed as they've made it

Income tax, morally, should be a flat rate.

I was wrong, that is stupid, you completely fail to understand!

Every penny taken home by the low income family is spent, most of those pennies spent have an element of taxation, whether straightforward VAT or the vat and duty on the fuel that make up part of the cost of the VAT free children's clothes. So their total tax burden is a higher proportion of their earnings.

And your presumption of the rich having 'made it' also requires scrutiny!

The rich make money off the sweat of the poor. Society (you and I) are empowered to make the rules as to how fairly that is done. Unfortunately modern economics tricks you into believing that we don't have a choice and that only 'the market' can decide (it's not true).

But then they hide from you the largest lie therein. The poor have been at the mercy of the markets, but the financial sector of the market is protected from it's own self destructive behaviour with my money and yours. The rich are allowed to win when they gamble, but unlike the poor they don't suffer from their bad decisions, they are rarely allowed to lose.

 

[SFTPhotography]

So do rich people pay VAT, lots more stamp duty, CGT etc. Don't rich people pay VAT, duty etc on the goods they buy too?

The world is made up of chiefs and indians (am I allowed to say this or will this be construed as racism). The chiefs leads the indians, the chiefs make more and put in more effort, skill to rise above the indians.

The rich too, arguably through more exposure to the stockmarket due to owning assets other than their house are more exposed to the wrong doings of the financial centre. They have more to lose and are more exposed through holdings of equities, government bonds etc.

I believe in a certain level of wellfare for the truly poor, and we have that today and some.

 

[Phil V]

So do rich people pay VAT, lots more stamp duty, CGT etc. Don't rich people pay VAT, duty etc on the goods they buy too?

The world is made up of chiefs and indians (am I allowed to say this or will this be construed as racism). The chiefs leads the indians, the chiefs make more and put in more effort, skill to rise above the indians.

The rich too, arguably through more exposure to the stockmarket due to owning assets other than their house are more exposed to the wrong doings of the financial centre. They have more to lose.

I believe in a certain level of wellfare for the truly poor, and we have that today and some.

Like I said, do some proper research. You can't even be bothered to read my post properly.

Is this more important to you than the point of my original post Steve, does it make more sense in your world to defend the rich than to defend children who have been raped?

 

[jakeblu]

@Phil V & @ST4 your both much better photographers than you are political commenters, stick to the day job boys

 

[viv1969]

Income tax, morally, should be a flat rate.

And who decides what is morally right Steve, you?

 

[sturisoma]

The strikers used to drop rocks onto cars as they went under bridges. I remember someone was killed..

This only happened once, but once was enough - a paving slab was dropped from a bridge onto a taxi carrying a 'scab' and the taxi driver was killed. This one incident derailed the strikers' cause and public opinion (or those on the fence) landed firmly on the side of the govt,.

My dad always said Thatcher wanted to eradicate the working man and she certainly eradicated manufacturing. Newcastle still has one of the highest unemployment figures in the country. There used to be coal mines, shipbuilding, iron & steel works, factories making all sorts of stuff where young lads leaving school could go and start an apprenticeship.

Nowadays most jobs are in offices or shops. Not everyone wants to work like that. Not everyone is academic. The govt. doesn't seem to cater for anyone who isn't capable of getting 9 A*s in their school exams

 

[SFTPhotography]

Like I said, do some proper research. You can't even be bothered to read my post properly.

Is this more important to you than the point of my original post Steve, does it make more sense in your world to defend the rich than to defend children who have been raped?

I've read your own brand of "its someone elses fault theres poor people in the world" politics many times over on the internet. Usually with reference to Thatcher, Unions...

Plenty people are sticking up for these poor children and its an appalling turn of events, but its been explained to you by another serving police officer why it might not have been top of the pile. I also couldn't ignore the IMHO hysterical nature of your post I quoted back when I joined the thread.

You say "the rich" as if its some derogatory negative term, these are people and human beings just like you and I and a minority so cannot really sway the democratic process as they are hopeless outnumbered in the electorate....

And who decides what is morally right Steve, you?

Who decides I cannot give an opinion Ruth, you?

 

[big soft moose]

actually I could go for flat rate income tax , with the rather important proviso that the threshold was set at the living wage (so anyone earning less than that doesnt have it depleted still further), however I would also partner that with closing all the avoidance loopholes so that someone on say £200k actually did have to pay 20% of £185k (£39k) in tax rather than finding ways to weasel out of it

 

[jakeblu]

So Scargill & the Tory Government in the 1970's didn't happen? 3 day week? Power cuts?
What do you think the 80's minors strike was all about? It had little to do with his members Jobs, it was about getting rid of Thatcher.

They were not all going to keep their jobs, they'd priced themselves out of the market. I'm not sure that protecting miners that may well have agreed with Scargill, but wanted him to play by the rules was 'political' policing. I don''t call stopping miners on motorways with boots full of weapons political policing either.

It may very well have been a power struggle for Scargill but not for the thousands of miners who were out on strike for over a year. For them it was a fight for jobs and their communities. Neither did they price themselves out of a job unless you think being unable to compete with cheap foreign imports is pricing yourself out of a job. Its also worth noting that our elecrricity industry still uses coal to generate around 30% of its power and most of that comes from cheap foreign coal.

And the blame for the working relationship disaster that was allowed to foster at Longbridge wasnt entirely down to the unions, the management must take their share of the blame. Its typical of the power relations in this country that BL's failure is placed squarely on the unions shoulders and everyone remembers red robbo and not the disastrous management of Lord Stokes et al.

 

[viv1969]

Who decides I cannot give an opinion Ruth, you?

No one.....let rip...knock yourself out.
But you cannot say what is and isn't morally right for me or anyone else.
And saying this:

Income tax, morally, should be a flat rate.

....as part of your "opinion" is doing just that.

 

[Phil V]

I've read your own brand of "its someone elses fault theres poor people in the world" politics many times over on the internet. Usually with reference to Thatcher, Unions...

Plenty people are sticking up for these poor children and its an appalling turn of events, but its been explained to you by another serving police officer why it might not have been top of the pile. I also couldn't ignore the IMHO hysterical nature of your post I quoted back when I joined the thread.

You say "the rich" as if its some derogatory negative term, these are people and human beings just like you and I and a minority so cannot really sway the democratic process as they are hopeless outnumbered in the electorate....


Who decides I cannot give an opinion Ruth, you?

Steve, when it comes to judgement of others, you couldn't be more wrong, you lack the single most important attribute required, which is empathy. I don't have a problem with 'the rich' or see them as any kind of masse.

There aren't 'plenty of people' looking after those victims of rape, which is exactly why this thread exists. Because people like you care more about paying lower taxes than there being proper safety nets in our society for these victims.

Of course you're right, some idiot within SYP decided to siphon away the budget allocated to this particular enquiry, but that part of the typical issues of chasing targets (contrived by other idiots) and stretched resources. Then add in the lack of understanding of children from troubled families, and the view of these kids as the problem rather than as victims, and as I've said previously, we're learning nothing and this would happen again tomorrow.

 

[dejongj]

I'd like to see the statistics that support that assertion.

Well considering the top 1% earners provide nearly 1/3 of all income I wouldn't have thought it is that hard to imagine. And we aren't even talking super rich here as to be part of the top 1% of earners it is only a tad over £100K.

 

[dejongj]

And some are children whose systematic abuse was ignored because it didn't fit in any target criteria.

I'd be very surprised if that would be the outcome. It definitely isn't a good excuse and would indicate very bad management. Other forces don't seem to have that issue.

 

[Byker28i]

My dad always said Thatcher wanted to eradicate the working man and she certainly eradicated manufacturing. Newcastle still has one of the highest unemployment figures in the country. There used to be coal mines, shipbuilding, iron & steel works, factories making all sorts of stuff where young lads leaving school could go and start an apprenticeship.

Nowadays most jobs are in offices or shops. Not everyone wants to work like that. Not everyone is academic. The govt. doesn't seem to cater for anyone who isn't capable of getting 9 A*s in their school exams

Having worked in manufacturing for all my civilian life, I can tell you that the last labour govt did more to kill manufacturing, refusing to invest or support, relying instead on the large paper profits generated from the city. Why do we need to make anything when the city produces.... Oh hang on, when it all falls apart, countries that still make products, like Germany, have a strong recovery.

IMHO of course

 

[Byker28i]

Back to policing, why do we have so many separate police forces, with so many levels of management, instead of just one? That's got to lead to a lack of continuity if offences cross borders

 

[SFTPhotography]

actually I could go for flat rate income tax , with the rather important proviso that the threshold was set at the living wage (so anyone earning less than that doesnt have it depleted still further), however I would also partner that with closing all the avoidance loopholes so that someone on say £200k actually did have to pay 20% of £185k (£39k) in tax rather than finding ways to weasel out of it

Fairs fair and all that.

 

[SFTPhotography]

Steve, when it comes to judgement of others, you couldn't be more wrong, you lack the single most important attribute required, which is empathy. I don't have a problem with 'the rich' or see them as any kind of masse.

There aren't 'plenty of people' looking after those victims of rape, which is exactly why this thread exists. Because people like you care more about paying lower taxes than there being proper safety nets in our society for these victims.

Of course you're right, some idiot within SYP decided to siphon away the budget allocated to this particular enquiry, but that part of the typical issues of chasing targets (contrived by other idiots) and stretched resources. Then add in the lack of understanding of children from troubled families, and the view of these kids as the problem rather than as victims, and as I've said previously, we're learning nothing and this would happen again tomorrow.

How would more taxes have saved those poor kids or resolved it.

I look for value from my taxes and if everyone's tax was reduced we'd be a happier better off nation. All IMHO.

 

[MartynK]

Back to policing, why do we have so many separate police forces, with so many levels of management, instead of just one? That's got to lead to a lack of continuity if offences cross borders

Scotland amalgamated its police forces about two years ago.

One of the reasons I've come across for maintaining separate police forces is that it's - theoretically - much more difficult for the state to subvert the police to its own ends, because each force has its own Chief Constable/Commissioner.

 

[Phil V]

How would more taxes have saved those poor kids or resolved it.

I look for value from my taxes and if everyone's tax was reduced we'd be a happier better off nation. All IMHO.

Well if you can't work out that paying enough police to do the job properly costs more I can't help you.

 

[dejongj]

Well if you can't work out that paying enough police to do the job properly costs more I can't help you.

That is a very lazy and simplistic response.

Mandatory training regarding vulnerable individuals is in place and a core part for all. Any reasonable person would prioritise a vulnerable young person over a burglary. This is not an issue of money, this is not the late Baroness Thatchers doing. To me this reeks of an endemic cultural issue.

 

[Phil V]

That is a very lazy and simplistic response.

Mandatory training regarding vulnerable individuals is in place and a core part for all. Any reasonable person would prioritise a vulnerable young person over a burglary. This is not an issue of money, this is not the late Baroness Thatchers doing. To me this reeks of an endemic cultural issue.

The policeman on my telly said that money had been siphoned from his team (investigating this case) to investigate crimes that had targets attached.

It might be simplistic, but more resources for the police would make that less likely, I won't apologise if you can't comprehend that.

 

[SFTPhotography]

The policeman on my telly said that money had been siphoned from his team (investigating this case) to investigate crimes that had targets attached.

It might be simplistic, but more resources for the police would make that less likely, I won't apologise if you can't comprehend that.

Presumably these crimes had targets attached to them because reducing them mattered greatly.

This was a case that would be hard to gain a prosecution on and others would be easier to gain evidence for a prosecution and also by stopping them serve the greater good of the community or serve the greater good of more people in the community.

 

[big soft moose]

this is an odd thread - given that steve usually feels (correctly in my view) that nonces should be shot in the face at the first opportunity , i'm not sure what we are arguing about

 

[Phil V]

Presumably these crimes had targets attached to them because reducing them mattered greatly.

This was a case that would be hard to gain a prosecution on and others would be easier to gain evidence for a prosecution and also by stopping them serve the greater good of the community or serve the greater good of more people in the community.

Clearly, because the world is run by people who always make excellent decisions and the targets that are created are always the right ones, and there's no evidence that imposing targets ever created perverse behaviours in the public sector.

Have you been smoking funny fags?

 

[Phil V]

this is an odd thread - given that steve usually feels (correctly in my view) that nonces should be shot in the face at the first opportunity , i'm not sure what we are arguing about

Now he's found out that half Thatchers cabinet were nonces, he's decided they're not such a bad thing after all.

 

[big soft moose]

Clearly, because the world is run by people who always make excellent decisions and the targets that are created are always the right ones, and there's no evidence that imposing targets ever created perverse behaviours in the public sector.

Have you been smoking funny fags?

target led policing is like target led teaching or target led healthcare - created for honourable intentions, but in practice a collosal waste of time and resources leading to both time wasted on pointless box ticking, and also to focus on quantity rather than quality.

A prolonged investigation of child abuse takes a lot of resources, and only leads to say 5 arrests - so clearly its a more effective use of time to use those resources to arrest 50 shop lifters because 10x greater efficiency - computer says so !

 

[viv1969]

Presumably these crimes had targets attached to them because reducing them mattered greatly.

This was a case that would be hard to gain a prosecution on and others would be easier to gain evidence for a prosecution and also by stopping them serve the greater good of the community or serve the greater good of more people in the community.

What sort of prosecutions to you consider to be of "a greater good" compared to the abuse of a child?

 

[StewartR]

And some are children whose systematic abuse was ignored because it didn't fit in any target criteria.

I'd be very surprised if that would be the outcome. It definitely isn't a good excuse and would indicate very bad management. Other forces don't seem to have that issue.

That's a good point. Presumably SYP weren't the only force who had targets for certain classes of crime. Presumably SYP weren't the only force who had stretched budgets and not enough money to do everything. And yet SYP were diverting money from paedophile investigations.

So either there is/was something uniquely rotten about SYP, or we're going to hear a lot more stories about endemic child abuse like in Rotherham. And Sheffield. And Oxford. And Derby. And Rochdale. And Bristol. And.......

 

[SFTPhotography]

Clearly, because the world is run by people who always make excellent decisions and the targets that are created are always the right ones, and there's no evidence that imposing targets ever created perverse behaviours in the public sector.

Have you been smoking funny fags?

No, but there could have been targets to kerb drink driving, armed robbery, drug dealing etc.

I don't live in SY but I heard it's not pleasant.

 

[SFTPhotography]

What sort of prosecutions to you consider to be of "a greater good" compared to the abuse of a child?

I know your going for the emotional argument but there could be many crimes that need reduced for the greater good. Drink driving, vehicle theft, armed robbery, drugs, which would effect a greater number of people in South Yorkshire than just one child.

 

[viv1969]

I know your going for the emotional argument but there could be many crimes that need reduced for the greater good. Drink driving, vehicle theft, armed robbery, drugs, which would effect a greater number of people in South Yorkshire than just one child.

Wow...Quite possibly the most ignorant post I've ever seen.

 

[dejongj]

The policeman on my telly said that money had been siphoned from his team (investigating this case) to investigate crimes that had targets attached.

It might be simplistic, but more resources for the police would make that less likely, I won't apologise if you can't comprehend that.

And he was most likely telling the truth, however that doesn't change the point I made. A poor excuse way too often wheeled out. More money isn't always the answer or an issue, yet an argument used to easily fool many.

 

[dejongj]

That's a good point. Presumably SYP weren't the only force who had targets for certain classes of crime. Presumably SYP weren't the only force who had stretched budgets and not enough money to do everything. And yet SYP were diverting money from paedophile investigations.

So either there is/was something uniquely rotten about SYP, or we're going to hear a lot more stories about endemic child abuse like in Rotherham. And Sheffield. And Oxford. And Derby. And Rochdale. And Bristol. And.......

You've forgotten the North Wales care homes and operation yew tree as well in that list. Oh and Westminster. As I said an endemic cultural issue rather than targets and money.

 

[Phil V]

And he was most likely telling the truth, however that doesn't change the point I made. A poor excuse way too often wheeled out. More money isn't always the answer or an issue, yet an argument used to easily fool many.

Of course I'm an idiot, more money is no help whatsoever, that must be true because it's what the people with loads of money keep telling the people who don't have enough.

 

[Blank_Canvas]

No, but there could have been targets to kerb drink driving, armed robbery, drug dealing etc.

I don't live in SY but I heard it's not pleasant.

You can't mandate targets. If someone is going to commit an offence, then it's going to happen.

Do you mean set targets to detect crime ? If so, that's another problem. Witness statements of suspect descriptions are flakey, if there is no CCTV, or forensic evidence then there is not a lot to investigate.

Government Policing targets don't work.

NY isn't too shabby and York has just been voted the worlds safest city by Post Office customers - I'm not sure what weight that has in the grand scheme of things though !

 

[Phil V]

No, but there could have been targets to kerb drink driving, armed robbery, drug dealing etc.

I don't live in SY but I heard it's not pleasant.

You wouldn't like it, you should definitely stay away...
It's a wonderful place, half an hour to the peak district, an hour to the North Yorkshire Moors, Just a bit further to the Dales.

It's brimming with Social History, the people are honest decent and hardworking (you'd probably have a problem with all the honesty). We sat at the centre of the Industrial Revolution building the best trains in the world, fuelled by coal mined on the doorstep and built with local Steel too.

It has it's downsides too, sink estates are a legacy of the short sighted... and we also produced Jeremy Clarkson for which I can only apologise.

 

[SFTPhotography]

Wow...Quite possibly the most ignorant post I've ever seen.

Will you please explain why?

 

[viv1969]

Will you please explain why?

You place vehicle theft (I don't care if it's one or one hundred) above the welfare of a child.
Vehicles are things...possessions without lives to be ruined. A child is not.

 

[Phil V]

You place vehicle theft (I don't care if it's one or one hundred) above the welfare of a child.
Vehicles are things...possessions without lives to be ruined. A child is not.

I'd add (to point out absolute f*****g ignorance), we're not discussing a child, we're discussing a lot of children and an organised gang of criminals (the likes of which you wanted to shoot in the face before this thread came along) .