|
We wouldn't, but I don't think anyone would be foolish enough to suggest that there wouldn't be a huge rise in crime if all policing was stopped.
There just seems to be a denial that reducing numbers has had a negative effect, despite the amount of senior police figures warning us it would. Despite them still saying it. It's part of the problem.
As for the stop and search? Leaving aside the fact that the last major stop and search campaign was largely unsuccessful, we're now back to the numbers again. These crimes are across London, involving teenagers and adults. There's hardly any street police presence these days, nowhere near enough to tackle the numbers needed for results. Even if they were to target just black gangs they haven't got the manpower to make even a dent into the problem. There'll be hundreds of arrests needing to be processed for drug possession, public order offences and a few weapon seizures. That will need even more resources behind the scenes too. Numbers again.
If people look beyond the headlines and their dislike of everything Labour, they'll find that Abbott doesn't agree with random stop and search but thinks evidence based stop and search is something that does work. That again though goes back to needing numbers for community policing to gain the evidence needed for targeted searches. It seemed to work for NY and, I think, Glasgow so there's some mileage in it.
I just find it at odds when people say reducing police numbers has had no effect, but advocate random stop and search which would need an increase in police numbers.
Other than the people kill people mantra which a few keep saying, that gets us nowhere other than something we all know, what actual suggestions have we had for tackling the problem? Or, more to the point, what suggestions that won't involve increasing police numbers? |
|