Police London

Is the rise in violent crime because of police cuts?

According to the government: no; also according to the government: maybe

A leaked government document says that cuts to police numbers is a 'likely' factor in the rise in crime across the UK. The home secretary, who's the government person responsible for crime, says the two things are absolutely not related.

What it means: Since 2014, the number of police officers has fallen by 5%. According to the leaked document, this has led to a drop in 'charge rates'. It suggests that people could be "encouraged" to carry out crimes, largely because there's less chance of them getting caught. The report is clear that it's not the only reason, but it does say it's a significant factor in creating the environment that allowed crime to rise.

So far, the government line has been that there is no link between a fall in police numbers and a rise in crime. In fact, Amber Rudd, the home secretary, whose department is responsible for the report (the Home Office) previously said there isn't any evidence to suggest a lack of resources are responsible.

It's all about how the government  to spend its money. Critics of the government are arguing that cuts to spending, which the government says are necessary, are having a negative effect on peoples' lives. This leaked memo will add fuel to that claim.

Recent articles

Reader Comments

  • RW

    Your right to a degree. You mentioned “the wandering Jew”.

    I elaborate that the Jewish people, historically have tended to migrate almost exclusively to locations that are economically and culturally vibrant already. I would speculate that Jews have thrived in these places and have often improved the bounds of their economies and knowledge base.

    You can also ask; how many massive entertainment conglomerates, Nobel winners or billionaires has Isreal developed? If Jews are so capable, why isn’t Tel Aviv the Rome of our time?

    Jews are successful because they value education, maintain a strong social cohesive, they actively monitor and have a good sense for Zeitgeist wherever they are and they carefully choose the places they settle and congregate themselves heavily in these choice locations.

    But most importantly (haulocaust increased the importance of this aspect), they actually designed their culture for success. They not only attend Harvard, they use what they learned to better the group as a whole. With as much, they studied intricate networking systems, adapted to it and in many cases improved upon them. (See how Japan acquired Aegis warships and made them better).

    Of course there is nothing wrong with any of this. It’s when you elaborately gain disproportionate power in any society where you would stand out, you must take care when attempting to make a society better (Civil Rights movement) and rewriting that society all together (mass immigration). Ask blacks in China, Mexico, Philippines or India how much opportunity they have? Go to businesses owned by their American diaspora and see how many blacks they hire. Go to Silicon Valley and see how many East or South Asian tech workers wish they could work with more black people. California might work as a state, but as a nation, I think your rolling the nuclear dice here. I hope we can succeed as a tolerant pluralistic superpower but at this stage in human societal development, it’s a pipe dream.

    And if Jews really are the icon for success, they would see that fundamental human successes happen over generations. Just look at the rest of the planet? Are we ready?