HOMEPAGE | NEWS | WORLD SERVICE | SPORT | MY BBC
| HOMEPAGE | NEWS | WORLD SERVICE | SPORT | MY BBC
|
help |
  |
|
||||
 |
|
You are in: Vote2001: Talking Point | ||
    |
|
Monday, 4 June, 2001, 11:10 GMT 12:10 UK
How safe do you feel in Britain?
Four years after Labour was elected promising to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, the issue is back at the top of the agenda.
Labour say crime has fallen and police recruitment is up, the Conservatives say violent crime is rising and police morale is at an all-time low. The Liberal Democrats say they would employ 6,000 new police officers and carry out a national crime audit to see what are the most effective crime prevention measures. In an interview for BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer jailed for life for shooting dead a 16 year-old intruder at his remote farm attacked Labour and Conservative policies towards law and order, and said the police needed greater powers. Which party has the policies to make you feel safer? Is crime one of the major electoral issues for you? Are more police officers the only solution, or do they need greater powers to stop crime?
In answer to your questions.
1. None of the parties.
2.Yes, it certainly is.
3. More police is not the solution. The solution is more EFFECTIVE use of existing resources.
4. No. The police do not need, nor should they be given greater powers. They already have more powers than they should have. What is needed is more EFFECTIVE use of those powers.
I agree with the American gentleman - Tony Martin shot a boy in the back while he was running away. Since when did we start listening to convicted felons for advice on our crime policy?
Simeon, Salford
Most people want to choose the laws they obey. Motorists flout the law as a matter of course: speeding is directly attributable to a large proportion of the thousands killed every year but most will consider this an acceptable loss for their convenience. Police participate in this "acceptable violence" by driving around at high speed rather than walking. "Rapid response" will be the cry; well anyone who has been the victim of crime will know how slow the police are to react.
Justine Fernandes, London, UK
As an ex-police officer myself, I should point out that the CPS and legal system actually go ahead and prosecute cases; police officers merely collate the evidence.
Mind you, it's difficult to respond to a 999 call when you are 10 miles away from the reported incident, on foot, because you have been told at the beginning of your shift that there are no vehicles available.
I know a large number of police officers in the US, and things are undoubtedly more violent there. Friends of mine carry two firearms on duty in certain areas in NYC; and contrary to public opinion, in a recent survey over 80% of UK police officers still believed we should not be overtly armed for routine duties.
My answer? A reform of the entire legal system, and more available money for UK police forces, hence more officers, more vehicles, better public opinion, etc.
The fear of crime is far greater than the chance of actually suffering crime in the UK. This state of affairs has not been helped by the scare mongering of the tabloid press and numerous "true-crime" type TV programmes which does nothing but create an atmosphere of crime and fear. As it is, the police have been given powers well beyond what is necessary for apprehending criminals, by successive governments (the 1994 Criminal Justice Act and the current Terrorism Act are just 2 examples). What is needed is an attack on the social causes of crime - unemployment, poor housing, and a growing gap between rich and poor.
Paul Gorman thinks that we need to
attack the social cause of crime, a
growing gap between rich and poor.
However in absolute terms the poor
are much richer than people in the 30s,
able to afford consumer goods like
satellite TV and expensive trainers. You rarely see teenagers
today without the latest fashions and
mobile phones. They are the ultimate
instant satisfaction consumerists who
feel it is ok to steal from others instead
of working and saving up for something.
This is the politics of envy: moral values
and harsh punishments need to be
restored to society.
Schmal, Swansea, West Glam, UK The crime is one matter. The suppression of the political ideals which, if followed, would rid us of crime once and for all is a far more un-progressive and criminal matter, and should be given more consideration. The Anti-Terrorism Act is crime in itself and is a step towards outlawing the true politics of socialism and communism which New Labour has attacked full on far beyond the last election.
There is too much vomiting in Leicester Square. I blame the parents.
Bleeding heart liberals (like the BBC) try to silence people who want real law-and-order in this country by attacking us with childish names like "the hang 'em brigade".
I'm happy to say that such attempts at brainwashing are backfiring. People want tough sentences for repeat offenders in this country.
It's quite simple really: we want to protect our families and feel safe when we walk the streets and when we sleep in our beds.
Why the BBC and The Guardian don't understand that is a mystery to me.
Dave, West Midlands, UK
Last week the gang of crooks who
introduced thousands of tons of
chicken condemned as unfit for
human consumption into the food
chain - netting themselves millions
of pounds in the process - had their sentences
reduced by the appeal court.
No-one will ever know how many
people were made ill by their
actions...
When is Labour going to crack down on this yobbo culture that allows underage youths to get drunk and cause a lot of damage to property? They have got to start charging the parents for this damage. It is a disgrace.
Andrew, Aberdeen, Scotland
Given the recent debacle about policemen shooting an unarmed innocent man and getting away with it, isn't it evident that arming the police is a dangerously irresponsible proposal. It might seem an easy solution to lock everyone up and impose harsher and harsher penalties, but it plainly doesn't stop crimes from happening, it merely gets some of the more stupid criminals out of circulation temporarily. It doesn't matter how harsh you make the punishment, people being made to understand the consequences of our actions and take responsibility for them is fair and works. More of that and less of the reactionary huffing and puffing!
Darren Flight, Peterborough
So Mark T believes all drugs should be legal and by the sound of it free on the NHS. Well the great misery for alcoholics is the cost of their addiction, so lets have super lager and fortified wine free on the NHS and whilst we're at it let's give cigarettes out free as well.
Ed, London
Less paper work and a more visible police presence is a more obvious approach.
If one commits a serious enough crime to have ones liberty removed then only basic rights should be given. Not colour TV's, safari holidays, or trips to the local cinema, just food, shelter and sanitation. Treats, as all good parents know, need to be earned.
'Commit the crime face the time' should be the Governments motto. Instead criminals are treated with a life of luxury in prison and then released early to commit more crime. Over the past 4 years I have seen a dramatic shift towards the victim being treated as the villain whilst the criminals of society get a slap on the wrist from dithering 65 year old judges who do not have a clue about the country we live in today.
Neil, Richmond, London
Is it any wonder that gangs of young people roam around looking for trouble? Doesn't anyone remember how boring it is when you are on the threshold of adulthood only to be told that you are not old enough to drink, not old enough to go in a pub and too old to go to youth clubs? What is there for the youth of today to do for fun? Crime is not a black and white issue. People are rarely pure evil, there's mitigating circumstances to consider in all crimes and being tough on all crime will not work.
With local police gaining commission on the number of speed convictions they gain, I can see the strapped for cash Chief Constables pulling cars from patrols to man speed traps.
Speeding on an urban street is obviously dangerous. Speeding on a quiet motorway is not really a problem.
It's about time we got our priorities right.
W. S. Jaworski, Albuquerque, NM, USA
Regarding W.S.Jaworski from Albuquerque's comments: Don't you think any potential transgressors into your home may be more inclined to carry heavy firepower and more inclined to hurt you or your family, knowing that they are likely to meet deadly resistance from you? Having a gun culture makes you all more vulnerable not less!!
I find it incomprehensible that people would argue in favour of American attitudes towards law enforcement. London may have more crime than New York, but it is still worth remembering that New York's yearly homicide rate is almost always larger than that of the entire UK by a factor of two. Zero tolerance, and the arming of householders, has not helped to reduce the crime rate in the United States. And to the defenders of Tony Martin: he shot a teenager in the back. He will get no sympathy from me.
The economy is booming. Unemployment is at its lowest level in years. There is no real poverty in Britain. Yet violent crime is up. The figures on theft may be down, but this is due to a combination of fiddling the statistics and better home and car security. Successive governments have encouraged a "something-for-nothing" culture. If you don't have to work to support your kids, why should you have to work to get a DVD? To cut crime we need to abolish the welfare culture.
I don't feel afraid of crime at all, I think in this country we need to get far less paranoid and more realistic. We actually have a pretty safe society where the fear of crime is far worse than the reality of places like the good old US of A. I'd really like to see Labour when they get back in tackling the causes of crime, such as social deprivation and poverty, and reducing the gap between rich and poor.
The police should be embarrassed by their role as tax collectors from speeding motorists, whilst the police chiefs should put up strong resistance to the government's tax collecting activities and try and build up enough intelligence to know what criminals are doing what crimes in their locality in order to bring a few of them to justice.
D Thorpe, Hayes, Middlesex
I'm fed up with all the do-gooders in this country. People have a choice - either don't commit crime, or commit a crime and face the consequences. I'm prepared to pay the tax to take these wasters out of society or to re-house them away from me and near the do-gooders. Perhaps some 'good doing' will rub off on these criminals. Why do these do-gooders have such an influence? Judging by the postings here most people just want straight justice, not this cradling and nurturing of criminal scum. If one party stood up and faced these issues with more money and zero tolerance, instead of twisting statistics maybe we could live in a country with a lot less crime.
We need to take away power from those people who come up with bizarre arguments such as 'poverty is not owning a TV' and 'crime (particularly theft) is a symptom of poverty'. There is very little (if any) real poverty in the UK and those who commit crimes in the UK have no excuse. It would be a step in the right direction if children were taught this key fact.
Crime is a problem, but the cities are still far worse than rural areas - people are still leaving cities for the country, not the other way round. More police would be welcome, but will not solve the problem on their own, regardless of number or whatever hysterically draconian punishments Anne Widdecombe dreams up. Remember, crime levels were probably worse, proportionately, when we had capital punishment for over 250 crimes. There is no quick fix - it will need a co-ordinated package of social and legal measures. One thing this government has usefully done is cut youth unemployment, and it should continue with these efforts.
ZA, London, UK
This is a very safe country compared to most, and if you take simple precautions you are unlikely to ever be a victim of serious crime. Of course we should reduce what crime there is - but prevention is better than cure. Visible policing is one way, but CCTV cameras and more use of tagging would allow police to use more valuable skills than standing around in a uniform acting as a deterrent. There are many highly trained police who work very well with social services/ homeless groups/ drug addiction centres/ community action groups etc... this is much higher value work, which aims to tackle the underlying causes of crime.
Mike, Harlow, England
I have also looked at the benefits of legalising drugs, but look what happened with tobacco. Prices have increased over the years and the government are making large amounts of money yet still can't afford the health service for those who have smoking related diseases. What will happen with drugs? As to giving people fines for being caught with drugs, what a waste of time!! Addicts who can hardly afford their habit will probably commit more crime to pay off fines. With reference to Rob Nelson's comment, you have to remember a lot of the users are caught up in something that eventually they lose control of. These people are addicts and need support and help, not to be called 'Trash'!!
There seems to be a major emphasis on punishing criminals but studies and experience show that punishment alone does not stop people re-offending. There must be some element of rehabilitation or else people just serve out their time and then come out and re-offend. During the fuss about early release I was amazed that nobody in the media challenged the Tories to explain why, if the early release scheme wasn't working, the re-offending rate amongst people released under this scheme was 3% when the normal rate of re-offending is something over 50%. There has to be a belief that people can be reformed or else we might as well all give up now.
In some parts of south London you hardly ever see any community policing. There is lack of a sense of community and opportunity for some. Women and the elderly are at risk. Society has changed and with these attitudes even some of the children are into crime. The main areas of concern in south London are drugs, mugging and sexual attack and house theft. People who live in some of these areas struggle as it is a high unemployment area. There is a lack of facilities and the local council are incompetent. There seems to be a politics of look after number one.
Clive, UK I am a victim of serious violent crime who, because of his injuries, has not been able to work for the last eighteen months. I can tell you from experience that the police, for various reasons including inadequate staffing levels, are incapable of investigating more than a fraction of serious crimes in this country. When they do they are as likely to lose the evidence, as they are to prosecute criminals even if they were arrested at the scene. Crime is the manifestation of a wide variety of social ills in this country, which largely stem from our apparent unwillingness to spend anything like what is necessary to correct the problems that British society has. Small wonder the spread of voter apathy in such circumstances...
It's not just a question of feeling safer. I had a security inspector round to check my house six months ago. He pointed out that if a burglar slipped on the loose tiles on one of my windows and fell he could sue me. Does anyone else see that as madness?
I am not arguing for a 'liberal panacea', nor am I in favour of a gratuitous over-use of violence, but rather a 'measured response'. This is what is currently established under Common Law. Tony Martin is the wrong example for people to clutch onto: he held an illegal firearm and used it against an individual, shooting that person in the back as he ran away. Admittedly, this young boy was committing an illegal act, but a British court, consisting of Mr Martin's peers, found him to have a wanting defence before the eyes of the law. No one should be above the law.
Kenneth Jessett, Houston, USA
The police should not be given more resources until they make effective use of the resources they have. If the police were paid by results they would be penniless, but they do seem to have cottoned on to the fact that there is more money to be made fining motorists whilst letting serious crime pass them by. The police force (farce?) seems to be riddled with the compensation culture that reduces their credibility even further. A root and branch overhaul of policing in this country is long overdue, but the police themselves seem to be very effective in preventing such a process taking place.
Gary Dillon, Harlow, England
As someone who has had a relative killed by a speeding car, I find the complaints about police prosecuting speeding motorists to be highly offensive. Somebody dying or being seriously injured by a speeding motorists is by far a more serious crime than stolen cars etc. if people followed the traffic laws, which are there to protect human life, then there would be more police to fight other crimes. Speeding is a crime which kills people ever year, and unfortunately not just those who are doing the speeding. If people don't like being stopped for speeding, the answer is simple, DON'T.
My 60-year-old baby sitter has been caught and fined twice in the last 3 months for doing 35mph in a 30mph zone. My expectant wife has been fined for doing 45mph in a 40mph zone. Two miles from our house is a gypsy squat where burnt-out stolen cars and litter hide their caravans. Do the police ever take action? No. Old ladies and pregnant women are easier targets. Policing is a joke.
Nick, Southampton
It is quite disgraceful that the BBC provide the person convicted of an unlawful killing, any opportunity to make a statement regarding law and order in our country. The opinion and views of this convicted criminal are to be dismissed as totally worthless.
The reason this country is short of police is because there is no longer any incentive for young people to become police officers. Last year, an officer in Watford was prosecuted by the parents of a teenage boy who had stolen money from a market cash box and was then chased and caught by a police officer who, in the ensuing scuffle, caught the boy's earring and tore it off. The fact that the boy stabbed the officer's body armour with a pocket-knife was ignored because he did no damage. Had the officer not had body armour on he could have died. Where is the sense in taking on the responsibility of public protection when you are at the mercy of the criminals you pursue? The government needs to knock some sense into the cushy human-rights issues that hamper the police force and then perhaps they will see more people interested in joining the force.
Peter Warner, London, UK
For a long while it seems that it pays to commit crime. Those with so little to lose appear to have so much to gain. As always it is ultimately the (innocent) taxpayer who is subsidising this mess.
Police in this country are nothing more than glorified well-paid secretaries.
Harry Rose, San Pedro, USA
We need more police officers, but with the powers to act. When will the electorate see a practical and enforceable deterrent for the wrongdoers? It is too easy for them, and there are not enough support agencies for the victims of their crimes, least of all from the Government.
Does Chris Ransom believe this also applies to Gatso (speed) cameras? They cost £32000 each, nearly two PCs wages and I have never seen one chase a stolen car.
I don't see more police on the beat as the most cost-effective solution. CCTV Cameras generally do a far better job. Changes would occur if there were longer sentences for the core of criminals who keep re-offending, with progressively less chance of early release. Judges should hand down sentences that fit the crime and the law should protect anyone defending themselves or their property from attack. I also feel the complete lack of moral guidance in our society today has a lot to do with its problems.
Police have become demoralised by the Macpherson report and ill-considered human rights legislation (or the way criminals hide behind it). No wonder they concentrate on catching motorists, who are generally otherwise law abiding and will accept punishment without fuss.
Tim, London, UK
I'm afraid that the simple fact is that it does not follow that more police means less crime. The average copper on the beat can expect to be within 100 yards of a serious crime only twice in his career, and even then he probably won't see it. I do wish the media, public and politicians wouldn't keep perpetuating this unscientific myth that crime levels are even slightly related to police staff levels.
I feel less at risk from crime than I do from the police. The reason (from personal experience) is due to the underhand way at which the police in this country encourage people to break the law and then turn on them when they do break the law. The police need to be held a bit more accountable for their actions. They are supposed to be upholding the law not abusing it.
Reintroduce the pillory for minor local offences. Put more visible police officers on foot patrol. Enforce proper punishments for those convicted of crimes. Stop thinking of the criminals as victims and start treating them as the repugnant individuals that they are.
Stuart Ford, UK
The law now leans more towards the perpetrator's rights than the victim's. Previous indiscretions are rarely presented to the jury and criminals are rarely punished properly for their acts. Instead they are coddled in prisons with almost better facilities than boarding schools! They should receive hardship for the crimes they have committed. I'm just glad I moved out of London, as there is little police protection against organised criminal units that run the city.
I'm more worried about what their 'Big Brother' cameras will be used for than getting mugged. I'm also angry about their obsession with speeding motorists and pot smokers when big business continues to despoil the environment for its own selfish short-term gratification.
The death penalty should be brought back and all areas should operate zero tolerance. No-one who commits a crime against another person should feel safe in the knowledge that they are going to get away with it.
I live behind a cricket club that regularly gets vandalised. Each time the alarm goes off I ring the police. More than once I have been asked to check if anyone is at the club. Each time I have refused as I feel that someone vandalising a building could be violent towards a woman. Over the years I have seen evidence that the number of policemen in our area is declining, 7 years ago a police car would always arrive within half an hour, now we are lucky if it arrives within an hour.
I find it difficult to give any credence to the idea that Labour has problems because it "followed Tory spending plans". If the Tory spending plans were not going to work, why use them? This is just another of the raft of excuses for not fixing the crime problems, the health service and the many other things that Labour have failed to do.
It's interesting that the Tories should make such a song and dance over Labour releasing criminals early, and then five minutes later go and demand the release of a man who last year went and shot an un-armed teenager when he was running in the opposite direction.
When drug addicts need hundreds of pounds a week to obtain drugs and are unable or unwilling to work, they turn to crime. De-criminalize drugs, make them available on the NHS and crime rates would drop dramatically. A lot of police time in the evening is taken up patrolling town centres and dealing with drunks. Changing people's drinking habits would need a shift in the way that we view alcohol. Perhaps a restriction on how it can be advertised would be a good place to start.
First step to reducing crime is to silence all the do-gooders who think criminals should be treated lightly.
Police with guns is what we need...and lots of 'em.
My wife was recently the victim of a burglary at her place of work (in a major English city) while she was working alone during the evening. She heard the burglar and immediately called the police. The police arrived 3 hours (and several more phone calls) later. When she asked why they had not responded sooner she was told that there were only 4 police officers (who patrol as 2 pairs) to patrol the whole of the city centre, even on a Friday and Saturday night. Fortunately my wife was not attacked but she was extremely frightened. What is clear is that we need many more police officers on the beat and they must be freed from the vast amounts of paperwork to let them get on with the business of protecting the community.
I feel safer from crime, as figures published here in Strathclyde seem to say the police are doing a good job. Certainly the streets are safer on a weekend night out. What I am truly afraid of is each government in turn using fear of crime as a justification for removing more and more of our freedom, until we find ourselves living in an Orwellian nightmare!
Allan, Bedforshire
It is more expensive to police by consent in a liberal democracy than it is to introduce draconian police powers. Rather than spend money on more police to get the job done right, Home Secretaries provide dictatorial short cuts to the fewer police we still have, arming them with c.s. gas (Tories) and rubber bullets (Labour) and reducing the rights of the average Joe on the street. This alienates an increasing number of honest people, so the police get less help from the public. Then moral and arrest rates fall, inducing the government to introduce yet another batch of draconian powers. We need to spend considerably more money on the Police Force and to increase starting salaries. Coupled with the restoration of civil liberties, we may eventually get back to a climate where average people respect and obey the law because they believe in it and consent to its policing. I would pay more tax to get my civil rights back.
Steve Dillon, Croydon, Surrey
David Webb was the Chief Superintendent in charge of policing the 'angry suburb' of Handsworth in the mid-eighties. He is writing a study about policing problems and methods between 1948 to date. When this is published next year it will lift the lid on the reality of inner city policing. It will also demonstrate the futility of the exchange of statistics between the parties.
Repeal the Human Rights Act. Make the Police more powerful and less accountable. Introduce Singapore style flogging for all crimes involving unprovoked violence. (But don't bring back the death penalty).
I don't see more police on the beat as the most cost-effective solution. CCTV Cameras generally do a far better job. Changes would occur if there were longer sentences for the core of criminals who keep re-offending, with progressively less chance of early release. Judges should hand down sentences that fit the crime and the law should protect anyone defending themselves or their property from attack. I also feel the complete lack of moral guidance in our society today has a lot to do with its problems.
Whatever Labour's detractors might say, four years isn't long enough to deal with problems that the Tories couldn't (or wouldn't) solve in 18 years, especially when Labour stuck to the spending plans of the previous government for the first two years. At least more people are occupied by work after four years of Labour government and therefore less likely to get into mischief.
There should be more police on the streets - I walk past Dens in my area and the yobs there get away with murder practically, getting drunk, causing distress to us elderly people and being very loud.
Ian, London
Of course more police would cut crime. It would also cost more money, which would mean more tax. The Tories cut police numbers, to deliver tax cuts, and Labour has only recently been able to recruit more police owing to two decades of declining salaries and benefits.
All this talk of evil liberal policy is terrible. Of course there are social problems behind crime and unless these are addressed crime will never come down regardless of the number of police on the streets.
The forces of Conservatism were never successful with their tough on crime approach in the past, so why should it work now?
The police need to stop being treated like a political football and be allowed to get on with their jobs, then the government can concentrate on dealing with the real causes of crime.
X, UK
Yes we have to have more Police who should be uniformed officers. An initial increase in numbers will cause the crime rate to rise as the extra officers will deal with more offences. We should aim to have enough visible officers to make it expected to see them walk, or cycle on our streets and estates.
Yes, more police on the beat would probably reassure the public, but what we really need is a complete review of law and order. Currently if you've nothing to lose you might as well adopt a criminal way of life. At best, you get away with it, and at worst, you get caught and get a roof over your head, and regular meals.
I want to see Britain become a place where people are terrified of committing crimes. We need to crush crime with a force never seen before, and that means getting tough.
Crime on the whole may be soaring, but just you dare drive 32mph in a 30...
|
|
  Debate crime 1100GMT/1200BST
Related stories:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||
| ||
|
|
|
 |
|
^^ Back to top VOTE2001 | Main Issues| Features | Crucial Seats | Key People | Parties | Results & Constituencies | Candidates | Opinion Polls | Online 1000 | Virtual Vote | Talking Point | Forum | AudioVideo | Programmes | Voting System | Local Elections Nations: N Ireland | Scotland | Wales --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To BBC News>> | To BBC Sport>> | To BBC Weather>> |
Ask Jack Straw