It's free to register, to post a question or to start / join a discussion
Do you think the police cuts should be reconsidered?
Likes # 0
Posted August 11, 2011 at 8:57PM
Today on the World at One Kenneth Clarke reiterated the goverments case for cutting police budgets.
He said that policing was in major need of a root and branch reform, with which I generally agree. He added that they wanted police officers out of offices and on the streets, meaning that overall number of officer could be cut without reducing the number of frontline police. Great, but he then said the jobs being done by the police officers in offices could then be done by civilian staff.
My local force is having to cut 700 police officers AND 500 civilian posts.
Something therefore does not add up.
Why can't the government simply be honest. They need to balance the books, policing must take its pain like every public service but please please don't say there will be no noticeable reduction in frontline officers.
The emperor has no clothes.
Likes # 0
Posted August 13, 2011 at 8:51PM
Bremner "..remuneration is irrelevant."
I think, firstly, we need to establish the meaning of the word 'professional'.
Is there a difference between a 'job' and a 'profession'? If so what criteria does one apply?
It used to be that the 'professions' were occupations where a certain amount of academic learning was required, doctors, lawyers, teachers etc.
Now it seems everyone is professional - plumbers, soldiers (even, footballers!). Of course in cricket it was always so, they even had Gentlemen V Players matches - the Gents were the amateurs, the Players were the one's paid!
So remuneration does come into the profession argument, I presume.
Reply to this topic
This thread has been locked.