Exactly what do we get back?

[CB100]

Oooh you don't realise what labels you will get for those remarks....

With 50% of them being overweight how are they going to do that? If you want a police force that it capable of using physical force, use the army. Less inelligence but crime would plummet once the first few squaddies start beating people to death with their bear hands one on one.

[CB100]

A third on it. Replace "hi" with "u"...

I second that.

[Rebirth]

Some of them are fit enough to put a good few punches in, once they've tasered him a few times.

It will be far worse when they privatise them. They will be recruiting from the third world, who will probably just rape the drunks!

This message is hidden because CB100 is on your ignore list.

Creep be gone.

[CB100]

Nice label, crawley.

Creepy be gone.

[Roland]

With 50% of them being overweight how are they going to do that? If you want a police force that it capable of using physical force, use the army. Less inelligence but crime would plummet once the first few squaddies start beating people to death with their bear hands one on one.

I think it would be far better for every one if crime plummeted because we had a decent society, a decent education system, where politicians and those at the top are subject to complying with their own laws, a good economy that provides good where there are jobs for those who are willing to take them.

While I agree that some times they need to be heavy handed never allow them to behave in that manor with out seriously having to justify their behaviour because one day you may find a government can turn that police force on all of us.

[Roland]

Some of them are fit enough to put a good few punches in, once they've tasered him a few times.

Did you notice they are only supposed to use the taser if in fear of serious harm towards themselves or the public. They used the taser because he was not being compliant not for their own protection.

[CB100]

I agree with you. The problem is there is so much political correctness that the police can't even protect the public properly as with the riots last year. My view is the police should be given the benefit of the doubt even when they have to use force.

While I agree that some times they need to be heavy handed never allow them to behave in that manor with out seriously having to justify their behaviour because one day you may find a government can turn that police force on all of us.

[Roland]

I agree with you. The problem is there is so much political correctness that the police can't even protect the public properly as with the riots last year. My view is the police should be given the benefit of the doubt even when they have to use force.

I think the PC argument wares a bit thin. I've seen the old bill in action they are heavy handed on little Muppet's and kids but if you see them when the sh@t is really hitting the fan and they have real men to deal with or seriously dangerous situations they tend to sit around the corner until things have calmed down. It would also seem that they get rewarded more for pulling over a motorist with no tax than catching a machete wielding lunatic.

[CB100]

My view is we have a significant minority of violent individuals who the Police should have the right to deal with quickly and efficiently. With violent protesters, drunken yobs and other riff raff out to create mayhem the police should get stuck in with truncheons to sort them out. Such individuals should not think they can do what they like without consequences.

I think the PC argument wares a bit thin. I've seen the old bill in action they are heavy handed on little Muppet's and kids but if you see them when the sh@t is really hitting the fan and they have real men to deal with or seriously dangerous situations they tend to sit around the corner until things have calmed down. It would also seem that they get rewarded more for pulling over a motorist with no tax than catching a machete wielding lunatic.

[Tom Collier]

Sorry to cut across people talking about crime and similar.

CB100 I have quicky read that article. A couple of points questions spring to mind;

Nick Robinson is talking about 60% of households receive more money back from the Treasury. This will include large numbers of older people who (quite rightly) might draw a pension, one of the last universal benefits, for many years, at a tax favourable rate (George Osborne is sorting that out though).

Who is the final recipient of many benefits? I have read your suggested article. Perhaps you might read mine. Many middle and upper class landlords receive housing benefits directly from their poorer tenants. I expect in Robinson's estimation, those landlords are calculated as net Treasury contributors. The cost of housing is no longer regulated with the result that it eats up a greater proportion of income than in the past. This does not give people a great incentive to get off benefits. Recent govts in the UK have been deficient in providing enough affordable housing.

Does welfare subsidise low wages (for the benefit of richer employers)? I am not just talking about the recent fuss about getting job-seekers to stack shelves, but also working family tax credits, single parents who work part time but still get benefits and the rest. This is not necessarily new and is arguably an inherent aspect of welfare, which allows the potential worker to physically survive periods of unemployment and illness in order to be available to employers in the future.

I am not looking to deny the significance of the social security bill. It has grown considerably due to immigration and the decline of many industries (though much of that is taken up in admin which will increase as more benefits are means tested and more civil servants get to police the poor). In many respects I agree that it is easy to blame a system which is kinder than found in much of the world. But the idea that welfare can be understood in terms of winners and losers is a bit narrow. It is such a major enterprise that it has to be understood in terms of what it diminishes eg self reliance. The negative aspects of welfare almost certainly harms the poor more than the rich. Where welfare comes back to major tax payers (eg through rent) it is not dissimilar to the situation in 19th c industrial towns where a factory owner would build new housing, shops and pubs and thus ensure virtually all the wages paid out returned to him. The rich today are arguably much less productive, less inclined to risk capital and use the state more as a mediator between themselves and the poor, than they were then.