howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
8 February 2011
20:3592014#21
discuss indeed!!
the fact of the matter is that the sort of people that inhabit westminster have very little concept of real life.
to them it is south rich, north poor, almost like they have read "animal farm" with 2 legs bad, 4 legs good.
no doubt they visit canterbury every now and then and think that dover and thanet have the same standard of living.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
9 February 2011
08:3792040#22
If it was up to local authorities to decide how their business rates were spent and they were successful in creating an atmosphere where businesses could thrive, then they would make more money and success would breed success, but of course, if they screwed up, failure would breed failure.
We should be doing this here in Dover, we have more than enough (natural and historic) assets to make our Town and District a great success, but we don't have the power to do so.
If localism really worked, we would have the most fantastic Town, that could easily become a City, but some difficult decisions would have to be made first.
I know what should be done, but have no power; those who have the power, have no idea where and how the ground-work needs to be done - and I'm not talking strategy and regeneration, that's being done very well by PaulW and others.
Roger
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
9 February 2011
09:0092043#23
This, Roger, is why we must devolve to councils the power to raise all their money in the ways I suggested. Only then can we have real localism and real local power.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
10 February 2011
07:4992134#24
But even by devolving power Barry, won't help us if those same Labour people are running the administrations (Towns or District), they'll just make a balls of it like they have done in the past.
Roger
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
10 February 2011
07:5292135#25
roger,an intresting thought,under certain circumstanses localy by a blue party.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
10 February 2011
08:2992145#26
Roger - sadly it is true that despite hard gained experience there remains the risk of Labour administrations gaining control of councils then, as always, making a complete mess. We though just have to worry about our area and keeping them out locally.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
11 February 2011
07:1892244#27
With comments like Brian's above, there is no hope.
Brian, I appreciate you are a Labour (and an EU) supporter, but can you not add anything intelligent to your contributions ? I'm sorry if that sounds rude, but they add nothing to the discussion.
Roger
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
11 February 2011
07:4492249#28
roger,it dosent take a mensa rateing to see that both sides are arguing over 10p,hardly makes them look intelegent either does it.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
11 February 2011
07:5292251#29
More proposed cuts announced today...sex offenders will no longer be vetted for jobs with children or vunerable. Good old Tories getting rid of the nanny state..but at what cost?
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
11 February 2011
07:5992252#30
At least they will be more easily sacked Marek, when/if they are found out. Which may be never with less police.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
11 February 2011
08:0692253#31
DTI
Very true but the way the Tories spin the police cuts you would think that the force has been overmanned by 10,000 for years at the tax payers expense. CCTV's control to be relinquished to cash strapped councils and the dna data base, the envy of the world for crime detection especially sex offences and burglary,is to be destroyed to save yet more costs.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
11 February 2011
08:3492256#32
That last bit Marek about destroying the DNA database is very very worrying and wrong.
It should be widened not reduced; it is the best and cheapest way to determine who committed what crime.
Not big-brother but big-detective, or rather big-detection.
I'm finding it difficult to accept or understand some of these cuts; there is no logic in some of them.
Roger
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
11 February 2011
08:4392257#33
Roger
We are saving a few million here and there at risk to the public whilst at £30 billion per year, fraud in the UK is more than twice as high as thought, with tax evasion costing the public purse over £15 billion per year and benefit fraud just over £1 billion.
Priorities?
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
11 February 2011
10:4692274#34
Bit of a sweeping statement in #29 Marek. They are just cutting down on vetting those, for example, that give neighbours children a lift to school now and then, which was a daft idea. Those who work with children in any way or have unaccompanied access to children will still be vetted.
The public are going to have more say about the positioning of CCTV cameras.
I thought that the DNA ruling was only being changed if you are not guilty of the crime that caused the DNA to be taken in the first place. Not exactly the same as saying the data base is being destroyed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
11 February 2011
11:1292281#35
I totally disagree with Roger.
Anyone innocent of a crime should get their DNA removed from the database. Keep only that of convicted criminals.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
11 February 2011
12:4692290#36
i must be wrong for the innocent to have their dna held on a database.
most crimes are committed by people that have their dna on record because of previous offences.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
11 February 2011
19:4392338#37
But people who commit their first crime will already have their data base on record so will instantly be caught and the crime would be nipped in the bud - just think of the clear-up rate.
It must reduce crime too because the crims will know that in the vast majority of cases, they'll get caught.
Surely the only people who wouldn't want their dna registered, would be crims or potential crims ?
Maybe not though from the above comments.
Roger
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
12 February 2011
00:2792362#38
Roger - that is not an argument that I accept. The power of an all encroaching State must be curbed.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
12 February 2011
08:1692365#39
Completely disagree Barry, the fast approaching time when there will be less detection than more, especially with police cuts, means that we need to find and detect criminals easier and dna is the best, quickest and easiest means to do so.
The Government (any Government) have a duty of care for its citizens, but it is increasingly failing in that duty in so many ways, the criminal justice system is just one of many ways it is failing.
So what if your dna is on a register, what does it mean to you ? You have your NI number on record, what's wrong with just a reference number to a dna database that could and would, detect and reduce so many crimes.
To me it's a "no brainer".
Roger
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
12 February 2011
08:3792367#40
What about privacy?
What about placing too much power at the hands of government and that means a potential dictator. We are not immune to that kind of thing.
What about small government?
I am a Conservative party because I do not trust governments and, while accepting they are necessary, I do not want them to have too much power.