Crime figures for the Merseyside force area have jumped once again as its embattled police service struggles to cope with cuts to officer numbers.



Figures just released by the Office of National Statistics show that from June 2017 to June 2018, police recorded crime in Merseyside increased by 12 percent. Worryingly, weapons possession leapt by 46% while violence went up by 25% and public order offences by 26%.



Since the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in coaltion cut £2.3 billion in police funding, with £100's of millions more cut in real terms by the Conservatives alone since, the number of Merseyside police officers has fallen by 23% with over 1,000 cut, roughly 1 in 4 officers lost.



The number of Police Community Support Officers in the force area has nearly halved during the same period, falling by 43%.



Liz Savage, Labour's Parliamentary Candidate for Southport, says yet another set of yearly crime increase figures is why many in the town feel it is no longer as safe as it once was:



“ Merseyside police officers do the best they can with the resources they now have but we can’t keep our community safe on the cheap. Despite what the Tories and Lib Dems try to claim, their cuts are clearly having an adverse affect crime. "



" Successive governments since 2010 have wilfully cut police numbers and failed in their duty to protect residents in Southport and beyond. Merseyside officers are being put in an impossible situation, they are desperately understaffed and overstretched. "



Nationally, over 21,000 officers have been lost due to the cuts and the same again in PCSOs and staff. The latest crime figures reveal that knife crime is now at record levels having risen once again by another 12%; violence was up 19%, with homicide increasing by 14%.



Liz Savage says it's time for the government to accept its part in the crime rise and for Southport's Conservative MP Damien Moore to stop simply talking about keeping Southport safe and start doing something about it:



“This can’t go on. If Theresa May really meant her promise to end austerity, then why isn’t she promising to cancel all the police cuts she has planned for the next four years?



Also, why isn’t Damien Moore calling for the cuts to be cancelled in November’s Budget? He voted for the cuts last time, he cannot vote for police cuts again. "

The Tories and Lib Dems cut HUGE numbers of police officers, PCSOs and staff and then try to claim the repeated rises in crime are nothing to do with them... now that's criminal, it's social vandalism and absolutely reckless.

Originally Posted by Gwhizz

The Tories and Lib Dems cut HUGE numbers of police officers, PCSOs and staff and then try to claim the repeated rises in crime are nothing to do with them... now that's criminal, it's social vandalism and absolutely reckless.

Maintaining a promise that he would tackle rising crime that Blair made in his election campaign, he engaged a huge number of Police Officers that was greater than the Police force in New York. This did not have the affect on crime that he had hoped for. As his second term in office was near he realised that the massive cost of employing so many Police Officers could was creating a huge deficit, particularly when it was evident that large numbers of Police Officers did not deter crime, . He started cutting back on the number of police Personnel. The number of Police Officers are now back to the same figures when Blair came into office, but many have been deployed into agencies specifically for dealing with modern crime such as internet crimes and terrorism. Crime on the streets has said to have increased since then, if this is the case, there should now be more Police on the streets.

Originally Posted by said

Maintaining a promise... Crime on the streets has said to have increased since then, if this is the case, there should now be more Police on the streets.

So after all that verbiage... you agree there should be more coppers on the streets!

TBH Marvin, as all the coppers on the beat and now even the likes of the Chief Constables (normally very cautious about such things) are all saying the cutbacks are seriously hampering efforts and contributing to rise in crime, I'll take their concerns over your views any day.

Also, just to be clear... there are now actually less coppers than when Blair got in 1997... and the population has grown since then by about 15% which you completely fail to take into account and, as even you concede, there are whole new categories of crime, terrorism etc.

So all in all, the excessive numbers of coppers cut by the Tories and Lib Dems should never have happened... and certainly, the Tories cannot continue making it worse - which is exactly the point of the article.

By the way, in Cheshire where you live, there are some quite startling increases in some areas of crime... must be quite worrying.

He's an out of depth wet behind the ears backbench MP. He'll vote for what he's told to vote for (but not by his constituents).

Originally Posted by Gwhizz

The Tories and Lib Dems cut HUGE numbers of police officers, PCSOs and staff and then try to claim the repeated rises in crime are nothing to do with them... now that's criminal, it's social vandalism and absolutely reckless.

I think a bit of context would be useful in that not all of the increase in crime is due solely to cuts but - only a fool, an olympic standard dissembler or - a politician, would claim they have nothing to do with it.
Some of the rise over recent years can be attributed to an increased willingness to report crime. It is arguable whether or not this is due to false promises of detection or the public refusing to lie down and take it anymore.

Academics in the field of Criminology generally hold that the fear of detection is what deters criminal activity. It should therefore be blindingly obvious that, if you cut the number of bobbies on the beat, the possibility of detection will fall relative to the cuts.
Some of the blame for falling detection rates can also be laid at the feet of government. One of the major things to hamstring the police in recent times is the amount of admin involved in 'feeling a collar'. The root cause of this is a disproportionate response to calls for accountability - there were issues of accountability but the 'systems' put in place were a classic 'sledgehammer to crack a nut' response.
Riding alongside this is the P.C agenda of not wanting to offend certain sections of society by using stop and search or investigating large scale sexual abuse claims.
Given all of these factors, todays world is one massive big boys beano for the criminals in our midst.
The bottom lines are these - if we want more police on the beat then they have to be paid for and, as government has no money of its own, this is done by either raising taxes or cutting something else.
If we want the police we do have effectively deployed then we have to allow them to do their job without fear or favour, regulated yes but not hamstrung to the point of impotence.

Originally Posted by gazaprop

I think a bit of context would be useful in that not all of the increase in crime is due solely to cuts but - only a fool, an olympic standard dissembler or - a politician, would claim they have nothing to do with it.
Some of the rise over recent years can be attributed to an increased willingness to report crime. It is arguable whether or not this is due to false promises of detection or the public refusing to lie down and take it anymore.

Academics in the field of Criminology generally hold that the fear of detection is what deters criminal activity. It should therefore be blindingly obvious that, if you cut the number of bobbies on the beat, the possibility of detection will fall relative to the cuts.
Some of the blame for falling detection rates can also be laid at the feet of government. One of the major things to hamstring the police in recent times is the amount of admin involved in 'feeling a collar'. The root cause of this is a disproportionate response to calls for accountability - there were issues of accountability but the 'systems' put in place were a classic 'sledgehammer to crack a nut' response.
Riding alongside this is the P.C agenda of not wanting to offend certain sections of society by using stop and search or investigating large scale sexual abuse claims.
Given all of these factors, todays world is one massive big boys beano for the criminals in our midst.
The bottom lines are these - if we want more police on the beat then they have to be paid for and, as government has no money of its own, this is done by either raising taxes or cutting something else.
If we want the police we do have effectively deployed then we have to allow them to do their job without fear or favour, regulated yes but not hamstrung to the point of impotence.

Actually the blindingly obvious turns out not to be true, whilst fear of detection is a deterrent to crime, there is no evidence at all that bobbies on the beat at levels that are feasible increase detection and therefore deter crime.

Originally Posted by said

Maintaining a promise that he would tackle rising crime that Blair made in his election campaign, he engaged a huge number of Police Officers that was greater than the Police force in New York.

The last time you commented on Blair increasing police numbers, you claimed that the UK had a larger police force than the USA! Facts are easily checked... try it sometime.

You've now changed it to New York, without realising it's logical that Britain should have a larger police force than New York. Think about it, the current population of NY is around 8 million, with 36,000 officers in the NYPD. The current population of the UK is 66 million, with a police force of 122,000. Larger population = larger police force. Get it?

This did not have the affect on crime that he had hoped for. As his second term in office was near he realised that the massive cost of employing so many Police Officers could was creating a huge deficit, particularly when it was evident that large numbers of Police Officers did not deter crime, . He started cutting back on the number of police Personnel. The number of Police Officers are now back to the same figures when Blair came into office,

More nonsense. Blair increased police numbers from 2000 to 2005. Cuts only started in 2010, 3 years after Blair left office.

Originally Posted by Albion102

Actually the blindingly obvious turns out not to be true, whilst fear of detection is a deterrent to crime, there is no evidence at all that bobbies on the beat at levels that are feasible increase detection and therefore deter crime.

What is your source for this statement?
I would have thought the following would apply when looking at the situation logically -
No bobbies on the beat - a criminal free for all. Bobbies on the beat - a possibility of being caught - therefore surely a deterrent.
If a token patrol deters low level criminal activity then surely that has to be better than no deterrent whatsoever.
Added to that there is no substitute for boots on the ground in gathering local intel by developing relationships with residents - something it is impossible to do with tyres on the road or bums on chairs.
It is feasible - it depends on spending priorities and how much an individual is prepared to pay in tax for safer streets. This opens up a whole new argument on what is a priority.
For example - should millions be spent chasing old men for historical sexual offences, committed decades ago or - would that money be better spent on front line policing
to protect today's society?