Defund the police doesn't mean abolishing the police force or cutting pay or cutting back on police numbers.
It's about cutting back on astronomical police budgets
It looks to shed more light on police spend, cutting back and reinvesting the money in the local communities.
I think the name 'defund police' is stupid and misleading especially for those who don't read beyond the headlines.
It's about cancelling pensions, it's about not allowing bent coppers to resign on full pensions, it's about not allowing killer coppers to keep their huge pensions. Coppers that have been convcited of rape and served sentences have been able to keep their police pensions.
Four police officers spent three weeks partying in Spain when they should have been catching crooks.
Also sick pay is a huge problem across the UK with forces. One cop was off sick on full pay for four years with a bad back and spent most of that time on the golf course until a local newspaper exposed him. One of many. There is a lot of financial abuse.
I'm not anti police I'm just explaining what 'defund the police' actually means.
They need to change the name of the group as it's ridiculously misleading.
I agree with you.
I once reported fraud to the police and they did f*** all. He should have called me back but was on sick leave for four months and then "forgot".
Then it happened again (committed by the same individual) and they did f*** all. And the police person I spoke to was really dodgy, he asked me questions about my pets (?), requested that I would phone him, wanted to talk on a Friday night (?) and I found him generally misogynistic. I asked to speak to a female officer but was told no.
Third time I took civil action and went to court and paid for it (legal fees, court fees).
I considered suing the police as if they would have taken proper action the first time it happened then it wouldn't have happened twice more.
If there would have been a department at the council that I could speak to that would have done something about it or given me advice then this would have helped.
When I see police on the street I walk around them, some of the lads walking around with guns scare me.
I would feel uncomfortable if I ever needed them as I really don't trust them.
I do think that the "absence records" of all public workers should be looked at.Agree with this. And as I have said previously if we are going to do this with the police on the grounds that they are publicly funded then you must also look at the sickness records for NHS staff, teachers, social workers, and council staff. It would surely be only fair and what community groups want most of all is fairness right?
In the private sector you dont have any employment rights for the first two years and your absences are being monitored also, why should it be different in the public sector?
I think that the sentiment has arisen as many people (women especially) have had bad experiences with the police.I agree about treating everyone in a profession by the actions of select individuals. It's not fair, and I don't understand why the police force has been singled out.
So the perception is that it is not just a "few select rotten apples" but a more general approach that the police takes.
And to be truthful: it was not just George Floyd and not just Sarah Everard (although her case is a tragic exception - but look at how many other officers are now being investigated for racial /misogynistic texts etc).
Events like the police actions at the vigil in March don't help with public perception either.
I do acknowledge that there are very good policemen, but I think that many people have lost trust in the police.
Last edited: