Slough Labour Group respond to crime rise in Thames Valley

The Labour group of Slough has blamed police cuts for the 14 per cent rise in crime in the UK over the past 12 months.

The police figures, announced yesterday (Thursday, January 25) come off the back of the Police and Crime Commissioner of Thames Valley Police (TVP) reporting a 7.1 per cent rise in the Thames Valley to Slough Borough Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee in November.

Since 2010 TVP has had to save £99m due to Government cuts, resulting in a reduction of more than 450 police officers.

Slough Borough Council’s cabinet member for Regulation and Consumer Protection said Cllr Pavitar K. Mann said: “Todays 14% rise in crime figures come on the back of the loss of 20,000 frontline police officers under the Conservative Government — taking police numbers to their lowest in 30 years.

“The public are now being forced to pay the price for the reckless attitude the Conservatives have taken toward public safety.

“As the daughter and granddaughter of former police officers, I know first-hand the sacrifices our police officers make.

“It’s about time the government showed our police the respect they deserve and ensured our police are adequately resourced.”


Leave your comment

Share your opinions on

Characters left: 1500


  • be_ transparent

    14:02, 26 January 2018

    Of course, the failed ex-Children’s Services Commissioner now tries to quote a national figure that is not accurate for the Thames Valley to propagate a view that even the policing college doesn’t share. This is what the ‘What works’ centre, part of the college of policing has to say about police numbers and crime :- “The ‘what works’ evidence would suggest that the police could reduce crime simply by spending more time on effective activities, and less time on ineffective activities, without increasing the total officer numbers.” A more thoughtful analysis on how to reduce crime in Slough would be most welcome, but this isn’t it. It’s about time Labour got past the usual phrase they use :- “Spending on {insert public spending area here} is a disgrace. We call on the {insert who is in power here} to spend more money on this area.” This can be rephrased easily as :- “We would like to burden the young people of tomorrow with unsustainable debt in order to further our political ambitions, even if most of the time they don’t realise that when we call on the government to spend more money what we really mean is they will end up paying for it” How about saying what exactly you would change in Slough, how much it would cost, what evidence actually shows its effective ?



Most Recent

Most read

Top Ten Articles