CHANGE AND DECAY

In yesterday's Evening Post I read that the old Ashton Police Station is for sale having been made redundant by a new station in Bamfurlong which will serve the Ashton area as well.

And they wonder why the clear up rates for crimes is so low.

The police "service" as with other government departments has over the last 40 years become increasingly centralised which has resulted in a police force cocooned from any local knowledge which they would have previously had.

In former days the local bobby knew the area and the likely suspects if any crimes were committed, enough often to make a speedy arrest. He would also note any suspicious people in the neighbourhood and keep an eye on them.

Crime has risen because of these changes (although not helped by the politically correct lenient judiciary).

Calls for "more bobbies on the beat" put by all political parties are in my opinion misguided. The last Labour government responded to these calls by creating the useless "plastic police", usually women little over 5 feet tall with no powers of arrest which were supposed to reassure people.

Bobbies on the beat are a waste of time if they do not know the local people and scallies. These latter just wait until the cops have walked or driven past before commiting their nefarious activities. PCSOs are even more useless.

The only way for the police to combat crime is for them to have local knowledge, not the bobby on the beat but the local bobby.

It worked in the past but now they say it is uneconomic to have local police stations with local cops.

How come we could afford local bobbies 40 years ago and we can't now?or has everything been sacrificed to political correct box ticking?

It seems like, it but until the forces of the law regain their local knowledge and ignore political correctness I feel the situation will continue to deteriorate.

COST/BENEFITS OF EDUCATION

The news that university fees are to be increased by several thousands of pounds per year illustrate short term and muddled thinking by the government and their hired "experts".
Yes the costs of university education are high and something needs to be done to reduce expenditure. However it is ironic that the people proposing these steep rises were themselves educated at the public expense.

The trouble with higher and university education is that too many students are taking worthless courses such as "Film Studies" "Golf Course Management" and "Media Studies" or "Drama" which are of dubious value either to the students or the country.

Also many subjects which previously did not need a degree such as nursing now require one, resulting not in better nursing but nurses being in their opinion too qualified to nurse patients, which surely is supposed to be their job.
Social science is another "soft" subject for a profession which needs above all else compassion and common sense, qualities which have been shown to be sadly lacking recently in Social Services.

Even the usual degree of senior politicians Politics, Philosophy and Economics is of dubious value, although cabinet ministers will not see it that way.
Politics is a matter of opinion as is philosophy while economics is far from being a science as shown by events in recent years, which were unforseen by the majority of these so called experts, in fact it is said that if you have 5 economists in a room you will have six opinions.
Therefore numbers taking this course should be drastically reduced.

Similarly there are too many students taking subjects such as History or English (Andy Burnham is an English graduate but the relevence of that subject to his former job as Health Minister is dubious).
Of course we need some who study these subjects but not so many and if entrance to these subjects is curtailed the increasing competition would ensure higher standards.

Packing universities with mediocre students studying subjects which, while possibly interesting to some are of little value in getting a job or the country as a whole is a betrayal of those students who, thinking these peripheral subjects are a passport to secuity only to find that the only certainty is a lifetime's debt. The stupidity of this was highlighted today by Lord Brown who said that up to 20% would either be unemployed or on a poor wage after qualification so the student debt would never be repaid.

In my opinion Science, Engineering, Medicine etc and apprenticeships should be subsidised as useful to the community and vital to our future. Also they are expensive courses.
Admittedly these qualifications are in high demand as is reflected by their salaries and there should be some pay back. However if having qualified with in excess of £30,000 debt and the compulsion to pay this back these graduates will be tempted to emigrate taking their expertise ,paid for by us to our competitors.
Instead people in these "useful" professions should get their education free and pay the costs back by working in this country for perhaps 10 years.
An example of the stupidity of the present system is in Medicine where many newly qualified doctors emigrate and have to be replaced by medics qualifying in such centres of excellence as Malawi and the Congo.

To summarise, the numbers taking "soft" subjects should be radically curtailed thus saving sufficient money to subsidise the students taking subjects the country needs.

Education it is said is an investment in the future but the investment should be in those subjects which will give the taxpayer a return and should be free.

By all means let people take other subjects of dubious national value but they should pay the costs themselves.