Tax increase to keep us safe

Swindon Advertiser: Wiltshire Police and Crime commissioner, Angus Macpherson. Wiltshire Police and Crime commissioner, Angus Macpherson.

WILTSHIRE Police and Crime Commissioner Angus Macpherson is consulting on a proposed increase in the police and crime element of this year’s council tax.

He is considering an increase in the precept of £3.15 a year for a band D property.

It would help reduce the impact of significant government grant reductions on policing and crime services in Wiltshire and Swindon.

The increase would provide Mr Macpherson an additional £740,000 for 2014-15.

It would still be the lowest council tax rate for police and crime services in the South West, he said.

Looking ahead three years to 2016-17, a proposed increase of £3.15 a year would reduce the potential funding shortfall by £2.3 million, meaning savings of £12.5m, rather than £14.8m, would be required. Since the start of the austerity period, savings of more than £10 million have already been made.

Mr Macpherson said: “We have been reviewing the budget very carefully and it is clear that as central government funding continues to reduce more and more, we have to look at a small increase in the police and crime element of council tax.

“The council tax rate for policing and crime services in our area has not increased for the past three years.

“I do believe people will be willing to pay just a little bit more a year towards sustaining high quality policing and crime services in the county, especially neighbourhood policing.

The current rate of police and crime council tax for an average band D home in Wiltshire and Swindon is £157.77. This would increase to £160.92 under the proposal.

The consultation runs until Monday, February 3.

For more information or to comment on the plans, visit www.wiltshire-pcc.gov.uk.

Comments (14)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:54am Tue 7 Jan 14

Always Grumpy says...

Get rid of the post of crime commissioner, reduce the number of senior police in the force, cut the paperwork, reduce the staff NOT on the frontline of policing, stop so many staff sitting on their arses all day.
Do that to reduce the payroll before asking ratepayers for yet more money.
Get rid of the post of crime commissioner, reduce the number of senior police in the force, cut the paperwork, reduce the staff NOT on the frontline of policing, stop so many staff sitting on their arses all day. Do that to reduce the payroll before asking ratepayers for yet more money. Always Grumpy

1:03pm Tue 7 Jan 14

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

Another pointless consultation open to abuse. There is no checking that people providing input into it are in the Wiltshire area or that the survey is not filled in multiple times.

By the time the PCC and his staff, and all their cronies, and probably most police officers fill it in all wanting the increase the scope for the general public to have a say is probably nil.

The real issues in the criminal justice system are not the police officers themselves but the courts who routinely fail to protect the public by offering soft sentencing. Until that is resolved the police are fighting a losing battle that they are not allowed to win. The PCC has no influence in that.
Another pointless consultation open to abuse. There is no checking that people providing input into it are in the Wiltshire area or that the survey is not filled in multiple times. By the time the PCC and his staff, and all their cronies, and probably most police officers fill it in all wanting the increase the scope for the general public to have a say is probably nil. The real issues in the criminal justice system are not the police officers themselves but the courts who routinely fail to protect the public by offering soft sentencing. Until that is resolved the police are fighting a losing battle that they are not allowed to win. The PCC has no influence in that. LordAshOfTheBrake

1:11pm Tue 7 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

Until repeat criminal offenders are put behind bars for meaningful periods of time, all this will mean is that the rest of us, as usual, will be forced to hand over more of our money and see absolutely no improvements in return.

People would be prepared to pay more if it meant judges doing their jobs properly and more prisons being built to house the required number of convicts.

People will not be prepared to pay more tax simply in order to fund the police to catch the dismal 30% of criminals they managed to arrest but who are then set free by the courts in any case.

Total waste of time and our money.
Until repeat criminal offenders are put behind bars for meaningful periods of time, all this will mean is that the rest of us, as usual, will be forced to hand over more of our money and see absolutely no improvements in return. People would be prepared to pay more if it meant judges doing their jobs properly and more prisons being built to house the required number of convicts. People will not be prepared to pay more tax simply in order to fund the police to catch the dismal 30% of criminals they managed to arrest but who are then set free by the courts in any case. Total waste of time and our money. ChannelX

2:29pm Tue 7 Jan 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

how much of this increase will actually end up paying for the salaries of police officers seating in their office?
how much of this increase will actually end up paying for the salaries of police officers seating in their office? A.Baron-Cohen

2:46pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Davey Gravey says...

I'd rather pay a bit more to maintain services than see the cuts we are getting.
Things cost more so a minimal increase is realistic.
I'd rather pay a bit more to maintain services than see the cuts we are getting. Things cost more so a minimal increase is realistic. Davey Gravey

10:18pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Localboy86 says...

Playing where's ringer is just like where's Wally
Playing where's ringer is just like where's Wally Localboy86

11:18pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Ringеr says...

Localboy86 wrote:
Playing where's ringer is just like where's Wally
Hint: I'm now 'ChannelX' but may have to change again soon...
[quote][p][bold]Localboy86[/bold] wrote: Playing where's ringer is just like where's Wally[/p][/quote]Hint: I'm now 'ChannelX' but may have to change again soon... Ringеr

11:11am Wed 8 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

Ringеr wrote:
Localboy86 wrote:
Playing where's ringer is just like where's Wally
Hint: I'm now 'ChannelX' but may have to change again soon...
Why, do you plan to clone that name also?
[quote][p][bold]Ringеr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Localboy86[/bold] wrote: Playing where's ringer is just like where's Wally[/p][/quote]Hint: I'm now 'ChannelX' but may have to change again soon...[/p][/quote]Why, do you plan to clone that name also? ChannelX

11:19am Wed 8 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

Localboy86 wrote:
Playing where's ringer is just like where's Wally
As I made clear yesterday, I have been forced to change my login name because of the **** who is also, somehow, using the 'Ringer' login.

Even the most dim witted will have realised from the post above that it is quite obviously not me posting under that 'Ringer' login:


Hint: I'm now 'ChannelX' but may have to change again soon...


At least now there's clear evidence that the account was cloned or they've managed to register the name using alternate keyboard characters, or whatever. It's clever of them, and I'm sure the person feels suitably smug, but at least they've tripped themselves up with the above post.

To clarify, before the other **** Empty Car Park starts crying, the ONLY login I now use here is 'ChannelX'. I realise that the simple minded will still think that any opinion they don't agree with must be me posting under numerous logins, but that simply isn't the case.

If the ChannelX login is also hijacked then I'll just change to a new one, so it's really fairly pointless and a waste of time for anyone to also use this one.
[quote][p][bold]Localboy86[/bold] wrote: Playing where's ringer is just like where's Wally[/p][/quote]As I made clear yesterday, I have been forced to change my login name because of the **** who is also, somehow, using the 'Ringer' login. Even the most dim witted will have realised from the post above that it is quite obviously not me posting under that 'Ringer' login: [quote] Hint: I'm now 'ChannelX' but may have to change again soon... [/quote] At least now there's clear evidence that the account was cloned or they've managed to register the name using alternate keyboard characters, or whatever. It's clever of them, and I'm sure the person feels suitably smug, but at least they've tripped themselves up with the above post. To clarify, before the other **** Empty Car Park starts crying, the ONLY login I now use here is 'ChannelX'. I realise that the simple minded will still think that any opinion they don't agree with must be me posting under numerous logins, but that simply isn't the case. If the ChannelX login is also hijacked then I'll just change to a new one, so it's really fairly pointless and a waste of time for anyone to also use this one. ChannelX

12:53pm Wed 8 Jan 14

house on the hill says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
I'd rather pay a bit more to maintain services than see the cuts we are getting.
Things cost more so a minimal increase is realistic.
Clearly you have never worked in both the public and private sectors. If you had you would know that the public sector is so badly run and so inefficient if they actually sorted that, they could provide a far better service with the money they already have. Instead of endlessly throwing money at these organisations, make them more efficient and more accountable for their performance and actions.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: I'd rather pay a bit more to maintain services than see the cuts we are getting. Things cost more so a minimal increase is realistic.[/p][/quote]Clearly you have never worked in both the public and private sectors. If you had you would know that the public sector is so badly run and so inefficient if they actually sorted that, they could provide a far better service with the money they already have. Instead of endlessly throwing money at these organisations, make them more efficient and more accountable for their performance and actions. house on the hill

1:08pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Davey Gravey says...

house on the hill wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
I'd rather pay a bit more to maintain services than see the cuts we are getting.
Things cost more so a minimal increase is realistic.
Clearly you have never worked in both the public and private sectors. If you had you would know that the public sector is so badly run and so inefficient if they actually sorted that, they could provide a far better service with the money they already have. Instead of endlessly throwing money at these organisations, make them more efficient and more accountable for their performance and actions.
Are you saying I've never had a job?
A quite bizarre post which I frankly cannot be bothered to correct.
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: I'd rather pay a bit more to maintain services than see the cuts we are getting. Things cost more so a minimal increase is realistic.[/p][/quote]Clearly you have never worked in both the public and private sectors. If you had you would know that the public sector is so badly run and so inefficient if they actually sorted that, they could provide a far better service with the money they already have. Instead of endlessly throwing money at these organisations, make them more efficient and more accountable for their performance and actions.[/p][/quote]Are you saying I've never had a job? A quite bizarre post which I frankly cannot be bothered to correct. Davey Gravey

3:02pm Wed 8 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
I'd rather pay a bit more to maintain services than see the cuts we are getting.
Things cost more so a minimal increase is realistic.
Clearly you have never worked in both the public and private sectors. If you had you would know that the public sector is so badly run and so inefficient if they actually sorted that, they could provide a far better service with the money they already have. Instead of endlessly throwing money at these organisations, make them more efficient and more accountable for their performance and actions.
Are you saying I've never had a job?
A quite bizarre post which I frankly cannot be bothered to correct.
He was saying that he didn't think you'd worked in BOTH the private AND public sectors - not that you've never had a job.

You do come across as someone who's very much a public sector type.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: I'd rather pay a bit more to maintain services than see the cuts we are getting. Things cost more so a minimal increase is realistic.[/p][/quote]Clearly you have never worked in both the public and private sectors. If you had you would know that the public sector is so badly run and so inefficient if they actually sorted that, they could provide a far better service with the money they already have. Instead of endlessly throwing money at these organisations, make them more efficient and more accountable for their performance and actions.[/p][/quote]Are you saying I've never had a job? A quite bizarre post which I frankly cannot be bothered to correct.[/p][/quote]He was saying that he didn't think you'd worked in BOTH the private AND public sectors - not that you've never had a job. You do come across as someone who's very much a public sector type. ChannelX

4:43pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Davey Gravey says...

He would still be wrong even if he meant that. Never mind eh
He would still be wrong even if he meant that. Never mind eh Davey Gravey

5:34pm Wed 8 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
He would still be wrong even if he meant that. Never mind eh
Would he?

I've worked in two very separate pubic sector organisations, one very old-school civil service and one far more modern public sector department and both were badly run, highly inefficient and staff with people who openly admitted they were there because it was an easy ride, good pension, perks, allowed them to have a couple of children within a few years etc.

Have you worked in both the private sector and public sector then Davey? It's a very simple question.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: He would still be wrong even if he meant that. Never mind eh[/p][/quote]Would he? I've worked in two very separate pubic sector organisations, one very old-school civil service and one far more modern public sector department and both were badly run, highly inefficient and staff with people who openly admitted they were there because it was an easy ride, good pension, perks, allowed them to have a couple of children within a few years etc. Have you worked in both the private sector and public sector then Davey? It's a very simple question. ChannelX

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree