![]() |
![]() |
| Guildford Liberal Democrats | <info@guildfordlibdems.org.uk> |
Local Surrey policing must come before flawed ID card scheme says Sue Doughty4.15.52pm BST (GMT +0100) Thu 28th May 2009 Leading local Liberal Democrat, Sue Doughty has fully supported Surrey Police in their bid to retain the 50 vital posts which are set to be lost due to underfunding. She said "This is a punishment for Surrey by a dying Labour government which could find this money by abandoning it's pointless and much criticised ID card project." In a recent survey by Guildford Liberal Democrats, the vast majority of residents in the Guildford constituency said that they wanted to see more policing, especially in their neighbourhoods and cited fear of burglary and problems caused late at night as problems for them. "It is quite outrageous that when a well run police force like ours has to go to court to try to get the government to agree the police budget. We are talking about 6p per week on the council tax for a force which has worked hard to address the problems we face from criminal activity, much of it outside the County." In Surrey Police, in the budget originally agreed have already announced a cut of 144 posts. Today Sue will launch her petition to stop the government refunding this money, a total of £1.6m which will cost Surrey residents £1.2m in revised Council Tax billing. "We all want lower council taxes, and more efficiency, but this move by the government is total nonsense. Residents are likely to face higher household costs as a result of increased crime resulting from this idiocy." Watch this site for details of Sue's petition
Bookmark this story at:
Related News Stories:Wed 17th Feb 2010: More facts needed on Royal Surrey NHS Drug Deals says Doughty. Fri 28th Aug 2009: Huge rise in child convictions in Surrey show how Labour has criminalised a generation - Doughty. Published and promoted by Guildford Liberal Democrats, The Hall, 53a Woking Road, Guildford, Surrey GU1 1QD. The views expressed are those of the party, not of the service provider. |