Amber Rudd (from the party that managed to lose its majority in 2017, despite the fact their leader timed the election in her favour after promising she wouldn't hold an election in 2017) has claimed that cutting police numbers doesn't lead to a rise in crime. The facts of the matter are that a smaller police force means that more crime will be inevitable. Whilst the right continue to blame Sadiq, they ignore the basic fact that crime prevention does actually prevent crime.
Cutting police numbers changes the mentality of criminals, meaning they're likely to believe they can get away with whatever they want. This, combined with a rising population (and therefore more tax being payed by default), would surely mean more police are needed? Not according to Amber Rudd. It is frankly uncomprehensible that the Home Secretary of one of the most successful countries in the world (despite the immense cuts by the current government) doesn't understand that police and crime have a link. If they didn't, we'd all be much better off with no police and our tax money being put into the NHS. Careful - soon she'll be claiming hospitals have nothing to do with healthcare.
Amber Rudd and her predecessor, the then-Home Secretary Theresa May have between them cut 21000 police officers in Britain since 2011. Somehow, readers of the Daily Mail don't seem to get this and are instead blaming crime on the "bloody immigrants". It's a shame that Theresa May pledged to get immigration numbers down to 100,000 but got them to 330,000 (which is 330% of what she promised.)
Wake up, Britain.