Three quotes from your post, and my responses:
Quote 1:
"Is it true that the Govt. are thinking of recruiting people with past convictions as Policemen"
Response:
While the Home Office lay down the basic rules for recruiting police officers, each police force is free to set its own entry requirements. There's nothing new in what you write. The Metropolitan Police already accept candidates with some minor, spent convictions.
Quote 2:
"When I was a kid, you could get a clip round the ear from the local Bobby for doing something trivial and he'd might even escort you home if it wasn't too far to tell your parents who would deal with you"
Response:
If, at the the age of 10, your mates egged you on to nick a Mars bar from the newsagents, that probably what would have been the result. You'd have got a clip round the ear from the copper and a sore backside from your parents, but you wouldn't have got a criminal record. These days, almost anyone who infringes any law, even at a very early age, ends up with a criminal record. (I'm not claiming that either the 'old' or the 'new' way of doing things is better - that's another debate. I'm simply stating that things have changed). I fail to see why someone who commits a minor offence as a 10-year-old (and never gets into trouble with the law again) should be barred from joining the police when he applies in his mid-twenties. (i.e. common sense dictates that the police should ignore a minor indiscretion when the applicant was still a child).
Quote 3:
" . . .and they wonder why violent crime is on the increase"
Response:
Bollox! Violent crime has been falling every year for over a decade. (It's now 41% lower than in 1995).
Chris