This is a copy of a letter that I sent today to our local paper:
"Our Chief Constable was very bullish in his letter to your paper in claiming that his force would be able to carry out their full duties after the forthcoming cuts, but would have to "prioritise". One can be pardoned for wondering what "prioritised" actually means.
As an example, in recent years the police have had increasing success in catching and prosecuting animal abusers (killers of protected birds, especially birds of prey; egg collectors, dog fighters and badger baiters, to name a few). Where will these cases fit into the "priorities"? Low down, I should think, so are we now to witness our wildlife decline and cruelty to animals to get far worse again?
What will have the higher "priority" - mugging of an old lady, or theft of some antiques from a wealthy landowner? Rape or speeding? With the election of a Police and Crime Commissioner, will "priorities" be based on addressing what wins votes, or public need? That which needs large resources, or the easiest targets?
The pretence by right-wing politicians that more can always be done with less is disingenuous, to say the least. It is patently obvious that there is only so much workload that each person can cope with, and something will have to go if police numbers are reduced as we are told they will be. The election of PCCs effectively politicises the police. Put the two things together, and the prospect is hardly attractive, especially as crime is rising before police numbers are cut. The value of our public services has many forms and impacts, but where the police are concerned, is clearly ignored, unlike pure monetary cost. I, for one, fear that that is a serious mistake. "
Need I say more?