I HAVE just read the edition of the Guardian newspaper dated September 29, and I see that the debate still continues regarding the manner of policing (or lack of it as the case may be) in Vale Royal.

I failed to notice any advertisements or information regarding the recent police forum which was held at Northwich, otherwise I would have been there come hell or high water.

However, I have got a good idea of what was said from the police point of view from reading the Guardian newspaper and would like to make the following observations.

I would fully support the return of the beat bobby or foot patrols in general for many reasons, but I must say that I feel that it is irrelevant what the people of Vale Royal want. The Cheshire Constabulary will determine what we are going to get and it will be implemented whether the public like it or not. One only has to look at the ACPO policy of non attendance by the police at audible alarms to realise that the public now no longer have a say in the policing of the area. (The Greater Manchester Police are presently piloting a system whereby the police will no longer attend at reports of youths causing annoyance unless a crime is being or has been committed and there is no doubt that if it is deemed to be a success by the powers that be, then it will be implemented in other forces across the country including Cheshire).

The Guardian stated that the purse strings are held by the Home Secretary. This may to a certain degree be true but I think that I would be correct in saying that the purse is filled at Westminster and is then forwarded on to the Chief Constable of the Cheshire Constabulary who in turn distributes the money to his various departments and divisions, the heads of which then decide how their own "pot" of money will be spent.

It is therefore the officers in charge of those departments who determine what the public will infact receive in the way of policing in each area. (Each head of department will also be given "brownie points" if they do not spend all of their budget, but send some of the money back to headquarters). It would appear then that the purse strings are held by the chief constable and his divisional and department heads.

Reading between the lines it would appear that at the Police Forum the police were claiming to be acting in a proactive rather than a reactive manner.

But the setting up of various squads, particularly say a burglary squad, is in my opinion acting in a reactive manner as they only arrest people when a burglary has been committed.

If the beat bobby were reintroduced, would he or she get the backing of the public? I ask this as in the latest edition of the Guardian I note that the action group's co-ordinator has asked to remain anonymous as he or she fears for his or her own safety in their village. Given that situation what would be the chance of that person seeing a crime being committed and being in a position to prove that it had been committed in a court of law. I would suggest that the possibility of a statement being obtained would be remote to say the least, and unless the public are prepared to stand up and be counted then bobbies in general are superfluous to requirements.

Finally, if the beat bobby is so ineffectual then why when there was a possible threat from the IRA at Christmas time were so many foot patrols put on the beat in the shopping centres and precincts throughout the Cheshire area?

NAME

and address supplied.

Converted for the new archive on 13 March 2001. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.