Sir, Martin Samuel’s parody of the Cheshire police would be funny (Comment, Jan 18) if it were not so frighteningly true. Police forces in general have largely given up proactive policing.

Here in Somerset a real police officer on the beat is a very rare site. You may find community support officers chatting to noisy youths or asking beggars to move on, but they have no powers of arrest and command no respect among criminals. We do not want community support but community protection and that will only come from vigorous law enforcement by highly visible police officers.

The public has lost faith in a police force that it perceives as being officiously present to enforce political correctness or minor traffic offences but loath to get to grips with violent crime.

Richard English
Norton-sub-Hamdon, Somerset

Sir, The inhibitors to police dealing with antisocial behaviour are: the volume of administration associated with arrest; that an arrest reduces the number of already scarce officers on the street leaving yobs to run riot; that forces have had to make significant cuts because of falling budgets; micromanagement by the Government; and, a point that no senior police officer dare agree with, the overemployment of young women. I do not doubt their courage or commitment, just their presence and physical strength. Most public order arrests involve the use of force and officers need to know when they call for help that some “bulk” will arrive, not a 9-stone young woman.

Much of the above have let yobs get away with a great deal more than their fathers would have ever attempted, knowing that they have little chance of arrest and even less chance of being investigated for criminal damage or minor assault.

Public-order policing has to be impactive, very firm, consistent and with a lot of officers directed at problem areas. This means something else will have to give. So what should that be?

Robert Bartlett
Brockham, Surrey

Sir, For too long the police have held the view that community policing should embrace all members of society. It should not. There are those who, by their behaviour, exclude themselves from this softly, softly approach. They require a more robust approach from officers, as Mr Samuel says, who “have a mandate to deal with any incident in the manner they see fit”.

But there lies the rub. There are many in our society, including senior officers, who, while publicly condemning the offenders and offering condolences to the victims, would not be prepared to take the forthright action to confront the thugs on our streets properly.

This problem can be solved. It may not be pretty, and a few people may have their civil liberties infringed. Senior officers will need to be less “pink and fluffy” and the courts will need to pass the sentences commensurate with the offences. A small price to pay to protect the likes of Mr Newlove.

V. Hill
Worcester

Sir, To attack the police alone is missing some key areas of responsibility. Certainly the police should deter and punish senseless acts of barbarism, but they will only be able to do this if there is full support from the rest of society, most notably parents and the Government. The police want to do their job but they are handcuffed by bureaucracy, political correctness and a legal system that still favours the perpetrator. If we are to prevent our society from destroying itself through stupidity and weakness then we must force parents to take full responsibility for their children, and allow the police and the legal system to control crime properly with laws that actively protect from mindless and thuggish behaviour.

Matthew Minshall
King’s Lynn, Norfolk

Explore Letters

• Feedback