Sir, The e-mail from the sergeant at Milton Keynes was unacceptable and I would not seek to defend it in any way (“Terror inquiry? That’s a nice little earner”, Sept 19). It brings discredit on Thames Valley Police and demonstrates an attitude to the spending of public money that has no place in the police service. I have asked my Professional Standards Department to look at this case and to establish whether it is an isolated incident or part of a wider problem.

Thames Valley Police worked very hard to control the costs of Operation Overt. The original requirement for staff for the cordons was set by the Metropolitan Police who requested that the 6.5km perimeter was guarded at intervals of 100 metres — requiring 650 officers per shift. Thames Valley senior officers negotiated more realistic levels — which still amounted to 100 officers per shift. This was the most significant counter-terrorism investigation in recent years, and we wanted to ensure that all possible evidence was secured.

However, the substantial commitment could not be met solely by redeploying local officers. We did redeploy more than 5,000 shifts from local communities for which officers received no extra payment but which put huge strain on local policing. This was discussed with the police authority, local MPs and local councillors at the time who were concerned about local policing levels as a consequence of the operation.

The decision to use officers from this force and other forces on overtime was made by chief officers and was the right decision. This did incur costs — some of which were met from the Home Office through special grant and some from our own Police Authority reserves.

Throughout the operation the police authority held me to account for decisions on this expenditure.

Sara Thornton

Chief Constable, Thames Valley Police

Explore Letters

• Feedback