It is hard to see how chief constables can make further savings in their budgets without cutting officer numbers. Continuing to say that shrinking budgets are down to achieving “efficiency targets” is a claim that lacks credibility. We are now talking about real cutbacks that will affect policing at the worst possible time.

Over the years, inefficient working practices have been costly for the taxpayer. There can be no quibbling with setting targets that bring about improvements.

Senior police know that the overtime pot has been reduced and they can no longer throw resources at an operation extravagantly.

Collaborating with other forces will get you a better deal on buying equipment or providing shared call-centre services. More forensic science work is being done in-house to save money. But there comes a time when you have cut to the bone and all your innovative ideas have been exhausted. At that point the balance shifts. Budget cuts now will mean cuts to services and the public will begin to notice.

Officer recruitment will need to stop. Retiring officers will not be replaced. These things will happen at a time when crime is rising, the terror threat is not diminishing and the Olympics are just around the corner.

As a chief constable in Norfolk, I fretted over what would be sacrificed if I had to cut officers. It boils down to deciding between what I had to do and what I wanted to do. On that basis, all functions that save life and prevent harm outweigh the need to solve property crime — a stolen watch can be replaced, a life can not. Spending cuts may help to balance the books in Whitehall but they give police chiefs the unenviable job of deciding which policing functions will not be done.

Andy Hayman is former Assistant Commissioner in the Metropolitan Police

Times Recommends

• The Olympics: you need brass to go for gold
• The new must-have accessory: 3-D specs
• Does Dame Helen Mirren need a Face Lift?