Police mergers and their hidden agendas

From the archive, first published Monday 9th Jan 2006.

SIR - So Mr Cole thinks that it's "parochial nonsense" to oppose West Mercia police being swallowed up in a regional force (Letters, Wednesday, December 28).

Parochial? One-and-a-half million people would be a pretty large parish. Far larger, in fact, than would be needed to sustain an effective local police force, with proper local accountability. That is one reason why some people correctly opposed the previous round of amalgamations.

But of course "local accountability" simply would not figure in Mr Cole's preferred scenario of "a nationally co-ordinated and commanded service".

Does he really believe that Charles Clarke, or for that matter any other Home Secretary, can be trusted with direct control over every single police officer in the country?

The late Lord Hailsham once pointed out that "it would be more difficult for an authoritarian government in London to set up a police state across the country, precisely because there was no national police force".

We must not head in that direction. And nor do we want regional forces run from Brussels through regional assemblies - which many see as the real end objective.

One police force, Cleveland, has taken a pro-active approach by commissioning a MORI poll among local residents. The result was 70 per cent in favour of retaining the existing three police forces in the North East, rather than merging them into one regional force.

I suspect the answer would be similar if West Mercia followed suit and carried out a public opinion poll.

STANLEY D PARR,

Pershore,

Worcestershire.

Archive Home