ONE silver lining to come out of the hounding of the Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire, Steve Green, is the shattering of one of the greatest urban myths of our time - the idea that more police officers equals less crime.

Over the years every political party has jumped on the bandwagon and promised more and more bobbies on the beat. The result has been fewer resources for education, health and other public services when the national tax cake has been carved up.

In workplaces throughout Britain new technology has meant fewer staff delivering more - yet not one politician appears to have questioned why this has not applied to policing.

So, in the wake of the attacks upon Steve Green, it was interesting to note a short comment from the Association of Chief Police Officers stating: "We need to move away from the view held by all political parties that it is the number of police officers that matter instead of the totality of policing. Flexibility is the key."

Absolutely right, the suggestion that throwing more public money into boosting police numbers is effective is flawed on two fronts. Firstly, this equation assumes that our police forces are working at maximum efficiency and, frankly, some are not because they are poorly managed.

Secondly, it costs £1m to put three new constables through the basic training of their first four years. For that money a local authority could deploy a team of 70 community wardens for a year. Used strategically, they will have far more impact on reducing crime and - just as importantly - the fear of crime.

The modern day police officer is a highly skilled individual who should not be used solely to provide a re-assuring presence on the streets.

Through a partnership approach and proper motivation and co-ordination, that role can be filled - certainly in the daytime - by community wardens, PCSOs, special constables, parking enforcement officers, security guards and others.

For too long we have seen fighting crime as a one way street - namely extra money is given to chief constables who are ordered to spend it boosting police officer numbers.

I'd rather chief constables were given a budget and told to use it however they see fit to best tackle the particular crime and anti-social patterns of their area. If a local authority can provide a presence on the street that reassures the public, deters crime and deals with the bottom end of offending, then the chief should be allowed to buy-in this service.

Similarly, if the recruitment of more civilian staff allows officers to spend more time fighting crime rather than filling in forms, then a chief constable should be able to do that without being penalised for not increasing officer numbers.

There is another crucial reason why we should think twice before demanding increased police numbers. Each year police officer pensions consume one fifth of force budgets.

Boosting officer numbers will only exacerbate the problem, resulting in either further cuts to other services or the hammering of the public year after year with double figure police precept rises.

Senior police officers should be judged on their ability to reduce crime - not their ability to boost recruitment.

Published: ??/??/2004