Morning:
10°c
One of the advances in the policing of London in recent years is that more officers have been put on the beat, where they can be in easy contact with the public. Last year the Metropolitan Police's numbers were up significantly; the fact that many more are patrolling the streets is the basis of a new advertising campaign. But now some police officers are complaining that they are being obliged to walk the beat singly, rather than in twos. In a campaign on Facebook directed against Met Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson, some are campaigning for a return to policing in pairs.
But there are good reasons for Sir Paul's approach. One is that when police did go around in twos they naturally engaged in conversation and, equally unsurprisingly, it turned out that members of the public were more reluctant to approach them, lest they disturb their conversation. A single police officer is simply more approachable than two. That matters. And two officers patrolling singly can cover twice as much ground as a pair. In truth, this campaign is just the latest effort by a few self-interested officers, their views often disprortionately represented by the Met Police Federation, to resist common-sense reform.
Of course there will be occasions when the police should not go on patrol alone — on problematic housing estates, for instance, or in some areas at night. The Met has made it clear that that in such cases, officers will not have to patrol alone. But this should be the exception rather than the rule. Sir Paul is right. His detractors show more concern for their convenience than the public they are meant to serve.
Tories on cuts
David Cameron, the Tory leader, has insisted that, were his party elected, it would make it a priority to cut the public debt, now at record levels. So, too, has the Government, which has legally bound itself to halve the public deficit within four years. Now, however, Mr Cameron has modified his stance. He has ruled out “swingeing” cuts in the first few months of a Tory government. Carefully, he has announced that he will “make a start” in reducing some public spending programmes in 2010, if elected, and wishes to co-operate with the Bank of England in getting debt levels down.
This is plainly an attempt to counter Labour claims that Tory cuts would endanger the recovery. No one seeking office wants to be seen as enthusiastic about cutting services. But Mr Cameron is also making the point that if the next government is not serious about cutting public debt, then Britain's credit rating, and hence, our interest rates, could suffer. It is difficult to make both points.
The truth is that whichever party is elected will have to make drastic cuts. Indeed, both main parties have shied away from the most painful decisions: the Tories, like Labour, are protecting the NHS from cuts, which means that other departments will be obliged to cut spending by an estimated 13 per cent. Neither party wants to say so now, but the size of the deficit means that we shall have to cut spending substantially, whether we like it or not.
Free speech won
The future of England captain John Terry remains in doubt after allegations of an affair, made worse by his attempts to muzzle the press. But one good thing to emerge is that it may now be less easy than before for lawyers acting for celebrities, notably Schillings, to obtain super-injunctions. Such rulings not only ban the publication of alleged misbehaviour but any mention of the injunction. This is an advance for press freedom — and the public interest.
