He is absolutely right that the police service should refocus resources away from arbitrary targets used as measures of success by central Government and concentrate on local issues.

Let the "bobby" on the beat work his patch based on his local knowledge which would undoubtedly address issues of concern to the public such as the drunkenness, yobbishness, graffiti and anti-social behaviour to which he refers.

Few members of the public are understandably prepared to challenge this kind of conduct which has been gradually deteriorating over many years and will take just as many to correct.

I believe it has proliferated since police officers became commuters between home and work. I realise my suggestion will be controversial and will require much discussion, but can we not induce some police officers to live on their beat as they did many years ago before the Police Authority sold off the houses?

If this were to happen, there would be no need to report such behaviour they would be there experiencing it and in a position to deal with it given the resources at their disposal. Obviously there would have to be compensation in the form of additional remuneration for such volunteers, and I stress volunteers, but as a retired police officer it would surprise me if they were not forthcoming.

Could it not be a condition of service that promotion would be dependant upon performing such a duty for a minimum specified period?

There will also need to be exceptions allowing the children of officers to attend a school of their choice outside the catchment area in which they live to prevent them becoming the focus of acrimony by other pupils but these and other obstacles could be overcome once the principle is established. The cost would be minimal in comparison with the benefit gained by the public and some of the "John Lewis" expenses recently prised from our MPs could contribute.


No evidence of hen harriers being shot


From: Henry Bellingham, MP (North West Norfolk), House of Commons, London.

I HAVE only recently had the chance to read Ruth Mansfield's article (Yorkshire Post, April 22) which was headed: "Deadly region for birds of prey." The article was perfectly fair and accurate in what it reported apart from one glaring mistake when it mentioned: "two birds of prey were found dead on one of the Queen's estates".

The Sandringham estate is in my North West Norfolk constituency and as I am sure your readers will be aware, the alleged incident from October last year received a great deal of coverage in the national press.

However, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that any hen harriers were shot, and certainly no carcasses were ever discovered.

The alleged incident took place on Dersingham Bog, which is part of the Sandringham estate, but is rented by Natural England. The deputy warden claimed that he saw two "hen harriers being shot" but his alleged sighting not only took place just before dusk, but also at a range of 600 yards. Rather than attempting to establish the true facts of the case, he immediately informed both the police and the RSPB, thus generating a huge amount of national publicity.

The Crown Prosecution Service then investigated and decided that the allegations were completely unfounded because of a lack of available evidence, and in particular the lack of any carcasses that could be forensically examined.

The background facts certainly vindicate the CPS's decision. First of all, the hen harrier is only a rare migratory visitor to West Norfolk and I understand that the last sighting of one on the Sandringham estate was well over two months before the alleged shooting.

Secondly, on the day in question reports of a great grey shrike on the Dersingham Bog brought out into the area more bird watchers than normal, but not one of them mentioned seeing any hen harriers.

What is especially unfortunate about this whole incident is that the resulting frenzy of press speculation led to a number of attacks on gamekeepers and land managers. Nearly all of the reports referred to "shot hen harriers" thus quite inaccurately implying that the carcasses had been recovered. Of course, this is exactly what happened in Ruth Mansfield's article in your newspaper.

Another of the unfortunate consequences of the Sandringham incident is that substantial damage has been done to the credibility of Natural England. At a time when our precious countryside is threatened as never before, we desperately need a powerful conservation body like the NE and for them to do their work effectively they must have the trust and confidence of their conservation partners. Let us hope that this trust and confidence can now be rebuilt.