Reader comment

A reader writes to us (quoted with permission) -

It may be that NO MERGERS is a bit wrong. The problem is the instruction that no mergers can cross 'regional boundaries'. Our Chief Constable in Dorset, for example, does see some sense in merging with Hampshire, because they have many joint interests. But he cannot, as Hampshire is across the 'border'. He sees no sense in merging with Exeter or Bristol, with which he has little joint operation. The most important thing is to put a stop to regions altogether: they are a vital step in the creation of a EU Superstate of 'Regions and Cities', and should be resisted by every means available.

I agree completely about the EU Regions and Cities dimension. We've already seen the north Wales force say in the early days of debate that merger with Cheshire would make more logistical sense for them but they accepted that it wouldn't be politically possible. It's good to have another example of the role that (sometimes artificial) political lines on the map are playing.

Where I disagree is that my own presumption (my colleague will speak for himself) is against any mergers at all.

Firstly, where is the money to pay for the mergers to come from? And if there is to be new money, is merging the best way to spend it?

The other dimension to this discussion is that people need more democratic say over their policing - an issue which the government is understandably not emphasising!