Mark Andrews: Jog on! This is why the police don't have the resources to catch shoplifters

I never thought I would say this, but I'm actually thinking of moving to Surrey. I always imagined it to be one of the most terminally dull places in the world, and full of southerners to boot. As Jeremy Clarkson once said, "If Kent is the garden of England, then Surrey is at best the patio."

But it is also totally crime free, a place where you can spend your time in total safety. So safe, indeed, that police officers for Surrey Constabulary have nothing more pressing to do than send plain-clothes officers out jogging during the rush hour, hoping to catch wolf-whistlers. 

Defending the decision, Inspector Jon Vale said: “One of our officers was honked at within 10 minutes, then another vehicle slowed down, beeping and making gestures just 30 seconds later — that’s how frequent it is."

And I suppose if he didn't slow down, they would probably have nicked him for speeding.

*****

Now I've never slowed down to honk my hooter, or make rude gestures towards joggers. I find such behaviour boorish and, frankly, rather pitiful. But Mr Vale himself admitted that these actions do not actually constitute any crime. Given that we are constantly told that police forces do not have the resources to deal with actual criminal offences, such as shoplifting, shouldn't a bit of oafish cat-calling be right at the bottom of any force's list of priorities?

And if crime really is so low in Surrey that this is the biggest thing they have to worry about, maybe it's time for the Home Office to redirect some of the officers to places like the West Midlands, where real crimes actually take place.

***** 

Closer to home, in Wrexham, North Wales Police told shopkeeper Rob Davies, 61, to remove a sign which referred to 'scumbag shoplifters'. While in Kent, another shopkeeper, repeatedly rebuffed when he reported shoplifters, even supplying police with CCTV footage and car registration numbers, found that the boys in blue were much quicker to respond when he began posting photos in his shop window. In both of these cases,. the forces admitted that no actual offence had been committed. So why are our police spending so much of their precious time on matters they concede are not crimes, to the detriment of nicking some real criminals?

*****

It seems equally odd, that in a raft of new measures to cut the number of accidents on our roads, that the Government has chosen to target one of the safest groups of drivers - those in their 70s. 

A proposed shake-up of new laws will see the over-70s being forced to take regular eye tests. And maybe if that was for the over-80s, it would seem reasonable. But many people in their 70s today are fit and healthy, and no evidence has been produced that this age group is at risk of crashes.

And sure as night follows day, the moment the Scottish assembly cut its drink-drive limit from 35 microgrammes to 22, that the Government in Westminster would be itching to follow suit. To be honest, I'm surprised it took so long, despite there being no evidence that it has had any significant impact on casualties in Scotland. Edmund King of the AA says fatal crashes where the driver was slightly above or below the existing limit are few and far between. 

"Many are double the limit," he says. So wouldn't it be far more effective to focus on enforcing the existing law, and targeting the people who pose a demonstrable danger? Except that would involve the deployment of resources, whereas passing empty new laws is cheap.