November 25, 2011Dear Sir,I note a front page article in yesterday’s Gazette claiming the Police are to be told either to take their accumulated annual leave or risk losing it, which strikes me as being very unfair as I’m sure that many of them would love to take their accumulated annual leave, but, because of “the exigiences of the service”, they cannot be spared.I am equally sure that many more would be quite happy to accept payment instead of having to take their accumulated annual leave, but, because Government has short-sightedly cut the Police budget by I think it’s 11 percent, there is now no surplus cash to pay them. So now, through absolutely no fault of their own, those officers who have accumulated large periods of annual leave and can’t take the time off or get paid for it are to be penalised by possibly losing it altogether. That to me (and doubtless to many others too) is totally unfair, and, if that policy is forced through, I dread to think of the effect on Police morale and the probable number of subsequent resignations.While we’re on the subject, whose bright idea was it to cut the Police budget in the middle of a recession, of all the stupid times to cut the Police budget? Has it not sunk in in various high places that, in times of recession, crime is going to increase? An increase in crime means more work for the Police: more work for the Police means either more overtime or an increase in establishment: more overtime or an increase in establishment both cost money, but Government can’t have it both ways. Either pay overtime or increase the establishment, or (in an ideal world) do both, but there’s no way they should get away with doing neither.Many readers will doubtless be familiar with the old expression “Robbing Peter to pay Paul.” The present Government has been robbing Peter for the past 13 years: it’s now time to pay Paul, as in Paul-ice!DAVIE KERRSmith’s