Public Safety Minister Sen. David Burch has struck a deep chord in the community on the need for more assertive Policing in the face of the upsurge in violent crime.

And yesterday, he conceded that he had misspoken when he called on Police "to take appropriately violent action" towards criminals.

He was right to withdraw that particular statement, but he must understand the dangers of using words loosely in the job that he holds.

Nor was it entirely clear what Sen. Burch meant when he said the Police were overly concerned with how prosecutors or the courts would handle their actions.

Sen. Burch said a common Police response was: " 'I can't do that because the courts will do this.'"

And he added: "Your (the Police's) job is to police this Country and that's what I want you to do and I want you to do it in a more aggressive manner."

If Sen. Burch means that the Police should do their jobs as they understand it and let the prosecutors and the courts do theirs, then that's fine.

But it could also be read that he wants the Police to make arrests or take actions in the knowledge that the courts will throw the charges out, all in the name of safer streets. That cannot be right; the Police cannot act outside the law they are sworn to uphold.

Still, Sen. Burch reflects a general frustration that the Police often seem unwilling to aggressively pursue investigations and enforcement. Many people have complained to this newspaper about how hard it is to get an officer to a crime scene, let along to pursue it.

Lawyer Tim Marshall rightly points out in a letter today that some of this stems from a decision taken first under the then-United Bermuda Party government and continued under the Progressive Labour Party to make the Police less aggressive and more community-friendly.

As well intentioned as this may have been, there must surely be some acknowledgement now that it has failed; criminals today are more violent, better armed and less fearful of the criminal justice system than they have ever been. Even then, the picture is not clear cut; even as violent crime has risen, the Police have made arrests or obtained convictions for every single killing that has occurred over the last 18 months.

Similarly, some of the blame for rises in crime must lie with this Government's liberal parole policy, done in the name of reducing prison occupancies, which has failed to alter the recidivism rate; the prison doors are just revolving faster.

Given all of that, it is still surprising that Government would not merely contemplate but would actually reduce the overall Police budget.

Sen. Burch criticised the media for not finding out more about where the cuts were taking place. He ignored the fact requests were made by this newspaper for more detail on the cuts and rather lamely concluded that he had only ten minutes to talk about his Ministry on Budget day. So he should be careful about who he accuses of dishonesty.

In general, the cuts in Police spending can be attributed to reductions in allocations for training and equipment, which make sense, and apparently in overtime, which does not. The betting here is that as the recession deepens and crime increases (as it almost certain that they will), the projected declines in overtime will not happen. But next year's Budget will reveal whether that's the case or not.

Sen. Burch's comments also elicited some rather cryptic responses from the Governor, who is directly responsible for operational policy, on the need for other agencies to help the Police and for new legislation.

Sen. Burch no doubt knows what this means and will be acting on it.

So, yes, Sen. Burch, don't resign, but do choose your words more carefully. Plenty of people support your desire for a more assertive Police Service, but remember too that the Police need support as well and cannot do it on their own.