Police chief warns of 400 job cuts due to funding
The chief constable of Lincolnshire Police has warned 400 staff and officer jobs could be cut if the force cannot secure extra funding by October.
It comes after Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced the government's Spending Review, which includes a 2.3% real terms yearly funding increase for policing in England and Wales.
Chief Constable Paul Gibson said this was not enough for Lincolnshire and would leave the force facing a deficit of almost £70m. He said he had begun negotiations with the Home Office.
But Reeves told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme she did not "accept" the need for cuts to police jobs.
Speaking during a hotseat with BBC Radio Lincolnshire presenter Frances Finn, Mr Gibson said the Home Office had recognised Lincolnshire as a "significant outlier" in terms of funding.
"If we don't get more money by October, then, unfortunately, I have to start consultation to reduce our organisation significantly," he said.
Mr Gibson said cuts to officer numbers could result in reductions to services that were "hugely important" to communities, including neighbourhood, roads and rural policing and crime prevention work.
He said: "I have to make sure that I balance the budget, and if I can't do that then I have to reduce resources, which obviously will be felt within the communities across our great county."
The chief constable said he had a meeting planned with Policing Minister Dame Diana Johnson for early July, and he would be "pitching for more money".
"I'm as optimistic as I can be, but I can't guarantee money will come along," he said.
In April, Lincolnshire Police announced previous planned cuts to 400 jobs had been delayed due to a new £5.7m government funding package.
But speaking on BBC Radio Lincolnshire, Mr Gibson said this was "one-off money" to provide "stability" for six months.
A report by His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue, released in May, rated Lincolnshire Police inadequate at investigating crime, responding to the public and managing offenders and suspects.
Mr Gibson said he appreciated the findings of the report would be "concerning" for residents, but he said funding had a "massive impact" on the level of service the force could give.
He said: "It's [the report] not as good as I wanted it to be, that's absolutely clear, and there's no doubt that there are things we need to do better. I completely accept that.
"We're working incredibly hard in the background to make sure we are investigating crimes better, supervising criminal investigations better, meeting the requirements of victims better."
Caller Chris Fairweather, from Old Leake, near Boston, told the chief constable she had not been visited by officers after reporting a garage break in at her home.
She said tools and equipment had been stolen, but she had received a letter from police a week later to say the case had been closed.
Mr Gibson said it was "just not possible" to visit the scene of every crime, and officers had to work out the likelihood of solving a crime.
He said: "Finance, whether we like it or not, has a major impact upon what you're able to do, in terms of the quality of service you can deliver."
Later in the discussion, Mr Gibson said: "I know that people are concerned about policing – they always want more, quite understandably.
"But I also need to make sure that I balance that with my staff, who are operating in difficult circumstances.
"They get assaulted quite frequently. I write to them, I speak to them, almost daily, in terms of someone who's been punched, kicked, spat at."
The Home Office has been approached for comment.
Listen to highlights from Lincolnshire on BBC Sounds, watch the latest episode of Look North or tell us about a story you think we should be covering here.
Police cuts postponed after funding boost
Winners and losers: Who got what in the spending review?
'Serious concern' over police crime investigations
Lincolnshire Police
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
The ‘experts' you've never heard of inspiring Rachel Reeves's disastrous economic policy
A little like the Chagos Islands giveaway and, more recently, the apparent Gibraltar sell out, it's almost impossible to work out the motivations behind each and every idiotic decision this Labour Government takes. There's a palpable sense of incredulity spreading across Britain as the Prime Minister and Chancellor continue to insist that everything is going swimmingly despite most key markers showing precisely the opposite is true. Take the economy. In Wednesday's Spending Review, Rachel Reeves boasted that she had 'wasted no time' removing the barriers to growth. Less than 24 hours later, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) revealed that UK GDP had shrunk by 0.3 per cent in April. Labour continues to splurge taxpayers' hard-earned cash despite the national debt sitting at around 96 per cent of GDP, the budget deficit more doubling in the past seven years, and public spending being on a par with the profligate Labour government of the 1970s, which almost bankrupted the country. Back then, taxes as a share of GDP were around 33 per cent. Forecasts suggest that, by 2027, they could reach 37.7 per cent. Unemployment is at its highest level in four years, UK payrolls have lost 276,000 employees since the autumn Budget, and a millionaire is reportedly leaving the UK every 45 minutes under Labour. Still, no one in the Cabinet appears able to rule out further tax rises, with Paul Johnson, the outgoing chief of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) concluding that 'council tax bills look set to rise at their fastest rate over any parliament since 2001-05.' Who is advising Reeves on tax policy, and her relentless assault on our wallets? Readers may not have heard of Arun Advani and Andy Summers, but these little known academics may have been the inspiration for Labour's seemingly never-ending tax grab. They run the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation (CenTax), which some credit for Labour's farm tax. Advani, who is associate professor in the economics department at the University of Warwick, called for inheritance tax 'loopholes' on farms to be scrapped in two reports for the Institute for Fiscal Studies, as well as writing a further report for CenTax making the same arguments for changes to both Agricultural Property Relief (APR) and Business Property Relief (BPR) last October. After Advani boasted at the Labour Party Conference that he was 'optimistic' because the Labour government is 'genuinely listening' to his ideas, Reeves announced in the Budget that the availability of 100 per cent relief for agricultural and business property would be capped at £1 million. So far, so predictable, you may argue. What's the harm in tapping up Left-wing think tanks for radical tax ideas? Do Conservative governments not rely on the research of free market institutes? Well, some have alleged the Treasury relied solely on CenTax's projection that the changes would raise £520 million, without doing its own calculations. As it conceded in response to a Freedom of Information request: 'H M Treasury does not hold a disaggregated cost projection for the revenue raised from the measure announced at Autumn Budget 2024 to restrict these reliefs. This is a combined policy across the reliefs, rather than separate policies for each relief.' Even more problematically, the £520 million figure has been challenged. The OBR itself said it was uncertain how much would be raised as a result of behavioural responses, whilst CBI Economics calculates that the new tax on both family firms and farms will actually cost the Treasury £1.9 billion over the next five years. Advani claimed that only around 500 farms would be affected by the tax. As the Adam Smith Institute points out, however, 'the government's much-quoted '500' a year is really 15,000 a generation.' The true number of farms could be more than 40,000. Separate research, commissioned by Ashbridge Partners, found that one in 10 farmers surveyed said they will face an IHT bill of more than £1 million due to the inheritance tax hike, with 31 per cent expecting to pay more than £500,000. Why didn't Labour listen? Treasury minister James Murray, who referenced back in 2022 how many Zoom meetings he'd held with Dr Summers, even hosted CenTax's official launch in Parliament last November when he declared his desire 'to make sure that collaboration between CenTax, Treasury and HMRC continues for many years into the future.' Advani and Summers also influenced Labour's pledge to scrap non dom status with Treasury ministers again seeming to unquestioningly swallow their claim that it would raise £3.2 billion, a figure repeatedly cited by the Government. The trouble is, that number was also based on some misguided premises, perhaps including Advani and Summers' quite ludicrous prediction that out of 70,000 non-doms, only 77 would leave. As other economists later pointed out, the projection did not take into account the impact of abolishing non-dom inheritance tax protections. Even the OBR assumed that the changes would likely lead to a loss of 25 per cent of non-doms with trusts, which could cost the UK more than £12 billion during the course of the parliament. Still the Government swallowed the £3.2 billion figure hook line and sinker despite some now estimating that 10 per cent of non-doms may have already left the UK. A report by the CEBR predicts the ongoing exodus could reach 40 per cent – costing the Treasury a self-defeating £7.1 billion over this parliament. This combined with the £1.9 billion revenue lost as a result of the farm and family firm tax could mean the Government is down £9 billion thanks to listening to these nitwits. CenTax also wrongly predicted that increasing the tax rate on carried interest to 45 per cent would raise additional revenue of £0.8 billion per year. Labour settled on 32 per cent – but a January 2025 estimate by the OBR suggests that only £100 million will be raised and since then Reeves has watered it down. Labour claim to be a 'party of business'. So why are they seemingly listening to two economists who are laying the intellectual groundwork for an expansion in taxation that could come to look like Corbynism on steroids. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Rachel Reeves is leaving Britain defenceless
Last week, the Prime Minister said that we 'need to see the biggest shift in mindset in my lifetime: to put security and defence front and centre – to make it the fundamental organising principle of government'. The unfolding crisis in the Middle East underscores the need to do so. Now, more than ever, our national security must be the Government's overriding priority, trampling on any other competing demands for government money and ministers' time. But it isn't. This noble organising principle seems not to apply where it matters most: the Government's economic strategy. In her spending review this week, the Chancellor gave us her own definition of security: 'securonomics'. This ugly word, reeking of socialist greyness and uniformity, means – to quote Rachel Reeves – 'government must step up to provide security for working people and resilience for our national economy.' She is right about the need for economic resilience. For years, it has been clear that, in a turbulent world, the scale and structure of debt, combined with anaemic growth, makes our economy highly vulnerable to global shocks. Yet instead of rebuilding a fiscal buffer, the Chancellor has left us with a fiscal wafer so thin it could crack at the merest tap. Instead of bringing debt down, it will be higher at the end of the Parliament than today – and the cost of servicing it is already more than we spend on defence. And instead of supporting growth – critical to everything – the Government has suffocated it with higher taxes. Next, how has the Chancellor helped deliver 'security for working people'? For most working people, job security – the ability to find and keep a steady job – is key. Yet job insecurity is rising. By raising National Insurance on employers – a £25bn jobs tax – Rachel Reeves has provoked the biggest fall in employment in five years. Unemployment is ticking up. The broader definition of 'security' obviously encompasses our nation's defence. Although defence spending is set to rise to 2.5 per cent GDP during this Parliament, this is clearly not enough. At the upcoming Nato summit, the UK will be pressed to raise it to at least 3.5 per cent. But in Wednesday's spending review, what was the Chancellor's 'choice'? To give the NHS, not defence, a bigger slice of government largesse. 90 per cent of the total increase in spending from 2025-6 will go to health. The NHS will see a record cash investment: real-terms, day to day spending is set to increase by 3 per cent per year, costing an extra £29 billion. A government that sees defence as the organising principle of government would not have made that choice. It would have made the case that we need to move from a state that prioritises welfare to one that prepares for warfare. And as part of a strategy to put debt on a gradual downward path, it would have made tough decisions on spending overall – starting with a reform of incapacity and disability benefits, which now cost more than the defence budget. Instead, as her speech took us from spending more on affordable homes, to car production to training to buses in Rochdale, the Chancellor disorganised her Downing Street neighbour's organising principle, showing it the respect Tracey Emin had for her bed. There is only one conclusion one can draw from all this. Last week, when the Prime Minister said we need to make security and defence 'the organising principle of government', he left off four words: 'for this week only'. Lord Bridges of Headley is a former government minister; he was Chairman of the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee between January 2022 and January 2025 Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Former PCSO tried to build a gun using 3D printer
A former police community support officer with an 'obsession' for weapons tried to build a gun using a 3D printer. Zoe Watts, 38, was found with an 'arsenal' at her Lincoln home, with items including parts to make a semi automatic weapon, a machete and a crossbow. Watts, who previously served as a PCSO with Lincolnshire Police, was arrested during an armed operation on Dec 11. It came less than four years after she was previously jailed for possessing illegal weapons and manufacturing explosives in 2021. The latest charge related to Watts trying to make an FGC MK II Nutty semi automatic weapon, jurors at Lincoln Crown Court heard. Christopher Poole, a ballistics expert for the prosecution, said: 'It was the first in the UK seen of this variant.' Giving evidence, Mr Poole said 3D printed guns had become an emerging trend where individuals were circumventing firearms laws. He confirmed videos of similar weapons being discharged were readily available on YouTube, while jurors were shown footage of a similar weapon being discharged at a metal target in America. Jonathan Dee, prosecuting, explained the initials of the FGC MK II stood for 'F--- gun control'. When firearms experts tried to put the weapon together, it did not work, but Mr Dee insisted it would have become a 'lethal' prohibited weapon if made correctly. The 3D printer was found in a cupboard during a search of Watts' home along with many of the parts needed to make the FGC MK II Nutty, including a 'very short' steel barrel. Other items including a machete, bladed article, crossbow and bow were recovered from Watts' home. 'The defendant had an arsenal, we say this was part of it,' Mr Dee told the jury. Two days before the search, Mr Dee said Watts had put a search into Google asking: 'Has anybody been killed by a 3D printed gun?' And a day later, a search was made for the death of Brian Thompson, the chief executive of United Healthcare, who was fatally shot outside a hotel in New York, Mr Dee said. During her trial, Watts claimed she was actually making a 'fidget' toy gun as a Christmas present. Watts told the jury she had previously run a YouTube channel dedicated to 'survivalism' and bushcraft. But a jury at Lincoln Crown Court convicted her of the offence after a five-day trial. Judge Simon Hirst adjourned sentence until Aug 8 and remanded Watts back into custody. Watts was previously jailed for 27 months in July 2021 after she 'hoarded' banned weapons and explosive substances and also made an improvised explosive device. Police also found a stun gun, butterfly knives and an illegal electric fly-swatter during a raid in October 2020. On that occasion Watts had made an explosive device out of a modified shotgun cartridge. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
