The primary duties of the police are the protection of life and the protection of property, and from your front page report last week it appears that this particular police operation was mounted solely for the purpose of carrying out those duties.
There is not any obligation on the part of the police to satisfy the curiosity of the public, and indeed there are sound reasons why they should not do so.

In closing the road and evacuating nearby residents the police carried out an operation, which, it seems, was thought by the police commander to be necessary to ensure their safety.

Firearms and populated built-up areas do not go well together, and I am sure that this was only a sensible and reasonable course of action to take.

In addition to the liability of individual officers, the police force as an organisation, have to be mindful of Section 1 of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 and must be in a position to show that, if a death were as to occur, it did not result from their negligence.

I note from the report that a man was subsequently arrested and as a result may later face criminal charges.

Clearly this matter is sub judice and the release of too much information at this stage could prejudice a fair trial.

The media can freely report those later proceedings and so there is not any question of keeping information from the public.

I note that Supt Russ Foster kept in regular touch with the Worksop Guardian and it would seem that he released such information as he could without prejudicing the operation or any later proceedings.

Information about operations of this type must be supplied on a “need to know” basis and this certainly does not involve the supply of every detail to “angry villagers who wanted to know what was going on”.

JOHN HOLWELL

Elmsmere Drive, Oldcotes