Back in 1969, on being sworn in as a Sussex Police officer, I had to learn the following definition: ‘A constable is a citizen locally appointed, but having authority under the crown for the ‘protection of life and property, prevention and detection of crime, maintenance of order, and prosecution of offenders against the peace.’ It was considered so important that I can remember it nearly 50 years later.

The emphasis of a police officer’s duties was on prevention.

Why therefore should anybody complain because Sussex Police offer guidance to keep women safe on our streets?

As a West Yorkshire police officer I was regularly seconded to the Bradford observation points in the hunt for the Yorkshire Ripper.

The prostitutes openly admitted that by having to work in a strictly controlled unofficial ‘red light’ area, their incomes dropped by as much as 90%.

They did not complain or carp on about their rights to ply their trade where they wanted.

They were only too grateful that the police were doing all in their power to keep them safe.

It needs to be remembered that the majority of the Ripper’s victims were not prostitutes. They were ordinary women who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

One young woman lost her life because she chose to take a short cut over a deserted unlit football field. Had she heeded advice to stay on the well-lit roads and footpaths, she would still be alive today.

No one denies the rights of women to walk the streets in safety, or get drunk out of their minds if that is what they want to do.

However the majority of crime is committed because the criminal had the opportunity. Criminals could not care less about the rights of women or anyone else.

Is it so unreasonable for the police to expect everyone, not just women, to take reasonable precautions not to give the criminal, mugger, rapist, or burglar the chance to commit the crime in the first place?

Stuart Bower

Hallyburton Road, Hove