Readers' views on proposals to place undercover police in bars

The scheme was among several "immediate measures" discussed at a meeting of the crime and justice taskforce this week, chaired by Boris Johnson, to protect women following the death of Sarah Everard.

The programme would see uniformed and plain clothes officers seek to actively identify predatory and suspicious offenders.

• READ MORE: Woman held down and handcuffed by officers at Sarah Everard vigil

Dubbed "Project Vigilant", the programme can involve officers attending areas around clubs and bars undercover, along with increased police patrols as people leave at closing time.

Other steps unveiled by Downing Street include a doubling of the Safer Streets fund - which provides neighbourhood measures such as better lighting and CCTV - to £45 million.

Boris Johnson said it could mean siting measures in parks and routes used by women on their walks home.

"The horrific case of Sarah Everard has unleashed a wave of feeling about women not feeling safe at night. We must do everything we can to ensure our streets are safe," he said.

"Ultimately, we must drive out violence against women and girls and make every part of the criminal justice system work to better protect and defend them."

Prime Minister Boris Johnson

But the scheme has proved controversial.

So, we asked readers: "Undercover police officers could patrol nightclubs and bars as part of government plans to improve security for women. What do you think of this idea?"

This is what you said:

Dan Robertson suggested that the resources used to support this scheme might "improve attitudes of men and boys towards women and girls" whereas the planned measures were just "devices to catch men in the act".

He said: "Has the government said anything about stopping rape, assault, harassment and other crimes by men on women from happening at all?

"All these suggestions so far are devices to catch men in the act. Investment in education and tackling misogyny across the board might improve attitudes of men and boys towards women and girls - the onus should be on men and boys to change their behaviours."

And Fiona Edwards argued that an increased police presence on the streets might be more effective in preventing crimes.

She said: "What on earth does it have to do with nightclubs? It is the streets and unfortunately the home where we are at most risk."

Natalie Mott agreed that a greater police presence could be more beneficial elsewhere, saying: "These venues already have security, get more police on the streets to protect both men and women."

Abi Feldwicke added: "Surely police working in pairs walking the streets would be better? Or perhaps a volunteer organisation could be set up?

"A while ago I remember in Seaford some people from one of the churches set up something where a group of them would be around to help people home."

Justina Akehurst, meanwhile, questioned the feasibility of the idea.

She said: "I can't see that happening. How many bars and clubs are there in Brighton alone? It would need a lot of undercover police."

Carolyn Sorbie raised the issue of identifying the undercover officers, if people in bars and nightclubs were offered help by someone claiming to be a part of the force.

She said: "It's the walk home when ladies are at danger and you can't have police along every lady's route home. Also how would you know who was an under cover police officer and who was a danger?"

And Suzanne Borrell slammed the move as a "knee-jerk reaction" from the government.

She said: "If you want to save women from death by violence you’ll address the domestic violence crisis and make swift reforms within the criminal justice system."