A READER sends me an item from his ex-servicemen's journal, telling of a chap who spotted people stealing things from his shed just as he was going to bed.

Yet, on ringing the police, he was told no-one was in the area to help, but they would send someone as soon as possible.

So he hung up and rang them again a minute later and told them not to worry now -- as he had shot the intruders.

Within minutes, there were half a dozen police cars in the area, plus helicopters and an armed response unit -- and the burglars were caught red-handed.

"I thought you said you'd shot them," one of the officers said to him. To which he replied: "I thought you said there was no-one available."

No doubt the tale is made up, but it draws on widely held perceptions of present-day policing -- and more than a few true instances of delayed police reaction.

But while I accept that the police cannot be everywhere at once, I think tales like this one would have no credibility if they gave some of their activities a lower priority.

Such as the exercise they conducted the other day in Burnley of going round a large car park to discover how many vehicles were left unlocked and then writing letters ticking off the offending owners. Serves 'em right, I'd say, if they are too lazy or dozy to lock their cars and then stuff gets stolen from them -- the bobbies have better things to do than coddle or preach to clots.

The same goes for the amnesty on Lancashire motorists pulled over for minor motorway offences -- such as misusing fog lights, mobile phones or the hard shoulders. They are given advice, instead of a fine. But what of the follow-up business of some of them being rung up by the police and being asked if their driving has since improved as a result.

Come on, now, how many are going to say 'No'? Isn't this bound to be a waste of valuable police time -- that could be better spent on fighting crime and the notion that police cover is far too thin?