I WAS horrified by the shocking front-page story (March 18) about the young man brutally assaulted on Trimingham Drive, Brandlesholme, after a Saturday night out. I grew up on that estate and still have friends there.

This reportedly unprovoked and vicious attack on an innocent young man astounded me, as I regarded the area away from the shops (where youths often display threatening behaviour) to be relatively safe.

You can understand my disbelief, then, when I turned to page 13 and read about Bury losing 19 police officers at the end of the month. How can this be justified when such violent crimes are becoming far too commonplace?

A recent letter described how the streets feel safer with "bobbies on the beat". This reduction in police officers will mean a lesser police presence on the streets and this will be noted not only by the law-abiding community but also the criminal fraternity. So, can we expect an increase in crime in our town? Logic suggests so.

Inspector Jones says that Bury Police are effectively over-staffed with 332 officers and that this is the reason for the reduction. However, police resources are already stretched, and the reduction is going stretch these resources even further.

In January, my father's office premises were broken into and, instead of a police officer attending, a Police Community Support Officer (PCSO) was sent. Why? Because all the police officers were busy!

The PCSO was not qualified to give my father a crime reference number. So if unqualified PCSOs are being sent out because qualified officers are too busy, how on earth can we afford to lose even more of them?

This cut in police resources seems ludicrous. Perhaps they should stop being so pre-occupied with errant motorists and concentrate on catching the dangerous and violent criminals who are living amongst us.

K. EDGE