Police Officer numbers just out: - Total officer numbers have fallen 566 in the last year (Mar 2025 to Mar 2026) and have fallen 1,879 since Sept 2024 - ⁠Frontline officer numbers have fallen by 1,518 in the last year (from 117,282 in Mar 2025 down to 115,764 in Mar 2026) and are down 6,485 since Labour came to power - They have re-designated a lot of officers as “neighbourhood” so that appears to go up - but the fact is total officer numbers and frontline officer numbers are both falling Labour is letting Britain down with falling police numbers - down newly 2,000 since they came to power. Worse than that, frontline office numbers are falling even faster - down 1,500 in the last year and down 6,500 since Labour came to power. Slashing police numbers and letting criminals out of prison early shows that Labour is weak on crime The Conservatives left office with record ever police numbers and falling crime. Our plan to hire 10,000 more officers will help take back our streets

A former police officer has received an apology after he was finally exonerated five years after a complaint that he unlawfully arrested a protester. Leigh Carnally became the subject of an internal professional standards investigation after mobile phone footage captured him pinning a protestor up against the side of a police van during a huge series of demonstrations in Manchester city centre on March 20th 2021. The then PC was accused of making up claims that the protester had raised his middle finger to him before proceeding to carry out an arrest and search alleged to be unlawful. Now, five years on, the officer has been cleared of any wrongdoing during a disciplinary hearing which ended with an apology. The arrest happened during a series of protests in Manchester city centre during Covid restrictions including opposition to the Police and Crime bill going through parliament. Some 18 people were arrested after tramlines were blocked. Many protesters carried 'kill the bill' placards. The officer was on duty in the driver's seat of a Tactical Aid Unit van on Mount Street when the vehicle was approached by a number of protestors on foot including one named as 18-year-old Sam Brooks, according to a published disciplinary hearing judgment. The M.E.N. reported at the time that a friend of the then-unnamed student told us: "I think my mate just casually shook his head at the police van as we went passed and this officer jumped out and pinned him against the van. “He was saying 'are you shaking your head at me you little s***'? "I got my phone out and they weren't letting me film it, two officers shoved me to the floor. He wasn't arrested, they just put him in the van and dropped him at the McDonald's in Peel Park. He asked for their badge numbers and they said 'do you want to spend the weekend in the cells?'" The disciplinary hearing heard it was agreed the protestor had looked at the officer and shaken his head but the officer also alleged Mr Brooks had raised his middle finger towards him. The panel agreed. It was alleged the officer got out of the van and held Mr Brooks by the throat, placed him in an arm lock before applying handcuffs as part of an arrest for an alleged breach of the peace. The officer was accused of being dishonest by claiming the protester had raised his middle finger making the arrest and search unlawful. He was also accused of assaulting the protester as the force he used was 'unnecessary, disproportionate and unreasonable', the judgment reveals. The disciplinary panel said they were 'cautious' about the claims as the protester and other complainants had 'chosen not to attend' the hearing and so their claims were 'untested'. Use of force was 'acceptable level' The panel noted the 'experienced officer' with an 'unblemished record' had made a contemporaneous note of the incident in his pocket book and concluded the cop was 'not dishonest' in claiming the protester had raised his middle finger. The judgment continued: "The panel find that the actions of Mr Brooks would on the balance of probabilities amount to grounds for detaining him under section 5 of the Public Order Act. This is because the panel finds that the behaviour was abusive, occurred in a public place, that Mr Brooks should have been aware that the conduct may be abusive and was within the hearing or sight of a person or persons likely to be caused harassment alarm or distress." Mr Brooks had refused to stop and speak to the PC and 'began swearing and was clearly non-compliant as is evidenced by other officers at the scene, and the body warn video', according to the panel. It continued: "We therefore find that the former officer did have grounds to arrest Mr Brooks, and the arrest of Brooks was lawful in the circumstances. It is disappointing that all of this could have been avoided had Brooks not simply stopped and spoken to the officer about his actions." Continued…