Record number of police officers sacked amid drop in force numbers
This is up 17% year on year from the previous record of 365 and more than double the number fired at the start of the decade, when 164 officers were dismissed in 2019/20.
The latest 12-month period also saw 4,806 officers voluntarily leaving policing: the second-highest number since records began in 2006 and down slightly from the peak of 5,151 in 2023/24.
The figures come as ministers have sought to tighten rules on standards to improve confidence in policing, while they have also faced warnings from forces that funding falls short to keep its existing workforce.
A total of 146,442 full-time equivalent (FTE) police officers were in post at the end of March 2025, down almost 1% from 147,745 at the same point last year, which was the highest in modern times.
Last month, plans for an average 2.3% rise in police spending per year faced backlash from police leaders, who warned a projected £1.2 billion shortfall will continue to grow and leave forces facing further cuts.
Acting national chairwoman of the Police Federation, Tiff Lynch, had said: 'We will lose 10,000 experienced officers a year to resignation by the end of this spending review period, driven out by poor pay and unacceptable working conditions.'
Chairman of the National Police Chiefs' Council Gavin Stephens added that the amount 'falls far short' of what is needed to fund Government plans and to maintain the existing workforce.
Ministers have committed to recruiting 13,000 more neighbourhood policing officers by 2029, with 3,000 extra recruits to be in post by April 2026.
Reacting to the figures, the Conservatives said the falling police numbers were a 'devastating blow' to neighbourhoods dealing with rising crime and anti-social behaviour.
The figures cover the last three months of the former Conservative government, and the first nine months of Labour in power.
Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said: 'Labour has let down policing and has let down the public.
'We need police to catch criminals, respond to 999 calls, investigate crime and patrol our streets.
'Labour has massively increased our taxes, squandered the money, and now they're reducing police numbers. The public are less safe as a result of Labour's incompetence.'
The Home Office has been contacted for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Locals' fury at plan to move asylum seekers into £250,000 flats that they say will bring crime spike and violent protests
Residents whose town could soon have a migrant hotel installed above shops in the middle of the high street fear it will cause 'mayhem' and lead to unrest. The Home Office sparked fury this week after it emerged they were secretly plotting, without consultation with the local council, to relocate 35 asylum seekers to a brand new development in Waterlooville, Hampshire, as part of a wider plan to lower the numbers in hotels and 'disperse' migrants across UK towns and cities. With just days to go until a decision is due to be made and amid a planned protest to block the move, residents have expressed concern at being kept in the dark over major decisions that could shape the future of their town. Pompey fan Steve, 58, who has lived in the area his whole life, told MailOnline: 'I've got a 13-year-old granddaughter, when you're about that age, you want to go out up the high street, but I'd be worried now. 'There's no criminal history checks on these people. It's easy to get swept up in that aspect, but it's not just that, I think it will attract trouble for us as well as the migrants. 'With the planned protests, I don't want people to start smashing things up because that plays into the hands of the Home Office and police who say 'see, there we go, right wing'. 'We have genuine concerns but the narrative can change quickly.' The earmarked development is a newly converted block of 19 flats called Waterloo House. It is owned by Mountley Group whose Director, Hersch Schneck, also owns a migrant hotel in nearby Cosham. At the top of the market, the flats could fetch £250,000 each but falling house prices mean taking them off the market and entering into a deal with Clearsprings, a company which procures accommodation for asylum seekers on behalf of the Home Office, could be a far more profitable move for Mountley Group. That's because the government could offer top of the market fees in order to get migrants into housing. As a result, Mountley Group could enjoy fixed guaranteed rates for several years and not be at risk of market turbulence. As well as private rentals, the Home Office is seeking medium-sized sites such as former student accommodation and old tower blocks to house migrants. The flats are located above a bric a brac store called The Junk Emporium which was once a Peacocks clothing store and before that, a Tesco. A member of staff at the shop, who rent from Mountley Group, told MailOnline how they only found out about the plans over Facebook and revealed the fallout of the row has severely impacted business. She explained: 'Yesterday we probably took around a third less. They [customers] think it's to do with us but it's not, we just rent the shop, they kind of assume we know what is going which we don't. 'We've had lots of phone calls and people coming in asking questions we can't answer. We were always under the impression that the flats above would be sold to commuters and people like that. 'The only thing the owners have told us is that it will not be for 35 single men, it is families. What concerns us is this protest. We have not had any assurances in the event of damage to the shop.' Others in Waterlooville, said to be named by soldiers returning from the Battle of Waterloo in 1815, feel just as left out of the conversation. Sid Conroy, who used to work for Airbus and now spends his time breeding racing pigeons, fears serious repercussions if the hotel gets given the greenlight. The 68-year-old said: 'I'm dead against it, there could be fights and trouble up here. You're going to have problems here, I can tell you that. 'There are people waiting years on housing waiting lists and it just seems like they get a brand new flat just like that? Why can't they look after us first? 'Our government is making us unhappy because of it. People are left behind, they're thinking more of the people coming in now. You get them coming over here, causing mayhem, causing trouble, all they get is a slap on the wrist and don't do it again. This is how I see it.' Jdarno Osborne, a mum whose children have challenging medical needs, says the hotel has left her angry because she has struggled to get stable housing in the past. The 36-year-old, who has lived in the area her whole life, said: 'It's funny how they can quickly house people from out of the country yet our own don't get support. 'I've got six kids, I lived in a two bed flat for thirteen years and yet somebody can come over and get helped straight away. 'My daughter is 15 now, they sometimes come here to hang with their friends. But it is worrying, there are things kicking off elsewhere because you hear of cases of rapes, harassment, stalking. 'We have to deal with this but people don't seem to care.' The row over the proposed hotel has triggered a political fallout which has seen local MP for Fareham and Waterlooville, Suella Braverman, the former Home Secretary, launch a petition to block the hotel going ahead. She said such sites make town centres 'no-go zones for the patriotic, common-sense majority' adding: 'This site, in the centre of our town, is utterly inappropriate for migrant accommodation. It must be stopped.' Her petition has garnered nearly 10,000 signatures. Leader of Labour-run Havant Borough Council, Councillor Phil Munday, said last week how the row came about after Clearsprings, who are procuring the site, sent their consultation to the wrong email address. In a furious public statement, he said he was 'extremely disappointed' that such an important issue was handled so poorly but went on to lambast Ms Braverman for 'headline-grabbing'. He added: 'They also failed to follow up to ensure a response of some kind was registered. These consultation exercises need to be taken seriously. The council have secured a 10-day consultation extension period to consider the plans. A decision is expected on 1st August. 'I look forward to the council providing a response that reflects the concerns of the borough', Mr Munday said. Nikki Woodley and her 14-year-old son Harry said they also have reservations if migrants were to be relocated to the high street. Nikki said: 'The council say the information was sent to the wrong person which I don't know if I agree with or not. But I'm obviously against the hotel. It's the worse place to put it because there are children everywhere here. 'I'm not saying they're going to be all horrible and bad and criminals but if they're illegal we don't know who they are, we've got no idea who they are, they could have PTSD. 'I don't suppose you'll come anyone who is for it.' Harry, who spoke to MailOnline with permission from his mum, said he sometimes hangs out on the high street and while the prospect of groups of young migrant men wouldn't bother him too much he said 'I'd probably feel a bit cautious' and consider socialising elsewhere. Kathleen Kingston, 67, who has lived in the area her whole life said housing people above shops on a high street is plain wrong. She went on: 'I think of the accommodation for locals like housing association, there are more people that need housing.' Patricia Walding, 87, added: 'These hotels are changing our towns, they are costing us a fortune and robbing the taxpayer while our own people are sleeping on the streets, I think it's disgusting.' But not everyone is so against the plans. One lady, an SEN teacher, who did not want to be named, feels local people are unloading unrelated grievances about their lives onto asylum seekers because they are 'an easy target'. The mum said: 'People have got different views, those views are not wanting to house asylum seekers. The views and reasoning behind it are one, very racist, and two, not the right reasons. You hear it a lot, just the chat about migrants. 'I don't believe for one second they care about the money side of things with the migrant criss or the actual safety of other people. 'I understand people are concerned about women and children. I'm concerned about the other side of it, the protests, all these people gathering. They'll say its peaceful but it definitely wont be. 'I've had asylum seekers as students, one of them has just past their level three and I couldn't be more proud. When you actually listen to someone like that and they tell you stories what it is really like to come from somehwere like that, you have no idea, you get to wake up in a warm bed every morning. When you see videos they won't show on the BBC. 'Everytime I share my views, people say it's stupid. But you can't help where you're born.' The Leader of Havant Borough Council, Councillor Phil Munday, said 'I understand we have an instructed duty from the Home Office to house asylum seekers within the borough, however it is important that the council works closely with all concerned to advise on the placement for these vulnerable people. 'I have taken immediate action and personally called The Home Office to request an extension to their consultation in order for us to respond accordingly. This has also been followed up with formal requests in writing from our officers. 'We are extremely disappointed that the company involved with this important consultation, considering the impact it may have on our local community, was not only sent to an incorrect email address, but they also failed to follow up to ensure a response of some kind was registered. These consultation exercises need to be taken seriously. Councillor Phil Munday added 'I also have grave concerns on the impact the recent video posted by MP Suella Braverman will have, and I would urge the community to act responsibly and allow us to address this matter formally in the correct manner. 'As part of my open letter to Suella Braverman MP on this matter I will be reminding her that those who could potentially be accommodated somewhere within our borough, will be supported asylum seekers. 'They are categorically not recognised by the state as illegal immigrants – regardless of the headline-grabbing title of Suella Braverman's petition – and I urge people to consider this in their views and actions.' As of late June 2025, there are approximately 32,000 asylum seekers housed in hotels in the UK. As of July 20, 2025, over 20,000 migrants have crossed the English Channel in small boats this year, according to the BBC.
Times
3 hours ago
- Times
How to make Great British Railways a success
Before Labour ministers choose slick slogans for their new state-run trains they should recall Henry Ford's words: 'Nothing happens until somebody sells something.' Contrary to what some in the rail sector and Whitehall seem to think, rail services cannot exist without their passengers — what they want and what they are prepared to pay. A herculean effort to win more customers from the airlines and road users is essential. Britain's railways are at a watershed. Under privatisation, passenger journeys almost doubled. By the 2010s, private franchises were running three times as many trains between London and Manchester as the old British Rail (BR) had in the early 1990s. During the two decades between privatisation and the pandemic, passenger journeys increased by 107 per cent and services by 32 per cent. Passenger satisfaction in Britain was higher than for any other major European railway. Revenue increased by 145 per cent in real terms, compared with only a 16 per cent rise in operating costs, and £14 billion of private investment went into improving the train fleet. • Ministers heading for union clash in bid for hi-tech rail travel Privatisation introduced innovations in marketing, ticketing and operational efficiency. The volume of rail travel in Britain rose to a level not seen since the 1930s, on a network half the size and with a very good safety record. The pandemic was devastating for rail. It wasn't just that train travel collapsed during the lockdowns, requiring subsidies of £20.5 billion in 2023-24 prices) to cover losses. People's travel and working behaviour changed, probably for ever. Traditional flows of revenue from business travel, first class and five-day commuter season tickets, particularly in London and the southeast, have fallen away. In the year to March only 13 per cent of journeys were made using season tickets, compared with 34 per cent before the pandemic. Even though passenger numbers are close to 100 per cent of pre-pandemic levels, revenue is still down by £1.4 billion, at 89.1 per cent. Passengers are paying less to travel outside the old peaks. The taxpayer continues to cover an unacceptably high annual subsidy of £12 billion for a sector that only delivers 2 per cent of all journeys taken by the public. Consequently, ministers must now prioritise growth as they prepare to introduce the bill to create the state-owned Great British Railways (GBR), almost 80 years after Clement Attlee first nationalised rail. Without a ruthless focus on what passengers want alongside a demand-led model, a spiral of decline — higher subsidy and fares — could easily take root. GBR risks being a solution in search of a problem and morphing into the ghost of BR unless ministers develop a viable long-term vision. New research from the Centre for Policy Studies highlights four key areas which, if supported, would deliver more passengers, more income and better services for passengers. • Great British Railways 'won't be run by civil servants' First, ministers should support a mixed model across the intercity high-speed network so GBR trains faces competition from non-subsidised 'open access' operators. For 25 years this model has successfully delivered passenger growth and satisfaction on the East Coast Main Line between London, the northeast and Scotland. It has meant better services, more routes, faster trains and cheaper tickets while also bringing more passengers to the route. This has led to new, popular rail operators entering the market, which has pushed the dominant, government-run train operator, LNER, to deliver better services for its customers. European railways that have copied this successful model have seen a 40 per cent increase in passengers and fare reductions of between 20 and 60 per cent. Second, GBR should not regulate itself, especially as the white paper proposes taking key sector powers away from the independent Office of Rail and Road. In no other regulated sector does the dominant market operator also control and deliver key elements of its own regulation, such as decisions on market access and charging. This could have huge implications for growth, open access and more rail freight. Only last week the environment secretary slammed the water companies for 'marking their own homework' and pledged to end 'operator self-monitoring'. But there is a risk that this will become the case on the railways. Third, GBR must adopt an unforgiving focus on making train travel as easy, cheap and user-friendly as possible, not least when designing a new GBR ticketing app to replace those of existing train companies. In addition to competing with popular ticketing sites it must be designed by the world's leading retail software companies rather than civil servants. GBR should deliver a 'Rail Miles' loyalty scheme, which is years overdue and could be linked with purchases made in the hospitality and retail sectors. • The Times View: Prejudice against private train operators is misguided Fourth, the vast 52,000-hectare railway estate can and must generate much more income. Commercial and residential development, renewable energy generation, light parcel freight, health hubs at stations alongside a higher-quality retail offer are all underused sources of income. We must learn from countries such as Japan, where railways earn at least one third of their revenue from non-ticket sources. Rail can and must be at the centre of Britain's industrial, employment, housing and regeneration strategies. The ghost of BR hangs over GBR. But if the passenger is put first and proven models are embraced then the future could be very different. Rail might not get another chance. Tony Lodge is a research fellow at the Centre for Policy Studies and author of Rail's Last Chance, published today by the CPS
Daily Mirror
3 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Tory and Lib Dem peers accused of 'cynical attacks' on workers' rights - 'get out the way'
The TUC has warned Tory and Lib Dem Peers to 'get out of the way' and 'stop trying to block' stronger employment rights for millions of workers in the House of Lords The TUC has warned Tory and Lib Dem Peers to 'get out of the way' and 'stop trying to block' stronger employment rights for millions of workers. The union body is urging the government to 'stand firm' in the face of what it calls 'cynical attacks' on the Employment Rights Bill. The landmark legislation, which is currently going through the House of Lords, was a key pillar of Labour's election campaign. Spearheaded by Deputy PM Angela Rayner, the workers' rights package will end exploitative zero hours contracts, ban bad bosses from using agency staff to replace sacked employees and give expectant parents bereavement leave if they lose a pregnancy before 24 weeks. READ MORE: New workers rights law - all changes from sick pay to parental leave and how they affect you But the TUC has warned that the Tories and Lib Dems are 'doing the bidding of bad bosses' by trying to water down the legislation in the Lords. It hit out at opposition peers voting to 'attack' teaching assistants' pay and exempt voluntary work on heritage railways from restrictions on employment of children. The Bill will return to the House of Commons in September for MPs to consider the House of Lords' proposed changes to the legislation. The two Houses will continue to vote on amendments in a process known as 'ping-pong' until a way forward is agreed. A recent TUC mega poll revealed huge support across the country – including among Conservative voters – for key policies in the Bill. More than seven in 10 (72%) of UK voters support a ban on zero hours contracts – including 63% of Tory voters, the survey found. And three quarters (73%) of voters support giving all workers protection from unfair dismissal from the first day in the job - including 62% of Conservative. The TUC said peers who are trying to water down the legislation are not just 'out of touch" but are "actively defying" voters across the country. TUC General Secretary Paul Nowak said: "It's time for Tory and Lib Dem Peers to get out of the way and stop trying to block stronger rights for millions of workers. They are doing the bidding of bad bosses by voting to keep workers on zero hours contracts, allowing bosses to sack workers unfairly and attacking teaching assistants' pay.' He added: "Banning zero-hours contracts and protecting workers from unfair dismissal are common-sense protections that the vast majority of the people, including Tory and Lib Dem voters, want to see become law. "These Peers are not just out of touch, they are actively defying their own voters – and the public at large. The government must stand firm in the face of cynical attacks and deliver the Employment Rights Bill in full.' A Liberal Democrat spokesman said: ' Liberal Democrats have always championed stronger rights at work, and it's disappointing that Labour chose to block (/vote against) our proposals to support carers and whistleblowers. 'Unfortunately we fear parts of Labour's rushed bill would be bad for workers in small businesses and family farms. 'They were badly let down by the Conservative Party, and Labour seems to have a blindspot when it comes to farms and small businesses too. We support the bill as a whole and have worked constructively to try and improve it.' The Tories were contacted for comment. ::: Focaldata conducted a poll of 21,270 UK adults for the TUC from Nov 30 to Jan 8.
