IN ten words, Sally Rowlinson sums up a serious problem facing the North Yorkshire constabulary: "The police should be there to help and they weren't."

Mrs Rowlinson said a group of children were "causing chaos" in Tang Hall and even climbed on to her car roof on Saturday night. She rang York police station several times but never got an answer.

Her comments followed our report yesterday in which an angry Huntington resident told how officers took 15 minutes to answer the phone, and then failed to respond to an ongoing vandal attack.

This is not the first time we have reported the public's difficulty in getting through to the police. The consequences of allowing this situation to continue are grave.

It would lead to a severe deterioration in the relationship between police and public. If householders cannot even get to talk to an officer while they are witnessing a crime, let alone expect a police response, they are going to join the weary minority who think: "why bother?"

Others might be tempted to take the law into their own hands.

Meanwhile, the vandals and the thieves are sent a very encouraging message. Carry on offending. Even if you are spotted in mid-crime, the police are unlikely to do anything. They might not even answer the phone.

In our crime-ridden society, it is little wonder that the police struggle to cope. But North Yorkshire taxpayers have paid a massive increase in the police precept for the last two years. We expect an improved service, and soon.

The police say they must prioritise their responses. Of course they must. But the public deserve to know how these priorities are worked out. These two stories fuel a suspicion that so-called low-level crime, such as vandalism, minor assault and domestic burglary, are being unofficially tolerated as police concentrate on major offences.

That is not good enough. We are entitled to expect that the police will be there when we need their help.

Updated: 10:58 Tuesday, July 01, 2003