A FEW days ago, in a doctor's waiting room, an unlikely article from a women's magazine caught my eye. Now, before you think to yourself, "What old hat is he on about?", I should point out that, surprisingly, the magazine was a current issue.

Apparently, in a bid to release more police officers for operational duties, the Wiltshire Constabulary is recruiting civilian staff to be employed on interviewing and fingerprinting suspects, and preparing case files for the Crown Prosecution Service.

A pilot scheme is being conducted in their Chippenham Division, and if it proves satisfactory it is to be adopted throughout their force area. It follows, that if the scheme is highly successful, other constabularies - including our own under-strength force - might be persuaded to follow suit.

It's a safe bet, though, that further civilianisation within the police service will not prove popular with many police officers, and there's little doubt that the Police Federation (policemen's union) would see it as a retrograde step and prefer that more public money be made available to recruit proper policemen.

Civilianisation of police administrative and other posts that do not require police training and powers to perform is a good thing. If the right personnel are recruited for these tasks, they can save public money and release officers for outside duties.

But one would have thought that the questioning of suspects would rate highly on a police officer's job description. And, anyway, when an officer investigates an offence and arrests a suspect, surely it makes sense, and saves hand-over procedures, if he questions the suspect and any witnesses to the offence.

Granted, it is planned to train the civilian staff in interviewing techniques, law, and the recent legislation about equal opportunities and homosexuality. The latter sounds as if interviewers are to be even more fettered by political correctness. But, regardless of how well the interviewers are trained, case-hardened criminals are unlikely to take these bogus coppers seriously, and might find it easy to "pull the wool over their eyes".

Unless the successful candidates are former coppers, I don't suppose they'll realise that they would be required to spend most of their working day, or night, entombed in sombre, soundproofed, smoke-filled rooms. The usual no-smoking rules for public buildings don't apply in police interview rooms, and it can sometimes take a full pack of cigarettes to get suspects to "cough".

I FEEL sure that most people would agree that it is not safe for children to play in graveyards or on bridges. Nor, in my view, is an ornamental fountain a safe place for a child to frolic.

While waiting for a tireless shop assistant to find me a pair of fitting shoes, I glanced out of the shop window to see three small boys jumping in and out of the Parliament Street fountain, while an older boy, wearing roller skates, jumped up and down on a stone plinth. Becoming bored and saturated by their activity, the three unescorted boys ran into the Disney shop.

What is a matter for concern is that no one said a word to these children. Of course, we all know why, don't we?

A FEW days after the appalling incident of the woman who was run over by a pair of alleged bag-snatchers, Jean's niece rang from London to tell us that after shopping in a supermarket she returned to her car, sat her six-year-old daughter in the front passenger seat and placed her handbag beside her. While returning her trolley to a stand a few yards away she heard her daughter scream; she turned to see a man push her child aside, grab the handbag and run off.

Such incidents again underline the need for a greater police presence on our streets or, at least, the use of surveillance cameras in and around much-used shopping areas.