With reference to the Loose Ends column (Oxford Mail, July 30) headlined ‘Police cannot act as public news censors’, as the Head of the Force CID I would like to respond to the way in which you have articulated the argument.

I agree wholeheartedly that it is not for the police to act as public news censors, but equally we should not be asked to compromise the safety or the welfare of our victims, who by the very nature of the crimes committed against them have suffered considerable trauma.

I do not underestimate the important role the media play in informing the public, providing safety information and allowing the police access to members of the community who may hold crucial information.

This support is highly valued and as an experienced detective with nearly 30 years’ service, the media have helped me solve many difficult crimes.

In every serious crime we investigate, we carefully balance the needs of the victim, public safety, the requirements of the investigation and the public interest; in that order.

The particular case that you highlighted gives me cause for concern and constrains my response because it relates to the rape of a child in her teens.

For the very reason we did not disclose the offence to you in the first place I am unable to go into detail, but there is no risk to anyone else.

It could be argued that the fact an offence as serious as this has occurred makes it in the public interest, but this takes no account of the needs of the victim or her family, something which responsible reporting would surely be interested in?

There are other rape investigations that we undertake where, to publish the crime in all but the most generic way, may place the victim in grave danger.

People in abusive relationships will report rape on the understanding that it is in confidence.

The reporting of the crime, the time and the location could quickly alert the perpetrator to police involvement before the victim is fully prepared to support police action and may place them in jeopardy.

We do not seek to ‘hide’ the level of reported crime; accurate crime figures are available from a number of sources.

Your editorial provides a simplistic argument that significantly fails to consider the requirement for all of us, including the Oxford Mail, to safeguard our children, the vulnerable and other members of the public.

I do not want to be a ‘censor’ I want to be a police officer tasked with protecting life and property, preventing and detecting crime and identifying and prosecuting the perpetrators. In that context I cannot sanction the release of information that may result in unnecessary distress, identification of or increased risk to our victims and hope that as a responsible newspaper you will understand this position.

ANDY TAYLOR Detective Chief Superintendent Thames Valley Police