THE officers who work for HM Inspectorate of Constabulary are undoubtedly difficult to please. They may do a thorough job scrutinising the affairs of Britain’s police forces, but, as their latest report on Merseyside Police reveals, they are masters of the back-handed compliment.

Mersey police force has been ranked seventh out of the country’s 42 forces in its annual performance assessment. For an inner-city police force like Merseyside to achieve a place in the top ten, taking into account all the problems associated with teeming urban areas, such as drugs, gang culture and gun crime, is thoroughly commendable.

But then, while praising the force’s achievements, the Inspectorate goes on to embellish their report with a few additional comments . . . such as “it uses money well, but is a high-cost force.

“ It spends more per head of population than its peers, employing more police officers.” What on earth do they expect, if the force is to achieve such a respectable placing in the national league table?

Surely the ideal strategy for any police force is to achieve a balance between optimum expenditure and a successful crackdown on crime.

If a force, such as Merseyside, can achieve that to the satisfaction of the public, then they are doing the job expected of them. The Inspectorate admits that the force offers value for money – so why carry on quibbling about the pounds per head of population spent on policing?

These times of budget deficits and ongoing spending cuts are difficult enough for chief constables, without them also facing gratuitous criticism from quarters outside the force. Long may Merseyside police continue to achieve what they have done – and perhaps the unwarranted sniping from HMI may drive them on to even further success.