The Metropolitan Police’s plan to shutter nearly half of London’s remaining police station front desks has ignited a fierce debate across the capital, pitting cost-cutting pragmatism against warnings of increased crime, community isolation, and job losses. With a £260 million budget shortfall looming, the force announced in July 2025 that it would reduce the number of publicly accessible front counters from 37 to just 19, a move set to take effect by the end of the year, according to BBC and other local news sources.
The decision, which breaks Scotland Yard’s longstanding pledge to maintain at least one 24-hour counter in each of London’s 32 boroughs, means only eight front desks will remain open around the clock. The remaining 11 will see their hours slashed, closing at 10 p.m. on weekdays and 7 p.m. on weekends. This marks a dramatic shift from just over a decade ago, when nearly 140 such counters were open to the public—a number that has steadily dwindled since the Met began a series of closures in 2013.
Unite the union, representing many of the affected police staff, has condemned the plan as “incredibly short-sighted” and “completely unacceptable.” Sharon Graham, Unite’s general secretary, did not mince words: “The plans to close so many police station front desks is an incredibly short-sighted decision by the Metropolitan Police, which will undoubtedly lead to more crime, higher levels of crimes being unreported and increased staff stress.” Graham further criticized the lack of consultation with union members, promising, “Unite will fight these savage cuts to services every step of the way to protect our hardworking members as well as the general public who will also suffer from this decision.”
The union warns that more than 100 police staff could lose their jobs and argues the closures will particularly harm vulnerable groups—elderly people, disabled individuals, and non-English speakers—who often rely on in-person reporting rather than navigating online forms or lengthy phone calls. “People will just not report crimes as they have no means to. This will make the street of London even more dangerous than they already are—more cuts equals more crime,” one front desk worker told local media. Unite also notes that police front desks are already severely understaffed, with officers regularly pulled from other duties to fill the gaps, and cautions that the closures will likely lead to a surge in call volumes, overwhelming already stretched call handlers and causing delays in crime reporting.
The Metropolitan Police, however, disputes these claims. A spokesperson stated, “Just 5% of crimes were reported using front counters last year, with only 1% of these being made during the night. At the busiest front counter in London on average 15 crimes are reported a day—less than one an hour—and in the least busy, only 2.5 crimes are reported a day.” The force insists that the vast majority of Londoners now report crimes via phone, online, or directly to officers elsewhere, and that the closures will not significantly increase call volumes or crime rates.
Financial pressures are at the heart of the decision. According to the Met, closing the front desks will save £7 million and free up 3,752 hours of police officer time per month, allowing more officers to be deployed on the streets. “Londoners tell us they want to see more officers on our streets. The decision to reduce and close some front counters will save £7million and 3,752 hours of police officer time per month allowing us to focus resources relentlessly on tackling crime and putting more officers into neighbourhoods across London,” the Met stated.
Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, who oversees the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, initially pledged in his manifesto to keep at least one 24-hour counter open in every borough. Yet, faced with the force’s “stark financial situation” and a warning from the Commissioner about a significant budget “black hole,” Khan has since described the closures as a “pragmatic” response. Addressing London Assembly Members on September 12, 2025, Khan said, “It was made clear that what matters most to Londoners is visible policing in their communities. In the face of devastating cuts to policing... the Met faces a stark financial situation. This has led to them needing to make a number of tough choices.”
Khan acknowledged the contradiction with his previous stance, explaining, “When the facts change, I change my mind. Very few people use front counters—it’s just a fact.” He argued that the funds saved would be better spent on neighbourhood policing and improving the Met’s Command and Control Centre, rather than maintaining underused facilities.
Not everyone is convinced. Several Assembly Members and community leaders have pointed out that people visit police counters for much more than simply reporting crimes. They serve as safe spaces for those reporting missing people, seeking guidance, or requiring immediate assistance. Critics argue that closing these points of contact could leave some Londoners—especially those without digital access or who are less comfortable using technology—feeling abandoned by the police.
Unite regional officer Keith Henderson voiced further skepticism about the efficacy of the savings, stating, “This decision is completely unworkable and won't even save the Met Police that much money in the long run—in fact, it runs a high risk of costing the force more as it will lead to crimes not being reported and increased incidents as well as staff potentially going off sick due to stress. If the Met can get away with such a dramatic cut without proper negotiation then there’s many even more serious cuts they could do further down the line.”
To oppose the closures, Unite has announced plans to stage protests outside police stations and to lobby local Members of Parliament. The union is urging management to work collaboratively to find a solution that preserves jobs and maintains public safety. “Unite will not take this lying down. Management must come and work with Unite to find a way forward that will save jobs, protect the general public and reduce crime levels, not increase them,” Henderson said.
The Met, for its part, remains adamant that the changes are necessary and justified by the data. The force has repeatedly emphasized that the majority of crime reporting now happens remotely, and that the move will allow it to concentrate resources where they matter most: on the frontlines and in neighbourhoods.
As Londoners adjust to the prospect of fewer open police counters, the debate continues to rage—balancing the demands of fiscal responsibility with the needs of a diverse, sprawling city. Whether the changes will deliver the promised improvements in safety and efficiency, or whether they will, as critics fear, leave some residents more vulnerable, remains to be seen as the closures roll out later this year.
