Knowledge sharing between farmers and police at Cambridgeshire rural crime training day

A recent rural crime training day in Cambridgeshire brought together members of the farming community, law enforcement officers, and other stakeholders to deepen understanding, build trust, and share practical knowledge. The event illustrates how cooperation between farmers and the police can strengthen crime prevention and improve responses in rural areas, where challenges are often distinct from those in urban settings.

Cambridgeshire Police’s Rural Crime Action Team (RCAT), working alongside the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) and community networks such as Country Watch, played a prominent role in organising and facilitating the training. The purpose was two-fold: first, to equip officers with improved awareness of rural crime types, the particular vulnerabilities of farms and equipment, and the practical impacts on farming operations; second, to enable farmers to understand police procedures, ways they can protect their property, and how to cooperate more effectively with law enforcement when incidents occur.

One major focus of the training day was theft of agricultural equipment and machinery. Farmers are increasingly reporting the theft of high value items such as GPS guidance systems, screens, receivers, aerials, and other precision farming tools. These items are expensive, sometimes portable, and often insufficiently protected, which makes them attractive targets. Police officers learned through practical demonstrations how farm machinery is used and how certain security measures -- including marking or forensic coding, secure storage, and removing expensive equipment when not in use -- can reduce risk.

In addition, the event addressed wildlife- and heritage-related crime, and issues like hare coursing, trespass, fly-tipping, and criminal damage to land. Farmers shared firsthand accounts of damage and disruption caused by illegal hare coursing: destruction of crops, damage to fencing, risk to livestock, and threats or intimidation when confronting trespassers. These stories reinforced for officers the seriousness of these offences and their real consequences for livelihoods, rural safety, and mental burden.

The police benefitted from hands-on sessions. For example, they inspected different types of farm machinery, learned to recognise models and serial markings, and practised identifying what equipment looks like when it is stolen. Mock call-ins from farmers were used as exercises; in those, officers practiced taking information from farmers during incident reports, learning which details are needed — such as exact location of items, distinguishing marks, time of theft, recent visitors, whether equipment was GPS-enabled, stored in the open or locked buildings, etc. These practical exercises were designed to improve evidence gathering, help preserve crime scenes, and ultimately strengthen prosecutions.

Farmers, for their part, learned more about how the police rural crime teams operate: how incidents are recorded and mapped using tools that highlight “hot spots” for theft or trespass; how RCAT deploys patrols or uses technology (like drones or mapping tools) in response to intelligence; which forms of security hardware are effective; and how communication lines can be maintained in rural areas (e.g. Country Watch, WhatsApp groups, reporting protocols). They were encouraged to report even minor or attempted incidents, not just successful thefts, because intelligence builds up patterns which help police anticipate crime and allocate resources more efficiently.

One important strand was the relationship between farmers and police call handlers. NFU members suggested that call handlers should receive training so they understand rural crime’s specific character: the value of equipment, the urgency of certain offences, how to give advice to farmers, how to triage calls when they come from isolated locations, and how to gather information that is useful later—often livestock worrying, GPS system thefts, or hare coursing calls need detailed information immediately to assist follow-ups.

Another key outcome was reinforcing the concept of preventative measures. Farmers were shown various security options: physical security (locks, secure buildings, lighting, CCTV), marking devices or applying forensic marking or system tagging, removal and safe storage of easily detachable equipment, and vigilance. They were made aware of technology tools and apps that assist in locating items or reporting crimes, together with community schemes like Country Watch, which foster early warning systems and mutual support amongst rural residents. Farmers also emphasized that even simple steps often ignored—locking up machinery, removing keys, documenting equipment serial numbers—can make a big difference.

Beyond knowledge transfer, the training day helped build relationships. It allowed farmers and police officers to meet face to face, see each other’s perspectives, and raise frustrations and expectations. Farmers gained insight into police constraints (personnel, reach, legal limitations), while police learned how rural communities feel under threat, often with slow response times or feelings of being overlooked. That mutual understanding contributes to better cooperation, more reporting, more accurate intelligence, and a sense among farmers that their concerns are heard and acted on.

Finally, the training day clarified areas where further improvements are needed: better resource allocation for rural policing, clearer lines of communication, faster follow-up to incidents, enhanced legal tools for prosecuting rural crime (especially offences like hare coursing), and more support for farmers in implementing security measures (financial, technical guidance, etc.). Many participants called for regular repetition of these kinds of training days, extension into more remote areas, and continued involvement of farmer organisations in shaping policing policy.

In summary, the rural crime training day in Cambridgeshire demonstrated the value of knowledge sharing. When farmers and police collaborate in structured training and communication, both sides become more capable: farmers better equipped to protect themselves and report incidents, and police better equipped to understand, investigate, and deter rural crime. With such cooperation, the chances improve that rural communities can feel safer, that crime is reduced, and that trust and effectiveness in rural policing is restored.

‍