People who have been burgled could be told to email their own evidence to the police instead of officers visiting their homes.

The suggestion that victims could file their cases direct to police databases comes from Sara Thornton, the chair of the National Police Chiefs Council who sparked outrage with the suggestion that police will not always visit a property which has been burgled.

It also emerged today that officers are being taken off the beat to answer phones because cutbacks mean there are not enough staff to deal with 999 calls.

Scroll down for video

Chief Constable Sara Thornton suggested people who have been burgled could email their own evidence to the police instead of officers visiting their homes

A major row was erupted between senior officers over the way burglaries should be dealt with.

Met Police chief Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe insisted officers should always visit someone who has been the victim of a break-in.

But Mrs Thornton, , the £252,000-a-year head of the National Police Chiefs' Council, is adamant that budget cuts mean that police have to change the way they work.

She said forces needed to shift their focus away from 'traditional' crimes, – admitting that officers might not call round for offences such as an iPad being stolen by intruders.

It also emerged that Leicestershire Police have been refusing to attend attempted burglaries at houses with odd-numbers in a bizarre cost-cutting measure.

After a trial scheme the force found it had no impact on the number of incidents or victim satisfaction.

Now Mrs Thornton has suggested that members of the public should send their own evidence to the police online.

Metropolitan chief Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe rejected bizarre attempts by some forces to scale back investigations, including only attempting to solve break-ins at even-numbered homes

POLICE OFFICERS FORCED TO ANSWER 999 CALLS THEMSELVES Staff cutbacks mean police officers are being forced to answer 999 calls themselves. Fifteen officers in South Yorkshire have been taken off the beat to deal man the phones for up to three months. One officer, who wanted to remain anonymous, said police were drafted in as 'glorified receptionists'. South Yorkshire Police Federation chairman Neil Bowles admitted the situation was not 'ideal'. He said: 'It's all down to the cost and this has become a particular issue. 'A lot of the long-term call handlers have taken redundancy and have left and officers have had to be put in.' Advertisement

Writing on a blog, Mrs Thornton said: 'Either officers get there quickly and catch the offenders red-handed or forensic evidence is gathered from the scene. If the offenders have fled the scene before the police are called then fingerprints, footwear marks and DNA could be gathered without sending an officer.

'At the very least, a professional scenes-of-crime officer is the most appropriate person to retrieve such evidence.

'But as we all have access to more technology it is easy to envisage how victims might be able to quickly upload photographs or video on to digital crime reports that could enable officers to be sent to catch the offender much more quickly.'

Mrs Thornton added: 'Does it make sense to send a uniformed officer to the scene of a burglary to take a statement and look for forensic evidence, then a scenes-of-crime officer to gather the forensic evidence and finally a detective to investigate the crime?'

But Sir Bernard rejected the idea that budgets cuts would force the police to abandon burglary victims.

He told LBC radio yesterday: 'I will say in the Met, certainly while I'm here, we will visit burglaries and investigate them.

'I think it is a serious crime. If somebody comes into your home, then I think you should reasonably expect the police to come and investigate it.'

He said in London there were an average of 130 burglaries a day - a rate of around four in each borough.

'Even if we have to change some things in the future, there aren't that many burglaries that this will make so much difference,' he said.

'It's a serious enough issue and there's relatively few of them to mean that officers should attend. For me it's an important thing we should investigate.'

Revealed: How police are ignoring assaults, thefts and hit-and-runs as well as burglaries at odd-numbered homes

Police are ignoring crimes such as assaults, thefts and hit-and-runs that they believe are 'not in the public interest', it has emerged.

One force has introduced a policy that allows front-line officers to drop certain investigations while another does not pursue road accidents where no one has been injured.

It comes days after it was revealed that Leicestershire Police have refused to probe burglaries at homes with odd door numbers, while even-numbered doors are favoured.

Merseyside Police's 'discretion framework', launched in March 2013, was designed as a 'simple common sense approach' to encourage officers to better use their own professional judgement.

Police are ignoring crimes it deems 'less-serious', including assaults, thefts and hit-and-runs, it has emerged

They say this is to 'ensure a just and timely outcome which reflects the harm to the victim, the seriousness of the behaviour, the impact on the community, which deters future offending'.

But it means that certain offences, including minor assaults, low value theft and criminal damage, could be ignored by officers.

The force says that cases involving sexual or hate incidents, domestic violence and serious acquisitive crime - burglaries, robberies or car theft - would be investigated.

For those involved in a hit-and-run, in which a motorist flees the scene of crash, but escape without injury are likely to have their case dropped by police in Hampshire, it's been reported.

Gary Badnell, from Cosham, told police his parked Vauxhall Astra estate was written off in a late-night hit-and-run and even tracked down CCTV footage, the Daily Telegraph reports.

But officers told the 33-year-old they wouldn't be taking his case any further as it was a 'minor damage, no-injury road traffic accident'.

A Hampshire Police spokesman, speaking after the incident in April, said: 'No further action will be taken as there is a very low likelihood of sufficient evidence being available to secure a successful prosecution.'

But the force has defended the move saying it operates a 'proportionality test' for what it says are minor offences.

'We have a limited number of resources which we have to ensure we use in the best possible way and carefully deploy,' a spokesman said.

'We will also look at other factors including the likely amount of work it will take to generate viable leads weighed against the loss incurred, and any ongoing risk to any individual.