Pensioner Esme Mead's frustration is understandable.

She remembers the days when her late husband, Samuel, was a police sergeant and if a crime occurred, he responded.

And when she rang about the latest in a series of thefts, she wanted to speak directly to a police officer.

It was not an unreasonable request. What she got was a response designed for all inquiries. One which was totally inappropriate.

Whoever took the call delivered a stock reply rather than trying to deal sensibly with the request.

It may not have been possible for Mrs Mead to speak directly to a policeman. But her inquiry could have been dealt with more thoughtfully. Rather than tell her she could email or leave a message, she could first have been asked whether she had access to a computer.

Then the telephone operator could have said: "That's not a problem – let me have your details and I will pass them on to the police officer and he will ring you back."

That way Mrs Mead would have felt that the matter had been treated properly. The problem was that the first option she was given was to send an email. After hearing that she probably could not think of anything else.

There is a lesson to be drawn from this. Not everyone has access to a computer, not everyone can send emails. But they are just as important as everyone else.

The police and every other public service need to remember that.