Lancashire Police officer axed over her ‘second job’

8:00pm Thursday 6th September 2012 in News

A TOP cop with more than 17 years service under her belt was dismissed from Lancashire Police.

The Lancashire Telegraph submitted a Freedom of Information request to discover how many police officers hold down a second job.

The sacked officer was a 43-year-old female officer working for Eastern division, which covers Blackburn with Darwen, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley.

She was dismissed for failing to declare and failing to give a truthful extent of her business interest in a teaching role in June 2011.

The Telegraph also asked how many officers had been disciplined for not declaring a second business interest, as the force’s terms of employment demand.

Between April 2008 and the present day, four officers have faced diciplinary action in relation to undeclared business interests.

Each of the cases were investigated by the force’s internal Professional Standards and judged on its own merits.

One was given management advice, two received written warnings and one was dismissed without notice.

Comments (9)

8:10pm Thu 6 Sep 12

Sajdin says...

What was the point of this freedom of information request?
What was the point of this freedom of information request? Sajdin

8:16pm Thu 6 Sep 12

oldblue says...

Sajdin wrote:
What was the point of this freedom of information request?
Public interest. We have a right to know.
[quote][p][bold]Sajdin[/bold] wrote: What was the point of this freedom of information request?[/p][/quote]Public interest. We have a right to know. oldblue

8:29pm Thu 6 Sep 12

sen c ble says...

oldblue wrote:
Sajdin wrote:
What was the point of this freedom of information request?
Public interest. We have a right to know.
Sajdin is referring to naming the officer!
[quote][p][bold]oldblue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sajdin[/bold] wrote: What was the point of this freedom of information request?[/p][/quote]Public interest. We have a right to know.[/p][/quote]Sajdin is referring to naming the officer! sen c ble

8:30pm Thu 6 Sep 12

timeforcommonsense says...

"four officers have faced diciplinary action in relation to undeclared business interests."
.
One was given management advice? To help his second business thrive? Two were given written warnings and one dismissed. How can there be such discrepancy? Surely failling to declare business intrests is simply that and anyone doing so should all recieve the same treatment.
"four officers have faced diciplinary action in relation to undeclared business interests." . One was given management advice? To help his second business thrive? Two were given written warnings and one dismissed. How can there be such discrepancy? Surely failling to declare business intrests is simply that and anyone doing so should all recieve the same treatment. timeforcommonsense

8:47pm Thu 6 Sep 12

Dickiepayshey says...

Sajdin wrote:
What was the point of this freedom of information request?
The Media being bleedin' nosey !!
[quote][p][bold]Sajdin[/bold] wrote: What was the point of this freedom of information request?[/p][/quote]The Media being bleedin' nosey !! Dickiepayshey

10:07pm Thu 6 Sep 12

Troy McCLur says...

How ridiculous. It's not like she was selling drugs!
How ridiculous. It's not like she was selling drugs! Troy McCLur

8:56am Fri 7 Sep 12

Fire Fly says...

Why quote details of one officers (or 'top cop' as the LET see's fit to describe) business interests..making her easily identifiable & the others remain completely anonymous?

With regards to numbers...it's been one a year..WOW BIG news...not!! Would it not have made more sense to give more balance by quoting how many officers do actually have a second job...oh no hang on...if the LET did that, they'd realise just how much this is a none story. Shame you had to practically identify just one person in a vain attempt to make this sound like news!
Why quote details of one officers (or 'top cop' as the LET see's fit to describe) business interests..making her easily identifiable & the others remain completely anonymous? With regards to numbers...it's been one a year..WOW BIG news...not!! Would it not have made more sense to give more balance by quoting how many officers do actually have a second job...oh no hang on...if the LET did that, they'd realise just how much this is a none story. Shame you had to practically identify just one person in a vain attempt to make this sound like news! Fire Fly

9:02am Fri 7 Sep 12

oracle999 says...

And to be fair, so what if they do? I think sacking someone for that is very far from the best deal for the public. We payed for all her training and development, prob 100k worth, then sack her for having a second job......nice one! Good effort lancs police!
And to be fair, so what if they do? I think sacking someone for that is very far from the best deal for the public. We payed for all her training and development, prob 100k worth, then sack her for having a second job......nice one! Good effort lancs police! oracle999

11:38am Fri 7 Sep 12

lwg76 says...

Well, is someone going to answer the first Question asked under the Freedom of Information Act? How many of the Police are putting the public at risk by having a second job and incidentally bypassing the EU 48 hour working week maximum?
Well, is someone going to answer the first Question asked under the Freedom of Information Act? How many of the Police are putting the public at risk by having a second job and incidentally bypassing the EU 48 hour working week maximum? lwg76

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree