The transcripts of the official inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press. More…

There is an ACPO policy on what second occupations police offers -- because there is a differential between police officers and police staff, although some have tried to renegotiate contracts with police staff. Police officers are guided by regulations where they need a chief officer authority to take up a secondary employment. The current guidance are there are four areas whereby that shouldn't take place. Two are around driving, ie being a taxi driver or giving driving instruction. One is about giving financial advice, being a financial adviser, and the other one is giving professional training around things like taser or self-defence.

We found examples in a good number of forces that people were employed -- ie police officers and staff were employed in those functions, so the existing policy wasn't being adhered to. But we also found examples of things that need clarity, in my view. So there weren't legions of them, but you'd find examples of cage fighters, door security, those types of occupations, whereby what I'm saying here the Police Service needs to be clear with what you can and cannot do, what is compatible and isn't.

To balance that, when we ask the public, they seem to be more relaxed about some of these other things because people do understand the age of austerity, and their view was, in a general term, as long as there were no conflicts of interest, they thought that most secondary employments were okay, as long as there wasn't an obvious conflict of interest.

So again, a lack of cooperacy, if you like, within the Police Service I think would benefit from being tightened.

Keyboard shortcuts

j previous speech k next speech