IT IS not so long ago that we saw the reinstatement of the Accrington detective constable who was required to resign from Lancashire Police for being involved in lewd goings-on with a stripper at his boozy birthday attended by lots of other officers at the force's headquarters.

Whatever one thinks of these seedy shenanigans, one thing is certain - the man was not committing a crime.

The only ones actually harmed by his drunken stupidity were himself and his family as the reputation of the force was dragged through the mud in the media. In short, he was a fool, not a felon.

Yet, though Home Secretary Jack Straw subsequently disagreed with her, Chief Constable Pauline Clare evidently believed this lapse warranted the sack - which is what his being asked to resign amounted to.

Contrast this severity, however, with the treatment meted out to a more senior officer who WAS guilty of a crime - and a pretty unpleasant one at that. Inspector Stephen Lawman, who served at Accrington and Blackburn, was convicted last year of making a series of malicious and indecent telephone calls.

He has not been sacked, but was last week only sent one rung down the career ladder and demoted to sergeant.

Why such different responses?

Is it that Mrs Clare and her top team consider that making malicious and mucky phone calls is a less serious transgression than acting the fool in drink with a hussy on police premises?

And, surely, it cannot be, can it, that inspectors and constables are judged by different yardsticks when it comes to disciplinary decisions? Or was it that it was believed that soft-hearted Mr Straw would once more only veto it if the inspector was sacked?

We don't know. But what I do know is that the public is owed more of an explanation than the force's "no further comment" - particularly if Mrs Clare does have such a deep concern for the integrity of her force in the public's view.

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.