L’agente del Northamptonshire è stata licenziata per aver dato il suo numero di servizio

Heavens! A police constable with a life..
Our pearl clutchers can’t be having that now.

If she had helped put an innocent man behind bars like Malkinson the police would be protecting her for the next 20+ years.

Maybe she isn’t a Freemason responsible for dozens of deaths by incompetence…

Maybe it was because she let it slip that police can turn off their body cams.

And if someone actually complained about her giving her number then they are a tw@t of the first order (or maybe 32nd order..)

How can we have sane police and policing when this is the minefield they have to navigate?

I want things to be better and I do not think this is the way forward.

Seems a bit excessive. A warning seems fair since it’s against a PC’s professional conduct whilst on duty. But sacking her straight away seems very harsh, unless it was shown she was clearly abusing her position 

I’ll take the measured response to this, by the headline it seems ridiculous, in the article it says they met during the carrying out of her duties so I guess it depends on how they met the person.

Were they doing a patrol and approached and asked for the number or were they questioning them as part of an investigation as either victim/suspect.

One of those is acceptable and one isn’t.

The hearing report is here:

https://www.northants.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/foi-media/northamptonshire/misconduct/hearing-outcomes/2025/pc-pearce-outcome-report.pdf

Sounds like it was more than hitting on a member of the public

> 26. PC Pearce invited the panel to consider the report because she said that it explained a neurological assessment that she had been undergoing. PC Pearce said that her GP had refused to provide her with a letter outlining her medical situation. She said that Northamptonshire Police had referred her to Occupational Health and there was a report in the bundle.
> 27. The Chair asked PC Pearce if she intended to produce testimonials. PC Pearce said that colleagues have declined to prepare a testimonial. She said that she had asked three colleagues for a testimonial and one replied. Mr McMahon told the panel that the Federation had not received a testimonial. The Chair said that some of the witness evidence in the bundle spoke positively about the Officer and she asked PC Pearce whether these colleagues had been approached. PC Pearce said that some had moved teams and she had understood that a testimonial had to come from a current colleague.

Her GP refused to provide a medical letter (I assume therefore the GP didn’t believe her medical issues), and her colleagues refused to provide positive testimonials

> 33. PC Pearce gave evidence. In summary, she said that she had ‘sincere regrets’ about the incident. She said that she gave her telephone number to put a stop to Person A’s interactions with her. She recognised that she had crossed a professional boundary. She said that she had switched her body camera footage off because she had not wanted colleagues to view it, as they would have ridiculed her.

A police officer who can’t stand up to a member of the public, and instead gives them their private phone number to avoid confrontation.

Are they suitable to be a police officer?

If it’s a bloke same happens. Equal rights. She knew too- she turned her camera off to do it

> “She said that she gave her telephone number to put a stop to Person A’s interactions with her. She recognised that she had crossed a professional boundary.

So I guess she could say anything to avoid taking responsibility or whatever but imagine this is true, being harassed on duty and then losing your job for it, fearing ridicule from your colleagues.

If this is the reality then we as society have massively failed.

Police are human. This could have been a once in a lifetime soulmate connection and absolutely no harm done to police unless the receiver of number happened to be the subject of an investigation the officer was aware of.

The misconduct panel has basically said the reason for the sacking is that this would cause reputational harm is absurd. The same panel has acknowledged the officer did not use their position to acquire this number and the only stickler as that they turned off their camera when providing the number. The main reason for the sacking is that they think this would cause reputational harm.

This is fucking absurd. Officers are human. What an embarrassing decision.

Definitely a warning material (turning off her camera) but a sacking?! Booooo!