L’agente del Northamptonshire è stata licenziata per aver dato il suo numero di servizio
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2lvqqk71g7o
di insomnimax_99
Tag
Austria
Belgio
Belgium
Bulgaria
Cechia
Croatia
Croazia
Czech
Czechia
Czech Republic
Danimarca
Denmark
Estonia
Europa
Europe
France
Francia
Germania
Germany
Grecia
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Irlanda
Polonia
Polska
Portogallo
Portugal
Regno Unito
Repubblica Ceca
Repubblica di Turchia
Romania
Serbia
Slovacchia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Svezia
Sweden
Turchia
Turkey
Ucraina
Ucraino
Ukraine
Ungheria
United Kingdom
19 commenti
I want a photo of the person she gave it too, I wanna know if it’s worth it or not
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.
I strongly dislike the police and even I think that’s insane. People at work are still people, even if they’re police.
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
This is a joke. We want decent, human, police. I hope she wins the appeal.
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.
Unless she gave it to an arrested suspect I don’t see why it deserves sacking.
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 was a victim/suspect/witness etc then yeah that is a big no.
If it was some random punter shooting their shot while she was in there idk, picking up last Friday’s CCTV. Then this seems excessive.
Then again, I did hear of a officer who met a girl he’d gone to school with years ago at a fender-bender. Found (or already had her) on Facebook and he got the sack for dating her for the same reason. Even though they had a previous connection.
So they can be really strict with this. She turned her camera off because she obviously knew it could get her in trouble when she went for it.
If it’s a bloke same happens. Equal rights. She knew too- she turned her camera off to do it
I’m a civvy. I was stopped in a traffic stop once, breathalysed, insurance checked no further action. Professional interaction complete. One of the officers that stopped me would’ve been a perfect match for my friend. Or even for me. What would’ve been so wrong with us swapping numbers ONCE OUR PROFESSIONAL INTERACTION WAS COMPLETE? Say you meet someone whilst out and about that you’re not rebuking or dealing with as a victim. I don’t think it’s the worst thing in the world to mutually swap numbers with someone. There should be guidelines of course. You shouldn’t behave like a dog with two dicks, of course!
Reminds me of the officer who stopped my wife for speeding before we were married. “I REALLY wish we had met under different circumstances”. I think that’s a perfectly acceptable level of flirting.
> “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.
good old bbc distracting us all from the real problems 💖
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.
If this is against the professional standards then you know that and made a choice of to follow or not follow them.
The police haven’t done well at policing their own, it feels like this one whilst strict is fair.
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.
Switching her body cam off and then back on seems to be the biggest issue I think
Definitely a warning material (turning off her camera) but a sacking?! Booooo!
“ a brief introduction to a stranger, whilst she had been
on duty, during which she had told Person A of her age, sexuality and her telephone number”
I’m going to the wrong pubs.