>The panel heard Staves took the selfies “for private use” and were only sent to her then partner.
>Mr Andrew Pickin, a barrister representing Humberside Police, told the panel the images were discovered in July 2025 during an examination of her personal electronic devices arising from an unrelated matter, which was not disclosed in the hearing.
The headline doesn’t sound great, but the details make it sound a lot less significant, and sounds like they were maybe looking for a reason.
Seems like there is a lot of context missing for dismissal to seem a reasonable response. But that’s the problem with hearings like this where lots of information is probably not published, for possibly good reasons.
>Staves was already subject to a written warning at the time the allegations came to light, the panel heard
May be the relevant bit, or may be entirely unrelated.
WalkingCloud on
Two photos, sent only to her partner.. Dismissal seems a bit excessive no?
Caephon on
This is typical of the police misconduct process, what is a realistically very minor incident that should have been dealt with as, at the very most, a written warning (or a final written warning if she already had one for a similar incident) has been massively overreacted to by the backstabbers in the “professional” standards department and senior management teams who have now thrown her to the wolves and publicly humiliated her.
It’s clear that they wanted her gone, she will have been subject to a criminal investigation (hence the seizure and download of her phone under no doubt very dubious grounds, which PSD’s up and down the country routinely do) that went nowhere so they’ve had a second bite of the cherry and found an excuse to get rid of her. The outcome of the panel was probably decided long before the hearing was held.
Senior management lying? Retire on full pension. Misconduct themselves? Under the rug it goes. Managing a department so poorly they underperform even more so than would be expected given staffing levels? Blame the rank and file. Cocking up a major incident and putting officers in serious danger? Promotion time! But a PC does something daft? Public humiliation and loss of livelihood.
lazer---sharks on
If they were semi-nude photos of women taken by a man for sharing amongst men, that would have been fine though.
I have no simpathy for little Miss Piggy, but the double standard in enforcement really is something.
No_Atmosphere8146 on
Are we to understand that the partner dobbed her in then? Because I don’t see how else this could’ve been alleged if this was a private matter.
Loose_Door_hinge on
Could have shown us the tax payer an image or two so we can judge if inappropriate 😂
QuailTechnical5143 on
Details here are limited. Seems harsh so either there’s more to it or she’ll get it overturned at tribunal.
Drummk on
Unprofessional, but seems tame compared to other things police have done with no consequences.
One-Mud7175 on
I’ve no sympathy for any police in any form but maybe tackle the inherent and rampant racism and just general cuntism in the force before you sack people for showing a bit of tit.
ratttertintattertins on
So they searched her personal phone and found she’d sent a couple of sexts to her boyfriend?
No, I’m sorry, but that shouldn’t be a dismissal. It’s not proportionate by any stretch of the imagination. I’d argue that they’ve unfairly breached her privacy here by releasing this and should be held to account for it themselves.
TurbulentBullfrog829 on
“It amounted to a serious abuse of her position, harming Humberside Police’s reputation and public trust”
Bollocks. Noone would know if it wasn’t for this apparent witch hunt. I wonder what she really did that made them want to get rid of her
Early_Alternative211 on
I am going to withhold my judgment until I see further evidence
HandsomeSquidward98 on
Jesus talk about a nothing burger. Police have been let off for far worse.
13 commenti
>The panel heard Staves took the selfies “for private use” and were only sent to her then partner.
>Mr Andrew Pickin, a barrister representing Humberside Police, told the panel the images were discovered in July 2025 during an examination of her personal electronic devices arising from an unrelated matter, which was not disclosed in the hearing.
The headline doesn’t sound great, but the details make it sound a lot less significant, and sounds like they were maybe looking for a reason.
Seems like there is a lot of context missing for dismissal to seem a reasonable response. But that’s the problem with hearings like this where lots of information is probably not published, for possibly good reasons.
>Staves was already subject to a written warning at the time the allegations came to light, the panel heard
May be the relevant bit, or may be entirely unrelated.
Two photos, sent only to her partner.. Dismissal seems a bit excessive no?
This is typical of the police misconduct process, what is a realistically very minor incident that should have been dealt with as, at the very most, a written warning (or a final written warning if she already had one for a similar incident) has been massively overreacted to by the backstabbers in the “professional” standards department and senior management teams who have now thrown her to the wolves and publicly humiliated her.
It’s clear that they wanted her gone, she will have been subject to a criminal investigation (hence the seizure and download of her phone under no doubt very dubious grounds, which PSD’s up and down the country routinely do) that went nowhere so they’ve had a second bite of the cherry and found an excuse to get rid of her. The outcome of the panel was probably decided long before the hearing was held.
Senior management lying? Retire on full pension. Misconduct themselves? Under the rug it goes. Managing a department so poorly they underperform even more so than would be expected given staffing levels? Blame the rank and file. Cocking up a major incident and putting officers in serious danger? Promotion time! But a PC does something daft? Public humiliation and loss of livelihood.
If they were semi-nude photos of women taken by a man for sharing amongst men, that would have been fine though.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/feb/13/wayne-couzens-pleads-guilty-to-three-counts-of-indecent-exposure
I have no simpathy for little Miss Piggy, but the double standard in enforcement really is something.
Are we to understand that the partner dobbed her in then? Because I don’t see how else this could’ve been alleged if this was a private matter.
Could have shown us the tax payer an image or two so we can judge if inappropriate 😂
Details here are limited. Seems harsh so either there’s more to it or she’ll get it overturned at tribunal.
Unprofessional, but seems tame compared to other things police have done with no consequences.
I’ve no sympathy for any police in any form but maybe tackle the inherent and rampant racism and just general cuntism in the force before you sack people for showing a bit of tit.
So they searched her personal phone and found she’d sent a couple of sexts to her boyfriend?
No, I’m sorry, but that shouldn’t be a dismissal. It’s not proportionate by any stretch of the imagination. I’d argue that they’ve unfairly breached her privacy here by releasing this and should be held to account for it themselves.
“It amounted to a serious abuse of her position, harming Humberside Police’s reputation and public trust”
Bollocks. Noone would know if it wasn’t for this apparent witch hunt. I wonder what she really did that made them want to get rid of her
I am going to withhold my judgment until I see further evidence
Jesus talk about a nothing burger. Police have been let off for far worse.