I want a photo of the person she gave it too, I wanna know if it’s worth it or not
Codzy on
I strongly dislike the police and even I think that’s insane. People at work are still people, even if they’re police.
Critical-Usual on
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
cuppachar on
This is a joke. We want decent, human, police. I hope she wins the appeal.
MrSam52 on
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.
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?
Upbeat-Name-6087 on
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.
masternick567 on
If it’s a bloke same happens. Equal rights. She knew too- she turned her camera off to do it
supperfash on
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.
Historical_Cobbler on
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.
Far_Conclusion_9269 on
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.
MAN188_ on
Switching her body cam off and then back on seems to be the biggest issue I think
JMWTurnerOverdrive on
“ 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.
Odd_Principle2202 on
She was on duty, in a pub and gave her number to a MOP, was he pissed? If I’m dealing with a drunk female the default is she’s vulnerable due to her condition. She switched her camera off, she bullshitted that she gave him her number (real number) as she wanted to get rid of him.
She planned, avoided and minimised. It appears she struggled to get good character statements, which is rare.
If this was me, I’d quite rightly be out on my arse, and no one on here would be debating the proportionality of the situation.
redrabbit1984 on
That’s absolutely ridiculous stuff. I was an officer for 17 years and then left 3 years ago for an alternative career in cybersecurity.
I don’t know if there’s more to it but she only joined in 2022, so served for basically two years (December 2024) before this incident. I also read she was a Special Constable (Volunteer/unpaid officer) for 5 years before.
As long as the person was not a witness, vulnerable, suspect or otherwise involved in a serious and on-going investigation, then this really does seem stupid. The Police unfortunately have appalling leadership, and their whole recruitment model over the last 20 years has been poor. It’s led to a loss of real experience, well-rounded characters, mature people, etc.
The Police do themselves no favours with some of these things
* She had initially said to Person A that she could not provide her with her telephone number because she had been on duty.
* When she subsequently handed over her telephone number, she had not considered it to be inappropriate.
* She said that she had provided her telephone number to discourage Person A from continuing to approach her.
* Person A had not been connected to the police investigation
* She told colleagues about having handed over her telephone number because she had been pleased that Person A had taken an interest in her.
* She went to meet Person A on a subsequent day, however she had been hesitant about it
**RESULT**
The panel said that: “At the heart of this case was a lack of integrity.” – they also said that a 5 year final written warning was not enough.
tenaji9 on
I get it . Camera turned off . Intent proved. Suppose an incident had happened while camera was off. Whilst in uniform have to conduct oneself professionally & upholding consistency of conduct.
She was caught & punished for not being discrete or applying knowledge learned from the streets. Folded paper / handshake….
SparkyWarbler on
Hell yeah home town is on Reddit!
We’re terrible, as always !
Sylvester88 on
My friend works for Northants police and I send him articles like this to wind him up about dodgy coppers.
I’ve been sending quite a few this year, it seems like they’re trying to prove a point because most of the sackings are for the most minor things.
Dry-Air-6915 on
Unprofessional but not a sacking Offense in my opinion
ALargeWatermelon on
They’ll get sacked for this but get let off for punching someone in yhr face unwarranted. Love that logic
Misher_Masher on
“So do you want to go on that date?”
“Sorry I don’t date unemployed people”
Astriania on
There’s got to be more to this (like she was a crap officer who they wanted to get rid of anyway for some reason), because as written, this seems pretty ridiculous. Police officers are still people and are going to have human interactions, and while it is a bit unprofessional and should have resulted in some kind of warning, it definitely doesn’t seem like it should be a firing offence to me.
Bitter_Quantity7116 on
Cant be accused of double standards now when they sack male officers for trying it on with members of the public or colleagues. Not sure why every female officer is described as vulnerable just because they’re younger and a rank or two lower than the male bobby they shagged.
Aggressive-Bother470 on
I’m confused.
Was someone chatting her up so she slipped him her number? So someone decided she should lose her job?
You can’t possibly be serious?
Old-Law-7395 on
Oh shit, is that why none of the copper women gave me their numbers?
26 Comments
I want a photo of the person she gave it too, I wanna know if it’s worth it or not
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.
[deleted]
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
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
“ 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.
She was on duty, in a pub and gave her number to a MOP, was he pissed? If I’m dealing with a drunk female the default is she’s vulnerable due to her condition. She switched her camera off, she bullshitted that she gave him her number (real number) as she wanted to get rid of him.
She planned, avoided and minimised. It appears she struggled to get good character statements, which is rare.
If this was me, I’d quite rightly be out on my arse, and no one on here would be debating the proportionality of the situation.
That’s absolutely ridiculous stuff. I was an officer for 17 years and then left 3 years ago for an alternative career in cybersecurity.
I don’t know if there’s more to it but she only joined in 2022, so served for basically two years (December 2024) before this incident. I also read she was a Special Constable (Volunteer/unpaid officer) for 5 years before.
As long as the person was not a witness, vulnerable, suspect or otherwise involved in a serious and on-going investigation, then this really does seem stupid. The Police unfortunately have appalling leadership, and their whole recruitment model over the last 20 years has been poor. It’s led to a loss of real experience, well-rounded characters, mature people, etc.
The Police do themselves no favours with some of these things
**FURTHRE INFORMATION:**
Source: [https://www.northants.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/foi-media/northamptonshire/misconduct/hearing-outcomes/2025/pc-pearce-outcome-report.pdf](https://www.northants.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/foi-media/northamptonshire/misconduct/hearing-outcomes/2025/pc-pearce-outcome-report.pdf)
* She had initially said to Person A that she could not provide her with her telephone number because she had been on duty.
* When she subsequently handed over her telephone number, she had not considered it to be inappropriate.
* She said that she had provided her telephone number to discourage Person A from continuing to approach her.
* Person A had not been connected to the police investigation
* She told colleagues about having handed over her telephone number because she had been pleased that Person A had taken an interest in her.
* She went to meet Person A on a subsequent day, however she had been hesitant about it
**RESULT**
The panel said that: “At the heart of this case was a lack of integrity.” – they also said that a 5 year final written warning was not enough.
I get it . Camera turned off . Intent proved. Suppose an incident had happened while camera was off. Whilst in uniform have to conduct oneself professionally & upholding consistency of conduct.
She was caught & punished for not being discrete or applying knowledge learned from the streets. Folded paper / handshake….
Hell yeah home town is on Reddit!
We’re terrible, as always !
My friend works for Northants police and I send him articles like this to wind him up about dodgy coppers.
I’ve been sending quite a few this year, it seems like they’re trying to prove a point because most of the sackings are for the most minor things.
Unprofessional but not a sacking Offense in my opinion
They’ll get sacked for this but get let off for punching someone in yhr face unwarranted. Love that logic
“So do you want to go on that date?”
“Sorry I don’t date unemployed people”
There’s got to be more to this (like she was a crap officer who they wanted to get rid of anyway for some reason), because as written, this seems pretty ridiculous. Police officers are still people and are going to have human interactions, and while it is a bit unprofessional and should have resulted in some kind of warning, it definitely doesn’t seem like it should be a firing offence to me.
Cant be accused of double standards now when they sack male officers for trying it on with members of the public or colleagues. Not sure why every female officer is described as vulnerable just because they’re younger and a rank or two lower than the male bobby they shagged.
I’m confused.
Was someone chatting her up so she slipped him her number? So someone decided she should lose her job?
You can’t possibly be serious?
Oh shit, is that why none of the copper women gave me their numbers?