In a year already marked by heightened public scrutiny of police conduct, two English police forces have found themselves navigating the fallout from separate cases of officer misconduct. The incidents, both involving officers who have since left the service, have raised fresh questions about integrity, transparency, and the standards expected of those entrusted with upholding the law.
Staffordshire Police recently revealed that an unnamed officer, referred to in official documents as PC A, had been suspended after it was discovered he was offering sexual content and services online via the subscription platform OnlyFans. According to BBC reporting, the force’s anti-corruption unit launched an investigation that ultimately led to PC A’s resignation before a formal dismissal could be enacted. The accelerated misconduct hearing, held on September 17, 2025, concluded that the former officer had breached the standards of discreditable conduct—an outcome that would have resulted in his sacking had he not stepped down voluntarily.
The consequences for PC A did not end with his resignation. He has now been placed on the College of Policing's barred list, effectively ending any prospect of future employment within policing or other law enforcement bodies. Acting deputy chief constable Caroline Marsh, speaking to BBC, made her position clear: "The officer's standards have fallen short of what is rightly expected of police officers, and I am satisfied with the result of this hearing." She added, "All officers and staff must act with the highest standards of integrity, both in and outside of the workplace. Given the officer's discreditable conduct, it is right he has received the outcome of gross misconduct."
While the specifics of the content offered by PC A on OnlyFans were not detailed in the public notice, the case has reignited debate about the boundaries of personal conduct for those in public service. The use of online platforms for adult content is not illegal, but the expectation that police officers maintain a standard of behavior—one that preserves public trust and the reputation of their force—remains paramount. The force’s decisive action, including the swift suspension and the decision to pursue an accelerated hearing, signals an intent to uphold those expectations rigorously.
This episode is not isolated. Just days after the Staffordshire case, a separate misconduct probe emerged involving a former West Midlands Police officer. Identified only as officer 24087 Finnegan, the ex-constable is accused of dishonestly calling in sick for duty and subsequently refereeing a football match while also serving as a linesman at another game. According to a misconduct hearing notice reported by CoventryLive, Finnegan then allegedly requested that public records of his refereeing activities on that day be deleted.
The hearing, set for September 25, 2025, at West Midlands Police headquarters in Birmingham, will examine whether Finnegan breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour, specifically those relating to honesty and integrity, as well as discreditable conduct. The notice reads: "It is alleged that the officer dishonestly reported sick for duty and instead performed the duties of a referee and assistant referee at two football matches. It is further alleged that the officer requested that public records of his refereeing activities on that day were deleted."
Finnegan, like PC A, is no longer serving as a police officer. However, the disciplinary process continues, with the force seeking to determine whether his actions warrant further sanction or inclusion on the College of Policing’s barred list. The public nature of these hearings—complete with published notices and, in some cases, media attendance—is intended to reinforce transparency and accountability within policing, even after an officer has left the service.
Both cases are emblematic of the broader challenges facing UK police forces as they grapple with evolving societal norms, the influence of digital platforms, and the imperative to maintain public confidence. The Staffordshire incident, in particular, highlights the complexities introduced by online behavior. Platforms like OnlyFans, which allow users to monetize adult content, have grown rapidly in recent years and attracted users from all walks of life—including, as it turns out, members of law enforcement. While the platform itself operates legally, the question of whether such activity is compatible with police service is a matter of intense debate.
For many in the public, the expectation is straightforward: police officers, by virtue of their oath and responsibilities, should embody integrity and professionalism at all times. The College of Policing’s barred list, a relatively recent innovation, is designed to ensure that those who fall short of these standards cannot simply move between forces or re-enter the profession after serious misconduct. The list is publicly accessible, reinforcing the message that accountability does not end with resignation or dismissal.
Yet, the specifics of each case can be nuanced. In the West Midlands matter, the alleged dishonesty—calling in sick to referee football matches—may strike some as a relatively minor infraction compared to more serious forms of misconduct. However, the force’s decision to pursue a formal hearing underscores the principle that honesty and integrity are non-negotiable. The alleged attempt to have public records of the refereeing activities deleted adds a layer of concern, suggesting an effort to conceal the breach rather than own up to it.
These incidents come at a time when police forces across the UK are under sustained pressure to restore and maintain public trust. High-profile scandals, ranging from corruption to abuse of power, have eroded confidence in recent years. Forces have responded by tightening internal oversight, increasing the transparency of disciplinary proceedings, and emphasizing the importance of ethical behavior both on and off duty.
Acting deputy chief constable Marsh’s comments reflect this renewed emphasis. Her assertion that "all officers and staff must act with the highest standards of integrity, both in and outside of the workplace" serves as a reminder that the public holds law enforcement to a higher standard—and that breaches of trust, even those that might seem peripheral to core policing duties, can have serious consequences for both individuals and institutions.
As the West Midlands hearing approaches, observers will be watching closely to see how the force handles the case and whether further action is taken to prevent similar incidents in the future. Meanwhile, Staffordshire Police’s handling of the OnlyFans matter has set a clear precedent: off-duty conduct that undermines the reputation of the force will not be tolerated, regardless of whether it occurs in the digital realm or elsewhere.
For the wider policing community, these cases serve as a cautionary tale—a reminder that integrity and public trust are hard-won and easily lost. The road to restoring confidence is long, but decisive action in the face of misconduct is an essential step along the way.
