PC William Pieterson Keeps Job After Vile And Degrading Exchanges With CPS Prosecutor About Female Colleagues

A police officer has kept his job after exchanging vulgar messages about female colleagues with a Crown Prosecution Service prosecutor who said he “still wouldn’t mind being inside” one woman.

PC William Pieterson, of British Transport Police, received a five-year final written warning after an accelerated misconduct hearing found he sent derogatory messages on his work phone and failed to challenge or report the prosecutor’s communications.

Chief Constable Lucy D’Orsi described the decision between dismissal and a final written warning as “very borderline”.

The prosecutor’s encouragement was among the mitigating factors she considered when deciding the officer’s sanction.

Pieterson had worked as a Police Liaison Officer at Highbury Corner Magistrates Court for around ten years, developing a professional friendship with the prosecutor, identified in the judgment as Mr X.

The allegations covered messages exchanged between April 2025 and April 2026.

In one conversation about a female colleague, Mr X wrote that he “still wouldn’t mind being inside her”. He later added: “Female A should be happy I take an interest in her.”

The prosecutor also speculated that she might have “someone on the side”, describing a possible partner as “some fat old Asian bloke from her community” before suggesting that person could not “satisfy her”.

Pieterson joined the discussion, suggesting the woman was interested in women and going through menopause.

In another exchange, the officer described a female colleague as “definitely a basket case” while agreeing with the prosecutor’s criticism of her work.

During a later conversation about two women, Pieterson wrote: “I would rather stick my dlck [sic] in a keyhole.”

Mr X described one of the women as “pathetic” and “disgusting”, saying he would not “go there” if paid. Pieterson responded by indicating that the prosecutor was making him laugh.

Giving evidence, Pieterson said he had been trying to amuse Mr X and maintain a working relationship.

“I wanted to keep him on my side to get BTP jobs done,” he told the hearing.

He acknowledged that he should have reported the messages, saying: “Looking back, I should have reported it, 100 %.”

D’Orsi found that Pieterson was an active participant in the exchanges and had initially shown limited insight into their seriousness.

She found the messages derogatory and said they objectified women. However, the allegation that they were discriminatory was not proven, and the alleged breach of Equality and Diversity was not proven.

Breaches of Authority, Respect and Courtesy, Discreditable Conduct, Orders and Instructions, and Challenging and Reporting Improper Conduct were proven. Taken together, the conduct amounted to gross misconduct.

In deciding against dismissal, D’Orsi accepted that Pieterson was remorseful and did not hold values of hostility towards women. She also considered his otherwise unblemished career of more than 20 years and a supportive character reference.

The hearing took place on 17 September 2026. Pieterson received the maximum five-year final written warning.

The judgment does not record a disciplinary outcome for the CPS prosecutor. His identity was protected by a reporting restriction for the duration of any disciplinary investigation against him.