A police officer has received a final warning after an investigation into inappropriate communications within a messaging group.
PC Callum Kilsby was handed an extended four-year final written warning during a misconduct panel held this month.
Eight separate allegations were proven and acknowledged during the hearing.
The officer participated in sending and receiving messages within the group over approximately six weeks spanning October through December 2020.
At that time, he served as a trainee officer with Northamptonshire Police before relocating to Thames Valley Police in December 2022.
The content shared included material described as grossly offensive, prejudicial and discriminatory, particularly targeting women, with one instance also referencing ethnicity.
Two images displayed on a police workstation screen were also found to violate confidentiality protocols.
The two-day panel convened on March 9 determined that the officer had violated the Standards of Professional Behaviour, constituting misconduct.
He conceded these breaches but maintained his actions did not reach the threshold of gross misconduct, which would warrant dismissal.
The panel established that his behaviour was purposeful and deliberate, with discriminatory elements carried out knowingly.
Among the considerations presented in his favour were his age of 22 during the incidents.
Additional context included his newcomer status, unfamiliarity with workplace norms, and desire to establish rapport with colleagues.
Evidence indicated he ceased involvement once recognising the group’s nature was unsuitable.
Further mitigating circumstances encompassed eleven testimonials from colleagues, an absence of similar behaviour since, and recognition from a detective chief superintendent for his role in detaining a dangerous individual.
An October 2025 diagnosis of ADHD was also examined.
Dr Duffet, a consultant psychiatrist engaged through Psychiatry UK and funded by the NHS, observed that his statements reflected impulsivity, particularly regarding unguarded remarks made without awareness of an underlying attention deficit condition.
The panel concluded this diagnosis held relevance and could have contributed to moments of poor judgement.
Nevertheless, while acknowledged as a mitigating element, it did not substantially lessen the gravity of the violations or his responsibility to a degree that altered the overall assessment of his conduct.
The panel recognised substantial mitigating circumstances, noting his limited service tenure at the time, the brief duration of his involvement in the group, the passage of more than five years since the events, his expressed contrition, and evidence he had gained insight from the experience, which contradicted his typical character.