Met cop obsessed with belly button piercings stalked 11 women online he met through work or university

A POLICE officer obsessed with female belly button piercings waged an online stalking and harassment campaign against 11 women he met through work, school and university, a misconduct panel found.

Former PC Joss Astley targeted the victims between 2014 and 2020 while he was an officer for the Met Police, the hearing in south east London heard.

Astley, who resigned during the investigation, set up pseudonym Instagram accounts to massage the victims, some of whom came to him for advice on what to do, as they knew him as a police officer, the hearing was told.

He will never work as a police officer again after being added to a barred list following the outcome of the hearing which found him guilty of gross misconduct and the offences against all 11 women. 

A public notice issued by the Met ahead of the December 18 hearing said: "It is alleged that between 2014 and 2020, FPC Joss Astley sent numerous messages via online social media sites to several females using pseudonym accounts. 

"The common theme in all the accounts provided was that repeated requests were being made to women and/or friends of theirs from (an) unknown source asking if the complainants had belly button body piercings."

It said Astley, who was based at the Met's Central South Command Unit, was identified from subscriber enquiries linked to the various accounts that were used to send the numerous unwanted messages.

It added: "The messages were unwelcome, and the course of conduct amounts to harassment and stalking of the females."

The offending came to the attention of the Met Police in February 2021 after victim A reported to Gwent Police that she received such messages between 2016 and 2020.

Officers at Gwent Police identified Astley as the suspect through online social media account subscriber records, so referred the investigation to the Met as he was one of its serving officers.

Victim A knew Astley and victims B and D as they had all studied at the same unnamed university.

The probe discovered that victim D was the first to receive the messages from 2014 to 2020.

Astley was found to have gone from targeting initial victims to then messaging some of their online friends.

Astley also targeted victim C, who had attended secondary school with victim A, in 2020. 

Victim E received messages from Astley between 2017 and 2020. She is friends withvictim D having attended another secondary school with her.

Victim E initially reported the offences to West Midlands Police in 2020. 

WMP completed subscriber account enquiries and identified the home address of Astley as being the IP addresswhere the accounts were registered, so it also referred the case to the Met.

Other victims were identified as female Met Police officers.

Victim F was not known to any of the other victims but knew Astley after being in a relationship with a male officer who had been living with Astley at the time of the offending.

Victim G was her friend and also received messages in 2020.

Victim K was another female officer who worked with Astley but knew none of the other victims.

Astley denied sending any of the messages following his arrest but the registered IP address for the account known to havebeen used to contact the victims was found to be based at his house share.The registration IP address for the phone number, that was used to set up some of the pseudonym Instagram accounts, shows that it was registered toAstley.Further checks completed on police databases showed the same phone number was used by Astley to call police when he was off duty.Astley was arrested on April 13 2021 for the offence of stalking and was interviewed in connection with the criminal allegations on the same date. 

A summary of the misconduct hearing outcome said: "Former PC Astley denied being the person responsible for sending any of these messages or using any of theaccount names that have been used to contact any of the complainants. 

"He stated that he was aware of females receiving messages relating to belly button piercings due to friends of his, Person A and Person B, who he had been at university with, seeking advice from him due to him being a police officer. FPC Astley did not explain why any of the accounts used were set up at his address. He was also unable to provide an explanation as to why his mobile phone number was linked to some of these messages, with no one else having permission to use his phone."

Astley did not attend the hearing and was not represented.

The panel said there was no mitigation due to Astley's continued denials.

Commander Andy Brittain wrote that there were 11 victims of "sustained harassment and stalking."

He added: "There was significant premeditation, planning, targeting and taking deliberate or predatory steps. There was a malign intent of sexual gratification in the

officer’s conduct. The conduct was regular, repeated and sustained over a period of time.

"There was continued behaviour after the officer realised, or should have realised, that it was improper. There were multiple victims where the scale or depth of local or national concern about a particular issue of online conduct was of national concern."

It is not clear from the report just published what happened with the criminal investigation.

However, misconduct cases, which have a lower balance of probability evidential threshold, can proceed even when there is not enough evidence for a criminal prosecution.

A Met Police spokesman said: "At a gross misconduct hearing on Thursday, 18 December, allegations against former PC Joss Astley were found proven.

"These relate to sending unwanted messages via social media to several women using fake accounts between 2014 and 2020, amounting to stalking and harassment.

"PC Astley was arrested on 13 April 2021 and subsequently charged with one count of stalking causing serious harm and distress, relating to one victim.

"This charge was later dismissed at court.

It is understood that at a mention hearing at Woolwich Crown Court on 25 September 2025, the judge heard a defence application to dismiss the case, which was opposed by the prosecution.

The judge ruled in favour of the defence as he found that there wasn’t enough evidence regarding attribution of messages to proceed.

The judge added that if any further evidence came to light, the case could be re-charged.