Former British Transport Police sergeant Nathan Dumble (7820) has been found to have committed gross misconduct after a panel concluded he used his on-duty status, uniform, and police equipment to take part in rape fantasy roleplay sex with a woman who advertised herself on Fab Swingers.
The case arose from a wider counter-corruption effort linked to the ‘Fab Swinger.com’ website. British Transport Police received intelligence in 2019 from Wiltshire Police’s Counter Corruption Unit about an operation examining the involvement of police officers on the site, which appeared to connect serving officers with an interest in ‘CNC’ sex – a roleplay scenario framed as ‘consensual non-consensual’ – with members of the public.
The first allegation centred on ‘Female A’, who told investigators she had been using Fab Swingers during a period she described as a ‘manic’ phase, during which she engaged in risky, unprotected and promiscuous sexual behaviour. She said she intentionally sought out police officers, posting words to the effect of ‘any officers want to play’, and that she arranged a short-notice meeting with a man using a profile name on the platform. After initial contact via the website’s messaging, communication moved to WhatsApp.
According to her account, the encounter was pre-planned as a rape-fantasy roleplay. The agreed scenario was that the man would attend her home in full police uniform, equipped with handcuffs, and they would remain in character as ‘officer, naughty girl’ throughout. A safe word was agreed so she could end the roleplay. Before arriving, he asked whether the property had Ring doorbells or any security cameras. She said it did not. She told him she would shut the windows, leave the front door open, and wait in the living room to avoid alerting neighbours. It was agreed he would park the police car away from the address to avoid drawing attention.
The plan, as described by ‘Female A’, was that he would ask her name, tell her there was a warrant for her arrest, apply handcuffs, and conduct a ‘cavity search’ as part of the roleplay, before sexual activity including intercourse. She said he told her she would need to stay quiet if he received a call and asked her to appear upset and cry for the duration of the scenario.
‘Female A’ stated he arrived and entered through the open front door wearing full police uniform, but with his yellow high-visibility vest turned inside out so she could not see identification numbers. She did not see the vehicle. She said he had a clear radio earpiece and that the radio was switched on, with the instruction that she should keep quiet if anything came through as he would need to answer it.
She said he pinned her against a wall and applied rigid handcuffs with her hands behind her back, before searching her and carrying out digital penetration of both her anus and her vagina in the hallway. She said he then removed the cuffs and reapplied them to the front, told her, “There’s a way out of this, you don’t have to go down to the cells,” and requested oral sex, which she provided. He then directed her upstairs while she remained cuffed, where further oral sex took place in the bedroom, followed by unprotected vaginal intercourse. During penetrative sex, she said he held her hands – still cuffed – above her head and placed a hand on her throat, while insisting she continue to play frightened. She said she cried throughout, the encounter lasted about 20 minutes, and he left quickly afterwards.
Dumble denied that he had ever met ‘Female A’ and disputed that the alleged conduct occurred. The panel, however, set out a body of evidence it considered compelling and, in key respects, ‘incontrovertible’.
That evidence included the level of detail in ‘Female A’’s account, her description of the arrangements, the move from the website messaging system to WhatsApp, and her description of a distinctive wedding band said to match a ring worn by Dumble in a photograph retained by the force. Most significantly, she positively identified him in a formal video identification procedure.
The panel also relied on radio data placing Dumble’s radio near ‘Female A’’s home address on 24th September 2021 at 20:53, where it remained stationary for around 15 minutes. The panel noted this timing broadly aligned with her estimate of how long he was with her, and that there was no reported incident in the vicinity that would explain his presence. Rostered duty records showed he was on duty that day from 14:00 to 00:00.
Digital forensic examination of Dumble’s mobile phone was also referenced. Material recovered included searches relating to ‘Fab Swingers’, and images described in the forensic reporting, including one of him holding a handwritten sign referencing the site. Taken together, the panel said, the evidence made it more likely than not that he had attended ‘Female A’’s address while on duty and engaged in the sexual activity described, using his position, uniform, and police-issued handcuffs.
A second allegation involved ‘Female B’ and emerged from the 2019 intelligence. She did not allege she met Dumble, but said she communicated with a man on the site who presented as a police officer and received a photograph of him in uniform. The phone number used in those communications was traced back to Dumble through the number recorded on his vetting forms and the force’s HR systems. The panel concluded he had abused his position by sending an image of himself in uniform on a platform designed for sexual encounters.
The panel found breaches of the standards relating to authority, respect and courtesy, discreditable conduct, and honesty and integrity (the latter linked to the second allegation). It rejected an additional claim of an equality and diversity breach, noting that, on the material before it, Dumble was not shown to have been aware of ‘Female A’’s vulnerabilities.
Although Dumble did not attend the hearing and was unrepresented, the panel proceeded in his absence, finding he had chosen not to participate. With no mitigating factors accepted as reducing seriousness, the panel concluded the misconduct was so grave that dismissal was the only outcome capable of maintaining public confidence in policing.
