Prison officer social media rules 2026: what is safe to post

In shortThere is no standalone public HMPPS social media policy for England and Wales; the rules are a layering of published and unpublished documents.

Officers often ask for 'the social media policy' and are surprised there is no standalone public document. For Scotland, the Scottish Prison Service publishes a Code of Conduct (HR010/001, 23 February 2018) that lists inappropriate use of social media as misconduct, but that is not the England and Wales rule set.

Where a claim cannot be traced to one of the documents below, treat it as hearsay until your own HR team confirms it in writing. Forum posts and secondhand summaries claiming 'HMPPS bans X' are easy to find.

The sensible approach is to work from the published principles, which are broad, and to ask for the unpublished detail.

Published layers

The Civil Service Code, the Civil Service Management Code (the document we read is the November 2016 version), the Cabinet Office social media guidance for civil servants, the HMPPS Counter Corruption and Reporting Wrongdoing Policy Framework (re-issued 10 May 2022) and relevant statute.

Unpublished layers

PSI 06/2010 Conduct and Discipline (listed on the gov.uk PSI index generated 10 July 2026 as extant but not published on gov.uk) and the HMPPS Professional Standards and Behaviour guide launched in October 2024.

In shortThe Code applies online and offline, and a 'personal account' label does not lift your duties.

The Counter Corruption framework states that HMPPS staff are bound by the Civil Service Code. Under integrity, you must not misuse your official position, for example by using information acquired in your duties to further private interests, and must not disclose official information without authority. That duty continues after you leave.

Those lines are the backbone of almost every social media case: the post itself is rarely the problem; the information, the association or the tone behind it is.

The Civil Service Commission made the same point on 1 February 2021: describing an account as personal does not absolve you of the Code. Neither its note nor the Cabinet Office guidance specifically addresses likes, shares or anonymous accounts, so you are left to apply the principles.

In shortSome posts are not a judgement call: operational information, prisoner details and photographs from inside a prison are the hard lines.

The Civil Service Management Code says staff must not, without authorisation, disclose official information communicated in confidence, and must not make public statements drawing on their official experience without the department's prior approval.

In a prison that covers routines, staffing levels, key and radio procedures, camera locations, searching arrangements, incident details and anything that identifies a prisoner.

A published academic review of HMPPS wrongdoing policy (Prison Service Journal 283, 2026) summarises the Statement of Professional Standards as telling staff not to give prisoners or ex-prisoners confidential personal information. We treat that as a secondary summary of an unpublished text.

It is consistent with the Counter Corruption framework, which lists disclosing personal or restricted information as corruption, and says corruption is always gross misconduct for HMPPS staff.

• Do not post or message anything that identifies a prisoner, a victim, a visitor or a colleague's role in an incident.
• Do not post photographs or video taken inside the establishment, including the car park or gate area, without written authority.
• Do not describe security arrangements, even in general terms, and even in a private group.
• Do not post about an ongoing investigation, tribunal or criminal case involving the service or colleagues.

In shortA friend request, a follow or a message from someone linked to a prisoner counts as contact; report it rather than engage.

The Counter Corruption framework defines inappropriate relationships broadly: intimate or amorous relationships, friendship, and improper emotional or familial feelings towards an offender. It extends to non-supervised people such as prisoners' family and friends and criminal groups.

The academic review's summary of the Statement of Professional Standards adds that staff should not have unauthorised contact in or outside work with prisoners or ex-prisoners. None of the published text carves out online contact, so the safest reading is that a friend request, a follow, a direct message or a shared group counts.

This is the heaviest-consequence area. Contact that involves gain, including emotional or personal gain, is treated as corruption, which is always gross misconduct, and misconduct in public office is the offence most often charged in recorded prosecutions.

In shortPolitics, harassment and 'banter' in staff groups are each judged against the same published principles, and group chats are not private.

Harassment is a major risk and it is not a matter of opinion. A 2026 Employment Tribunal judgment (Hayes v Secretary of State for Justice) quotes the HMPPS policy as barring staff from harassing others 'through behaviour, language and other unnecessary and uninvited actions'.

The Statement of Professional Standards lists racial or sexual harassment or discrimination as gross misconduct.

Workplace WhatsApp and Messenger groups are not private in the way people assume: a screenshot ends the privacy. A colleague who finds a message offensive can complain through the grievance or IRRIS route, which since 26 January 2026 is independent of the line manager for bullying, harassment and discrimination complaints.

In shortYou do not have to stay silent about wrongdoing, but a public post is the least protected route.

The Counter Corruption framework says unauthorised comments to the press on prison or probation matters may be a disciplinary offence, and that media contact should be referred to the Governor or the press office.

The Civil Service Management Code says all media contacts should be authorised in advance, with discretion and moderation and no personal attacks. A public post a journalist could quote is, in practice, media contact.

The law protects workers who make a protected disclosure, but protection is graded by audience. Disclosing to your employer or to a prescribed person is the easiest to protect. Our whistleblowing guide sets this out in order, and the conduct and discipline hub links the wider process guides.

In shortPrivacy settings and anonymity are not a defence in the published guidance, and old posts are not placed out of scope.

Privacy settings and anonymity are weaker than people assume. The Cabinet Office guidance warns that content can be traced back, and colleagues, prisoners' families and the public can capture and forward it. An anonymous account that names an establishment, or posts details only an officer would know, can usually be linked to a role.

Because the tests are about information, association and tone rather than account type, a quick audit of old accounts is time well spent.

Likes, shares and reactions

Not mentioned in the published guidance. The practical risk is that a share endorses the content, so if you would not post the words yourself, do not share them.

Old posts

Nothing in the published text says a post is outside scope because it pre-dates your appointment. HMPPS introduced online digital vetting checks for recruits in 2024/25, including social media and associations, according to its own May 2025 response to the Rademaker Review. The published vetting policy (PSI 07/2014) itself does not mention social media, so we do not claim a particular check exists beyond that statement. Our vetting and social media guide covers what applicants can expect.

In shortFive questions you can apply in ten seconds; if any answer is uncomfortable, do not post, or ask your manager or HR first.

The published rules are principles, so a test you can apply quickly is more useful than a list of banned words. The questions below are our own practical reading of those principles, not a quotation from HMPPS policy.

1. Does the post contain anything you only know because you work in a prison, including names, times, routines or incidents? If yes, do not post it.
2. Does it identify, tag, follow or interact with a prisoner, ex-prisoner or someone connected to one? If yes, stop and consider reporting the contact instead.
3. Would it embarrass your employer, or could a reader reasonably take it as speaking for HMPPS, the POA or the service? If yes, remove the employer link or do not post.
4. Does it criticise, mock or target a colleague, a prisoner or a group of people? If yes, consider whether it could be read as harassment or discrimination, and keep it out of messaging groups too.
5. Would you be comfortable reading it aloud at a disciplinary hearing, with your Governor and a union rep in the room? If not, do not post it.

In shortExpect a graduated process, possible vetting consequences, and take advice before your first meeting.

The published fragments of PSI 06/2010 describe a graduated approach. A line manager may meet you solely to establish the nature of an incident, must say it is not a disciplinary meeting, and must stop if it becomes clear an investigation is needed.

In shortAsk your own establishment in writing first; a Freedom of Information request to the Ministry of Justice is the fallback.

HMPPS-specific social media text is not on gov.uk, so the best source is your own establishment. Your POA rep will usually have these to hand.

This guide will be updated when new text is published; the date at the top is the date we last checked.

1. Ask your line manager or HR business partner for the current PSI 06/2010 Conduct and Discipline policy, the Professional Standards and Behaviour guide, and any local guidance on social media. Put the request in writing and keep a copy of the reply.
2. If you cannot get them internally, make a Freedom of Information request to the Ministry of Justice for the current published text. A request that names the document (for example 'the current HMPPS Professional Standards and Behaviour guide and the current PSI 06/2010 Conduct and Discipline') is more likely to be answered than a vague one. Some text may be withheld, but a refusal also tells you something.
3. Keep your own record of when you read it. If a rewritten policy appears, as HMPPS indicated in July 2026 that it will, the date you saw the previous version can matter.