Met Police Super "wrongfully sacked" for child abuse video
Discussion
https://news.sky.com/story/novlett-robyn-williams-...
BAHAHAHAH what the f
k
She was even convicted of it by a court, but it's okay love, you can have your job back.
I guess her life and her job...matters.
BAHAHAHAH what the f
kShe was even convicted of it by a court, but it's okay love, you can have your job back.
I guess her life and her job...matters.
It is mind blowing.
I can see that there are a bunch of arguments about the conviction, but at the end of the day, she was convicted and this has been upheld.
Could she apply for a job at a nursery, no, she’s on the register as a convicted sex offender. But it’s all right, she can be a copper.
Really?
I can see that there are a bunch of arguments about the conviction, but at the end of the day, she was convicted and this has been upheld.
Could she apply for a job at a nursery, no, she’s on the register as a convicted sex offender. But it’s all right, she can be a copper.
Really?
Dromedary66 said:
Spot on.
I wonder how she got caught, someone must have had suspicions she was a bit noncey.
As I understand itI wonder how she got caught, someone must have had suspicions she was a bit noncey.
She was a recipient of a whatsapp message sent to a group which one of the other recipients reported to the Police
Police on investigating found that she had received it along with others
It was found that the clip had been forwarded to the group by William's sister, who had recieved it from her partner. Williams was one of the recipients.
WhatApp, by default, downloads a copy of any sent media to the recipients phone.
A recipient is therefore 'in possession' of any media sent to them.
WhatsApp records showed Williams had the app open and the thumbnail of the video visible on her screen (and therefore 'available to look at') for 12 seconds.
Williams, her sister and her sister's partner were arrested at different times, but were all on trial together. The actions of Williams following that clip being received, following her sisters arrest, and the claimed reason Williams was sent the clip, were all explored at trial. Evidence included call records and records of meetings between defendants before arrest.
There are three statutory defences to the offence:
a) Legitimate reason for having the photograph in their possession
(b) Not seen the photograph and did not know, nor had any cause to suspect, it to be indecent
(c)that the photograph was sent to them without any prior request made by them or on their behalf and that they did not keep it for an unreasonable time.
She went with defence B at her trial I believe, the defence fell apart when evidence of the text messages and meetings between her and her sister were presented to the court
Both of the others she appeared with accepted they had possession of the indecent image and she couldn’t rely on their support
As I said earlier she still remains convicted of possessing child pornography
She was sent a whatsapp message by her social-worker sister.
It couldn't be proved that she opened it - she maintained she didn't.
Of the 17 people sent the message she was the only one prosecuted.
The jury found her guilty because the offence is an absolute one - if the video is in your possession - with very limited exceptions - you're guilty.
She was later dismissed at a tribunal.
The appeal found she was guilty of gross misconduct but should have received a final written warning, not dismissal.
The whole affair has a bad smell to it.
It couldn't be proved that she opened it - she maintained she didn't.
Of the 17 people sent the message she was the only one prosecuted.
The jury found her guilty because the offence is an absolute one - if the video is in your possession - with very limited exceptions - you're guilty.
She was later dismissed at a tribunal.
The appeal found she was guilty of gross misconduct but should have received a final written warning, not dismissal.
The whole affair has a bad smell to it.
Biggy Stardust said:
How does this tie in with the thread on police corruption? I would have thought that kiddy vids would be a bit of a career-ender but obviously not.
The Met sacked her following misconduct hearing and she has been reinstated by an independent tribunal.They could appeal against her reinstatement similar to this
https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-ne...
then
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-5068851...
pavarotti1980 said:
Biggy Stardust said:
How does this tie in with the thread on police corruption? I would have thought that kiddy vids would be a bit of a career-ender but obviously not.
The Met sacked her following misconduct hearing and she has been reinstated by an independent tribunal.To my simple mind being on the Offenders' Register & having a criminal record would totally undermine any credibility in the role & make the position untenable.
Sounds like she made a whole series of bad decisions, all kicked off by one or more people thinking they'd go vigilante & try to ID someone (how??) instead of reporting the material.
Same mentality as people who go trawling Twitter or wherever for the same sort of stuff so they can tell lots of people about it to block/report/whatever.
Really really stupid thing to do for the reasons we see around this case.
Same mentality as people who go trawling Twitter or wherever for the same sort of stuff so they can tell lots of people about it to block/report/whatever.
Really really stupid thing to do for the reasons we see around this case.
pquinn said:
Sounds like she made a whole series of bad decisions, all kicked off by one or more people thinking they'd go vigilante & try to ID someone (how??) instead of reporting the material.
Same mentality as people who go trawling Twitter or wherever for the same sort of stuff so they can tell lots of people about it to block/report/whatever.
Really really stupid thing to do for the reasons we see around this case.
The only bad decision I can see is that she didn't immediately report her sister to the police.Same mentality as people who go trawling Twitter or wherever for the same sort of stuff so they can tell lots of people about it to block/report/whatever.
Really really stupid thing to do for the reasons we see around this case.
That was all it took to trigger her conviction.
I wonder how many of us would act differently in similar circumstances.
monthou said:
pquinn said:
Sounds like she made a whole series of bad decisions, all kicked off by one or more people thinking they'd go vigilante & try to ID someone (how??) instead of reporting the material.
Same mentality as people who go trawling Twitter or wherever for the same sort of stuff so they can tell lots of people about it to block/report/whatever.
Really really stupid thing to do for the reasons we see around this case.
The only bad decision I can see is that she didn't immediately report her sister to the police.Same mentality as people who go trawling Twitter or wherever for the same sort of stuff so they can tell lots of people about it to block/report/whatever.
Really really stupid thing to do for the reasons we see around this case.
That was all it took to trigger her conviction.
I wonder how many of us would act differently in similar circumstances.
Immediately after opening the app she then texted her sister saying something like “we need to speak”
She then failed to report it which as a police officer she should have done immediately
She used a statutory defence that she’d not seen it
This fell apart as the jury didn’t believe her
Trial Judge’s sentencing comment:
I turn lastly to you, NRW. The issue that arose in your case was whether or not you were aware on either the Saturday or the Sunday that your sister had sent you that video. My interpretation of the jury's verdict is that your assertion that you were not so aware, and only learned of that fact on the Monday morning following the phone call from your sister from Colindale police station, was rejected by them.
I accept, however, that your acquittal on Count 6 can only be explained by the jury being unable to be sure of the prosecution case that your motivation for failing to act, by reporting your receipt of the image from your sister, was in order to protect her.
Given the extreme reaction of your sister on receiving that video from her partner, I regard the idea that when the 2 of you finally spoke at 7 p.m. on the Saturday evening, that she had forgotten all about the video, as being utterly fanciful; and I am sure that by this time at the latest you were aware of the video being on your phone and in broad terms of its contents, albeit I accept that you never played it.
Moreover, I regard it as being equally far fetched that throughout all that time that you spent together on the Sunday, the video was never discussed between you.
The fact that you did nothing about it was a grave error of judgment on your part, especially given the fact that by dint of your job, and the seniority of your position, you knew the imperative of so doing and had the ready means at your disposal to act, as you yourself told the jury.
As the prosecution have submitted, this represents a serious aggravating feature; but that said, I regard your case as being less serious than that of DM, bearing in mind his involvement in distribution, and the fact he was convicted in relation to 3 counts.
I also note that this was an error of judgment from which you neither gained nor stood to gain in any way, which makes it all the harder to understand.
You have had a stellar career in the police force for over 30 years; that is amply demonstrated by the awards that you have received, the high rank that you achieved and the truly outstanding character evidence called on your behalf during the trial.
Against this background it is a complete tragedy that you find yourself in the position that you now do.
I bear very much in mind in your case the following:
1. You were in no way responsible for this video being sent to you;
2. It was in your possession for a relatively short period of time;
3. There is no question of you having it for reasons of sexual gratification;
4. The case concerns 1 video only;
5. Regardless of what penalty I am impose, the consequences to you of this conviction will be immense, in particular so far as your employment and career are concerned.
Earthdweller said:
What’s app stated the image was open on her device for 12 seconds
Immediately after opening the app she then texted her sister saying something like “we need to speak”
She then failed to report it which as a police officer she should have done immediately
She used a statutory defence that she’d not seen it
This fell apart as the jury didn’t believe her
Trial Judge’s sentencing comment:
I turn lastly to you, NRW. The issue that arose in your case was whether or not you were aware on either the Saturday or the Sunday that your sister had sent you that video. My interpretation of the jury's verdict is that your assertion that you were not so aware, and only learned of that fact on the Monday morning following the phone call from your sister from Colindale police station, was rejected by them.
I accept, however, that your acquittal on Count 6 can only be explained by the jury being unable to be sure of the prosecution case that your motivation for failing to act, by reporting your receipt of the image from your sister, was in order to protect her.
Given the extreme reaction of your sister on receiving that video from her partner, I regard the idea that when the 2 of you finally spoke at 7 p.m. on the Saturday evening, that she had forgotten all about the video, as being utterly fanciful; and I am sure that by this time at the latest you were aware of the video being on your phone and in broad terms of its contents, albeit I accept that you never played it.
Moreover, I regard it as being equally far fetched that throughout all that time that you spent together on the Sunday, the video was never discussed between you.
The fact that you did nothing about it was a grave error of judgment on your part, especially given the fact that by dint of your job, and the seniority of your position, you knew the imperative of so doing and had the ready means at your disposal to act, as you yourself told the jury.
As the prosecution have submitted, this represents a serious aggravating feature; but that said, I regard your case as being less serious than that of DM, bearing in mind his involvement in distribution, and the fact he was convicted in relation to 3 counts.
I also note that this was an error of judgment from which you neither gained nor stood to gain in any way, which makes it all the harder to understand.
You have had a stellar career in the police force for over 30 years; that is amply demonstrated by the awards that you have received, the high rank that you achieved and the truly outstanding character evidence called on your behalf during the trial.
Against this background it is a complete tragedy that you find yourself in the position that you now do.
I bear very much in mind in your case the following:
1. You were in no way responsible for this video being sent to you;
2. It was in your possession for a relatively short period of time;
3. There is no question of you having it for reasons of sexual gratification;
4. The case concerns 1 video only;
5. Regardless of what penalty I am impose, the consequences to you of this conviction will be immense, in particular so far as your employment and career are concerned.
Hope all of the people immediately calling her a nonce read this.Immediately after opening the app she then texted her sister saying something like “we need to speak”
She then failed to report it which as a police officer she should have done immediately
She used a statutory defence that she’d not seen it
This fell apart as the jury didn’t believe her
Trial Judge’s sentencing comment:
I turn lastly to you, NRW. The issue that arose in your case was whether or not you were aware on either the Saturday or the Sunday that your sister had sent you that video. My interpretation of the jury's verdict is that your assertion that you were not so aware, and only learned of that fact on the Monday morning following the phone call from your sister from Colindale police station, was rejected by them.
I accept, however, that your acquittal on Count 6 can only be explained by the jury being unable to be sure of the prosecution case that your motivation for failing to act, by reporting your receipt of the image from your sister, was in order to protect her.
Given the extreme reaction of your sister on receiving that video from her partner, I regard the idea that when the 2 of you finally spoke at 7 p.m. on the Saturday evening, that she had forgotten all about the video, as being utterly fanciful; and I am sure that by this time at the latest you were aware of the video being on your phone and in broad terms of its contents, albeit I accept that you never played it.
Moreover, I regard it as being equally far fetched that throughout all that time that you spent together on the Sunday, the video was never discussed between you.
The fact that you did nothing about it was a grave error of judgment on your part, especially given the fact that by dint of your job, and the seniority of your position, you knew the imperative of so doing and had the ready means at your disposal to act, as you yourself told the jury.
As the prosecution have submitted, this represents a serious aggravating feature; but that said, I regard your case as being less serious than that of DM, bearing in mind his involvement in distribution, and the fact he was convicted in relation to 3 counts.
I also note that this was an error of judgment from which you neither gained nor stood to gain in any way, which makes it all the harder to understand.
You have had a stellar career in the police force for over 30 years; that is amply demonstrated by the awards that you have received, the high rank that you achieved and the truly outstanding character evidence called on your behalf during the trial.
Against this background it is a complete tragedy that you find yourself in the position that you now do.
I bear very much in mind in your case the following:
1. You were in no way responsible for this video being sent to you;
2. It was in your possession for a relatively short period of time;
3. There is no question of you having it for reasons of sexual gratification;
4. The case concerns 1 video only;
5. Regardless of what penalty I am impose, the consequences to you of this conviction will be immense, in particular so far as your employment and career are concerned.
Would you immediately send a family member to years in prison without so much as a conversation about why on earth they sent you such a video?
Earthdweller said:
monthou said:
pquinn said:
Sounds like she made a whole series of bad decisions, all kicked off by one or more people thinking they'd go vigilante & try to ID someone (how??) instead of reporting the material.
Same mentality as people who go trawling Twitter or wherever for the same sort of stuff so they can tell lots of people about it to block/report/whatever.
Really really stupid thing to do for the reasons we see around this case.
The only bad decision I can see is that she didn't immediately report her sister to the police.Same mentality as people who go trawling Twitter or wherever for the same sort of stuff so they can tell lots of people about it to block/report/whatever.
Really really stupid thing to do for the reasons we see around this case.
That was all it took to trigger her conviction.
I wonder how many of us would act differently in similar circumstances.
Immediately after opening the app she then texted her sister saying something like “we need to speak”
She then failed to report it which as a police officer she should have done immediately
She used a statutory defence that she’d not seen it
This fell apart as the jury didn’t believe her
Trial Judge’s sentencing comment:
I turn lastly to you, NRW. The issue that arose in your case was whether or not you were aware on either the Saturday or the Sunday that your sister had sent you that video. My interpretation of the jury's verdict is that your assertion that you were not so aware, and only learned of that fact on the Monday morning following the phone call from your sister from Colindale police station, was rejected by them.
I accept, however, that your acquittal on Count 6 can only be explained by the jury being unable to be sure of the prosecution case that your motivation for failing to act, by reporting your receipt of the image from your sister, was in order to protect her.
Given the extreme reaction of your sister on receiving that video from her partner, I regard the idea that when the 2 of you finally spoke at 7 p.m. on the Saturday evening, that she had forgotten all about the video, as being utterly fanciful; and I am sure that by this time at the latest you were aware of the video being on your phone and in broad terms of its contents, albeit I accept that you never played it.
Moreover, I regard it as being equally far fetched that throughout all that time that you spent together on the Sunday, the video was never discussed between you.
The fact that you did nothing about it was a grave error of judgment on your part, especially given the fact that by dint of your job, and the seniority of your position, you knew the imperative of so doing and had the ready means at your disposal to act, as you yourself told the jury.
As the prosecution have submitted, this represents a serious aggravating feature; but that said, I regard your case as being less serious than that of DM, bearing in mind his involvement in distribution, and the fact he was convicted in relation to 3 counts.
I also note that this was an error of judgment from which you neither gained nor stood to gain in any way, which makes it all the harder to understand.
You have had a stellar career in the police force for over 30 years; that is amply demonstrated by the awards that you have received, the high rank that you achieved and the truly outstanding character evidence called on your behalf during the trial.
Against this background it is a complete tragedy that you find yourself in the position that you now do.
I bear very much in mind in your case the following:
1. You were in no way responsible for this video being sent to you;
2. It was in your possession for a relatively short period of time;
3. There is no question of you having it for reasons of sexual gratification;
4. The case concerns 1 video only;
5. Regardless of what penalty I am impose, the consequences to you of this conviction will be immense, in particular so far as your employment and career are concerned.
She's guilty of not immediately reporting her sister. There but for the grace of God...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff