Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/mar/04/met-officer-faces-sack-over-child-abuse-video-despite-appeal | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So her sister somehow got hold of a highly illegal child abuse video, whatsapped it to her Police sister who never looked at it or reported it.... How did her sister get it Where did her sister get it from Why didn't the officer view it / report it This stories got more questions than answers " Mainly questions that should be directed at the sister. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So her sister somehow got hold of a highly illegal child abuse video, whatsapped it to her Police sister who never looked at it or reported it.... How did her sister get it Where did her sister get it from Why didn't the officer view it / report it This stories got more questions than answers " 18 people received this image. Three prosecuted. None of them actually wanted the item. The officer did not actually report the video which is certainly bad, but didn't want her sister to be prosecuted which is understandable. So, perhaps there is some logic to her dismissal, but it still seems somewhat perverse. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-london-50558756 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have read some of the story and it appears that a whatsapp group passed around an image of child pornography to show how awful it was. One of this group was the sister of the police officer who knowing the implications for everyone involved took the decision not to open or report the matter and was subsequently sacked for not doing so. By the letter of the law it was the right decision but as a waste of time and money and skills by destroying an exemplary career it was shockingly bad judgement. This is what happens when vigilante actions such as those favoured by tommy yaxley-lennon force the law to take action which would otherwise be more nuanced. Her sister and the busybodies in their whatsapp group are directly responsible for this happening and the police officer was attempting to stop them all being convicted and having it on their criminal records. What should she have done? What would you have done?" I know what I would have tried to do. But Police officers are meant to act with honesty and integrity so attempting to protect family and friends is a corruption issue. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have read some of the story and it appears that a whatsapp group passed around an image of child pornography to show how awful it was. One of this group was the sister of the police officer who knowing the implications for everyone involved took the decision not to open or report the matter and was subsequently sacked for not doing so. By the letter of the law it was the right decision but as a waste of time and money and skills by destroying an exemplary career it was shockingly bad judgement. This is what happens when vigilante actions such as those favoured by tommy yaxley-lennon force the law to take action which would otherwise be more nuanced. Her sister and the busybodies in their whatsapp group are directly responsible for this happening and the police officer was attempting to stop them all being convicted and having it on their criminal records. What should she have done? What would you have done?" What I would have thought any sane person would of done and be transparent and report it to the police... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have read some of the story and it appears that a whatsapp group passed around an image of child pornography to show how awful it was. One of this group was the sister of the police officer who knowing the implications for everyone involved took the decision not to open or report the matter and was subsequently sacked for not doing so. By the letter of the law it was the right decision but as a waste of time and money and skills by destroying an exemplary career it was shockingly bad judgement. This is what happens when vigilante actions such as those favoured by tommy yaxley-lennon force the law to take action which would otherwise be more nuanced. Her sister and the busybodies in their whatsapp group are directly responsible for this happening and the police officer was attempting to stop them all being convicted and having it on their criminal records. What should she have done? What would you have done? What I would have thought any sane person would of done and be transparent and report it to the police... " However, you have seen the result. The partner of her sister who received it first has a custodial sentence. The social worker sister convicted and no longer able to work. Same for the officer. This would have happened of it was reported too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have read some of the story and it appears that a whatsapp group passed around an image of child pornography to show how awful it was. One of this group was the sister of the police officer who knowing the implications for everyone involved took the decision not to open or report the matter and was subsequently sacked for not doing so. By the letter of the law it was the right decision but as a waste of time and money and skills by destroying an exemplary career it was shockingly bad judgement. This is what happens when vigilante actions such as those favoured by tommy yaxley-lennon force the law to take action which would otherwise be more nuanced. Her sister and the busybodies in their whatsapp group are directly responsible for this happening and the police officer was attempting to stop them all being convicted and having it on their criminal records. What should she have done? What would you have done? What I would have thought any sane person would of done and be transparent and report it to the police... However, you have seen the result. The partner of her sister who received it first has a custodial sentence. The social worker sister convicted and no longer able to work. Same for the officer. This would have happened of it was reported too." Exactly - a disaster for all involved, no matter what path they chose it was bound to end badly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have read some of the story and it appears that a whatsapp group passed around an image of child pornography to show how awful it was. One of this group was the sister of the police officer who knowing the implications for everyone involved took the decision not to open or report the matter and was subsequently sacked for not doing so. By the letter of the law it was the right decision but as a waste of time and money and skills by destroying an exemplary career it was shockingly bad judgement. This is what happens when vigilante actions such as those favoured by tommy yaxley-lennon force the law to take action which would otherwise be more nuanced. Her sister and the busybodies in their whatsapp group are directly responsible for this happening and the police officer was attempting to stop them all being convicted and having it on their criminal records. What should she have done? What would you have done? What I would have thought any sane person would of done and be transparent and report it to the police... However, you have seen the result. The partner of her sister who received it first has a custodial sentence. The social worker sister convicted and no longer able to work. Same for the officer. This would have happened of it was reported too." So the sisters partner received it first out of thin air? , then shared it on WhatsApp? If so then it's distribution, the initial recipient should of reported it unless the method of them acquiring it was unlawful to start with. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So is it an offence for you to receive something offensive and criminal via any social means unsolicited?. I think the answer is no." To do nothing about it and keep it a secret then I'd hazard a guess it is. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So is it an offence for you to receive something offensive and criminal via any social means unsolicited?. I think the answer is no. Is it an offence to distribute criminally offensive material ?. I think the answer is yes" The officer was convicted for possession, not distribution  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Police woman received the clip on WhatsApp then "zoned out"..... Conveniently.... Ridiculous ""Zoned out" means didn't want her sister and partner prosecuted, lose their jobs and go in the sex offenders register. I expect. "Convenient" and "ridiculous"? That's a bit black and white don't you think? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So is it an offence for you to receive something offensive and criminal via any social means unsolicited?. I think the answer is no. To do nothing about it and keep it a secret then I'd hazard a guess it is. " Yeah exactly. Keeping it a secret would not be a clever thing to do | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have read some of the story and it appears that a whatsapp group passed around an image of child pornography to show how awful it was. One of this group was the sister of the police officer who knowing the implications for everyone involved took the decision not to open or report the matter and was subsequently sacked for not doing so. By the letter of the law it was the right decision but as a waste of time and money and skills by destroying an exemplary career it was shockingly bad judgement. This is what happens when vigilante actions such as those favoured by tommy yaxley-lennon force the law to take action which would otherwise be more nuanced. Her sister and the busybodies in their whatsapp group are directly responsible for this happening and the police officer was attempting to stop them all being convicted and having it on their criminal records. What should she have done? What would you have done? What I would have thought any sane person would of done and be transparent and report it to the police... However, you have seen the result. The partner of her sister who received it first has a custodial sentence. The social worker sister convicted and no longer able to work. Same for the officer. This would have happened of it was reported too. So the sisters partner received it first out of thin air? , then shared it on WhatsApp? If so then it's distribution, the initial recipient should of reported it unless the method of them acquiring it was unlawful to start with. " How he received it I do not know. I assume the forwarding was to draw people's attention to it? This is exactly the sort of thing that gets done when people are outraged. How do you think memes work? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Police woman received the clip on WhatsApp then "zoned out"..... Conveniently.... Ridiculous
"Zoned out" means didn't want her sister and partner prosecuted, lose their jobs and go in the sex offenders register.
I expect.
"Convenient" and "ridiculous"?
That's a bit black and white don't you think?"Isn't the Law generally black and white that we all have to abide by? , it's either an offence or it isn't,you're either guilty or you're not, don't you think? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The whole thing is fucked up from start to finish but the police woman had to report it irrespective of where it came from and in not doing so then it's a massive failure on her part. "  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Police woman received the clip on WhatsApp then "zoned out"..... Conveniently.... Ridiculous
"Zoned out" means didn't want her sister and partner prosecuted, lose their jobs and go in the sex offenders register.
I expect.
"Convenient" and "ridiculous"?
That's a bit black and white don't you think?
Isn't the Law generally black and white that we all have to abide by? , it's either an offence or it isn't,you're either guilty or you're not, don't you think? "Nope. If that were the case you wouldn't need lawyers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Police woman received the clip on WhatsApp then "zoned out"..... Conveniently.... Ridiculous
"Zoned out" means didn't want her sister and partner prosecuted, lose their jobs and go in the sex offenders register.
I expect.
"Convenient" and "ridiculous"?
That's a bit black and white don't you think?
Isn't the Law generally black and white that we all have to abide by? , it's either an offence or it isn't,you're either guilty or you're not, don't you think?
Nope. If that were the case you wouldn't need lawyers."Erm... no Lawyers are hired in many cases just to find loopholes in laws, procedures not followed properly they can exploit to collapse a case, cast doubt on the facts or to manipulate evidence to their clients requirements,to argue evidence is either enough or there isn't enough... If you posess illegal material no matter how you get it and don't do anything about it and just keep it then it's a black and white case that you've broke the bloody law. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Police woman received the clip on WhatsApp then "zoned out"..... Conveniently.... Ridiculous
"Zoned out" means didn't want her sister and partner prosecuted, lose their jobs and go in the sex offenders register.
I expect.
"Convenient" and "ridiculous"?
That's a bit black and white don't you think?
Isn't the Law generally black and white that we all have to abide by? , it's either an offence or it isn't,you're either guilty or you're not, don't you think?
Nope. If that were the case you wouldn't need lawyers.
Erm... no
Lawyers are hired in many cases just to find loopholes in laws, procedures not followed properly they can exploit to collapse a case, cast doubt on the facts or to manipulate evidence to their clients requirements,to argue evidence is either enough or there isn't enough...
If you posess illegal material no matter how you get it and don't do anything about it and just keep it then it's a black and white case that you've broke the bloody law.
"I do not think that I would have your clarity if a member (it seems the only member) of my family would see her career ended and life completely disrupted if I chose to report this matter because the law said so even though there was no intent to do harm. If that's your opinion then fine. I won't be able to dissuade you. I have learned this in these threads. If anyone else is interested though, the legal system has always tried to allow for ambiguity and individual circumstances, especially through sentencing. However, it is only relatively recently with a political imperative to look tough that judicial flexibility has been progressively curtailed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lawyers are only there to get the guilty fuckers off " And the innocent  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Police woman received the clip on WhatsApp then "zoned out"..... Conveniently.... Ridiculous
"Zoned out" means didn't want her sister and partner prosecuted, lose their jobs and go in the sex offenders register.
I expect.
"Convenient" and "ridiculous"?
That's a bit black and white don't you think?
Isn't the Law generally black and white that we all have to abide by? , it's either an offence or it isn't,you're either guilty or you're not, don't you think?
Nope. If that were the case you wouldn't need lawyers.
Erm... no
Lawyers are hired in many cases just to find loopholes in laws, procedures not followed properly they can exploit to collapse a case, cast doubt on the facts or to manipulate evidence to their clients requirements,to argue evidence is either enough or there isn't enough...
If you posess illegal material no matter how you get it and don't do anything about it and just keep it then it's a black and white case that you've broke the bloody law.
I do not think that I would have your clarity if a member (it seems the only member) of my family would see her career ended and life completely disrupted if I chose to report this matter because the law said so even though there was no intent to do harm.
If that's your opinion then fine. I won't be able to dissuade you. I have learned this in these threads.
If anyone else is interested though, the legal system has always tried to allow for ambiguity and individual circumstances, especially through sentencing. However, it is only relatively recently with a political imperative to look tough that judicial flexibility has been progressively curtailed."Excellent and humane post | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Covering up, turning a blind eye to paedophillia is one thing. That it is a family member is another. And doing that as a very senior police officer is another. Yes the whole thing is a fuck up. But what if everyone started doing the same thing?. What if all police officers acted the same way?. Seriously? When you become a police officer it’s not one law for the public and another for your family is it ?" She wasn't covering it up or hiding anything that her sister or her partner was doing was she? They were not involved or condoning it. They were condemning it it seems. So the question is actually how come if you receive material like this you stand to be prosecuted? You do understand that is the situation here don't you? However, it's good that you see no difficulty in a situation like this and would end your sister's career without a thought | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Covering up, turning a blind eye to paedophillia is one thing. That it is a family member is another. And doing that as a very senior police officer is another. Yes the whole thing is a fuck up. But what if everyone started doing the same thing?. What if all police officers acted the same way?. Seriously? When you become a police officer it’s not one law for the public and another for your family is it ? She wasn't covering it up or hiding anything that her sister or her partner was doing was she? They were not involved or condoning it. They were condemning it it seems. So the question is actually how come if you receive material like this you stand to be prosecuted? You do understand that is the situation here don't you? However, it's good that you see no difficulty in a situation like this and would end your sister's career without a thought "Has it been mentioned how the sister came into ownership of this video to start with before she distributed it on WhatsApp? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So the question is actually how come if you receive material like this you stand to be prosecuted? You do understand that is the situation here don't you? " My brother brings round a dead kid and dumps the body in my living room and says find out how did this, I "zone out" and not report it to the police and just leave it there..... That's how ridiculous your argument is in my view. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If someone sent child pornography to me, for whatever reason, I would report it to the relevant authority. Not to get the person who sent it to me in trouble, their reason could be innocent, it would be as I believe we need to protect children. Ignoring one being abused isn't acceptable. If you are in the police and ignore it you deserve to lose your job and be investigated further." Alas some members of our community think different. That’s how child abuse rings , child grooming gangs organised by certain sections of our community such as in rotherham got away with it for years. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Covering up, turning a blind eye to paedophillia is one thing. That it is a family member is another. And doing that as a very senior police officer is another. Yes the whole thing is a fuck up. But what if everyone started doing the same thing?. What if all police officers acted the same way?. Seriously? When you become a police officer it’s not one law for the public and another for your family is it ? She wasn't covering it up or hiding anything that her sister or her partner was doing was she? They were not involved or condoning it. They were condemning it it seems. So the question is actually how come if you receive material like this you stand to be prosecuted? You do understand that is the situation here don't you? However, it's good that you see no difficulty in a situation like this and would end your sister's career without a thought
Has it been mentioned how the sister came into ownership of this video to start with before she distributed it on WhatsApp? "Yes | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Has it been mentioned how the sister came into ownership of this video to start with before she distributed it on WhatsApp? Yes" Fancy sharing this info then lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am fully aware that many of you would report your family to the police regardless of negative consequences to them. I also realise that you are content with an inflexible legal system with no ability to take specific circumstances into account. You see no complexity on the decision or any ambiguity on the appropriateness of the outcome. There isn't anything else to discuss for you is there?" With so little information on this it's very difficult to form a true picture and viewpoint but with the little facts I've read the police woman failed in her duty to report the incident and without knowing why she didn't and not knowing how her sister got the clip to start with makes it sound even more suspicious all round as to why she'd need protection from her police sister. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The authorities clearly know the full story. That’s why she’s no longer a police officer" I agree | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The authorities clearly know the full story. That’s why she’s no longer a police officer" Interesting article in Evening Standard, especially Lord Macdonald's comments. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/robyn-williams-met-police-officer-child-abuse-video-keep-job-a4300326.html | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Police woman received the clip on WhatsApp then "zoned out"..... Conveniently.... Ridiculous
"Zoned out" means didn't want her sister and partner prosecuted, lose their jobs and go in the sex offenders register.
I expect.
"Convenient" and "ridiculous"?
That's a bit black and white don't you think?
Isn't the Law generally black and white that we all have to abide by? , it's either an offence or it isn't,you're either guilty or you're not, don't you think? "No, that's not how the law generally works. Generally the law works on the bases that you not only have to have committed the act (Actus reus) but you must also have intended to commit the act and know you commited it (mens rea). Only if Parliament specifically sets out in law that the offence has "strict liability" can a person be committed of an offence for the guilty act but not the guilty mind. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Good to know, if I ever find myself in the Dock I just have to say I didn't intend to do it, I didn't know I'd done it, job done "However the facts are: The jury accepted that she hadn't seen the file sent to her, presumably her phone was forensically examined and this could be proved. The charge against her is a strict liability offence, in other words being in possession of the file is enough for conviction-intent or viewing the file isn't necessarily relevant. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
