keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 3,875
Likes: 2,314
|
Post by keitha on Aug 5, 2023 14:12:29 GMT
www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/senior-met-police-officer-sex-offender-rules-novlett-williams-b1098697.htmlHmm after being convicted would this person still be employed by your organisation, I can say I am sure Civil Service, Local Government, NHS, Fire, Ambulance etc would all have sacked this person but not the Met Police. She was sacked but reinstated on appeal one comment from the judge who dismissed the mets appeal against her reinstatement " The PAT reached the conclusion that it did because of the unique circumstances of the conviction, the officer's stellar career, the substantial impact she had had on enhancing the reputation of the MPS as a whole and its assessment that her dismissal would reduce confidence in the police in some of the communities in which the MPS had struggled to gain trust."I would also say most people convicted of possession of a sex abuse video would get jail time, usually community orders etc are reserved for the lowest category and small numbers of still images. I wondered at the time why did her sister even think to send her such a video and why the hell was she not prosecuted. As I understand it from www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/fail-to-comply-with-notification-requirements/ each offence of which she is currently accused carries up to 5 years in jail. The culpability grading well obviously this is A a long period of non compliance , but I would say 3 for harm the starting point would therefore be 36 weeks, reductions usually apply for admission of guilt, but she is denying it. I'm assuming her denial is based on "i didn't know I had to"  she is a Police Superintendent she should know the law.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,895 
Likes: 2,768
|
Post by michaelc on Aug 5, 2023 14:33:51 GMT
She was sent it but never viewed it? She's hardly a pedo with a closet collection of terrible stuff is she? In my book, putting someone like her (from what I know) totaly trivialises the purpose of the sex offenders register.
To me it also matters whether it was a 17 year old or a 4 year old ?
Her "stellar" career is surely irrelevant.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,251
Likes: 2,694
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Aug 5, 2023 14:40:59 GMT
www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/senior-met-police-officer-sex-offender-rules-novlett-williams-b1098697.htmlHmm after being convicted would this person still be employed by your organisation, I can say I am sure Civil Service, Local Government, NHS, Fire, Ambulance etc would all have sacked this person but not the Met Police. She was sacked but reinstated on appeal one comment from the judge who dismissed the mets appeal against her reinstatement " The PAT reached the conclusion that it did because of the unique circumstances of the conviction, the officer's stellar career, the substantial impact she had had on enhancing the reputation of the MPS as a whole and its assessment that her dismissal would reduce confidence in the police in some of the communities in which the MPS had struggled to gain trust."I would also say most people convicted of possession of a sex abuse video would get jail time, usually community orders etc are reserved for the lowest category and small numbers of still images. I wondered at the time why did her sister even think to send her such a video and why the hell was she not prosecuted. As I understand it from www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/fail-to-comply-with-notification-requirements/ each offence of which she is currently accused carries up to 5 years in jail. The culpability grading well obviously this is A a long period of non compliance , but I would say 3 for harm the starting point would therefore be 36 weeks, reductions usually apply for admission of guilt, but she is denying it. I'm assuming her denial is based on "i didn't know I had to" she is a Police Superintendent she should know the law. I know nothing about this case, but from the article linked. She was sent a dodgy video that she didn't look at. Was convicted as a sex offender although she hadn't look at the dodgy video. Was under stricter scrutiny as a 'sex offender' and didn't declare all her credit cards, bank accounts and a trip to Kenya, which she had to presumably because as a 'sex offender' she might use hidden accounts for nefarious purposes and travel abroad to commit offences. When you see what some people get away with this all seems pretty trivial. And if that is really all that happened I would employ her.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Aug 5, 2023 14:45:21 GMT
www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/senior-met-police-officer-sex-offender-rules-novlett-williams-b1098697.htmlHmm after being convicted would this person still be employed by your organisation, I can say I am sure Civil Service, Local Government, NHS, Fire, Ambulance etc would all have sacked this person but not the Met Police. She was sacked but reinstated on appeal one comment from the judge who dismissed the mets appeal against her reinstatement " The PAT reached the conclusion that it did because of the unique circumstances of the conviction, the officer's stellar career, the substantial impact she had had on enhancing the reputation of the MPS as a whole and its assessment that her dismissal would reduce confidence in the police in some of the communities in which the MPS had struggled to gain trust."I would also say most people convicted of possession of a sex abuse video would get jail time, usually community orders etc are reserved for the lowest category and small numbers of still images. I wondered at the time why did her sister even think to send her such a video and why the hell was she not prosecuted. As I understand it from www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/fail-to-comply-with-notification-requirements/ each offence of which she is currently accused carries up to 5 years in jail. The culpability grading well obviously this is A a long period of non compliance , but I would say 3 for harm the starting point would therefore be 36 weeks, reductions usually apply for admission of guilt, but she is denying it. I'm assuming her denial is based on "i didn't know I had to" she is a Police Superintendent she should know the law. I can't comment on the current charges. I do recall however that at the time of the original prosecution it did seem somewhat ambiguous, even harsh. It was a WhatsApp message that she had not solicited, and she had not opened. Her sister, who is/was a social worker, sent it to her apparently asking her to investigate it. Whatever else, being subsequently done for having a video of child sex abuse on your phone that someone had sent to you unasked and which you had not looked at seemed somewhat ....odd. I might say even rather against natural justice. I assume the current charges must relate to failure to provide this information at the time of the investigation into the offence. In which case you'd have to say its a pretty major "oversight" and she is not going to have any excuses as to why she did not...unless these are accounts she had simply forgotten about.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Aug 5, 2023 14:47:50 GMT
www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/senior-met-police-officer-sex-offender-rules-novlett-williams-b1098697.htmlHmm after being convicted would this person still be employed by your organisation, I can say I am sure Civil Service, Local Government, NHS, Fire, Ambulance etc would all have sacked this person but not the Met Police. She was sacked but reinstated on appeal one comment from the judge who dismissed the mets appeal against her reinstatement " The PAT reached the conclusion that it did because of the unique circumstances of the conviction, the officer's stellar career, the substantial impact she had had on enhancing the reputation of the MPS as a whole and its assessment that her dismissal would reduce confidence in the police in some of the communities in which the MPS had struggled to gain trust."I would also say most people convicted of possession of a sex abuse video would get jail time, usually community orders etc are reserved for the lowest category and small numbers of still images. I wondered at the time why did her sister even think to send her such a video and why the hell was she not prosecuted. As I understand it from www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/fail-to-comply-with-notification-requirements/ each offence of which she is currently accused carries up to 5 years in jail. The culpability grading well obviously this is A a long period of non compliance , but I would say 3 for harm the starting point would therefore be 36 weeks, reductions usually apply for admission of guilt, but she is denying it. I'm assuming her denial is based on "i didn't know I had to" she is a Police Superintendent she should know the law. I know nothing about this case, but from the article linked. She was sent a dodgy video that she didn't look at. Was convicted as a sex offender although she hadn't look at the dodgy video. Was under stricter scrutiny as a 'sex offender' and didn't declare all her credit cards, bank accounts and a trip to Kenya, which she had to presumably because as a 'sex offender' she might use hidden accounts for nefarious purposes and travel abroad to commit offences. When you see what some people get away with this all seems pretty trivial. And if that is really all that happened I would employ her. and to a degree has the smell of a potential 'campaign' by the met, as a follow-on to the a) the original conviction and b) their failure to keep her out of the job. I do find this subsequent set of "oversight" by her a bit confusing nonetheless.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,251
Likes: 2,694
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Aug 5, 2023 15:29:20 GMT
I know nothing about this case, but from the article linked. She was sent a dodgy video that she didn't look at. Was convicted as a sex offender although she hadn't look at the dodgy video. Was under stricter scrutiny as a 'sex offender' and didn't declare all her credit cards, bank accounts and a trip to Kenya, which she had to presumably because as a 'sex offender' she might use hidden accounts for nefarious purposes and travel abroad to commit offences. When you see what some people get away with this all seems pretty trivial. And if that is really all that happened I would employ her. and to a degree has the smell of a potential 'campaign' by the met, as a follow-on to the a) the original conviction and b) their failure to keep her out of the job. I do find this subsequent set of "oversight" by her a bit confusing nonetheless. Probably the worst thing she did was to not pass on the video to the appropriate department for investigation, if she had been told it was nasty. I suspect she just ignored the rules about bank accounts etc, as being ridiculous in her case, obviously not going to admit to that. She obviously wasn't about to become a pervert after not watching a dodgy video.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Aug 5, 2023 16:09:27 GMT
and to a degree has the smell of a potential 'campaign' by the met, as a follow-on to the a) the original conviction and b) their failure to keep her out of the job. I do find this subsequent set of "oversight" by her a bit confusing nonetheless. , if she had been told it was nasty. I suspect she just ignored the rules about bank accounts etc, as being ridiculous in her case, obviously not going to admit to that. She obviously wasn't about to become a pervert after not watching a dodgy video. Indeed. And if she had realised then she should have been up on a disciplinary for something, but that is a different matter. But I wonder whether she just forgot about it/didn't realise how bad it might be. You're sent a whatsapp message from a sibling "saying can you investigate this" (not saying those were the words as I don't know), you're doing other stuff, it doesn't come up again, you forget about it until...Again, I don't know that is the actual scenario but it is certainly one that can be imagined as leading to failure to do something.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,895
Likes: 2,768
|
Post by michaelc on Aug 5, 2023 16:42:05 GMT
A rare occasion where I agree with virtually all my fellow forumites' comments.
The more I think about it I think its pretty outrageous she could be labelled a "sex offender" or worse. Rightly so, such people are the lowest of the low and are rightly ostracised by society. She should not have been tarred with that brush.
|
|
she is a Police Superintendent she should know the law.
