Is the most idiotic and absurd criminal prosecution the modern UK has ever seen?

raetsel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
9,202
Earlier this week a decorated, highly regarded police officer, Supt. Robyn Williams, was possessing child sex images in a bizarre case which defies any notion of common sense.
Ms. Williams was sent the video by her half sister who did so in the first place only in order to report a crime. The full story is explained in the links which follow.
Clearly this prosecution served no public interest whatsoever and it inevitably has led to suspicions e officer in question is being targeted for other reasons.

 


pippakin

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
9,548
Why send a picture of child abuse to your half sister just because she's a police woman. Its either a case of idiotic stupidity or an attempt to gain a few brownie points and few would be surprised if it were both and since the pic was sent why hang on to it, surely a senior police officer knows what to do when they find or receive something no one disputes was criminal.
 

Pyewacket

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 24, 2019
Messages
3,597
Why send a picture of child abuse to your half sister just because she's a police woman. Its either a case of idiotic stupidity or an attempt to gain a few brownie points and few would be surprised if it were both and since the pic was sent why hang on to it, surely a senior police officer knows what to do when they find or receive something no one disputes was criminal.
Yeah people don't ask themselves the obvious questions, do they?
 

Pyewacket

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 24, 2019
Messages
3,597
They dos but as I said before few would be surprised...
They ask nothing. They see CP and black female police officer and off they go, it wasn't CP, or it was but she is innocent and so are we all, blather-blather. :)
 

pippakin

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
9,548
They ask nothing. They see CP and black female police officer and off they go, it wasn't CP, or it was but she is innocent and so are we all, blather-blather. :)

Innocent of what? possession of child porn is a criminal offence she had images of child porn and had not forwarded it/them to the right or any police dept being black had nothing to do with it. Taking pictures of people without their consent and publishing them is also a criminal offence.
 

Pyewacket

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 24, 2019
Messages
3,597
Innocent of what? possession of child porn is a criminal offence she had images of child porn and had not forwarded it/them to the right or any police dept being black had nothing to do with it. Taking pictures of people without their consent and publishing them is also a criminal offence.

I shudder to think how this awful thing could have happened,. Are these the sort of people they recruit nowadays, compared to the fine upstandings of the past?

 

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
12,050
Why send a picture of child abuse to your half sister just because she's a police woman.
Eh, because she is a police woman maybe?
Its either a case of idiotic stupidity or an attempt to gain a few brownie points and few would be surprised if it were both and since the pic was sent why hang on to it, surely a senior police officer knows what to do when they find or receive something no one disputes was criminal.
 

raetsel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
9,202
Office politics.
Suggesting that this is explained by someone within the police who was pursuing a vendetta is a bit simplistic.
The final decision to go ahead rested with the CPS.
I've seen a few appalling decisions to prosecute taken to prosecute in recent years locally for minor things which defy explanation, given the high probability that there was an innocent explanation. This had a very obvious innocent explanation.
Anyway Pippakin has escaped into the ether again . Bang goes any chance of a remotely sensible discussion. :rolleyes:
 

Pyewacket

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 24, 2019
Messages
3,597
Suggesting that this is explained by someone within the police who was pursuing a vendetta is a bit simplistic.
The final decision to go ahead rested with the CPS.
I've seen a few appalling decisions to prosecute taken to prosecute in recent years locally for minor things which defy explanation, given the high probability that there was an innocent explanation. This had a very obvious innocent explanation.
Anyway Pippakin has escaped into the ether again . Bang goes any chance of a remotely sensible discussion. :rolleyes:
Who discovered she had these pix on her phone?

God, you people never think.
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
29,582
The jury found she misled the court on her version of what happened. That’s probably the key thing.

You can understand the train of thought of the CPS. If you don’t believe her version that she didn’t see the video or message then she’s viewed and stored child porn. Instead of calling the police.

Which the complainant did when they got the same video and same message.

It does seem a stretch to suggest that she did view it though, beyond reasonable doubt. You always wonder the age demo makeup of juries on these sort of cases.
 
Last edited:

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
29,582
Who discovered she had these pix on her phone?

God, you people never think.
I really admire your ability to refuse to read a story, but still comment on it.
 

Emily Davison

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
31,199
I’m confused.

A man sends something child pornographic to his girlfriend. She sends it to 17 people included her sister who is a policewoman. Who did nothing about it.

How did the man get the picture. Why did the sister send it to so many people.
 

Pyewacket

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 24, 2019
Messages
3,597
I’m confused.

A man sends something child pornographic to his girlfriend. She sends it to 17 people included her sister who is a policewoman. Who did nothing about it.

How did the man get the picture. Why did the sister send it to so many people.
Sync knows. Apparently you and I are asking the wrong questions.

Maybe we should not ask any questions at all and just echo the Pie line. :)
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
29,582
I’m confused.

A man sends something child pornographic to his girlfriend. She sends it to 17 people included her sister who is a policewoman. Who did nothing about it.
Well she did something. According to the jury’s finding: she viewed the video, then texted her sister “call me”. Then she did nothing

How did the man get the picture. Why did the sister send it to so many people.
The sister sent it to 17 people asking them to do something about it rather than just calling the police. Former social worker. She comes off as a complete idiot.

If you want to speculate on motive given the findings of fact?

You’re an officer, your idiot sister commits a crime while trying to ask what she should do about a crime. Do you report her yourself, or do nothing to try and protect her?
 

Emily Davison

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
31,199
Who discovered she had these pix on her phone?

God, you people never think.
I decided to google.


The jury didn’t believe Dido either. Total **** and bull story from start to finish. From all of them.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top