Robyn Williams, Black police superintendent, has won her employment tribunal

[dianebrewster]

Very pleased to hear this - there's so much about this case that is worrying. A senior, decorated, black woman in the Met received a child abuse video in a WhatsApp group. She says she never opened it (I have WhatsApp groups like that, where I don't open random videos). The trial jury didn't believe her (I do) and she was convicted. The Met fired her.
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/16/black-met-police-chief-wins-her-job-back-after-tribunal-says-sacking-was-unfair

Given how many slaps on the wrist we see given out to white males who actively seek out child abuse online this case just screams misogyny and racism to me.

[HeavenHotel]

@nauticant

This is one of those cases that deserves learning the details of before deciding on the rights and wrongs. I'm still in two minds about what I think ought to have been the outcome.

Same here. She knew what she was doing by not reporting. How would you feel if this was your child's image being showed to 17 more strangers.

She shouldn't have lied, and I don't believe she should be a serving officer either.

[southeastdweller]

The sister's message was 'Sorry had to send this it's so sad that this person would put this out, please post this and let's hope he gets life.'

[Bloodyfuckit]

What was the accompanying message? Don't say it if it's in any way inappropriate but did it say what the video contents were, was it jokey in tone etc?

[southeastdweller]

Of course she knew! She saw the videos thumbnail and read the accompanying message from her sister. Then she text the sister asking her to call her!

[KimikosNightmare]

I don't believe for one minute Williams didn't know what was on the video. We're expected to believe her sister was so outraged by this video she sent it to a high ranking Met officer(and 16 random chums) yet never mentioned it again to Williams?.

[TedImgoingmad]

As a de minimise case insofar as the conduct of the officer is concerned, this case should be held up as the minimum standard of conduct required on ANY police officer. So all those rapist, DV etc policemen should now be weeded out using this case as the minimum standard.

[TheOnlyKoiInAPondOfGoldfish]

@AnneElliott

There's quite a bit more to this case - Williams texted her sister straight after and then had a phone conversation. She said it wasn't about the video but the jury didn't believe that and nor do I.

I do think the MPS are harder on women and black officers but I really can't see how they could be expected to continue to employ someone with a conviction of this type.

Actually the jury DID believe her because the charge of corruption - lying to protect her sister - she was found NOT guilty of.

The expert technical witness didn't think the video had been opened on her device.

She was convicted on a technicality and the case should never have been brought. This is a useful summary by a barrister.

barristerblogger.com/2019/11/26/what-public-interest-was-there-in-prosecuting-supt-robyn-williams-for-possessing-a-video-she-never-wanted/?fdx_switcher=true

I'm on a couple of WhatsApp groups that I open and scroll through - I don't play random videos on them - I can totally understand not even registering it.

You have to decide whether she lied under oath - I don't believe she did.

AIUI The only guilt that was proven was the guilt of technically possessing the video. Which is an offence with certain tariffs attached - like being on the sex offenders register - which is simply crazy.

[TedImgoingmad]

I'm a bit wary of using the term "institutional racism" for this case. What happened to RW is exactly what should happen. Take black and female out of the equation, and replace with white and male, and decide whether you think the policeman in that situation should have faced the same consequences. They covered up a crime committed by their relative, turned a blind eye to the distribution of SA material to 17 people, acted in breach their professional code and duty as a public servant, and broke the law. The answer is yes, justice was dealt fairly.

The fact justice is not dealt out fairly to white, male police, who often get away with this and much much worse is a huge problem; but the solution is not to criticise the authorities when they do act, because the recipient of the conviction is otherwise of good character/reputation and ticks various minority boxes. That's a dangerous argument - the previous good reputation argument could just as easily mean "haven't been caught before now - J Saville died with the reputation of a saint. Yes, it's infuriating that they manage to do the right thing in this case, when they have not in so many others involving men. But this is exactly why we should be holding this case up as the example that all police men (and women) should be held to, and campaigning for this to happen.

[MHIssues]

@KimikosNightmare

I think either of them being convicted of distribution of images is a bit harsh

Are you serious? Imagine that it was your child in that video and Imagine how you would feel if the sister of a high ranking Met officer distributed (because there is no other word for what she did) to 17 of her pals on WhatsApp.

Oh I absolutely think they should have the book thrown at them for turning a blind eye to it. I think what the sister did was wrong (and hadn't appreciated she was a SW, so should have known correct channels). They should both be sacked.

But being on the sex offenders register seems OTT, that's what I meant.

But yes, appreciate technically certainly the sister distributed it. But I do believe she did it with the intention of reporting it, just have no idea how she can be so stupid that she thought Whatsapp was the way!

[Bloodyfuckit]

@AnneElliott

There's quite a bit more to this case - Williams texted her sister straight after and then had a phone conversation. She said it wasn't about the video but the jury didn't believe that and nor do I.

I do think the MPS are harder on women and black officers but I really can't see how they could be expected to continue to employ someone with a conviction of this type.

And yet a policeman who exposed himself in McDonald's (before going on to murder a woman) wasn't even spoken to about it.

[CuriousaboutSamphire]

No. You just don't understand the law. She did, as did her sister, safeguarding being standard in their roles.

Neither of them did what their training and legal obligations required.

So they are both guilty.

The only question is the severity of the ramifications.

[southeastdweller]

The two sisters went for a spa day before the police got involved and after the phone conversation. It is beyond the pale that neither woman called the authorities, thus condoning child abuse.

Williams got off very lightly.

[AntiSocialDistancer]

@MossRock

Because Robyn had a family member who is an well meaning idiot

The family member was a social worker AntiSocialDistancer. She’s either a skilled professional or an idiot. Seems like in this case whichever she is she should lose her job.

I 100% agree that her sister should have lost her job for distributing images of child sexual abuse. Anyone forwarding this video has no defendable excuse..

[RoyalCorgi]

The sister sounds like an idiot.

Clearly no one thinks that Williams was actually a paedophile who was deliberately viewing child abuse images. She very obviously did not want to receive the images in the first place. So the crime is one of not taking the appropriate action.

It seems to me what she did (or rather didn't do) was wrong, but in the scheme of things a far lesser crime than those committed by many of her colleagues. We can only speculate as to why she did nothing, but perhaps she didn't want to get her sister into trouble.

[MossRock]

Because Robyn had a family member who is an well meaning idiot

The family member was a social worker AntiSocialDistancer. She’s either a skilled professional or an idiot. Seems like in this case whichever she is she should lose her job.

[AntiSocialDistancer]

@AnneElliott

There's quite a bit more to this case - Williams texted her sister straight after and then had a phone conversation. She said it wasn't about the video but the jury didn't believe that and nor do I.

I do think the MPS are harder on women and black officers but I really can't see how they could be expected to continue to employ someone with a conviction of this type.

I genuinely ignore every video my mother sends me, see above. I often need to download it and I already have no interest in it. Often when she messages me it reminds me to call her.

[MossRock]

I’m only just hearing about this case but the more I read here, the more I thank goodness for all the relentless work so many women of FWR do to promote safeguarding and critical thinking.

As a PP said Williams and her sister would have had constant training about ethics and conduct but still made very poor and worrying decisions.

We cannot afford to relax about safeguarding for an instant.

Agree Mousey re professional and higher standards. I can understand fear or suspicion of being treated with racism or presumed guilt but if you can’t take the risk to protect a child being abused then I really wonder if a person should be a police officer.

[AnneElliott]

I. E if she'd managed to overturn the conviction. Then yes a written warning would be appropriate for the lack of judgement but not with a conviction still being upheld.

[AntiSocialDistancer]

I remember the case being discussed on WH, at 10 minutes exactly here. Discussing this being a "strict liability" offence, meaning there is literally no excuse you can provide in law to mitigate your ownership of these images.

In addition, this WH debate discusses the institutional racism of this case. That her punishment was disproportionate to what a male, white senior police officer could have expected in the same circumstances. Well recommended for anyone following this case.

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000bp3l

[AnneElliott]

There's quite a bit more to this case - Williams texted her sister straight after and then had a phone conversation. She said it wasn't about the video but the jury didn't believe that and nor do I.

I do think the MPS are harder on women and black officers but I really can't see how they could be expected to continue to employ someone with a conviction of this type.

[southeastdweller]

@AntiSocialDistancer

I don't know why you'd think turning a blind eye to child abuse is OK, if that's how I'm understanding your post.

*@southeastdweller*

I've explained above. There is absolutely NO evidence, as I understood it when this case swung about last year, that she had any awareness of her owning or being a video of child abuse.

The fact that she was sacked, for being SENT something is ludicrous.

So why did the jury convict her?

[AntiSocialDistancer]

I don't know why you'd think turning a blind eye to child abuse is OK, if that's how I'm understanding your post.

@southeastdweller

I've explained above. There is absolutely NO evidence, as I understood it when this case swung about last year, that she had any awareness of her owning or being a video of child abuse.

The fact that she was sacked, for being SENT something is ludicrous.

[AntiSocialDistancer]

Whatsapp has the ability to download media onto your phone, without your awareness.

Large group chats have the ability to bloom quickly with images, gifs and videos and be filled with so much rubbish.

Anyone who hasn't been sent pure covid disinformation on their whatsapp via this pandemic please tell me your secret! My mother sent me quite a few nonsense videos of people curing Covid by gargline with salt

One work group chat of mine downloaded 200 images on one day of a "treasure" hunt" of sorts. I get confused every time I see one in my camera scroll.

I've also seen people share into Facebook groups I am in. "Let's get this viral" videos "Someone has to know who this scum is!!" and it's inevitably a video taken on a Nokia circa 2008, in an unknown country, of a child being slapped, child is probably around 24 by now. I don't see many nowadays because I block posts from idiots like this. But it's common to share some viral posts including dog abuse videos too.

Because Robyn had a family member who is an well meaning idiot, doesn't mean she should have lost her career. She was not complicit in the video, or distribution. She did not know there was a video to act on.

[MouseyTheVampireSlayer]

No I'm sorry, if the non literate dinner ladies at my school are expected to understand safeguarding then these two professionals have no excuse.
If you don't hold people to professional standards what's the point in them being selective on whom they employ.
Social workers and police officers are usually well educated enough to not make such fundamental mistakes.
They're paid more than other staff who work with children and so should be held to at least the same, if not a higher standard.

[southeastdweller]

@AntiSocialDistancer

This was completely barmy. The further you looked into it the more apparent her case was blown completely out of all proportion and I have no idea how it got to that conclusion. It made a laughing stock of the police service who were completely ackward to all technology

I don't know why you'd think turning a blind eye to child abuse is OK, if that's how I'm understanding your post.