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.

I find it hard to understand why Williams didn't action it. Why would she or her sister be in trouble for actioning something? That would be her job (and if her sister is/was a social worker, hers too?)

So maybe there is information that we're not privy to.

[quote Caramellatteplease]@KimikosNightmare I totally agree. Whilst I think she may have been unfairly targeted boy did she make it easy.[/quote]
This is how I feel about it.

She was put in this position by her sister, fucking stupid, but she should have taken the steps after that which she didn't do and that was stupid on her part.

But, it is of no surprise to me that the police decided to go after her, instead of the thousands of men who do this every day and get away with it.

Hell, a rich Edinburgh business man was found not guilty of having 20 years' worth (40k images) of the rapes of very young children on his computer, because he told the jury his wife maybe did it to test him, even though they hadn't been together that long.

So yes, the police would rather aggressively pursue women who inadvertantly get caught up in this crime, than the men who are doing the abusing of children, sharing the footage of it to their networks of other men, who are all watching it to get off on it. And if it's a black woman then even better. So long as they don't have to upset any white men who are actual pedophiles.

@ArabellaScott

I find it hard to understand why Williams didn't action it. Why would she or her sister be in trouble for actioning something? That would be her job (and if her sister is/was a social worker, hers too?)

So maybe there is information that we're not privy to.

Her sister was already in trouble for distributing it to the other 17 members of the WhatsApp group.

That is an offence in itself but even if it weren't why on earth did she think further dissemination of the video was a good idea?

The sister didn't "action" anything beyond making sure another 17 people potentially saw the abuse.

Williams didn't "action" anything because she never reported either (a) the video or (b) the fact her sister had distributed it.

So yes, the police would rather aggressively pursue women who inadvertantly get caught up in this crime, than the men who are doing the abusing of children, sharing the footage of it to their networks of other men, who are all watching it to get off on it. And if it's a black woman then even better. So long as they don't have to upset any white men who are actual pedophiles

Neither woman was "inadvertently" caught up in this. One of them deliberately sent illegal material to 17 other people. The other turned a blind eye to 2 crimes- the existence of the video and the distribution by the first woman.

@ArabellaScott

I find it hard to understand why Williams didn't action it. Why would she or her sister be in trouble for actioning something? That would be her job (and if her sister is/was a social worker, hers too?)

So maybe there is information that we're not privy to.

The social worker would be in trouble because she chose to share it privately. You're not allowed to discuss the specifics of cases let alone share images of child abuse. This basic training is drummed into anyone working with children and is why schools have 'baker days' to ensure it gets covered regularly and everyone knows the law and correct protocol. I find it baffling a social worker could get something that most dinner ladies, teaching assistants and nursery workers understand and they usually have far less qualifications. No good could have come from sharing it. Possible outcomes range from it could effect the outcome of a child abuse prosecution to it could be used or passed on to a pedophile by someone in the group. It shows poor awareness of safeguarding and, regardless of how innocent the intent may have been, both those adults were meant to know better than the presumably non professionals in the WhatsApp group.

If someone sent me that I'd also be questioning how on earth they got hold of it. It's not like child abuse videos regularly.pop up on Facebook.

If it were sent to me I'd be reporting it so fast as self preservation.

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

@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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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 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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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..

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.

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.

@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.

@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!

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.

@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.