How can anyone take the police seriously.....
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 becky  over the moon 17 Jun 21 5.35pm |
   |
|---|---|
|
A police officer with a conviction for child abuse on her phone has had her dismissal from the Met overturned by a police employment tribunal. This means that if she ever appears in court for the police, she will have to declare her criminal record to the judge........ Have they totally lost the plot?
A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator |
  |
 Matov 17 Jun 21 5.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
My understanding is that there is a lot more to that story than meets the eye. All kinds of internal Met shenanigans being played out. The entire 'Whats App' group narrative is a strange one as far as I understand it and how it applies to serving officers with the case causing some consternation because how can you be held responsible for something somebody sent to you but did not even open? Wheels within wheels going on here.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Spiderman Horsham 17 Jun 21 5.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by becky
A police officer with a conviction for child abuse on her phone has had her dismissal from the Met overturned by a police employment tribunal. This means that if she ever appears in court for the police, she will have to declare her criminal record to the judge........ Have they totally lost the plot? Presumably she will get an office job that will not involve going to court
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| becky over the moon 17 Jun 21 6.06pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Matov
My understanding is that there is a lot more to that story than meets the eye. All kinds of internal Met shenanigans being played out. The entire 'Whats App' group narrative is a strange one as far as I understand it and how it applies to serving officers with the case causing some consternation because how can you be held responsible for something somebody sent to you but did not even open? Wheels within wheels going on here. Is that any different from those who have inadvertently ended up on illegal adult sites and prosecuted, or those cases where someone else has downloaded illegal material on to their computer without their knowledge - they all got traced and prosecuted a few years ago, so why should this be any different? Duty of care is the phrase that springs to mind.
A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator |
|
jeeagles  17 Jun 21 7.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Note the guardians headline Black Met police chief wins her job back after tribunal says sacking was unfair Not Police chief caught with child abuse images gets their job back.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Matov 17 Jun 21 7.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by becky
Is that any different from those who have inadvertently ended up on illegal adult sites and prosecuted, or those cases where someone else has downloaded illegal material on to their computer without their knowledge - they all got traced and prosecuted a few years ago, so why should this be any different? Duty of care is the phrase that springs to mind. I genuinely do not know but always thought that for the police to get a successful prosecution they had to be able to prove that offenders had knowingly visited specific sites and then downloaded material. Sharing it is always going to be an offence, and I believe one of the parties in this case was prosecuted on that basis. I have never heard of anybody being prosecuted for just accessing an illegal website the once and who then immediately exited on realising what it was. I know there was a recent case where prosecution was sort on the basis of an IP address and it was proved that an unnamed party had managed to gain access to wifi via some fault in the password protection. But I guess mistakes can be made but also, given the severity of the consequences that such accusations can bring about, would assume that the CPS set a high bar before a case goes to court.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 17 Jun 21 7.43pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Matov
I genuinely do not know but always thought that for the police to get a successful prosecution they had to be able to prove that offenders had knowingly visited specific sites and then downloaded material. Sharing it is always going to be an offence, and I believe one of the parties in this case was prosecuted on that basis. I have never heard of anybody being prosecuted for just accessing an illegal website the once and who then immediately exited on realising what it was. I know there was a recent case where prosecution was sort on the basis of an IP address and it was proved that an unnamed party had managed to gain access to wifi via some fault in the password protection. But I guess mistakes can be made but also, given the severity of the consequences that such accusations can bring about, would assume that the CPS set a high bar before a case goes to court. I believe she was successfully prosecuted for not reporting the sender who was a relative. Apparently the relative had sent it to her as in "this is disgusting, something should be done etc." All very strange to me. If she was innocent how come the prosecution (apparently she never even viewed it) if her relative was also innocently trying to highlight it where did they get it and so on. Something stinks here, the copper may have been set up. Edited by Badger11 (17 Jun 2021 7.43pm)
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| becky over the moon 17 Jun 21 8.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
I believe she was successfully prosecuted for not reporting the sender who was a relative. Apparently the relative had sent it to her as in "this is disgusting, something should be done etc." All very strange to me. If she was innocent how come the prosecution (apparently she never even viewed it) if her relative was also innocently trying to highlight it where did they get it and so on. Something stinks here, the copper may have been set up. Edited by Badger11 (17 Jun 2021 7.43pm) Presumably, all that should have been dealt with in the court case - and they still found her guilty.
A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator |
|
croydon proud  Any european country i fancy! 17 Jun 21 8.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Didn"t mind them when they started out,they were known as a punk band but not sure how, message in a bottle wasn"t bad but Sting was a bit annoying, like the coldplay bloke.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| becky over the moon 17 Jun 21 8.29pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by croydon proud
Didn"t mind them when they started out,they were known as a punk band but not sure how, message in a bottle wasn"t bad but Sting was a bit annoying, like the coldplay bloke. It really wasn't that good that it needed saying 3 times.......
A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator |
|
| croydon proud Any european country i fancy! 17 Jun 21 8.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by becky
It really wasn't that good that it needed saying 3 times....... I like to give full satisfaction, not a one trick pony!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| kennybrowns leftfoot Reigate 19 Jun 21 5.12am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Matov
My understanding is that there is a lot more to that story than meets the eye. All kinds of internal Met shenanigans being played out. The entire 'Whats App' group narrative is a strange one as far as I understand it and how it applies to serving officers with the case causing some consternation because how can you be held responsible for something somebody sent to you but did not even open? Wheels within wheels going on here. Yes you are right to a degree... If you are a copper who receives inappropriate messages or over hears something inappropriate and doesn't report it then in the eyes of the Police internal investigation you are just as guilty as the person who sent it. I suppose it's a bit like the joint enterprise law that has been so controversial over the years. Whether you agree with her conviction or not she has still been convicted by a court of a criminal offence involving child abuse. How on earth she has got her job back is beyond me but hey I think we know the real reason why.. Edited by kennybrowns leftfoot (19 Jun 2021 5.12am)
Don't waste your time with jealousy. Sometimes your ahead, sometimes your behind, the race is long. But in the end it's only with yourself!! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.