Slightly unfair but…..

Her trial heard how she had been one of 17 people in a WhatsApp group to receive the 54 second clip featuring a child aged around five-years-old engaging in a sex act with a man.

Williams denied ever seeing the clip but the prosecution successfully argued that she must have been aware of the contents from the thumbnail and had a duty to delete it and report her sister, Jennifer Hodge, who had forwarded it.

She appealed against her conviction and sentence, but yesterday (Thurs) three judges refused the application.

If we’ve got stuff which is a strict liability offence then we’ve got stuff that is a strict liability offence….

That we should have fewer of them doesn’t change that.

18 thoughts on “Slightly unfair but…..”

  1. If “one of the UK’s most senior black female police officers” can’t even detect serious crimes when they’re sent directly to her phone…

    NB, the Police Commissioner found her to be dishonest as well as lacking judgement, but apparently holding negro superintendents to the same standards we’d expect from wypipo is, wait for it…

    the Metropolitan Black Police Association argues Williams has been unfairly targeted because she is black and accuses the force of “institutional racism”.

  2. If two Get Out of Jail cards* can’t save her, then it may be that we are on the right road, finally.

    IsItCosI’sBlack? and YouCan’tTouchMeCosI’veGotaVagina. Mind you, she looks like she probably qualifies for a TrannyCard, or if not, then for a SeriouslyUglyMush card.

  3. I have little time for the whinging of leftist client groups but it is possible that it is the truth.

    A relative of mine was attending a zoom conference of several art groups/charities. They all clicked on item 1 on the Agenda and instead of some charity BS listed a short child porn film appeared.

    Reported to Plod etc. Someone in the loop of about 10 contributors had left some Zoom security procedure out etc–so said Plod. And a malicious hacker had taken the chance for what they doubtless thought to be an amusing jape.

    Now presumably this woman has now been checked out from stem to stern and has no stash of CP etc–otherwise can Appeal would have been pointless.

    So if your sister is a fuckwit or child porn fan ( has she been checked for CP stash? Again if she is clear then it adds credence to the innocence claim) who sends you a vid that you don’t check. Because if you are the kind of moron who is never off their fucking iphone–it is somewhat credible. Much as I despise Plod lots of folk are sending and receiving all kinds of shite–some of which could have been got at.

    I’m not unhappy if the facts say otherwise but in the interests of lots of phone fools a miscarriage of justice here threatens more than some cop whinger.

  4. It does look like a set up, doesn’t it? She must have pissed off a lot of people. And who should know better than anyone else how to do a set up? Surely not another Plod …

  5. Dunno. This I have a problem with: “the prosecution successfully argued that she must have been aware of the contents from the thumbnail ”

    Whatsap is basically Tossermail. But since the world has many tossers, it’s a regrettable necessity. Anyone you interact with on Whatsap has your Whatsap address in their contacts. A high proportion of Whatsapers think it’s clever to forward stuff they reckon’s interesting to their contacts< whether it's going to be gratefully received or not. Thanks to the fat-finger factor, that doesn't mean it goes to the right contact. Don't know about anyone else here but I get dozens of these things a day. I've had half a dozen so far this morning. Many from people I haven't a clue who they are. (For the information of all – I am not interested in football, northerners with impenetrable accents ranting on social media, reggaeton, cute children, catholic religious iconography to music, porn, anything on YouTube whatsoever, anything from my cousin in the UK….) Most of it gets deleted, unopened. But the stream is so voluminous it's impossible to keep up with it. Periodically, I go through the Whatap image & video folders on deleting expeditions but I can't guarantee to get rid of all of it.
    So it's entirely possible I have that 54 second clip lurking in one my phones. Not including retired phones, I have a total of 7 Whatsap accounts on 3 dual SIM phones & a single on 3 different national phone networks. I wouldn't have a clue it was there.

  6. The purpose of this law is to try and stop child abuse. So a question is whether this specific instance would be successful in that, and then the wider question of whether as a policy device it is successful in detering people from child abuse. But this would be a political question making use of empirical evidence, and I can’t imagine the politicians will approach it with such a mind. They are far to shallow to even think about going there!
    The courts are obliged to apply the law as it is, of course, and that does offer a second approach, of whether it is a just law. I guess there might be a way of engaging with civil rights laws where there is a conflict, and judges seem entirely sympathetic to this in many cases. Particularly where a “minority” is involved.
    But going straight for the “its because of the colour of my skin” argument does seem particularly inept!

  7. Bloke in China (Germany province)

    bis,

    I think we all assume you have quite a considerable stash of legal content of interest to discerning gentlemen. One wonders how many man-hours (in this case definitely man-hours) they would be prepared to devote to watching the lot in the hope of finding something incriminating.

  8. Theoretically, if you have an auto-delete for sender(y) enabled, you could receive the e-mail or message and never see it, because it was auto deleted, therefore a clever SueGrabbit&Run should be able to argue the law is an ass as it were.
    Or have I missed something.

  9. I think it is seems really weird. Unless she had a jury full of people who either
    a) never use Whatsapp
    b) check every video that they receive.

    I am amazed that she was convicted

  10. Dido is a woman’s name. It was in ancient Carthage anyway.

    I think that it is the strict liability bit that might confuse a jury. The mere presence of a dodgy picture on a device is enough to bring about a guilty verdict. Whether the accused wanted it, realised it was there or what it was, in the eyes of the Blair apparatchik who invented the law is immaterial. Like double jeopardy, Mens Rea is an ancient concept of criminal law that inconveniently stands in the way of approving headlines in the Daily Mirror.

    I’m not sure that one can “spoof” addresses in WhatsApp. Each contact has a certificate that is exchanged when messages are sent, so it should be possible to trace whether the sender really was the sister and whether it was really meant to be sent to the accused. Of course that would involve asking Facebook for help, their cooperation cannot be guaranteed nor the intelligence of plod to come up with the idea.

  11. The whole story is mental:

    A bus driver accused of distributing an indecent video purportedly showing child abuse said he sent it to his partner and others “for awareness”.

    The Pete Townshend manoeuvre.

    So the story is, Dido received an illegal pornography video from “a colleague”. Instead of reporting it to Plod, he decided it’d be a good idea to forward it to his girlfriend, who said she’d “speak to” her police superintendent sister, but allegedly failed to speak to her because sis denies ever seeing the images.

    This makes a lot more sense when you assume all of the characters are mentally retarded.

  12. I believe that an internet site called ‘Youtube’ has quite a lot of videos. If you look at a page of these you will find that the ‘thumbnail’ is usually an image of the first frame of the video.

    The first frame of a video may well not show anything illegal or suspicious at all….

  13. Maybe this will make plod think twice about strict liability charges now they have been bitten and their ‘advice’ to govt might change

  14. Dear Mr Worstall

    Possession laws are a must for any tyranny – so easy to stitch anyone up. Progressive computer operating systems could come pre-loaded with a selection of images (child pornography, violent sex pornography plus anything else they have already invented or may do in the future – images of guns perhaps), so that anyone the ‘authorities’ don’t like can be taken down at will. Drugs used to be one such weapon, where the police could conveniently ‘find’ a stash they had placed earlier. If nothing else, it meant a search warrant could never go to waste.

    @ Steve February 19, 2021 at 9:29 am

    “the Metropolitan Black Police Association argues Williams has been unfairly targeted because she is black and accuses the force of “institutional racism”.”

    Metropolitan Black Police Association? Isn’t that “institutional racism”?

    DP

  15. That is a bad law, a really bad law.
    I do not doubt that she had no interest in the content of that vid.
    Repeal that law now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *