Met female superintendent charged over possession of child abuse image

[Cathedral Bobby+ 1,167]

A senior Metropolitan Police officer charged over possession of child abuse image.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/20/female-scotland-yard-officer-charged-over-child-abuse-image

There seems to be a lot of these stories coming out at the moment.

[BlueBob 233]

1 hour ago, Cathedral Bobby said:

 

There seems to be a lot of these stories coming out at the moment.

Exactly, almost feel as if that is the only news around - perhaps if we already have a dedicated post for Brexit and Trump that we have one for errant police officer related stories!.

[Zulu 22 3,599]

9 hours ago, BlueBob said:

Exactly, almost feel as if that is the only news around - perhaps if we already have a dedicated post for Brexit and Trump that we have one for errant police officer related stories!.

You cannot stop officers showing how stupid they can be in committing offences. Something like this will always reach the public domain. If the story is correct then female Superintendent is liable to get a sentence including a P45.

[Cathedral Bobby+ 1,167]

13 minutes ago, Zulu 22 said:

If the story is correct then female Superintendent is liable to get a sentence including a P45.

A single image I can't fathom it out. Crazy, why?

[Zulu 22 3,599]

8 minutes ago, Cathedral Bobby said:

A single image I can't fathom it out. Crazy, why?

The report says moving Cat A image which would tend to indicate some form of video. But, we do not have the evidence but it must have passed the prosecution threshold.

[Cathedral Bobby+ 1,167]

8 minutes ago, Zulu 22 said:

The report says moving Cat A image which would tend to indicate some form of video. But, we do not have the evidence but it must have passed the prosecution threshold.

I am not questioning the prosecution, rightly so. But why only one image, what possessed the woman. As you say it might be video although Cat A indicates the most extreme level. I have never known such a deluge of cases of police officers committing such offences.

[SD 323]

4 minutes ago, Cathedral Bobby said:

I am not questioning the prosecution, rightly so. But why only one image, what possessed the woman. As you say it might be video although Cat A indicates the most extreme level. I have never known such a deluge of cases of police officers committing such offences.

Drawing some LARGE inferences but...looking at the details I’m guessing husband/partner is the main offender and you was dragged into it and turned a blind eye.

Regardless, cat A is serious stuff so even 1 video is too much!

Category A: ‘Images involving penetrative sex, sexual activity with an animal or
sadism’

[Mazza 621]

Reading between the lines, it sounds more like she has been shared something and covered it up or failed to report it and that’s been her downfall. Explains why there are three co-accused and only one image.
Hugely presumptuous though.

[Truck driver 1 177]

UPDATE FROM THE EVENING STANDARD NEWS.         Top Met officer to fight child abuse image case  A senior Scotland Yard female officer charged with possessing an indecent image of a child is to fight the case, sources said today.  https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/top-met-officer-to-fight-child-abuse-image-case-a4072821.html

[Cathedral Bobby+ 1,167]

This is the risk of social media. If she is innocent and was unaware then I hope she wins but it suggests she is naive in the extreme. Whatever, her relationship with her sister must be fraught at the moment. I will wait and see the outcome before offering further comment about her case.

[ParochialYokal 1,078]

Reading between the lines, it sounds more like she has been shared something and covered it up or failed to report it and that’s been her downfall. Explains why there are three co-accused and only one image.Hugely presumptuous though. 

 

 That’s what I was thinking.

 

She seemingly received an image and because she did not report the offence she seemingly retrospectively criminalised herself for child porn and misconduct in public office.

 

By way of context, I am a member of many WhatsApp groups but have turned off real time notifications. Every now and again when I have hundreds of unread messages, I go back in and scroll down the bottom to clear. That doesn’t mean I read all or any of them! There are literally hundreds of messages each week I clear because I couldn’t give a fluff.

 

I only learnt inadvertently that the default feature was for WhatsApp to download content when my data run out, as so many people were sending me videos. I have now turned this off! But I didn’t realise that photos and videos were getting uploaded into my phone without my knowledge.

 

I have also just looked at my inbox on my iPhone and I have 94,768 unread emails. I know that most are spam but I cannot honestly say that I know what is in every message.

 

I imagine that the prosecution will have to demonstrate mens rea- just because she received something, did she knowingly ignore it and by doing so, she did not fulfil her duties?

 

In the case of just one message with content, they will need to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that she saw it but, more importantly, processed it and understood its significance.

 

Without knowing the details of the case, I am 50/50 as to whether she will get convicted and I suspect that the public interest to put the matter wouldn’t have been there had she not been police (and especially because she is a SUPT).

 

[SD 323]

58 minutes ago, ParochialYokal said:

 That’s what I was thinking.

 

She seemingly received an image and because she did not report the offence she seemingly retrospectively criminalised herself for child porn and misconduct in public office.

 

By way of context, I am a member of many WhatsApp groups but have turned off real time notifications. Every now and again when I have hundreds of unread messages, I go back in and scroll down the bottom to clear. That doesn’t mean I read all or any of them! There are literally hundreds of messages each week I clear because I couldn’t give a fluff.

 

I only learnt inadvertently that the default feature was for WhatsApp to download content when my data run out, as so many people were sending me videos. I have now turned this off! But I didn’t realise that photos and videos were getting uploaded into my phone without my knowledge.

 

I have also just looked at my inbox on my iPhone and I have 94,768 unread emails. I know that most are spam but I cannot honestly say that I know what is in every message.

 

I imagine that the prosecution will have to demonstrate mens rea- just because she received something, did she knowingly ignore it and by doing so, she did not fulfil her duties?

 

In the case of just one message with content, they will need to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that she saw it but, more importantly, processed it and understood its significance.

 

Without knowing the details of the case, I am 50/50 as to whether she will get convicted and I suspect that the public interest to put the matter wouldn’t have been there had she not been police (and especially because she is a SUPT).

 

 It going to go into details on here bet you can tell if a message has been read or not.

[Techie1 1,995]

On Android (maybe iOS too) there is a mark as read option when you receive a message - on the toast notification, rather than in the app.

If you receive many messages, I'm not sure if it marks all of them as read, I'd guess it would.

So even if the app recorded that you've read them all, that might not actually be the case.

I think IF she is innocent it's going to be a hard fight.

[ParochialYokal 1,078]

If I flick through a hundred messages on a WhatsApp talk group, it would appear that I read them even if I wouldn’t have- I do it to clear them. Unless, of course, it can be forensically proven how many seconds I was viewing each one, which I doubt is data that is collected.

 

[Cathedral Bobby+ 1,167]

6 minutes ago, ParochialYokal said:

If I flick through a hundred messages on a WhatsApp talk group, it would appear that I read them even if I wouldn’t have- I do it to clear them. Unless, of course, it can be forensically proven how many seconds I was viewing each one, which I doubt is data that is collected.

 

Hence I am part of a single group with colleagues and the only topics are professional and work related. I think I wouldn't risk anything else. I came off Facebook because a friend (not so much of one now) posted racist jokes on his page and copied me. I immediately removed the post but how many prospective officers have failed vetting because they have friends who have posted inappropriate material on their wall. Its just not worth it. We are so dependent on sensible behaviour of others on social media and that just doesn't happen.