Non-motoring > Is It my Memory? Miscellaneous
Thread Author: Bromptonaut Replies: 15
View Threaded 

New Wed 27 Jul 22 15:17 
 Is It my Memory? - Bromptonaut
I thought we'd previously discussed here the case Superintendent Robyn Williams, the Met Officer convicted, in odd circumstances, or possessing Child Porn.

I cannot now find the thread, can anyone else recall it?
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Wed 27 Jul 22 16:45 
 Is It my Memory? - smokie
I don't recall any discussion but I could be wrong. Can't find anything on it.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Wed 27 Jul 22 18:08 
 Is It my Memory? - zippy
Complicated case. AIUI, and happy to be corrected, it was sent to her unsolicited by a relative as evidence of abuse of a minor. She knew what it was but didn't delete it or report it promptly enough. Is it clear that she even viewed it?

Apparently a number of members of the MET's senior leadership team have "spoken up for her" despite that the MET are trying to sack her and the courts have said no, they can't.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Wed 27 Jul 22 19:42 
 Is It my Memory? - R.P.
www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/robyn-williams-metropolitan-police-london-sacked-child-abuse-video-b1014855.html
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Thu 28 Jul 22 14:18 
 Is It my Memory? - Zero
But the point is she was convicted, you can't put the Met in the situation of deciding what criminal convictions are ok and what are not. That's how the Met ended up the way they are right now
Reply to this message | Report message
      1  
New Thu 28 Jul 22 19:12 
 Is It my Memory? - Robin O'Reliant
I can't help thinking that if she were a he any sympathy would be in very short supply.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Thu 28 Jul 22 20:01 
 Is It my Memory? - Bromptonaut
>> But the point is she was convicted, you can't put the Met in the situation
>> of deciding what criminal convictions are ok and what are not. That's how the Met
>> ended up the way they are right now

I may be wrong but an employer who says any criminal conviction is automatic dismissal is heading for trouble.

If thats right then the employer, even if it's the Met, has to make a judgement on each conviction.

In this case it went to a Discipline Tribunal who found that the appropriate penalty was a final written warning. The Administrative Court found no fault.

Either she's reinstated or they pay her a lot of money to go away.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Thu 28 Jul 22 20:23 
 Is It my Memory? - Fullchat
Or

She goes back to work and begins to create an environment where she becomes difficult to work with. Then she starts building a portfolio as to how shes been mistreated and discriminated against etc etc and goes for unfair dismissal based on discrimination, so on and so forth and gets a handsome payout.
Shes untouchable and Teflon coated.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Thu 28 Jul 22 at 20:24
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Thu 28 Jul 22 21:58 
 Is It my Memory? - Bromptonaut
>> Or
>>
>> She goes back to work and begins to create an environment where she becomes difficult
>> to work with. Then she starts building a portfolio as to how shes been mistreated
>> and discriminated against etc etc and goes for unfair dismissal based on discrimination, so on
>> and so forth and gets a handsome payout.
>> Shes untouchable and Teflon coated.

All are questions of fact an employer has to deal with.

I suspect all of that will be avoided with a pay off.

But that's a consequence of the decision to prosecute in the first place,

Hard cases/bad law and all that.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Thu 28 Jul 22 22:20 
 Is It my Memory? - Zero
From an employment advice service

Quote

There is a good chance that, especially in cases of dishonesty, or where the conviction is directly relevant to your employment, that you will end up being dismissed.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Thu 28 Jul 22 20:51 
 Is It my Memory? - Robin O'Reliant
>> I may be wrong but an employer who says any criminal conviction is automatic
>> dismissal is heading for trouble.

Surely that can't apply to the police?

Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 29 Jul 22 at 10:52
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Thu 28 Jul 22 21:53 
 Is It my Memory? - Bromptonaut
>> Surely that can't apply to the police?

Applies to all employers.

Weight applied to facts etc may vary for Police but as a principle yes it applies.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Thu 28 Jul 22 22:22 
 Is It my Memory? - sooty123
Applies to all employers.
>>
>> Weight applied to facts etc may vary for Police but as a principle yes it
>> applies.
>>

What about certain offences that people are convicted of? Some employers might bin them off as soon as the guilty verdict is read out.

Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Fri 29 Jul 22 09:52 
 Is It my Memory? - zippy
>>Applies to all employers.

Sometimes it's not even the employers decision.

The FCA insisted an employee be sacked even when the employer was satisfied with a written warning. One case I recall was a man dodging rail fares. The FCA banned the employee from the industry. So in effect, worse than the sack as it deprived him from working in a regulated industry.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Fri 29 Jul 22 10:28 
 Is It my Memory? - sooty123
I think legal and medical types have similar arrangements.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Fri 29 Jul 22 10:47 
 Is It my Memory? - zippy
>> I think legal and medical types have similar arrangements.
>>

Yes, there was a case in the midlands re a junior doctor who was struck off after been found guilty of manslaughter on the grounds of gross negligence.

The general consensus of junior doctors that I spoke to (we regularly had a bunch of them stay here when Miss Z invited them to the coast) was that she was a scapegoat for larger failings in the NHS (not enough staff). The doctor has since been re-instated.

There was a TV film in the early 2000s where there was a dramatized air collision over Heathrow caused by a go-around or similar incident.

The air-traffic controller was blamed and prosecuted for the deaths of several hundred people and this was because she was exhausted after working a double shift, which in itself was due to a major road accident preventing replacement controllers getting to work. It would have been better for her to just say no to the shift and let the accident happen on its own.

Same with the doctor. If she walked away claiming sickness or similar then the patient may still have died, from something else though and she would not have been to blame.
Last edited by: zippy on Fri 29 Jul 22 at 10:48
Reply to this message | Report message
       
Latest Forum Posts