The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Last month, a senior officer with the Metropolitan Police was sacked without notice after 36 years exemplary service. The furore over her dismissal has died down, but important questions remain.
Novlett Williams goes by her middle name, Robyn, but that sounds far too much like an A List comedian, and there is nothing remotely funny about the incident that led to her dismissal. So how did it come about?
There are three players in this sorry saga: Dido Massivi, his lover who happens to be Novlett’s sister, and the lady herself. Dido is over sixty, and Jennifer Hodge was reported to be 56 at the time of their trial. In February 2018, Mr Massivi received two obscene images through his WhatsApp application. One was of someone having sex or attempting to have sex with a horse. And another was a 54 second video of a very young child engaged in an unspecified sexual act with an adult.
The former is classified as extreme pornography, and might also be termed extreme depravity. Photographs and even videos of people having sex with a variety of animals do exist. The porn actress Linda Lovelace once “starred” in a film with an unspeakable title that saw her having sex with a dog. Although few will admit it, many people will watch such videos: once out of curiosity, and a second time to confirm they actually did see what they thought they had seen. For those interested in the legal aspect, here is a recent article from a law journal.
After receiving the child sexual abuse image from Massivi, Jennifer Hodge forwarded it to no fewer than sixteen other people, including her sister. Some of the media coverage of child sexual abuse in recent years has bordered on the hysterical, but even allowing for that, any reasonably intelligent person domiciled in these islands should realise that was a foolish thing to do. When Novlett received the offending WhatsApp, she failed to report it, or at least to report it immediately, and for that she ended up in court with the other two.
Part of the defence case for Jennifer Hodge was that she forwarded the clip hoping to identify the abuser, which sounds plausible, foolish though it may have been. In spite of the wide coverage given this case, there is no information in the public domain as to where it was filmed, or if there is, I haven’t been able to find it. It seems unlikely though that it was produced in the UK. There have been cases in the Philippines and elsewhere of women, mothers, hiring out their young ones to be sexually abused by Western paedophiles. The BBC has produced at least one documentary on this subject which included a sting operation.
When she testified in her own defence, Novlett Williams denied actually watching the clip, a claim that seems unlikely but one would have expected her to have been given the benefit of the doubt. She was not, and although cleared of corruption, she was convicted of possessing an indecent video of a child.
Now here is the punchline, Novlett Williams is black, so you know what comes next. Here is Leroy Logan of the National Black Police Association playing the race card. Yes, it was all about racism. No, not in the least, but let us take a deeper look.
First though, let me tell you about my experience of something similar. In 2003, I was receiving enormous amounts of spam. At that time I wasn’t using webmail, all messages came directly to my computer. When I clicked on one message expecting to see a link to a website I was confronted with what appeared to be a photograph of an underage boy performing oral sex on a man. I say appeared to be, some of these legal porn websites use models of both sexes who look underage, deliberately, but are not. Whatever, I phoned my ISP, at that time Demon Internet, and was told to forward the headers – but not the full message – to Demon abuse.
I also wrote to the CPS requesting clarification of the legal position. It took nearly two months for them to reply, and the answer I received was not helpful. I was told basically that anyone who clicks on an e-mail which he or she believes may contain child pornography – read a police officer or Crown prosecutor says the recipient must have believed contained child pornography – is guilty of making an indecent image.
Curiously, it is perfectly legal to look at images and videos of dead children rather than those who are merely being sexually abused. Run the term “dead Palestinian children” through your search engine and you will see what I mean: a cooperative effort between the people of Gaza and the Israeli Defence Force. But that’s another story.
My own view is that no one, and I mean no one, should be prosecuted for possessing ONE fake £50 note or one short video clip however depraved, and with good reason, namely we are all at risk. There have been many cases of innocent people receiving illegal pornography by spam e-mails such as I received. Did I say many?
How about this for fear-mongering?
“The NCA estimates a minimum of 300,000 people in the UK pose a risk of committing physical or online child abuse, while investigators were able to find child sexual abuse material on the open web in just three clicks.”
And the solution? You know what that is, even more Draconian police powers, more censorship, and more money for police officers and other “professionals”. Here is another quote from one of these lunatics:
“Tech giants should be forced to pre-screen all content uploaded to their platforms in a bid to stem the ‘explosion’ of online child sexual abuse, an inquiry has found.”
To Part 2.