Should future employers be warned you were found not guilty in a rape trial??

Hades said:
Yes it could be included on the CRB... If you are also prepared for innocent people to be included on there.

Would you be happy for your own name to be included because of a false accusation?
Click to expand...
I think the greater good is to play it safe. In an imperfect world, it seems to be the better option to protect kids from abuse ahead of protecting the rights of not-guilty rapists, murderers and other alleged violent criminals being able to get jobs in schools.
 
Hades said:
I've given my answer. Extreme emotive cases should not dictate principles.
Click to expand...

No you haven't. Plenty of people never charged with a criminal offence would get an adverse DBS report based on police information held on them.

Huntley is just a particularly egregious example because the system failed with terrible consequences because there were not the relevant systems in place for sharing information between police forces and with prospective employers of people working with children.

So I'll ask again if there is police information that male is suspected of grooming and engaging underage children in sexual activity but he has never been charged should this feature in a DBS application to work at a school?
 
Not guilty is not guilty, it should be expunged from all public records and not show up on any searchable database, apart from the court/police systems which should be off limits to anyone.
 
Caracus2k said:
No you haven't. Plenty of people never charged with a criminal offence would get an adverse DBS report based on police information held on them.

Huntley is just a particularly egregious example because the system failed with terrible consequences because there were not the relevant systems in place for sharing information between police forces and with prospective employers of people working with children.

So I'll ask again if there is police information that male is suspected of grooming and engaging underage children in sexual activity but he has never been charged should this feature in a DBS application to work at a school?
Click to expand...
I will repeat again... If the person has not been convicted of the crime in court then they should be presumed innocent. I would be happy, as I have repeatedly stated, for a court to be able to decide whether to still include their name on a CRB. I am not happy for the name to be included without a court decision.
 
Hades said:
I would be extremely angry about it. But personally I would prefer innocent people not be falsely named and for other controls to be put in place for vulnerable people.

Your statement assumes there are no other options.

Other options, for example, could include vulnerable people not being in the presence of only one person unless there is CCTV, etc. That's just off the top of my head. But again it would be difficult and expensive. So it comes back to choosing cost over innocent people.
Click to expand...
Ultimately that's where we will never see eye to eye. You place more value on the right of the falsely accused to get the job they want, I place more value on doing the best practically achievable method we have to restrict potential offenders being exposed to vulnerable people. I don't think either of us are looking at this as 100% to 0%, we're both 60/40 but in an opposed position. Both options risk innocent people suffering through no fault of their own.
 
SPG said:
Not guilty is not guilty, it should be expunged from all public records and not show up on any searchable database, apart from the court/police systems which should be off limits to anyone.
Click to expand...

Interestingly the principle of open justice was contained within the Magna Carta. The presumption of innocence wasn't (at least I don't think it was). Your suggestion would be removing one of the oldest principles of English law.
 
Kenai said:
Ultimately that's where we will never see eye to eye. You place more value on the right of the falsely accused to get the job they want, I place more value on doing the best practically achievable method we have to restrict potential offenders being exposed to vulnerable people. I don't think either of us are looking at this as 100% to 0%, we're both 60/40 but in an opposed position. Both options risk innocent people suffering through no fault of their own.
Click to expand...

Good post.

I agree with you.

Your (our) side keeps kids safe from being abused.

The other side keeps some innocent men from getting very specific jobs.
 
Kenai said:
Ultimately that's where we will never see eye to eye. You place more value on the right of the falsely accused to get the job they want, I place more value on doing the best practically achievable method we have to restrict potential offenders being exposed to vulnerable people. I don't think either of us are looking at this as 100% to 0%, we're both 60/40 but in an opposed position. Both options risk innocent people suffering through no fault of their own.
Click to expand...

Why don't we then consider everyone a pedophile until proven innocent? This would work by nobody being put into a position of responsibility of a child unless they have been supervised, monitored and proven to be safe. Even then what is to stop them being all nice until behind locked doors? I suppose the point is, you can never be sure. Not even parents can be considered safe necessarily. However it leads to a trustless society where nobody will want to care for any child and would walk on and leave a dying child in the gutter rather than risk an accusation of mal-intent.

To be honest the way things are these days I have always challenged myself with a thought experiment. A child darts across the road as you walk up the street, you can see they are about to get hit by a car. You know you could run out, sweep the child up and manage to save them from being hit. However. Should the parent then emerge from the shop and see you holding their child in your arms....

So... would then just watch the child get run over instead?

As I said it's a thought experiment.

More real world terms. I seen a small child crying and looking very upset in a nearly empty shopping centre. I would not approach or attempt to console the child, but I did walk on and look for the nearest security guard I could find and let them deal with it.

These are not good things in society when people are afraid of helping or caring for children if they are in fear of their kindness being miss-interpreted as mal-intent.

I have done courses in looking after groups of children and one of the things taught is VERY important (in that context). It was that you should NEVER, EVER find yourself in a room alone with someone elses child. This was not to protect the child, but to protect the carer from false accusation. Children may accuse and then through Q and A with parents get led into claiming something without realizing the ramifications. Thus the course taught to avoid any such circumstances where it would be your word against the child's.
 
PaulCa said:
To be honest the way things are these days I have always challenged myself with a thought experiment. A child darts across the road as you walk up the street, you can see they are about to get hit by a car. You know you could run out, sweep the child up and manage to save them from being hit. However. Should the parent then emerge from the shop and see you holding their child in your arms....

So... would then just watch the child get run over instead?

As I said it's a thought experiment.
Click to expand...

You would consider letting a child die because for a split second the parent might think you were trying to abduct them? Jeez.
 
Do thoose demanding a criminal conviction to potentially restrict someone from working with children realise that some people found guilty of crimes didn't actually commit the crime?

We don't have perfect systems. But we try and create systems that balance the rights of different groups. Sometimes people fall on the 'wrong' side of these systems and receive treatment or punishment that is not warranted but the consequences of not having the system are far far worse.

I'll ask again is anyone happy that a system that is willing to let nine guilty people go free so that one innocent person isn't convicted form the basis for whom we deem suitable to work closely with children?
 
Last edited:
VincentHanna said:
You would consider letting a child die because for a split second the parent might think you were trying to abduct them? Jeez.
Click to expand...

It's a thought experiment. It's abstract. There are dozens of circumstances where your intentions could be miss-interrupted and the consequences of that miss interpretation could literally ruin your life.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
I have done courses in looking after groups of children and one of the things taught is VERY important (in that context). It was that you should NEVER, EVER find yourself in a room alone with someone elses child. This was not to protect the child, but to protect the carer from false accusation. Children may accuse and then through Q and A with parents get led into claiming something without realizing the ramifications. Thus the course taught to avoid any such circumstances where it would be your word against the child's.
Click to expand...

Nothing new here,

My Grandfather (Born c1885) always advised "Never get into a railway compartment (In the old days, train carriages didnt have corridors, just a series of compartments each with their own doors) occupied only by a single Woman"
 
Orionaut said:
Nothing new here,

My Grandfather (Born c1885) always advised "Never get into a railway compartment (In the old days, train carriages didnt have corridors, just a series of compartments each with their own doors) occupied only by a single Woman"
Click to expand...

Probably good advice, even more so with children as they really don't understand the implications of allegations.

BTW, you miss quoted my paragraph as being from Burnsy.
 
VincentHanna said:
Blimey, if he was born 133 years ago, how old are you?
Click to expand...


Nearly 60.

My (Maternal) Grandfather married late to a much younger Bride (As was not uncommon in the past, It is only very recently that the presumption has been that both parties should be a similar age)

My Grandmother then didn't have my Mum until she was over 30.

My Mum didn't have me until she, in turn, was also over 30.

There are much more extreme examples of this around. I have seen people whose relationships seem to go back an incredible time over only two or three generations referred to as "Time Travelers"

Once you get to marriages there are examples where (Say) "My first Wife's, First Husband" can span centuries. :eek:
 
PaulCa said:
Why don't we then consider everyone a pedophile until proven innocent? This would work by nobody being put into a position of responsibility of a child unless they have been supervised, monitored and proven to be safe. Even then what is to stop them being all nice until behind locked doors? I suppose the point is, you can never be sure. Not even parents can be considered safe necessarily. However it leads to a trustless society where nobody will want to care for any child and would walk on and leave a dying child in the gutter rather than risk an accusation of mal-intent.

To be honest the way things are these days I have always challenged myself with a thought experiment. A child darts across the road as you walk up the street, you can see they are about to get hit by a car. You know you could run out, sweep the child up and manage to save them from being hit. However. Should the parent then emerge from the shop and see you holding their child in your arms....

So... would then just watch the child get run over instead?

As I said it's a thought experiment.

More real world terms. I seen a small child crying and looking very upset in a nearly empty shopping centre. I would not approach or attempt to console the child, but I did walk on and look for the nearest security guard I could find and let them deal with it.

These are not good things in society when people are afraid of helping or caring for children if they are in fear of their kindness being miss-interpreted as mal-intent.

I have done courses in looking after groups of children and one of the things taught is VERY important (in that context). It was that you should NEVER, EVER find yourself in a room alone with someone elses child. This was not to protect the child, but to protect the carer from false accusation. Children may accuse and then through Q and A with parents get led into claiming something without realizing the ramifications. Thus the course taught to avoid any such circumstances where it would be your word against the child's.
Click to expand...

I think I would hesitate. I'd think about where witnesses are etc before I made a move, but then it's probably too late. Just another statistic. I'd feel bad for not saving them, for a while. But I'd feel far worse being labeled as a peado.

With a lost kid in a mall I'd probably do the same. Not a chance in hell I'd deal with it myself. Not unless I knew the parents well.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom