With all the Facebook scare stories about kids almost being abducted, I'd certainly hesitate to help a child as well. What if you were leading the child to somewhere safe/to a security guard or something and the parent then saw you? Parents are so paranoid these days that I imagine they would think the worst of you.
Should future employers be warned you were found not guilty in a rape trial??
- Thread starter Hades
- Start date
He died in the early 70's.
Back in the day we lived as an "Extended family" (Something that I think people should go back to really) and I actually spent more time with the grandparents than the parents. and spent many hours talking to him. Mostly about making Steel, Which was his background, I spend endless hours as a child talking about Pig-iron, Blast-furnaces and Steam-hammers
One day I will build a small blast furnace in the back garden just to see if i can. I am more or less retiring soon so will have the time for fun projects like that!
Basically what this thread proves is that lots of people are so inclined to "think of the children", that suspicion or accusation alone are now acceptable grounds for taking action against the otherwise innocent.
Because "balance of probability" can actually just mean "I believe the victim's statement". It can and does come down to "his word against hers", when there is no physical evidence of any kind.
So you now are basically securing a punishment against somebody quite literally for no other reason than hearsay.
And plenty of people are prepared to support this position because it "may help prevent future crime".
Because "balance of probability" can actually just mean "I believe the victim's statement". It can and does come down to "his word against hers", when there is no physical evidence of any kind.
So you now are basically securing a punishment against somebody quite literally for no other reason than hearsay.
And plenty of people are prepared to support this position because it "may help prevent future crime".
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 5,230
- Location
- North East England
A friend of someone I used to know is in prison as a woman screamed rape. No evidence outside of her word that it was not consensual. Since he was sent away she tried to do it again to another man, this time failing and been proven a liar. First bloke still in prison. The way these cases are handled and their aftermath clearly need to change
I am happy for the legal process to be based on facts, science and evidence rather than accusations, beliefs and emotion, yes. As for letting "nine guilty people go free" once again you're just assuming guilt where a jury trial has failed to convict.
I very much doubt having unproven allegations on Ian Huntley's record would have prevented him going on to kidnap and kill children in his house, whether he worked in a school or not. Like I said before what should be looked into is why so many of the children he was accused of having sex with and their parents chose not to take matters further once the police were involved.
Last edited:
I remember years ago a friend had a similar situation happen. There was this young girl who had got lost in town with the crowds of shoppers. My friend, who is Muslim, noticed that the girl seemed lost. He stopped to think if he went over to take her to the security officials nearby would people start thinking bad things about him. In the end he decided to help because he's a good guy and did the right thing. But it was the first time he was nervous to help.
So this was from 8 years ago and it asks and tackles most of the questions we are debating in here. Obviously hasn't been a good compromise yet.
https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2010/...nded-by-soham-murders-inquiry-ruled-unlawful/
https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2010/...nded-by-soham-murders-inquiry-ruled-unlawful/
Better make sure this guy never works with kids again:
https://www.wired.com/story/crying-...mbid=social_twitter&__twitter_impression=true
https://www.wired.com/story/crying-...mbid=social_twitter&__twitter_impression=true
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,196
Hardly the same thing is it? Nobody is even saying the guy in the OP is a paedophile.
You can't be too safe though. Would you be happy to leave your kids with someone who had been accused of being a paedophile?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,196
The alt-right accusing democratic supporting celebrities that they perceive to be against Trump, of being paedophile's is a sickening development in their tactics, but unrelated to the thread at hand.
How is it any different? people are arguing that unproven allegations are serious enough to stay with someone for the rest of their lives. If the woman mind control victim accusing Tom Hanks feels strongly enough that he abused her as a child and takes him to court why shouldn't we believe her? the fact that there is zero evidence is surely irrelevent? he was accused of child abuse and that's enough isn't it? guilty or not guilty he should carry the accusation of being a paedophile around with him for the rest of his life.... see how ridiculous this it?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,196
No, they are saying that on balance it's better that the police, in an enhanced CRB check, let a potential employer know about a court case, so that employer can make their own minds up if an innocent verdict is relevent to protecting students or not.
Or you take the other option, don't tell them and face a huge anti-police backlash if the person in question ever does do something bad.
They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. But the former option potentially keeps people safer, at the expense of one man having some of his job options curtailed.
Or you take the other option, don't tell them and face a huge anti-police backlash if the person in question ever does do something bad.
They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. But the former option potentially keeps people safer, at the expense of one man having some of his job options curtailed.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,353
which they'll just throw out the application at that point because
a. if they feel they need to check they wont want to risk anything bar a clean slate
b. and this is more important, its just easier than have to put the effort of actually understanding
I'm of the opinion that if these accusations were disclosed during an enhanced CRB check that the employer would never consider such an applicant, although this would depend on what the applicant was accused of. They can always get the next candidate even if they're less suitable for the role(when taking everything else into account). They may as well just bar these individuals from any role that requires such a check and stop wasting everyones time.
Could you imagine if the employer took them on, something happened and then the applicants past came to light? The original accusation could have been completely false and it wouldn't make any difference, the employer would get thrown to the wolves. Nobody would want to take that risk.
Could you imagine if the employer took them on, something happened and then the applicants past came to light? The original accusation could have been completely false and it wouldn't make any difference, the employer would get thrown to the wolves. Nobody would want to take that risk.
Exactly this - it would be far too much of a liability for a company to take someone on once they have this information that they were not guilty. So you are putting someone's future career in the hands of a Policeman/woman - not the most trustworthy people when it comes to things like 'payback' for cases they lost. It's all very well saying it's a subset of jobs, but when that subset of jobs is someones chosen career it is ruining their life for something which they were found not guilty of.
You're very good at not answering questions and good at changing the subject when backed into a contradictory corner aren't you.
These kind of 'tactics' are used by people a lot, especially spurned lovers. Do you see the problem now?
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,196
Sorry, has Tom Hanks been charged in a court of law for child abuse and later been found not guilty?
I suppose in reality, there's no such thing as an innocent verdict, only 'not guilty' if there was, why would we feel the need to have to protect students from someone who had been found innocent?
My main problem with the law, is a 'one-size-fits-all' approach doesn't work too well in certain circumstances, for example - If this teacher had never been in trouble with the law before, been caught up in something only to be found not guilty - then to me, it seams reasonable and proportionate to remove his details from the PNC and DBS databases. Mostly because in that situation - he has no proven history of wrongdoing, or previous problems with the police, so the risk of problems occurring could be deemed to be low, perhaps it stays on record for 3 or 5 years then disappeared completely - for piece of mind?
Where someone is found not guilty of a crime, whom happens to have a string of crimes against their name - then it would make sense to keep a record of that specific 'not guilty' incident on the DBS system, because despite being found 'not guilty' the risk would clearly be higher, which advances the argument for keeping people safe.
My main problem with the system is how in the wake of the Soham murders (Ian Huntley) the police ****** up monumentally, by not performing proper CRB checks on him (despite him having a string of violent criminal convictions) the result was, he got the job as a caretaker and murdered those girls. Many changes to the criminal records and PNC retention guidelines changed after that, to the point where absolutely nothing is ever deleted from the PNC, on anybody - until you're aged 100. If you stole a packet of chewing gum when you were 18, or just cautioned for shouting in a bar at night when you were 18 - then live an 100% crime free life, those things will stay on the PNC until you're 100, and haunt you at places like job interviews, DBS checks and immigration checks.
The reason I have such a burning hatred of governmental policy, is that if you look at the Ian Huntley case - all the correct checks and procedures existed, the police just didn't follow their own rules - rather than fix that, they used it as a way to get a disproportionate amount of data withheld on people indefinitely, which I believe - hurts society more than it helps.
Sorry /rant.
The police can keep records of crimes, its called a police record. they don't need to disclose it. It can be used for any future criminal cases ever brought against the person.
But in the example you give there still wouldn't be a need to disclose a police record as all the other crimes would have appeared on the CRB/DBS check, so if you was hiring that person you'd see his string of crimes.
There was no CRB/DBS check when Huntley applied for the caretaker job in 2001. CRB came in to force in March 2002. He only had one conviction prior to the murders which was riding an uninsured/unlicensed bike, and a burglary charge that remained on his file.
Previous to CRB checks was List 99.
I think you're being honest in your view about the justice system, and I suspect that is why some people on the thread are thinking better to be safe than sorry. But, if you don't trust the government for the way they do their procedures, why do you trust the police not to charge someone when there is no evidence? People have been accused, charged and even jailed purely on the accusation of rape that eventually came out that it never happened. That is more the fault of the police for not doing the detective work, and also missing the real cases of rape that never even get charged.
I think we have to be careful when saying that if you are ever charged with anything then that stain on your character will remain publicly for life. That is giving nobody a chance to redeem themselves because they are being eternally punished. Once the principle of innocent until proven guilty goes in this particular case then it also goes for every case. There would be little point going to court as your life would be ruined the moment you are charged, whether you did it or not. All you are relying on is the police charging someone, as though the police never get it wrong.