Guilty - even when innocent!!!

[ecoleman]

One of the things that has been criticised in past cases is that some serious offenders had had multiple reports to the police, arrests, etc. but had never actually been convicted and so could carry on working with children, moving from job-to-job without the information being shared. Surely we can expect that prospective employers are intelligent enough to know that a one-off false accusation that has been found not guilty can safely be ignored. If however someone has had 10 such cases dismissed then there may be cause for concern. Having not guilty on a DBS check is exactly that and anyone with half a brain can see what it means.

You would think so but I’m afraid that just doesn’t happen.
Just look at the amount of businesses that enforce ridiculous rules due to paranoid over zealous health and safety officers.
All the companies the hide behind data protection rules when it comes to talking to you (even if it doesn’t involve talking about anything personal).

 

[Dryce]

Not to mention making a complete mockery of being innocent until proven guilty. Surely this is one area where the Human Rights Act should show some value? If I was that person surely my Human rights are being affected?

I think the actual case involves a technicality. The ECRC returns information about what happened. The fact that the individual was on trial and was acquitted is something that was made public. Therefore the ECRC isn't disclosing something that was not otherwise witheld. Just doing an internet search for somebody in this situation may well throw up the information about the trial with no need for ECRC.

The problem is interpretation. It's not that the information is provided - but how it is used. As has been seen in this thread - the phrase 'his criminal record' has been used.

However - eliminating the information from the ECRC doesn't necessarily help - for example if you are a teacher then if a parent doesn an internet search then they may find the same information anyway.

 

[cymruchris]

And to add to my previous post - If person A is charged, found not guilty, the action is recorded for a criminal record check - and person B has committed a crime, but never caught - person B could get the job over a very innocent person A.

It should be 'Guilty' - it's recorded - 'Not guilty' - it's not.

It's no use trying to imply someone is guilty by including it - as that makes the police a judge in their own right. Whether the person has a 'history' of attempts, or got away with it down to some loophole or poor process, that shouldn't be up for debate. If the court finds you Not Guilty - it shouldn't be included, as otherwise, as can be seen here, all kinds of guesses and misinterpretations arise.

 

[cambsno]

I also fear that anyone with half brain would make a very clear decision between two almost identical candidates, except one charged with serious crime but acquitted. Can you 100% say it doesn't go through their mind that there is a chance, maybe a slim one the charges were dropped on a technicality. Psychologically you would go for the candidate with a "clean sheet". Every single time. So thats a big deal

Exactly this! Human nature will make most people think of no smoke without fire - In the blame culture of today, I can see most hiring managers rejecting that candidate in case of a what if... if someone with nothing at all commits a serous crime that's one thing, but if someone was aquitted and then committed a crime people will ask why that person was employed! Safety first, its easier to reject that person than the 'clean' person. Of course, just because a court found you not guilty, many people may still think that you are and you may well be guilty (OJ Simpson anyone...) but that's not the point.

If you are found not guilty, then why should you suffer and be punished? You will have already gone through the ordeal of investigation, trial and family & friends knowing. Is that not bad enough?

 

[cambsno]

One of the things that has been criticised in past cases is that some serious offenders had had multiple reports to the police, arrests, etc. but had never actually been convicted and so could carry on working with children, moving from job-to-job without the information being shared. Surely we can expect that prospective employers are intelligent enough to know that a one-off false accusation that has been found not guilty can safely be ignored. If however someone has had 10 such cases dismissed then there may be cause for concern. Having not guilty on a DBS check is exactly that and anyone with half a brain can see what it means.

There is that, there have been people who have been investigated 10 times, but surely if the cases were strong enough that person would have been found guilty at some point. Of course, if you are accused multiple times then that is a potential red flag, but if you have been found not guilty then surely it is unfair to punish - however, the case we are talking about here is one time.

 

[Mr Bump]

In the area I work in information is used to determine a persons suitability for a position or a certain clearance level.
I think in the context the information was shared it is acceptable, I make no bones for it but in the arena I work in he would have had to declare it anyway on his application forms never mind a criminal records check.

 

[john.margetts]

But if you are innocent how is that fair, or correct? Surely if that was me, I am no more a risk to anyone than you or anyone else on here with a clean record.

If someone is accused once with no outcome, it means nothing. If someone is repeatedly accused, even if there is no conviction, there is a problem with that person and it is appropriate to know that if you are looking for someone to work with vulnerable people.

Worth remembering the difference between not quilty and innocent.

 

[cambsno]

If someone is accused once with no outcome, it means nothing. If someone is repeatedly accused, even if there is no conviction, there is a problem with that person and it is appropriate to know that if you are looking for someone to work with vulnerable people.

Worth remembering the difference between not quilty and innocent.

I agree, but whats the cut-off?

 

[john.margetts]

I agree, but whats the cut-off?

Bestbeloved, who has always needed an enhanced check for her work, says the cut-off is beyond just an accusation, it needs to be a serious investigation where there is sufficient evidence to warrant the investigation but not enough for a trial.

 

[Nod]

So the bloke in the story that this thread is about (who ended up in court) would fail the enhanced check that Mrs M. went through?

 

[Mozthecat]

More complicated than that even, in the voluntary organisations I have been involved in that required enhanced checks they would have been suspended at the first sign of trouble, e.g arrested, until the end of a court case. At this point the organisations would then review the case and decide whether to ask the individual to leave regardless of legal outcome, or come back. This can however be 2 years or more down the line (legal system dependant) and many certificates and competencies may have expired and procedures changed requiring re-training...

Very much a case of guilty unless the organisationbelieves otherwise.

 

[jonneymendoza]

I never said it was fair but some work situations need to transcend conventional black and white boundaries to gain a deeper understanding of the character of a person.

So what's the point of having court of law then? May as well scrap it

 

[john.margetts]

So what's the point of having court of law then? May as well scrap it

Because not every event involves working with vulnerable people. You do not scrap a general system because you occasionally need a specific exception.

 

[Mr Bump]

Bestbeloved, who has always needed an enhanced check for her work, says the cut-off is beyond just an accusation, it needs to be a serious investigation where there is sufficient evidence to warrant the investigation but not enough for a trial.

yes pretty much the same in my arena, person would have their clearance revoked on day 1 once the situation has been resolved that would need to reapply.
I suspect in my organisation that review would be in close consultaion with the police involved in such a serious case to ascertain all the facts.
If they felt there was something deeper than a simple accusation then i am lead to believe an indefinate hold would be placed on a decision which is the polite way of saying no thanks.

 

[andya700]

More complicated than that even, in the voluntary organisations I have been involved in that required enhanced checks they would have been suspended at the first sign of trouble, e.g arrested, until the end of a court case. At this point the organisations would then review the case and decide whether to ask the individual to leave regardless of legal outcome, or come back. This can however be 2 years or more down the line (legal system dependant) and many certificates and competencies may have expired and procedures changed requiring re-training...

Very much a case of guilty unless the organisationbelieves otherwise.

So, the organisation believes that it can decide on a person's guilt above and beyond the law of the land, thus potentially destroying innocent people's lives.
If you believe that is right and proper, then you have a different moral compass to my own.

 

[Donnie]

In the area I work in information is used to determine a persons suitability for a position or a certain clearance level.
I think in the context the information was shared it is acceptable, I make no bones for it but in the arena I work in he would have had to declare it anyway on his application forms never mind a criminal records check.

yes pretty much the same in my arena, person would have their clearance revoked on day 1 once the situation has been resolved that would need to reapply.
I suspect in my organisation that review would be in close consultaion with the police involved in such a serious case to ascertain all the facts.
If they felt there was something deeper than a simple accusation then i am lead to believe an indefinate hold would be placed on a decision which is the polite way of saying no thanks.

So, the organisation believes that it can decide on a person's guilt above and beyond the law of the land, thus potentially destroying innocent people's lives.
If you believe that is right and proper, then you have a different moral compass to my own.

Basically yes that what he's saying, which I'm pretty sure is illegal, pretentious and immoral. Not unusual for the arena he works in though. Why don't you let everyone else know what that is eh?

 

[john.margetts]

So, the organisation believes that it can decide on a person's guilt above and beyond the law of the land, thus potentially destroying innocent people's lives.
If you believe that is right and proper, then you have a different moral compass to my own.

Actually, the organisation decides not to risk the safety of the vulnerable people in its charge. I may well have a different moral compass to you, but I do not think it is moral to be cavalier with the safety of people who are completely incapable of looking out for their selves.

 

[Donnie]

Actually, the organisation decides not to risk the safety of the vulnerable people in its charge. I may well have a different moral compass to you, but I do not think it is moral to be cavalier with the safety of people who are completely incapable of looking out for their selves.

So, you assume no smoke without fire's good enough?

 

[john.margetts]

It is not an black and white situation and you cannot judge the issues on a black and white basis. The people making these decisions are comparing shades of grey.

 

[Donnie]

What ? Judges?

 

[arclight]

If ever there was a situation guaranteed to leave perpetual unresolved doubt it is that of a person being charged then tried for a crime. A not guilty verdict will always leave doubt in the minds of a lot of people e.g. "If he didn't do it then how come we was put on trial" scenario. Definitely unfair, but that is how the jaffa cake crumbles.

 

[ecoleman]

I think the mods should merge this thread with the capital punishment one so we can get this chap to the gallows.
It seems he’s guilty regardless.

 

[PaulF]

I think a lot of people are commenting have no comprehension of working in an area we're certain clearances are required.
I need to have particular clearance to do my job, I cannot reveal what that is or where I work.
Reasons for this, in general, could be in regards to protection of children, vulnerable adults, national security, law enforcement etc.
In my area, a criminal conviction would equal loss of clearance, an accusation/trial would also most likely equal loss of clearance, if I had a hobby that could be seen as embarrassing and a potential for blackmailing and it was not declared could equal loss of clearance. If I was gay for instance but in the closet that could equal loss of site access as it could be seen as having potential for someone to use to influence me.
Like has been mentioned a few times, it's not a black and white situation.

 

[ecoleman]

Like has been mentioned a few times, it's not a black and white situation.

No, it’s guilty even if proven innocent, and that’s a problem.

 

[PaulF]

No, it’s guilty even if proven innocent, and that’s a problem.

Not quite, it's a case of the person is not suitable for the role due to new information being available.

If it's a completely false accusation then that is one situation, if it's not guilty due to insufficient evidence but the circumstances (known to the police) point to this person not being suitable for the applied for role then that is different situation.
Remember, the clearances are not decided by a judge or court if law, they are an overview of the person.
For instance, I know one person who's clearance took months and months to sort as they were adobted and had recently made contact with their natural mother, whole new set of backgrounds to check.

 

[jonneymendoza]

Because not every event involves working with vulnerable people. You do not scrap a general system because you occasionally need a specific exception.

yes u do according to some here who think its ok to have that on your record that you was on trial. Its a mockery

 

[jakeblu]

One of the things that has been criticised in past cases is that some serious offenders had had multiple reports to the police, arrests, etc. but had never actually been convicted and so could carry on working with children, moving from job-to-job without the information being shared. Surely we can expect that prospective employers are intelligent enough to know that a one-off false accusation that has been found not guilty can safely be ignored. If however someone has had 10 such cases dismissed then there may be cause for concern. Having not guilty on a DBS check is exactly that and anyone with half a brain can see what it means.

Yes, Huntley being a prime example. I understand the need for protection for those who are vulnerable but when this was first introduced some jobs ask for enhanced records check on the flimsiest pretence, ie museum porter, because you may actually come into contact with children during your working day. Thats ridiculous and pretty much negates the rehabilitation of offenders act.

 

[Mr Bump]

I think a lot of people are commenting have no comprehension of working in an area we're certain clearances are required.
I need to have particular clearance to do my job, I cannot reveal what that is or where I work.
Reasons for this, in general, could be in regards to protection of children, vulnerable adults, national security, law enforcement etc.
In my area, a criminal conviction would equal loss of clearance, an accusation/trial would also most likely equal loss of clearance, if I had a hobby that could be seen as embarrassing and a potential for blackmailing and it was not declared could equal loss of clearance. If I was gay for instance but in the closet that could equal loss of site access as it could be seen as having potential for someone to use to influence me.
Like has been mentioned a few times, it's not a black and white situation.

Spot on, exactly the same with my role.

 

[jakeblu]

ly.
I suspect in my organisation that review would be in close consultaion with the police involved in such a serious case to ascertain all the facts.
If they felt there was something deeper than a simple accusation then i am lead to believe an indefinate hold would be placed on a decision which is the polite way of saying no thanks.

Lets hope the police aren't as prejudice against you as they were for Colin Stagg. They actively canvased against him with the press and the family of the murdered woman for years, telling them he was found not guilty on a technicality and that he was the murderer. Of course that proved to be incorrect, but Stagg had pretty much become a pariah, frequently attacked by the media, making his life a complete misery. Even to this day, the press still hound him. Now, Stagg is no angel, but he didn't deserve the way he was disgracefully treated by the police, even after a not guilty verdict.

 

[Steve Smith]

So the bloke in the story that this thread is about (who ended up in court) would fail the enhanced check that Mrs M. went through?

Does the check have a pass/fail indication? I thought it was just a disclosure and it was up to the employer to decide.


Steve.

 

[john.margetts]

Does the check have a pass/fail indication? I thought it was just a disclosure and it was up to the employer to decide.


Steve.

No, it's not pass or fail. It's information.

 

[Mr Bump]

No, it's not pass or fail. It's information.

that's right and in my arena of work there is a balance of doubt that has to be satisfied to enable a level of trust to be signed off, yes or no might not be enough in all circumstances.
I know people who have criminal records still classed as not spent that hold clearance because they have gone through the system and the crime or incident is clearly established etc.
Some accusations will not get through even entry level vetting for instance cruelty to animals as that is seen as extreme sociopathic traits and very untrustworthy. Yet theft and violence convictions can be overcome. Even knew a guy who had served time for murder as a young person with clearance.

 

[Phil V]

So, the organisation believes that it can decide on a person's guilt above and beyond the law of the land, thus potentially destroying innocent people's lives.

No that’s an over dramatisation.
Risks are assessed and the outcome may be that someone doesn’t land a particular role.
They’re not being punished, they’re just not getting hired.
Another candidate may have been passed over for wearing the wrong tie, or being unable to ‘provide an example of where they’ve turned round a failing project’ or a myriad other reasons.

Harsh? Maybe, but in the grand scheme of things, they’ll all move on, and maybe even get a better opportunity later.

 

[arclight]

I think the mods should merge this thread with the capital punishment one so we can get this chap to the gallows.
It seems he’s guilty regardless.

It is very reminiscent of cliched scenes that were common in old Western films e.g. A crowd has assembled to watch a lynching and just prior to the victim being strung up comes two loud voices from the mob:-
1st voice "Stop - he deserves a fair trial"
2nd voice "Yeah - we'll give him a fair trial then hang him".

 

[Mr Bump]

Lets hope the police aren't as prejudice against you as they were for Colin Stagg. They actively canvased against him with the press and the family of the murdered woman for years, telling them he was found not guilty on a technicality and that he was the murderer. Of course that proved to be incorrect, but Stagg had pretty much become a pariah, frequently attacked by the media, making his life a complete misery. Even to this day, the press still hound him. Now, Stagg is no angel, but he didn't deserve the way he was disgracefully treated by the police, even after a not guilty verdict.

And I think your last bit would be the clincher in my organisation (Stagg Is no angel) that would need to be looked at to see if all his history lead the organisation to be untrustworthy.

imagine a hyperthetical situation as below

bob is accused of rape by Bettie
bob says no sexual contact of any kind took place.
DNA evidence of Bob was found on Betties dress
Jury decides though that there is not enough evidence to convict Bob

But Bob said nothing took place yet there was DNA evidence on Betties dress?
He is not convicted but does his denial in the face of evidence make him trustworthy?

 

[cambsno]

I think a lot of people are commenting have no comprehension of working in an area we're certain clearances are required.
I need to have particular clearance to do my job, I cannot reveal what that is or where I work.
Reasons for this, in general, could be in regards to protection of children, vulnerable adults, national security, law enforcement etc.
In my area, a criminal conviction would equal loss of clearance, an accusation/trial would also most likely equal loss of clearance, if I had a hobby that could be seen as embarrassing and a potential for blackmailing and it was not declared could equal loss of clearance. If I was gay for instance but in the closet that could equal loss of site access as it could be seen as having potential for someone to use to influence me.
Like has been mentioned a few times, it's not a black and white situation.

Isn't that illegal? Can you really be restricted for being gay?

 

[cambsno]

And I think your last bit would be the clincher in my organisation (Stagg Is no angel) that would need to be looked at to see if all his history lead the organisation to be untrustworthy.

imagine a hyperthetical situation as below

bob is accused of rape by Bettie
bob says no sexual contact of any kind took place.
DNA evidence of Bob was found on Betties dress
Jury decides though that there is not enough evidence to convict Bob

But Bob said nothing took place yet there was DNA evidence on Betties dress?
He is not convicted but does his denial in the face of evidence make him trustworthy?

What about this one:

bob is accused of rape by Bettie
bob says she consented to sexual contact, she said she did but changed her mind after a few drinks
DNA evidence of Bob was found on Betties dress
No signs of violence or assault
Jury decides though that there is not enough evidence to convict Bob

He is not convicted but does this mean he is not-trustworthy? Surely that could be any of us?

 

[Mr Bump]

Isn't that illegal? Can you really be restricted for being gay?

no but certain level of clearances are based on can you be coerced or blackmailed.
if for instance you are say a married man but having a gay relationship on the QT someone from a foreign intelligence service could use that to
leverage that person into for instance stealing sensitive data.

Therefore the simple existence of that risk would be seriously frowned upon and clearance would very possible be removed if the person did not declare it to his/her security controller.

 

[Mr Bump]

What about this one:

bob is accused of rape by Bettie
bob says she consented to sexual contact, she said she did but changed her mind after a few drinks
DNA evidence of Bob was found on Betties dress
No signs of violence or assault
Jury decides though that there is not enough evidence to convict Bob

He is not convicted but does this mean he is not-trustworthy? Surely that could be any of us?

yeah it can morph into all sorts can't it?

 

[cambsno]

no but certain level of clearances are based on can you be coerced or blackmailed.
if for instance you are say a married man but having a gay relationship on the QT someone from a foreign intelligence service could use that to
leverage that person into for instance stealing sensitive data.

Therefore the simple existence of that risk would be seriously frowned upon and clearance would very possible be removed if the person did not declare it to his/her security controller.

Didn’t stop John major having his affair!!