Guilty - even when innocent!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Didn’t stop John major having his affair!!

no it didn't but you can bet a months wages that the security services knew about it and were actively managing the risk.

you just seem to want to push an agenda on this thread that just isn't in the real world.
I would hazard a guess you don't work in an arena of security clearances and vetting etc?
 
no it didn't but you can bet a months wages that the security services knew about it and were actively managing the risk.

you just seem to want to push an agenda on this thread that just isn't in the real world.
I would hazard a guess you don't work in an arena of security clearances and vetting etc?

Maybe there is a case of working for places such as MI5 and having a whiter than white character with nothing in the closet, but IIRC this guy was a teacher - yes he is responsible for children but really don't see how this should count against him, does it diminish his ability to teach or be responsible for children
 
Isn't that illegal? Can you really be restricted for being gay?
You have missed the point, you would not be restricted for being gay but if you were gay and in the closet, living a double life etc you would be restricted due to having a circumstance that could be used to coerce you into something you shouldn't, blackmail is another way to look at it.
 
Last edited:
You have missed the point, you would not be restricted for being gay but if you were gay and in the closet, living a double life etc you would be restricted due to having a circumstance that could be used to coerce you into something you shouldn't, blackmail is another way to look at it.

yep that's I said its all about exposing yourself to risk of being compromised.
 
I cannot believe our legal system supports this! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45004290

So basically, if you get accused of a crime but found not guilty, it could still count against you in your life and work? Crazy!!! If you are found innocent then why should you possibly not be able to pursue the career you want!
First, no one is ever found innocent. It might seem like pointless quibbling but it is a very important distinction. The court did not find him innocent, it failed to find him guilty.

Second, the inclusion of his rape case in the document does not stop him persuing his career. A school can still employ him as a teacher if they want to.
 
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.
Ian Huntley, the Soham double murderer, was such a person. In his case, the police wrongly believed that they should not reveal their suspicions.
And it isn't just employment, for example shotgun and firearms certificates are also refused, based on unproven suspicions.
My own view is that although there may sometimes be unfair consequences, it's better to play safe where public protection is involved.
 
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.

But you miss the point, in this case its all about the fact a non guilty verdict is on his record and will keep coming up, affecting his ability to secure employment.

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.

Nothing at all to do with the original issue where the guys not guilty verdict actually remains on his record and affects his ability to secure employement.

You have missed the point, you would not be restricted for being gay but if you were gay and in the closet, living a double life etc you would be restricted due to having a circumstance that could be used to coerce you into something you shouldn't, blackmail is another way to look at it.

No you have missed the point and veered off at a tangent, this would not come up on a CRB check and is again nothing at all to do with the original issue where the guys not guilty verdict actually remains on his record and affects his ability to secure employement.

First, no one is ever found innocent. It might seem like pointless quibbling but it is a very important distinction. The court did not find him innocent, it failed to find him guilty.

Second, the inclusion of his rape case in the document does not stop him persuing his career. A school can still employ him as a teacher if they want to.

Sure, come off it. that b*ll*x and you know it, its on this guys record, hes a pariah.

Ian Huntley, the Soham double murderer, was such a person. In his case, the police wrongly believed that they should not reveal their suspicions.
And it isn't just employment, for example shotgun and firearms certificates are also refused, based on unproven suspicions.
My own view is that although there may sometimes be unfair consequences, it's better to play safe where public protection is involved.

Oh, so again the no smoke without fire legal defence ??
 
First, no one is ever found innocent. It might seem like pointless quibbling but it is a very important distinction. The court did not find him innocent, it failed to find him guilty.
Actually they found him not guilty, theres a subtle but important difference to, not finding him guilty.
 
Actually they found him not guilty, theres a subtle but important difference to, not finding him guilty.
Exactly. The "court" did nothing.
A jury of his peers acquitted him.
In English and Welsh law, that is not the same as being innocent.
It's ugly, but it's true.
 
While a not guilty verdict means there was not enough evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, there is, however, the presumption of innocence.

Until proven guilty the accused is presumed to be innocent.

I recall from the two occasions I have served on a jury in criminal cases both judges were very clear in their opening remarks to the jury - that as the trial started the defendants were innocent of all charges and it was the prosecution to prove they were guilty of the the offences with which they were charged. If the prosecution cannot "prove the case beyond reasonable doubt", then the accused is still innocent.

As the Enhanced Certificate includes - "any information held by local police that’s considered relevant to the role" I can see why a note of the accusation of rape, even though the person was not guilty, was included. As noted in other posts even though the person in this case is innocent of the offence, his future employment is likely to be seriously affected.

Dave
 
.

As the Enhanced Certificate includes - "any information held by local police that’s considered relevant to the role" I can see why a note of the accusation of rape, even though the person was not guilty, was included. As noted in other posts even though the person in this case is innocent of the offence, his future employment is likely to be seriously affected.

Dave

And bearing in mind its something that anyone of us blokes could be accused of, I still think it is wrong - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thi...ocent-life-after-a-false-rape-accusation.html - this is not fair or just. There is already punishment enough from the trauma and embarrassment of people knowing despite being not guilty, heaven forbid but if that happened to anyone here do you think you could continue to live where you do, pick your kids up from school etc... while people will think 'no smoke'?
 
I think I'm with @ecoleman here - string the guy up, just in case. Or nuke his house from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Seriously though, I understand the need for some jobs requiring thorough vetting of candidates. I was positive vetted myself once - my job between school and university was working in an electronics lab where we handled prototype military telecoms encryption chips. I get that. But I think there's a real distinction between GCHQ / national security type jobs and things like teachers, and that distinction is being blurred.

I'm really bothered by ad hoc "character assessment" type background checks without clear pre-defined acceptance criteria, because there's a very thin line between "suitable character" and "like one of us", and that's the back door to discrimination.

I believe that if an employer wishes to prevent anyone who has been accused of rape (say) from holding a certain job, that should be stated clearly. Then people who have been accused of rape (or whatever) know where they stand. They can avoid wasting their time applying, or they (or other interested parties) can challenge the legality of the requirement. But at least the process is then transparent and open to scrutiny. If we as a society decide that we don't want our children to be taught by falsely accused rapists, then we can make that decision openly and transparently. And if we want people's lives to be ruined on a nod and wink from a policeman, we can make that decision openly and transparently too. But the current system is unsatisfactory and open to abuse.

(And yes, I'd allow Parliament to exempt some GCHQ-type jobs from this process. But again the exemption would be open and transparent, and amenable to legal challenge. Smoke and mirrors can be used to cover up discrimination, and their use should be absolutely minimised.)
 
I believe that if an employer wishes to prevent anyone who has been accused of rape (say) from holding a certain job, that should be stated clearly. Then people who have been accused of rape (or whatever) know where they stand. They can avoid wasting their time applying, or they (or other interested parties) can challenge the legality of the requirement.
It is stated clearly. Teachers, care workers, nurses etc all need DBS checks and that is known well before the point of application.
 
I believe that if an employer wishes to prevent anyone who has been accused of rape (say) from holding a certain job, that should be stated clearly. Then people who have been accused of rape (or whatever) know where they stand. They can avoid wasting their time applying, or they (or other interested parties) can challenge the legality of the requirement.
It is stated clearly. Teachers, care workers, nurses etc all need DBS checks and that is known well before the point of application.
No, sorry, I disagree. The DBS check is not a pass/fail criterion, as others have noted here. It provides information which employers can use in their processes, but (so far as I am aware) employers are not required to disclose how they use that information. That's the problem.
 
You have missed the point, you would not be restricted for being gay but if you were gay and in the closet, living a double life etc you would be restricted due to having a circumstance that could be used to coerce you into something you shouldn't, blackmail is another way to look at it.


Alan Turing the brilliant mathematician, with his work probably shortened the second World war and saved around 14 million lives, and in my opinion should have been rewarded with a Nobel prize - far more worthy than many recent recipients.
After a burglary at his home, Turing was then arrested because the police delved into another matter and he was subsequently convicted of gross indecency (he had a male lover). He then faced chemical castration, could no longer work in cryptogrphy for the government (lost his security clearance). He then died from cyanide poisoning in 1954.
What a waste of a brilliant life, cast aside because the system was bigoted in the extreme, and today he would not have been arrested.
 
Alan Turing the brilliant mathematician, with his work probably shortened the second World war and saved around 14 million lives, and in my opinion should have been rewarded with a Nobel prize - far more worthy than many recent recipients.
After a burglary at his home, Turing was then arrested because the police delved into another matter and he was subsequently convicted of gross indecency (he had a male lover). He then faced chemical castration, could no longer work in cryptogrphy for the government (lost his security clearance). He then died from cyanide poisoning in 1954.
What a waste of a brilliant life, cast aside because the system was bigoted in the extreme, and today he would not have been arrested.
Sorry, what's your point?
The aim with any type of clearance is to manage risk, it really is that simple.

In the good old days, children were sent down mines, worked in cotton Mills etc. Neither of those would pass a risk assessment now.
 
No you have missed the point and veered off at a tangent, this would not come up on a CRB check and is again nothing at all to do with the original issue where the guys not guilty verdict actually remains on his record and affects his ability to secure employement.

I was referring to the general discussion around various types of clearance.

It is not the decision of the body performing the checks to decide if the particular job is to be offered by the way. In a CRB/DBS check the body provides information to the employer (or whoever is requesting the check, Scouts etc) and it is then for the employer to decide how to use that information in their judgement of the persons suitability for the role.
 
No, sorry, I disagree. The DBS check is not a pass/fail criterion, as others have noted here. It provides information which employers can use in their processes, but (so far as I am aware) employers are not required to disclose how they use that information. That's the problem.
They will use the information in the same way they use professional experience, qualifications, golf club membership, etc to grade all the applicants so that they can offer the job to the best one. The exact weight that any one part carries will depend on the other applicants.
 
They will use the information in the same way they use professional experience, qualifications, golf club membership, etc to grade all the applicants so that they can offer the job to the best one. The exact weight that any one part carries will depend on the other applicants.

So, what if the better candidate was found non guilty and the lesser candidate had never been accused. Surely that person found not guilty should be the best - he was not guilty (I do accept some vey sensitive positions may need people to be squeaky clean but not for most)!
 
The presence or otherwise of a trial would be a part of deciding who was better and who was lesser. The schools are not forbidden from employing anyone who has been falsely accused or rape (or any other crime).
 
The presence or otherwise of a trial would be a part of deciding who was better and who was lesser. The schools are not forbidden from employing anyone who has been falsely accused or rape (or any other crime).

Or from from employing someone tried and acquitted.
 
The system isn't perfect - no system ever is, and both injustices and financial losses can and do occur. For example, when one of my daughters moved to a new location and took up a new post as a midwife she couldn't work unsupervised for the NINE MONTHS that it took the police to complete their checks, and I also know someone who had to wait 5 months, he had applied for a private hire license and couldn't work at all until the checks had been completed.
And the other side of the coin can be that the information may be ignored due to incompetence or stupidity. I know of a man who had spent many years in prison (armed robbery and similar) who got a job running a children's drop in centre, employed by a charity. They received the required DBS check, so the box was ticked, but nobody bothered to read it until he had come to notice by stealing their money.
But, a flawed system is better than nothing, and overall I think it much better to protect the vulnerable members of the general public, even if a small number of individuals are unfairly discriminated against.
 
So people are still blindly accepting that a not guilty verdict should be on your record forever. :confused::confused:

Yes because it's something that happened, you can't make it not have happened. It's not just a record of what someone has done wrong. The issue here is how that information is interpreted by a potential employer.
 
I think it much better to protect the vulnerable members of the general public, even if a small number of individuals are unfairly discriminated against.

I get the sentiment but it's the fact that so many are willing to just accept some people will be unjustly treated that I simply don't understand.
 
I get the sentiment but it's the fact that so many are willing to just accept some people will be unjustly treated that I simply don't understand.
It's a balance, some people may be unjustly treated with regards to getting a particular job, on the other hand some vulnerable children/adults may be abused in some way if the trial is not disclosed.

The cps are not in the habit of charging people without a good possibility of a conviction. So while anyone can accuse anyone of anything, there needs to be some evidence for it to get to court.
Yes, innocent people do end up in court, not many though. There are more guilty people found not guilty than there are innocent people who end up in court. That is not to say the person in the op is guilty, I don't know, not looked into his particular case, just the principle is what you need to take into account.

Ask yourself if it was your decision on who to employ when the job entails being in charge of children, would you like to have all the information or take the risk.
 
I get the sentiment but it's the fact that so many are willing to just accept some people will be unjustly treated that I simply don't understand.

I'd wager none of those accepting this have ever been falsely accused of anything.
 
I'd wager none of those accepting this have ever been falsely accused of anything.
You don't think people can understand a general idea beyond their own personal lives? I certainly can.
 
You don't think people can understand a general idea beyond their own personal lives? I certainly can.

Of course. But a concept that hasn’t impacted upon that individual is easier to go along with. I’d be more interested to hear how many people who have been falsely accused or acquitted and had their prospects potentially ruined agree with the concept.
 
So people are still blindly accepting that a not guilty verdict should be on your record forever. :confused::confused:
Yes, absolutely, but not in the way you think.

Court proceedings in this country are (generally) a matter of public record and I don't think you'll find any reasonable individual arguing otherwise. So if you've been accused of an offence, gone to court, and found not guilty, that's a matter of public record. You can't get away from that. It's not on your record, it's on the public record.

The real issue, though, is how that information should be used.
 
So it's ok to infringe peoples rights and a little unjustification is ok "just in case"? Because that's what you are saying.

If thats the case, seeing as men probably make up 99% of abusers, why not ban men from working with vulnerable people... wipe out most abuse just like that!

Maybe if a stat came out saying that people of a certain colour are 10 times more likely to offend, or that men under 5ft 6 are 5 times more likely to offend, that would be justifiable to use that as a reason not to employ?
 
So it's ok to infringe peoples rights and a little unjustification is ok "just in case"? Because that's what you are saying.

Nope, that's not what I am saying (assuming you were responding to my post), no one's rights have been infringed unless of course the judge put a ban on releasing any information from the trial, that information will be available to the general public.
What I am saying is that the checks and clearances (general clearances including but not exclusively classes as Security/Higher Vetting) are gathering/checking information for an assessment of risk to judge whether a person is suitable for a role. For instance lets say Bob applies for a job, the initial questionnaire includes a question regarding any criminal convictions/proceedings to be declared which Bob answers No, the background check shows this to be a lie, is that person the best person for the job where a high level of trust is required?

I must add, I do not know the specifics of the OP case, as I have not looked into it.

I'd wager none of those accepting this have ever been falsely accused of anything.
I'd guess those that are outraged have never worked in a field that requires any type of clearance, the rules in such work places are vastly different to other more normal (for want of a better word) roles.
 
But it is on your record if the police have decided to put it on there! They've actively ensured its been placed to come up on a search.

It's on THE record because it's what happened. No-one (police or otherwise) has "decided" to put it on there.
 
It's on THE record because it's what happened. No-one (police or otherwise) has "decided" to put it on there.
Actually its on the Criminal Record Check, if the person does not have a criminal record, ie has not been convicted of a crime, then it really shouldn't be there, imo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top