Guilty - even when innocent!!!

[Fuji Dave]

I think the police will always side with the woman, even if nothing happend at all. I remember many years ago four men slept with a woman, but because the last lad did not turn her on, she screamed Rape. He was arrested and killed himself while inside ( Could not handle it ), then and only then this stupid woman told the truth so I think Yes the police should check it all out then and only then arrest the person. The stupid woman got 6 months in the end after totally ruining a families life.

 

[PaulF]

Please remember that this whole issue is regarding whether a matter of public record is included on a check.
The information is available to anyone who cared to look given the person's details.
Thats why he lost every appeal he made.
With that in mind, perhaps the only solution would be to keep all cases secret until a conviction which would open a bigger can of worms.

 

[Donnie]

From what little we know, the accused in this case was working as a taxi driver. A female passenger complained that he had raped her. He said that not only did he not rape her, he had had no physical contact whatever with her.
So, assuming that he spoke the truth, there would be no forensic evidence to the contrary.
And yet, the police believed the woman. Why?
Guessing again, it's reasonable to assume that they had some evidence (we know that there must have been enough, in the opinion of the CPS, otherwise the man would not have been charged). It's also possible that this was not the first complaint against this man, again we don't know, but the police must have had some reason to believe that he was, or may be guilty, and as people typically behave in the future as they have behaved in the past, it's fairly likely that the police had some reason to believe that he was a likely candidate for rape.
The CPS then examined all of the evidence that the police had, they came to the same conclusion as the police and, more crucially, believed (wrongly as it happened) that he would be convicted.
None of these beliefs make the person guilty, but their existence does demonstrate that there was at least some evidence of his guilt, because without this evidence he would not have been charged.

Therefore, I don't believe that it is unfair or disproportionate to refer to his aquittal on his DBS record. If he is entirely innocent, then he may not be able to work unsupervised with children, which would be unfair to him, if he is guilty then that reference may stop a child from being raped. Is it really more important to make sure that he can do exactly the job that he would like to do, or is it more important to protect children from rapists?

More assumptions and guessing topped off with "won't someone please think of the children!"

I don't get why you seem to be putting your views across by twisting mine. Do you honestly believe that I think this is about

a) this one case the op referred to

and

b) that people think that its about accused people being able to get "exactly the job" they want?

 

[Donnie]

What I believe is that while it may be a storm in a teacup to some, it certainly isn't to anyone thats found themselves in the situation the OP's post is about, and there is the potential that this could happen to anyone for any reason.
Im not trying to pretend anything, I don't believe that its the biggest travesty of justice since the birmingham 6 either and frankly it's a bit condescending to resort to such statements.

Let's try to keep things in context:
How many children would you think have been put at risk this year because of a clear DBS check?
What's an acceptable number to you?
Like I said, my post was supposed to show that there's more common ground here than difference ; yet you seem intent on creating a drama.

Keep it in context? So to do that you want me to guess how many kids have been put at risk by a clear DBS check? That's a complete non sequitur!

Im not intent on creating a drama, how is taking part in this discussion doing that exactly and representing my views?

 

[Garry Edwards]

More assumptions and guessing topped off with "won't someone please think of the children!"

No assumptions and no guessing, I simply set out the process that must be followed before someone can be charged with a criminal offence

I don't get why you seem to be putting your views across by twisting mine.

I haven't done that.

Do you honestly believe that I think this is about

a) this one case the op referred to

and

b) that people think that its about accused people being able to get "exactly the job" they want?

No idea, you haven't said what you think it's about.

Im not intent on creating a drama, how is taking part in this discussion doing that exactly and representing my views?

There's nothing wrong with representing your views, but I'm not sure what they actually are. Reading your posts, I'm guessing that it's your view that prospective employers and the general public should not have access to information that may help to safeguard children and vulnerable adults, but that is just a guess, and an assumption.

 

[Phil V]

Keep it in context? So to do that you want me to guess how many kids have been put at risk by a clear DBS check? That's a complete non sequitur!

Im not intent on creating a drama, how is taking part in this discussion doing that exactly and representing my views?

There’s a very clear steer among the outraged here to suggest anything at all positive or even be clear of their actual views.

I’m reminded of the Father Ted demonstration ‘Down with this sort of thing’.

 

[Donnie]

More assumptions and guessing topped off with "won't someone please think of the children!"

No assumptions and no guessing, I simply set out the process that must be followed before someone can be charged with a criminal offence

Ummmm......

So, assuming that he spoke the truth, there would be no forensic evidence to the contrary.
And yet, the police believed the woman. Why?
Guessing again, it's reasonable to assume that they had ................

I don't get why you seem to be putting your views across by twisting mine.

No assumptions and no guessing, I simply set out the process that must be followed before someone can be charged with a criminal offence


I haven't done that.

Its exactly what you are doing here

Is it really more important to make sure that he can do exactly the job that he would like to do, or is it more important to protect children from rapists?

Do you honestly believe that I think this is about

a) this one case the op referred to

and

b) that people think that its about accused people being able to get "exactly the job" they want?

No idea, you haven't said what you think it's about.

Then you've not been paying attention to anything I said.

Im not intent on creating a drama, how is taking part in this discussion doing that exactly and representing my views?

There's nothing wrong with representing your views, but I'm not sure what they actually are. Reading your posts, I'm guessing that it's your view that prospective employers and the general public should not have access to information that may help to safeguard children and vulnerable adults, but that is just a guess, and an assumption.

As said above it's obvious you havent actually read or havent paid attention to what ive written so instead you guess (again) with an additional twist of sarcasm for some reason.

 

[Donnie]

Keep it in context? So to do that you want me to guess how many kids have been put at risk by a clear DBS check? That's a complete non sequitur!

Im not intent on creating a drama, how is taking part in this discussion doing that exactly and representing my views?

There’s a very clear steer among the outraged here to suggest anything at all positive or even be clear of their actual views.

I’m reminded of the Father Ted demonstration ‘Down with this sort of thing’.

Oh I see, so you avoid my question, say im one of the "outraged" and it's up to us "outraged" to suggest positive action to spoon feed those that are willing to allow some innocents to suffer?

As for down with this sort of thing, it may have been a comedy but the actual protest was just that a protest, therefore I don't know what the point is you're making, unless you're mocking protesters or those with differing view to yourself?

Oh and to be clear (again) the view is about the injustice of innocent people unjustly having their lives destroyed by being marked through their DBS check when being found not guilty.

 

[Phil V]

Oh and to be clear (again) the view is about the injustice of innocent people unjustly having their lives destroyed by being marked through their DBS check when being found not guilty.

If that’s what you believe; let’s examine this view.

This guy didn’t get a job and ‘possibly’ one of the reasons was that his DBS check showed a court case where he’d been found ‘not guilty’.

As I’m old, I’ve failed to get dozens of jobs, and none of those failures was down to a DBS check, so how can you assume that he’d definitely had got the job without the DBS and court case? I’ve also interviewed dozens of candidates, and managed to find the majority of them unsuitable without a DBS check (that’s just the way selection processes work.
(Previous mentions of this have been completely ignored)


This is one job he didn’t get, his life isn’t ‘ruined’ or even close to it. So your ‘outrage’ is somewhat exaggerated, I don’t understand the inflation of the issue.

So to answer the pertinent question; if the CC was wrong to add the court case, is that because he/she was the wrong person to make the decision? If so who? What would you have decided (presuming you have sight of all the evidence?

And as I have asked previously, are you happy that any rapist or murderer who’s not been found guilty should be left in charge of a child or vulnerable adult that you love?

 

[Donnie]

If that’s what you believe; let’s examine this view.

This guy didn’t get a job and ‘possibly’ one of the reasons was that his DBS check showed a court case where he’d been found ‘not guilty’.

As I’m old, I’ve failed to get dozens of jobs, and none of those failures was down to a DBS check, so how can you assume that he’d definitely had got the job without the DBS and court case? I’ve also interviewed dozens of candidates, and managed to find the majority of them unsuitable without a DBS check (that’s just the way selection processes work.
(Previous mentions of this have been completely ignored)

Probably because its completely irrelevant to the point being made which you continue to miss. ie the injustice of having not guilty verdicts on your dbs, Im focussing on the op's "victim" specifically like you are. Nor am I arguing about interview techniques successes and failures.

This is one job he didn’t get, his life isn’t ‘ruined’ or even close to it. So your ‘outrage’ is somewhat exaggerated, I don’t understand the inflation of the issue.

Possibly because Im not the one inflating it?

So to answer the pertinent question; if the CC was wrong to add the court case, is that because he/she was the wrong person to make the decision? If so who? What would you have decided (presuming you have sight of all the evidence?

Nothing to do with any of that, as far as Im concerned not guilty is exactly that, it should not be on the DBS, I feel I've repeated this several times now.

And as I have asked previously, are you happy that any rapist or murderer who’s not been found guilty should be left in charge of a child or vulnerable adult that you love?

How do i know if they are a rapist or murderer if they've been found not guilty?

 

[Garry Edwards]

Nothing to do with any of that, as far as Im concerned not guilty is exactly that, it should not be on the DBS, I feel I've repeated this several times now.

Let's go back a bit, Soham double child murderer Ian Huntley got his caretaker job because the police failed to disclose that he had previously been accused of rape, and that there had been several allegations of underage sex. They suspected him of these crimes but he was never charged, let alone aquitted. It must be obvious that if they had provided this information then he wouldn't have got the job, and two little girls would not have been murdered by him. Please see https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/soham-murders-harrowing-past-killer-10291957
And yet, you maintain that vital information that may save lives should be withheld from prospective employers...

How do i know if they are a rapist or murderer if they've been found not guilty?

You don't, and nor does anyone else. But when information that is already in the public domain is made available to prospective employers, it provides them with useful information that, although available elsewhere, they may not be aware of. They must make of it what they will, but they can't make anything of it unless they actually have it.
Certain employers, for example the police forces, the prison service and government departments, already have access to this information. All that including this type of information in DBS checks does is to democratise that information, by making it available to other potential employers too, but only when children or vulnerable adults are at potential risk, i.e. when the check needed is an enhanced DBS.

Personally, despite all of the inefficiencies and shortcomings of our Criminal Justice System, I think that it's a good thing that this protection exists. You appear to hold the opposite view, but you don't seem to have explained your reasons.

 

[cambsno]

Let's go back a bit, Soham double child murderer Ian Huntley got his caretaker job because the police failed to disclose that he had previously been accused of rape, and that there had been several allegations of underage sex. They suspected him of these crimes but he was never charged, let alone aquitted. It must be obvious that if they had provided this information then he wouldn't have got the job, and two little girls would not have been murdered by him. Please see https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/soham-murders-harrowing-past-killer-10291957
And yet, you maintain that vital information that may save lives should be withheld from prospective employers...
.

Ok, pretty safe to assume that had info been made available, then the two girls would still be alive today, I will give you that. BUT, surely no-one is naive to think that he would have gone on his way, got a job at Tesco and never offended again. It would simply be that he murders 1, 2 or even more kids. So all the info would have done is moved the killings elsewhere.

Of course, had we thought no smoke without fire and locked him up anyway then no-one would have been killed!

 

[cambsno]

How do i know if they are a rapist or murderer if they've been found not guilty?

Quite! Many murders and rapists are committed by people who have no record or any suspicion whatsoever.

I do accept that if we treated everyone like this guy then there probably would be some people that are saved from rape or murder, as some of these individuals will have been guilty of the crime and will go to reoffend. But at what cost to the lives at others who were innocent and have had their lives blighted. What about those who then commit crimes due to revenge because they cannot get back the life they once had.

Like i said above, the said people will reoffend anyway. Someone found not guilty can now not get a job teaching or with kids... no problem, he can easily find another victim through dating apps, hanging around parks or dark places at night, maybe its a bit harder from him but I doubt this will prevent the overall number of offences.

 

[Phil V]

...
How do i know if they are a rapist or murderer if they've been found not guilty?

The crucial fact you think you can sweep under the carpet.

A person is guilty at the time they commit the offence, not when a jury or magistrate finds them so.

A person is a rapist, murderer or paedophile whether it says so on their DBS or not, whether found guilty or not. The DBS isn’t the arbiter of anything, let alone a jury.

I broke the speed limit on the way to work this week. Of that I’m guilty, I have been neither charged nor convicted, it doesn’t appear on my driving record, does it cease to be a fact?

 

[Donnie]

The crucial fact you think you can sweep under the carpet.

A person is guilty at the time they commit the offence, not when a jury or magistrate finds them so.

A person is a rapist, murderer or paedophile whether it says so on their DBS or not, whether found guilty or not. The DBS isn’t the arbiter of anything, let alone a jury.

I broke the speed limit on the way to work this week. Of that I’m guilty, I have been neither charged nor convicted, it doesn’t appear on my driving record, does it cease to be a fact?

Now you're being obtuse and trying to redirect again away from the salient fact that we are talking about people that have been found guilty or not guilty in a court of law and how that shows on a DBS check.

 

[Donnie]

Let's go back a bit, Soham double child murderer Ian Huntley got his caretaker job because the police failed to disclose that he had previously been accused of rape, and that there had been several allegations of underage sex. They suspected him of these crimes but he was never charged, let alone aquitted. It must be obvious that if they had provided this information then he wouldn't have got the job, and two little girls would not have been murdered by him. Please see https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/soham-murders-harrowing-past-killer-10291957
And yet, you maintain that vital information that may save lives should be withheld from prospective employers...

No, I don't. I maintain that those that have gone to trial and been found not guilty should not be on a DBS check.

How do i know if they are a rapist or murderer if they've been found not guilty?

You don't, and nor does anyone else. But when information that is already in the public domain is made available to prospective employers, it provides them with useful information that, although available elsewhere, they may not be aware of. They must make of it what they will, but they can't make anything of it unless they actually have it.
Certain employers, for example the police forces, the prison service and government departments, already have access to this information. All that including this type of information in DBS checks does is to democratise that information, by making it available to other potential employers too, but only when children or vulnerable adults are at potential risk, i.e. when the check needed is an enhanced DBS.

Personally, despite all of the inefficiencies and shortcomings of our Criminal Justice System, I think that it's a good thing that this protection exists. You appear to hold the opposite view, but you don't seem to have explained your reasons.

I've explained my reasons many times about my view of the injustice of people being found not guilty and it appearing on the DBS check. Also, you think because the information is available to certain organisations such as the police, prison service and government departments that this is a good enough reason for everyone else to have it too? Wow.

 

[john.margetts]

Also, you think because the information is available to certain organisations such as the police, prison service and government departments that this is a good enough reason for everyone else to have it too? Wow.

Hardly everyone else. Only very few organisations can apply for a DBS check at all and most of those would not contain information about non-guilty verdicts.

 

[shapeshifter]

I'm guessing that it's your view that prospective employers and the general public should not have access to information that may help to safeguard children and vulnerable adults, but that is just a guess, and an assumption.

This is where you are going wrong you are guessing all the time.

He nor I have not said anything at all about the general public not having access to information that may help to safeguard children and vulnerable adults or anyone not just childern and vulnerable aduts.

What is being said is yes let the police disclose convictions but no disclosure of people who have been found by a not guilty.

You are approach the issue from a point of view that everyone is guilty even when they have been found not guilty..

The way to tell if a person is guilty or not guilty is to put them on trial. If the are found not guilty that's it that's the proof that they are not guilty.

My postition is that a not guilty verdict should not be disclosed by the police.

 

[Phil V]

The way to tell if a person is guilty or not guilty is to put them on trial. If the are found not guilty that's it that's the proof that they are not guilty.

So a jury can only be wrong if it convicts the innocent, not if it frees the guilty?

Are you seriously suggesting that no guilty person has ever been either not charged or not found guilty?

That a jury actually ‘proves’ someone’s guilt or innocence?

If you are, I seriously suggest you have lost your grasp on reality, that really isn’t how the law, or indeed ‘facts’ work.

 

[Phil V]

Now you're being obtuse and trying to redirect again away from the salient fact that we are talking about people that have been found guilty or not guilty in a court of law and how that shows on a DBS check.

I’m aware what we’re discussing, and it doesn’t alter my points above (all questions you’ve failed to answer - again) .

The person referred to in the OP was found not guilty, but a senior police officer made a decision that a future employer* should be aware that they’d been tried for rape.

I’m fairly certain that officer had more information than you or I have, and I’m also absolutely certain that the decision to not hire him:

• Wasn’t made by the police or the courts, but by a board at the school
• Was done in good faith with more evidence than we have
• Has not ‘ruined his life’**

* not all employers have the right to request a DBS check
**though if he insists on wasting more of his time fighting the decision, he stands a good chance of ruining his own life.

Now, it’d be really good if you’d give us the reason for your belief that this was wrong, or how you’d rather it was done, rather than ‘it’s wrong’ which I’m afraid does smack of ‘down with this sort of thing’

 

[Donnie]

The law works by proving people guilty, they have a conviction, they have it recorded on the DBS check. And so it should be.

I think when it comes to reality, you again try to muddy the waters of the salient points, we are talking about people that have been found guilty, not ones you arbitrarily say are guilty due to a court case. Your default position isn't innocent until proven guilty, it's theres no smoke without fire so lets hang the accused anyway.

 

[Donnie]

I’m aware what we’re discussing, and it doesn’t alter my points above (all questions you’ve failed to answer - again) .

The person referred to in the OP was found not guilty, but a senior police officer made a decision that a future employer* should be aware that they’d been tried for rape.

I’m fairly certain that officer had more information than you or I have, and I’m also absolutely certain that the decision to not hire him:

• Wasn’t made by the police or the courts, but by a board at the school
• Was done in good faith with more evidence than we have
• Has not ‘ruined his life’**

* not all employers have the right to request a DBS check
**though if he insists on wasting more of his time fighting the decision, he stands a good chance of ruining his own life.

Now, it’d be really good if you’d give us the reason for your belief that this was wrong, or how you’d rather it was done, rather than ‘it’s wrong’ which I’m afraid does smack of ‘down with this sort of thing’

I havent failed to answer a single sensible straight forward question so that's wrong for a start.

Also, you still circumvent the issues by reintroducing the op's issue, this is not what I am discussing (again I need to copy and paste this )

As for being wrong? The law is there for a reason, to convict the guilty, Im not sure why you lump "the accused but found not guilty" automatically in with those found guilty. That is whats wrong, your default position is no smoke without fire instead of innocent until proven guilty. Proven.

 

[Phil V]

I havent failed to answer a single sensible straight forward question so that's wrong for a start.

Also, you still circumvent the issues by reintroducing the op's issue, this is not what I am discussing (again I need to copy and paste this )

As for being wrong? The law is there for a reason, to convict the guilty, Im not sure why you lump "the accused but found not guilty" automatically in with those found guilty. That is whats wrong, your default position is no smoke without fire instead of innocent until proven guilty. Proven.

I’ve no idea what you think you’ve posted, but nothing I’ve read in your posts gives a single insight into what you think should happen, or what specifically is wrong in this case.

I’m getting to feel this is a bit pigeon chess.

 

[Donnie]

Im not talking about this case specifically, I keep saying that and you keep referring back to it and refusing to see what I have written

 

[Fuji Dave]

I have to laugh at some of the stupip things posted in here, WHY. I have been inside 3 times and I was NOT GUILTY those three times, it was my choice as I took the blame for a loved one. I have lived with nonces and murders for over ten years of my life, and some of the folk I met inside WERE actually innocent as the old bill fitted them up

 

[Donnie]

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.

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.

Oh, so again the no smoke without fire legal defence ??

Actually they found him not guilty, theres a subtle but important difference to, not finding him guilty.

This ^^^^^^

And the fact is that a not guilty verdict should not show up and even be a factor.

So people are still blindly accepting that a not guilty verdict should be on your record forever.

No, the issue is that anyone can be accused of anything genuinely or maliciously and that a not guilty verdict stains your reputation, record and future life and employment forever.

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.

So it's ok to infringe peoples rights and a little unjustification is ok "just in case"? Because that's what you are saying.

This is not a general idea though, it's a system of law that is at its core unfair if not detrimental and it's a terrible indictment on society if people are happy to accept it on the basis of no smoke without fire.

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.

If you were found NOT guilty why is acceptable for this to come up on a check? that is the issue and thats where the rights get infringed and follows a person for the rest of their lives. The issues not about someone having an actual criminal conviction and lying about it.

Wrong, it can be put on the enhanced DBS by the police at their discretion, its on the DBS website in black and white.

I don't understand how Im not getting my point across on the fact that not guilty should NOT be on a DBS check. Yes they are public record if you look them up, I get that I really do, I can google to my hearts content and see whats been to court and who was found guilty and who was not, but only the guilty and therefore sentenced should be on the Criminal record.

My point is that its unjustifiable for a non guilty verdict to be on file in the first place to even come up on a DBS check and follow someone for eternity. Especially when some spent convictions have a shelf life.

As for the op link, he was arguing about being found not guilty being put on the DBS check, not that it was on publicly available (only if you go digging) information, there's a difference.

So again falling back on the no smoke without fire, lets make sure it comes up on a dbs check just in case scenario.....

say it often as you like but youre still using no smoke without fire as a defence

Im not saying there should be no checks, ive never said that

Yes, as a society thats what we should be doing, not caring about the odd innocent person

As for scrapping the DBS, I'm not suggesting that at all, my point about the DBS has consistantly been people happily accept it as it is and therefore are happy to see a few miscarraiges of justice for the "greater good". That is, as Ive said several times, the sad state of society we seem to have found ourselves in.

No, I'm simply quoting actual data, not making assumptions based on emotion.

I'm aware of the realities of the real world, ie the injustice of the system and the fact you and others find it acceptable that some innocents should be punished for "the greater good" , not only that but those that hold that view are quite happy to accept a flawed system.

I understand it, Im just not someone thats willing to blindly accept it as you seem to be.

Oh I see, so you avoid my question, say im one of the "outraged" and it's up to us "outraged" to suggest positive action to spoon feed those that are willing to allow some innocents to suffer?


Oh and to be clear (again) the view is about the injustice of innocent people unjustly having their lives destroyed by being marked through their DBS check when being found not guilty.

ie the injustice of having not guilty verdicts on your dbs, Im focussing on the op's "victim" specifically like you are.

Nothing to do with any of that, as far as Im concerned not guilty is exactly that, it should not be on the DBS, I feel I've repeated this several times now.

.... trying to redirect again away from the salient fact that we are talking about people that have been found guilty or not guilty in a court of law and how that shows on a DBS check.

No, I don't. I maintain that those that have gone to trial and been found not guilty should not be on a DBS check.

I've explained my reasons many times about my view of the injustice of people being found not guilty and it appearing on the DBS check.

The law is there for a reason, to convict the guilty, Im not sure why you lump "the accused but found not guilty" automatically in with those found guilty. That is whats wrong, your default position is no smoke without fire instead of innocent until proven guilty. Proven.

 

[viv1969]

p***ing contest, much?

 

[Donnie]

p***ing contest, much?

Ummmm why do you assume that? we're having a discussion, passionate perhaps but a discussion nonetheless. If you'd like to participate that would be fine but you don't need to be insulting.

 

[Ricardodaforce]

p***ing contest, much?

Why not actually contribute to the thread instead of being an arse as usual?

 

[Fuji Dave]

Think about it too, if the old bill don`t like you at all, then they can and will fit you up. Promotion is good for them, that is one reason why I hate them

 

[Fuji Dave]

People remember this well, police proved one thing and one thing only, he has to be killed. Big screw up 100%





http://home.bt.com/news/on-this-day...olice-seeking-escaped-prisoner-11363954537595

 

[Phil V]

Im not talking about this case specifically, I keep saying that and you keep referring back to it and refusing to see what I have written

Now I’m confused.

Because, there is only this case, and others (including you) have refused to discuss other cases and you pointed out not a page ago how this blokes life was ruined.

It’s not common practice for a not guilty verdict to show up on a DBS check, each individual case is taken on merit AFAIK.

 

[shapeshifter]

So a jury can only be wrong if it convicts the innocent, not if it frees the guilty?

Are you seriously suggesting that no guilty person has ever been either not charged or not found guilty?

That a jury actually ‘proves’ someone’s guilt or innocence?

If you are, I seriously suggest you have lost your grasp on reality, that really isn’t how the law, or indeed ‘facts’ work.

No.

The fact is that courts decide on who it guilty and not guilty many people who committ offence may be found not guilty because ther is not enough evidence to convict them.

But it is not my position to make judgement on someones guilt over a properly convened court with all the evidence and 12 jurors who have been guided by a fully qualified judge.

If the jury says it's not guilty then that's it. There is no other way of determining guilt that is why we have courts.

 

[Donnie]

Now I’m confused.

Because, there is only this case, and others (including you) have refused to discuss other cases and you pointed out not a page ago how this blokes life was ruined.

It’s not common practice for a not guilty verdict to show up on a DBS check, each individual case is taken on merit AFAIK.

No you're not confused at all, ive been clear all the way through that my views been about the inclusion of not guilty on the dbs. I have not refused to discuss other cases, Ive commented on specific points raised on the ops case in reference to and as examples of the injustice, just like where you point out I referred to the blokes life being ruined by exactly the practice of including not guilty on the dbs check.
There is no confusion, there's just you and others' attempting to poke holes in my opinions and rationale while accepting the fact that its ok to allow some innocent people to suffer.

As for it not being common practice, I don't have figures and there's supposedly a framework for the police to follow but they are "corrupt, more are incompetent and even more are self-serving, and generally the higher up they reach in rank, the worse it gets" so...............

 

[viv1969]

Why not actually contribute to the thread instead of being an arse as usual?

Hi Ricky, Quelle surprise.

Is a post with 24 quotes and no real point really a contribution too?

 

[Phil V]

No.

The fact is that courts decide on who it guilty and not guilty many people who committ offence may be found not guilty because ther is not enough evidence to convict them.

But it is not my position to make judgement on someones guilt over a properly convened court with all the evidence and 12 jurors who have been guided by a fully qualified judge.

If the jury says it's not guilty then that's it. There is no other way of determining guilt that is why we have courts.

Guilt or innocence isn’t a point of opinion, it’s a matter of fact, the perpetrator of a crime is guilty whether the crime gets reported, whether there’s charges or verdicts. It’s not up for debate unless you’re of the opinion that there’s no such thing as ‘reality’

The legal process can only attempt to ascertain from evidence, but it can be wrong, and often is.

 

[Phil V]

while accepting the fact that its ok to allow some innocent people to suffer.

I guess I’m old, innocent people suffer all the time, do I accept that? Yes, how else would I sleep at night.

Every day innocent children and innocent adults are abused by people who should be there to protect them, as a civilised society we have to try to protect them. The cost of doing so might mean that some people don’t get a job they’d like.

On a cost/benefit analysis, I can live with that.

 

[Phil V]

No.

The fact is that courts decide on who it guilty and not guilty many people who committ offence may be found not guilty because ther is not enough evidence to convict them.

But it is not my position to make judgement on someones guilt over a properly convened court with all the evidence and 12 jurors who have been guided by a fully qualified judge.

If the jury says it's not guilty then that's it. There is no other way of determining guilt that is why we have courts.

Factually incorrect.

You’re trying semantics, it’ll not wash.

Being guilty is a matter of fact, being found guilty is a matter for the courts.

 

[Donnie]

Hi Ricky, Quelle surprise.

Is a post with 24 quotes and no real point really a contribution too?

Yes it is actually, it's a list of times ive put my point of view across on the issue at the heart of the thread in direct reply to phils statement where he's supposedly not seen me do exactly that.

But if you think Im not making a useful contribution to the thread maybe argue that instead of just being snide?

 

[Donnie]

Factually incorrect.

You’re trying semantics, it’ll not wash.

Being guilty is a matter of fact, being found guilty is a matter for the courts.

Is that not what he said?