[Lickszz]

I feel somewhat divided in my opinion on whether people should have unproved allegations made against them recorded in police files. These could then be used later to affect job prospects. People are innocent until proven guilty, and this opens the door to malicious allegations which will succeed in ruining one's career, even if they are unsubstantiated.

On the other hand, Mr Huntly/Nixon had many such allegations made against him previously, and, had they been properly recorded and reported to his potential employer, he may not have been hired by the school, and those girls would be alive today.

Is recording of unproved accusations learning from the recent "mistakes", or an over-reaction to a single event, and thereby violating civil rights?

[max]

I'm too am ambivalent about this issue; civil liberties versus protecting the weak. Toughie this one.

Another consideration to take on board is who will be entering the information and who will vet it? We already hear complaints that the police spend too much time on office duties. How much more police time would be taken up with compiling reports and entering them into the national databases? Then there would be the problem of ensuring that the information doesn't contravene any existing legislation which would need to be done by a suitably qualified officer.

Which unproved crimes would warrant reporting? Would it eventually be extended to include all incidents of police stopping people who look suspicious or who have dodgy brake lights?

Nice thread Lickszz, it'll be interesting to see how this pans out. I'll hold back voting until I hear other arguments.

[Lickszz]

Yes, I've not voted yet either. I'd like to take onboard peoples views before I vote.

[Zamo]

I have mixed feelings about this too but I still think unproven crimes should not be held against someone and therefore the police should not disclose such info to potential employers.

That said, it is bloody ridiculous that the police themselves don't keep this information. OK, so someone could have one, maybe even two, sex allegations made against them that were unfounded but any more than that and you'd think it would automatically trigger a serious investigation.

Huntley had been accused of something like 8 separate crimes of a sexual nature. You don't need a PhD in the workings of the criminal mind to reach the conclusion that this person is likely to be a serial offender and should be urgently investigated. The failure of the police to have a system in place that flags such cases for investigation is a disgrace.

[Jack Yerbody]

Ah, a legal question - my forte!!

Three things. Firstly, that information on Huntley SHOULD have been kept on file - it was Humberside's interpretation of the Data Protection Act that was flawed, not the Act itself.

Secondly, as with the sex offenders' register, the key factor is WHO SHOULD HAVE ACCESS to the information. So long as it remains outside the public domain, I have no problems (civil liberties-related or otherwise), with accusations and charges being kept on file.

Thirdly, and as a necessary corollary of the above, we have to be careful when such info can be used and how much weight may be given to it. For example, as a general rule previous offences will not be revealed to the jury before they have concluded their discussions. But should a judge be able to use accusations as a factor in sentencing, when nothing has been proved?

[Jack Yerbody]

Originally posted by Zamo
I have mixed feelings about this too but I still think unproven crimes should not be held against someone and therefore the police should not disclose such info to potential employers.
...

Hold on a second. Not every employer has access to this info - after all, they are not privileged members of the community, just ordinary legal persons like you or I. But schools have a responsibility to their children that supercedes the general rule.

[max]

Just read this in the, hem hem, Guardian which is very relevant to this thread.

Humberside Police deleted the information

[nomme]

It is a tricky one this however here is my argument.
Would you let any of say John Leslie, Pete Townsend or Mathew Kelly work in a school? (I believe I'm correct in thinking they have all been *accused* of various sexual offences but that non of them have been *proven*)
If your answer is 'No I wouldn't' then please justify it, because to me what you are saying is that you don't believe the outcome of our justice system and in fact 'you know better'.
This seems a dangerous road to me.
If someone is accused then found guily then fair enough.
If someone is accused and found innocent why should that prevent someone from getting a job? I think the implication here is to disbelieve the verdict and assume they were guilty anyway. Effectively you are going to be considered guilty merely by being accused. That doesn't sound right to me.

Nomme

[Jack Yerbody]

I'll reiterate what I said above - we're NOT talking about ordinary employers and ordinary employment issues, whereby one could take a company to tribunal for discrimination on grounds of race or gender or sexuality.

We are talking about a very NARROW area of employment, where different rules should (and do) apply. Any comparison between the two is facile.

On that basis, I'd say that where doubt exists a school is entirely within its rights to deny employent.

BTW, although Townsend got off, he's on the Sex Offenders Register for five years! Would you employ him?

[Jack Yerbody]

Also, it's unlikely that a single accusation not leading to a charge, let alone a prosecution, would be sufficient grounds for an employer to disregard a qualified candidate.

It's all a question of the person making the decision weighing up all relevant factors - try not to think of this issue in simplistic terms, 'cos it just ain't simplistic.

[nomme]

Originally posted by Jack Yerbody
I'll reiterate what I said above - we're NOT talking about ordinary employers and ordinary employment issues, whereby one could take a company to tribunal for discrimination on grounds of race or gender or sexuality.

We are talking about a very NARROW area of employment, where different rules should (and do) apply. Any comparison between the two is facile.

On that basis, I'd say that where doubt exists a school is entirely within its rights to deny employent.

I agree but where does this 'doubt' you mention come from?

Originally posted by Jack Yerbody

BTW, although Townsend got off, he's on the Sex Offenders Register for five years! Would you employ him?

OK- bad example forget him for the purposes of my argument. Though if he's on the Sex Offenders Register I wouldn't exactly say he 'got off'.

[Jack Yerbody]

Just re-read my post, apologies if I came across as a prissy f**ker!

"Doubt" in this case would involve police investigation of some kind, but I'd say again, we're not the ones who'd make this decision and we're not best placed to decide what would constitute sufficient "doubt" to bar someone from a job.

I'm as liberal as the next man (unless the next man is that irregular post-er from the bnp!), but this is an area in which we can't afford to be needlessly pedantic.

Pete Townshend was cleared of all charges, but because he was found to have viewed child pornography his name will remain on the list.

[nomme]

Originally posted by Jack Yerbody
Also, it's unlikely that a single accusation not leading to a charge, let alone a prosecution, would be sufficient grounds for an employer to disregard a qualified candidate.

Yeah, like Zamo says its when the accusations start stacking up that suspicions are aroused.

Originally posted by Jack Yerbody

It's all a question of the person making the decision weighing up all relevant factors - try not to think of this issue in simplistic terms, 'cos it just ain't simplistic.

I know. I am now thinking it would be OK to keep this data provided only certain people had access to it (eg police etc.) I am still troubled by the thought that several unproven accusations effectively equates to guilty though.

Nomme

[Jack Yerbody]

Originally posted by nomme
...I am now thinking it would be OK to keep this data provided only certain people had access to it (eg police etc.) I am still troubled by the thought that several unproven accusations effectively equates to guilty though.

Nomme

I'm dead against the public having ANY sort of access to this info.

And it's not that several accusations equates to guilt, or even that there's no smoke without fire - just that where there is any cause for concern, better to be safe than sorry.

[ncrossland]

I was reading that in California in child abuse cases, previous accusations (not necessarily being charged or convicted) COULD be brought as evidence. Hence why Michael Jackson's prosecuters are appealing for other people who claim to have been molested by him - if they get enough accusations they can use it as evidence, even though none of them might ever be charged or brought to court.

[fnkysknky]

Originally posted by nomme
It is a tricky one this however here is my argument.
Would you let any of say John Leslie, Pete Townsend or Mathew Kelly work in a school? (I believe I'm correct in thinking they have all been *accused* of various sexual offences but that non of them have been *proven*)
If your answer is 'No I wouldn't' then please justify it, because to me what you are saying is that you don't believe the outcome of our justice system and in fact 'you know better'.
This seems a dangerous road to me.
If someone is accused then found guily then fair enough.
If someone is accused and found innocent why should that prevent someone from getting a job? I think the implication here is to disbelieve the verdict and assume they were guilty anyway. Effectively you are going to be considered guilty merely by being accused. That doesn't sound right to me.

Nomme

It all kinda goes out the window though when it's your kids involved doesn't it? There is no way on this planet that I would be happy to send any child of mine to a school where someone had been accused of sexual offences, even if they had walked free from any investigation.

[venger]

Originally posted by Zamo
That said, it is bloody ridiculous that the police themselves don't keep this information. OK, so someone could have one, maybe even two, sex allegations made against them that were unfounded but any more than that and you'd think it would automatically trigger a serious investigation.

strongest point that I have seen posted yet

I think failed convictions should be kept on file and accessible to parties relevant.

Did we have to go this far to realise that Huntley should be nowhere near a school, when all of the clues were already there.

He should have had some kind of risk profile ringing an alarm bell somewhere.

Childline conduct a full police check on all its volunteers and employees, they are a fund raising and donation only based charity. Therfore they receive no fuding from the government what so ever. So what about schools, youth clubs. , etc

[Jack Yerbody]

They DO - well, save for Humberside Police. Information about possible sexual offences is retained because of the nature of the crime, and the high rate of recidivism among offenders.

See earlier in this thread.

[venger]

By the way I voted No, I think places for the young and volatile should have access, hospitals, schools, etc. should be the exception.

[spook]

removed by spook.