Double posting to add, social service have to be able to act on a lower level of proof, or effective protection - especially of young children - would be impossible. If you believe that a newborn baby is not being fed, for example, a court date in six weeks time will be of little use. You get the child into a emergency foster care and then you have time to assess parenting, gather evidence etc etc.
Even so thresholds for intervention are much higher than the general public tend to believe.
In the British safeguarding system, you report any suspicions you have about a child and their safety to the safeguarding officer/person. The organisation is obliged to have a policy in place for recording these reports and how to decide the appropriate action. Which might range from making a note through to reporting immediately to Police and Social Services.
If you are a person who is in any kind of supervisory interaction with a minor that isn't their parent/guardian, the law obliges you to report anything and everything. So you could be a librarian who overhears someone saying something to a young person that is inappropriate. Police, youth worker, teacher, church minister, leader at the scouts. Pretty much anyone.
Last year a youth organisation I know went to an activity centre. One of the staff said something inappropriate to one of the children. The organisation they went with had to go through their safeguarding policy. The activity centre had to go through their policy. Steps had to be immediately made to ensure the welfare of the youth and the staff member was immediately suspended.
This is how it is supposed to work. No person or organisation is supposed to hesitate and wonder to themselves "hang on, do we have sufficient evidence here for a successful prosecution in the crown court? If not, I guess there's absolutely nothing we can do."
And the reason for this is because there have been multiple failures in the past when things were noticed and not acted upon.
And just to add, with my work hat on, data protection never prevents sharing safeguarding concerns. Ever. If you know or suspect something it doesn't matter why you have the information; you share it. Everything else is secondary.
Members of the public can report outside of a safeguarding structure too, usually by phoning the local social work department or filling in an online form.
For example, I was once driving in a local city residential area - and found a young child standing in the middle road. I stopped and the child had no sense of avoiding a stranger or a car for that matter, I was able to get them to lead me back to their house where the front door was open. I called till mother and grandmother appeared and returned the child to them. But I also made an online safeguarding report to the local social services. I was concerned because the mother seemed mainly concerned with reassuring me rather than the child, the child had no road safety awareness or of stranger danger - and that they hadn’t noticed the child was missing.
Of course I don’t know what came of my report, as I wasn’t professionally involved in the case.
I am an online university lecturer and I make several safeguarding referrals every academic year, usually because an adult student makes a disclosure of historic or current abuse either verbally or in an essay and I know there is a child or vulnerable adult in their household or they themselves are vulnerable (we have guidelines defining this). We have clear guidelines and criteria for referral to the university safeguarding team, including what to do in an emergency, but are encouraged to refer ‘if in doubt’ so that the experts can look at the case and decide. As mentioned, safeguarding overrides the rules on data protection and confidentiality, and I usually also inform the student that I am making the referral and explain why.
This sort of process should be standard in any organisation where safeguarding is a potential issue, such as a church.
Most people south of the border do not understand the difference between the Church of Scotland and the Piskies, and have never heard of the Covenanters. Heck, most of them have only a vague idea of English history.
(Sorry, piskies = Episcopalian Church in Scotland)
Just as most people North of the border do not understand the difference between the Church of England and the URC.
Clergy found guilty of criminal or immoral behaviour are usually referred to in the Meeja as *Vicars*, no matter what denomination they may actually belong to, unless they're RC, in which case they're referred to as *Priests*.
My point was that the reports online bore little resemblance to the congregation's understanding of what had happened, and an easily spotted error was that he was referred to as a C of E vicar rather than a Cof S minister.
Our understanding was that all but one of the photographs had been taken in the presence of the girls' parents, or youth leaders, or the whole congregation. All had been developed in the usual way at the time - handed into Boots and collected later, without the developer noticing anything amiss.
Had he pled not guilty and gone to trial, I think a competent lawyer might have got him acquitted, or at least got the Scottish verdict of "Not Proven."
Certainly a large section of the congregation couldn't understand what he had done wrong, although presumably had it gone to trial they would have understood then.
The case in the OP has led made me reflect on the case in our church, over 30 years ago.
I think it is also worth remembering how much attitudes have changed over time.
Extreme example, but you can read many summaries of The Franchise Affair (Josephine Tey) without anyone ever noting that child abuse actually occurs in it, or Last Seen Wearing (an Inspector Morse Novel) for that matter.
What do you think would have happened in the year 2000 if a 17yr old boy went to the police and told them a priest groped them and made them watch porn ? Do you think the CPS would have thought they could get a conviction ?
I can’t speak to the UK situation in 2000, but in Canada the big wake-up call about abuse was in 1990 when it was discovered that the choirmaster of St. George’s Cathedral in Kingston had abused multiple choirboys over a long period of time.
This newspaper article relates (warning: graphic) details of abuse from his 19th known victim, who came forward in 2018:
I've seen the term come up a number of times, and I don't think it's one used in the States. What is safeguarding, particular in terms of a safeguarding officer/monitor/etc? Is it similar to the concept we have here of mandatory reporters (professional roles or positions that, should they suspect physical or sexual abuse has occurred are required by law to report it)?
In Scotland - and probably elsewhere in the UK - Safeguarding or Safeguarding Trust is the compulsory compliances that any group/organisation/charity has to conform to if engaging with either vulnerable adults or children (under 16 yrs as defined). Eg, in the Scottish Episcopal Church, all clergy and lay leaders in any kind of contact with such people are supposed to undergo Safeguarding Training, on induction to a new role, and regular updates. All Vestries of Charges (parishes) must appoint a PVG (Protecting Vulnerable Group) Coodinator who must report throughout the year to the Vestry/Priest in Charge, and submit various Diocesan yearly reports. The Coordinator is someone not usually involved with Vulnerable Adults or children within that Charge, but set apart as a go-to person in case of complaints; who in turn knows the 'flow' of how a complaint should proceed to Diocesan and Provincial level, also ensuring it's dealt with quickly using police or social services.
Safeguarding compliance involves posting the details of PVG Coordinator and Priest in Charge in the 'child information' public notice board of the church, giving social work numbers and other numbers (such as Childline or police) for people to use if they wish to report any incidents.
Apart from legal matters, I'm still old-fashioned enough to like to think that all clergy should have an explicit duty of care towards all their parishioners - regardless of age; and that Conduct Unbecoming a Minister of Religion is still a thing, when it comes to potentially exploiting the vulnerability or youth of another person when it comes to personal relationships, especially intimate ones.
In England safeguarding also means that anyone in an organisation who is in contact with children or vulnerable adults has to allow the organisation to make enquiries about possible criminal convictions.
In England safeguarding also means that anyone in an organisation who is in contact with children or vulnerable adults has to allow the organisation to make enquiries about possible criminal convictions.
Yes. In practice, this now extends to every member of a Church of England Parochial Church Council, whether or not they come into contact with children or vulnerable adults.
I have no problem with a check on ( my non-existent) criminal convictions, though obviously that doesn’t prevent people committing illegal or inappropriate acts without ever being convicted.
I do resent the too frequent safeguarding courses, especially for eg PCC members who have no contact with children.
It seems to me to be a lot of box-ticking, whilst real concerns are swept under the carpet.
Once completed Safeguarding Training only needs renewing once every three years. PCC members are expected to complete Basic Awareness and Foundation Safeguarding Training, and Awareness of Domestic Abuse Training.
Of course this is not just about children but also vulnerable adults, and not just about PCC members, but a requirement for trustees of any charity which is working or potentially working with children or vulnerable adults.
It also takes up a lot of time (which those who might volunteer for things may not have much of, IYSWIM), so rather restricts the number of likely people.
Or so I'm told - this may be anecdotal evidence, of course. However, given the prevalence of abuse cases old and new, one can see why all the box-ticking may be thought to be necessary. Whether or not it obscures real issues, I don't have enough RL experience to comment, but I take the point that it might do so.
We had a parallel that finally threw us out of Scouts--the yearly child safety training was upped to a point where we just couldn't cope, at a time when we'd just had a death in the family and there was no flexibility on the time the training had to be done by. I don't know what the answer is.
I would refuse to be part of any organization that require me to have a criminal check of my non-existent criminal record. Next they would we wanting my RCMP/CSIS file from my student activist days.
In Britain, refusing to take part in the disclosure process would rule you out of working, even as a volunteer, with any organisation that works with children or vulnerable adults. In many churches you couldn't be on the Church Council/Eldership, even if you didn't have contact with those groups.
I would refuse to be part of any organization that require me to have a criminal check of my non-existent criminal record. Next they would we wanting my RCMP/CSIS file from my student activist days.
Not to be difficult, but can you think of a better way? It’s really basic due diligence as far as I’m concerned.
I think there must be a better way on the training side of things than the way our shop is currently doing things. Though it is not as bad as it used to be.
I think part of the problem is that it is part of performance security apparatus in the UK. There are massive holes in the police checks system that almost everyone knows about, to the extent that those who haven't got anything to hide are worried about their personal data and many of those who should be worried about what is in the file are not.
It's fairly easy to get a DBS check. It's fairly easy for the charity/organisation to tick the box to say it has been checked. The question is whether the DBS actually protects children.
Disclosure and Barring Service. It will advise the organisation you are working with whether you have any relevant convictions, and, for certain roles, whether the police are aware of any concerns short of a conviction.
The basic system was introduced following the Soham murders. It’s a basic snapshot check, and not a substitute for good recruitment practice, and robust safeguarding practice.
Disclosure and Barring Service. It will advise the organisation you are working with whether you have any relevant convictions, and, for certain roles, whether the police are aware of any concerns short of a conviction.
The basic system was introduced following the Soham murders. It’s a basic snapshot check, and not a substitute for good recruitment practice, and robust safeguarding practice.
I was contemplating whether credible accusations would be displayed on a DBS check, I've never seen it from the other side (nor seen one which includes anything objectionable). And what that means "x person was accused of y"?
One difficulty is that there has been some "grandfathering" of people who remain in the same post for a long time. Usually DBS checks are made as part of the process for applying for a new job, so if you don't change so regularly it is easy to avoid the system. I think it is now standard within the charity sector for employees to have an "up-to-date" DBS, but I have also recently heard of people who suddenly discovered that they didn't actually have a current one at a difficult moment.
I do not usually need one for university lecturing in the UK but a few years ago I was asked if I was happy to have a 17 year old student (distance learning has a diverse cohort of students) and, if so, I needed a DBS check. I agreed and automatically got a reminder 3 years later that I needed to renew it if I was teaching under 18s. I assume my colleagues who teach in prisons have DBS checks.
I think the practice is overly intrusive, Doublethink. I regularly have 17 year olds in my class and as clients in my student services role. Parenthetically, I was 17 when I started university.
I do not usually need one for university lecturing in the UK but a few years ago I was asked if I was happy to have a 17 year old student (distance learning has a diverse cohort of students) and, if so, I needed a DBS check. I agreed and automatically got a reminder 3 years later that I needed to renew it if I was teaching under 18s. I assume my colleagues who teach in prisons have DBS checks.
Is it not routine for lecturers to have 17 year old students? IME, there are always a handful of students who are 17 when they start their degrees.
It’s worth adding perhaps, that something coming up on your DBS doesn’t necessarily preclude employment. (In the UK some of this is covered by the rehabilitation of exoffenders legislation). I used to have a colleague who had recovered from heroin addiction, for example.
I think the practice is overly intrusive, Doublethink. I regularly have 17 year olds in my class and as clients in my student services role. Parenthetically, I was 17 when I started university.
It's only intrusive if there's anything to disclose. All that happens is checking whether you have any criminal convictions, reported serious allegations, or are on a list of people barred from regulated work. That none of those things apply to me is not a secret, and them searching and finding nothing does't tell people anything I wasn't already required to tell them (at least for employment).
I don't think it's true that it's not obtrusive if you don't have anything to disclose. The process of proving this is an imposition in itself, especially given the stupid questions about addresses and the amount of irrelevant information you have to produce. This is the point, to me - the whole process all too easily becomes one of being assumed guilty until proven innocent.
English School/College terms start at the beginning of September, so students are usually 18 before September. University terms usually start in late September/October so a 17 year old would be exceptional, in my experience of both traditional UK university and distance learning over a couple of decades. In distance learning it is often a homeschooled student who is 17 and they need special permission from the university.
I think it might be more common elsewhere, and I know Scotland is slightly different on years.
I think the practice is overly intrusive, Doublethink. I regularly have 17 year olds in my class and as clients in my student services role. Parenthetically, I was 17 when I started university.
Though not as intrusive as being on the receiving end of abuse.
I had a similar check done last year. It was annoying. But I blame that annoyance on the abusers who made it necessary. The children deserve to be safe, and abusers don't care about the effects of their behavior, so the rest of us have to put up with it.
I do not usually need one for university lecturing in the UK but a few years ago I was asked if I was happy to have a 17 year old student (distance learning has a diverse cohort of students) and, if so, I needed a DBS check. I agreed and automatically got a reminder 3 years later that I needed to renew it if I was teaching under 18s. I assume my colleagues who teach in prisons have DBS checks.
When I was teaching for the Open University in pre-DBS days I had a request to allow a 15 year old to attend one of my classes (this was in the days when the Open University still ran classroom sessions). His parents brought him and sat outside the room. He was a home-schooled student taking a second year university module alongside school-level qualifications.
To visit students in prison, as I did a few times, more concern was for the tutor's physical safety. In the prison that I visited all the inmates were on life sentences. One of my students was (from things that he told me) a sex offender.
I think the practice is overly intrusive, Doublethink. I regularly have 17 year olds in my class and as clients in my student services role. Parenthetically, I was 17 when I started university.
As far as I’m aware it’s the only independent way an organisation has of knowing that a person working with or for them does not have a criminal record as a sex offender or otherwise as an abuser of children or vulnerable adults.
English School/College terms start at the beginning of September, so students are usually 18 before September. University terms usually start in late September/October so a 17 year old would be exceptional, in my experience of both traditional UK university and distance learning over a couple of decades. In distance learning it is often a homeschooled student who is 17 and they need special permission from the university.
I think it might be more common elsewhere, and I know Scotland is slightly different on years.
I was a 17 year old undergraduate in England. I was not the only one of my university classmates who was under 18 when we started. I wasn't the youngest in my year at school either; there was a girl in my Further Maths class who was a month or so younger than I am. She also went on to (a different) university at the same time as I did.
I think at my secondary school, there were three of us out of a year of about 100 who were younger than we "should" have been. I can't give you university numbers, because I didn't know everyone...
I think the practice is overly intrusive, Doublethink. I regularly have 17 year olds in my class and as clients in my student services role. Parenthetically, I was 17 when I started university.
As far as I’m aware it’s the only independent way an organisation has of knowing that a person working with or for them does not have a criminal record as a sex offender or otherwise as an abuser of children or vulnerable adults.
I'd suggest here that if one were considering employing a rapist as a student counselor, then whether the students in question are 17 or 18 seems pretty irrelevant. I'd think you'd want your answer to be "don't employ the rapist" in both cases.
I agree, but you are only allowed to get DBS checks for people who will be working with children or vulnerable adults. I guess the rationale is that adults are more likely to be alert to inappropriate behaviour, and are more worldly wise in the judgments they make.
I think the practice is overly intrusive, Doublethink. I regularly have 17 year olds in my class and as clients in my student services role. Parenthetically, I was 17 when I started university.
As far as I’m aware it’s the only independent way an organisation has of knowing that a person working with or for them does not have a criminal record as a sex offender or otherwise as an abuser of children or vulnerable adults.
I'd suggest here that if one were considering employing a rapist as a student counselor, then whether the students in question are 17 or 18 seems pretty irrelevant. I'd think you'd want your answer to be "don't employ the rapist" in both cases.
I think were I the employer I would be arguing that (at least some of) the adult clients of a counselor are vulnerable adults and the counselor should be checked accordingly. Who is classed as a vulnerable adult varies considerably depending on context.
Yes. I missed that point. Almost by definition a student counsellor would be likely to be working with vulnerable adults, so a DBS check could be requested.
I think the practice is overly intrusive, Doublethink. I regularly have 17 year olds in my class and as clients in my student services role. Parenthetically, I was 17 when I started university.
As far as I’m aware it’s the only independent way an organisation has of knowing that a person working with or for them does not have a criminal record as a sex offender or otherwise as an abuser of children or vulnerable adults.
I'd suggest here that if one were considering employing a rapist as a student counselor, then whether the students in question are 17 or 18 seems pretty irrelevant. I'd think you'd want your answer to be "don't employ the rapist" in both cases.
What about someone charged with rape but found not guilty in court?
Someone accused of and investigated for rape, but not formally charged due to the unlikelihood of getting a conviction?
Someone accused of rape but not investigated due to lack of evidence?
Someone who “everyone knows” is “a bad ‘un” but who has never actually been accused of anything criminal?
Someone about whom there hasn’t even been rumour or wrongdoing, but who the hirer thinks don’t look right?
At which point in the spectrum do you think it becomes ok to hire (or indeed retain the services of) someone?
This is why I'm super glad I'm not forced to draw all the bright lines for people making those decisions.
I remember an intern we had at a religious organization I belonged to (yes, I'm being vague on purpose, I've belonged to quite a few organizations). Said intern started inviting teens to go on solo trips with him, just the two of them--out of state for a couple of days or more, from what I heard. The intern was probably in his mid-twenties. The teens were ages 16 or 17--still minors, and male, but still, you don't DO that--particularly skirting parental involvement and deliberately avoiding notice from the organizational powers that be.
He was explicitly warned in embarrassing detail about exactly why you don't do that, what conclusions people would draw, what the consequences would be for continuing, and so on. He was explicitly ordered not to do that. He continued. I reported it to his school, which took it super seriously. I believe it ended his career.
I remember one of the teens being super upset with me for reporting him. I don't see how we could have done otherwise, especially when it became clear shortly afterward that he had issued maybe five of these invitations to different people, even after being warned. I mean, it wasn't a one-off. And there was an additional pattern of outright disrespect for authority, including that of parents, and that didn't improve.
He didn't have a record (probably being too young to have one yet) and the whole thing was based on vibes and his outright refusal to stop. I wonder sometimes what became of him.
Comments
Even so thresholds for intervention are much higher than the general public tend to believe.
If you are a person who is in any kind of supervisory interaction with a minor that isn't their parent/guardian, the law obliges you to report anything and everything. So you could be a librarian who overhears someone saying something to a young person that is inappropriate. Police, youth worker, teacher, church minister, leader at the scouts. Pretty much anyone.
Last year a youth organisation I know went to an activity centre. One of the staff said something inappropriate to one of the children. The organisation they went with had to go through their safeguarding policy. The activity centre had to go through their policy. Steps had to be immediately made to ensure the welfare of the youth and the staff member was immediately suspended.
This is how it is supposed to work. No person or organisation is supposed to hesitate and wonder to themselves "hang on, do we have sufficient evidence here for a successful prosecution in the crown court? If not, I guess there's absolutely nothing we can do."
And the reason for this is because there have been multiple failures in the past when things were noticed and not acted upon.
For example, I was once driving in a local city residential area - and found a young child standing in the middle road. I stopped and the child had no sense of avoiding a stranger or a car for that matter, I was able to get them to lead me back to their house where the front door was open. I called till mother and grandmother appeared and returned the child to them. But I also made an online safeguarding report to the local social services. I was concerned because the mother seemed mainly concerned with reassuring me rather than the child, the child had no road safety awareness or of stranger danger - and that they hadn’t noticed the child was missing.
Of course I don’t know what came of my report, as I wasn’t professionally involved in the case.
This sort of process should be standard in any organisation where safeguarding is a potential issue, such as a church.
Just as most people North of the border do not understand the difference between the Church of England and the URC.
Clergy found guilty of criminal or immoral behaviour are usually referred to in the Meeja as *Vicars*, no matter what denomination they may actually belong to, unless they're RC, in which case they're referred to as *Priests*.
Our understanding was that all but one of the photographs had been taken in the presence of the girls' parents, or youth leaders, or the whole congregation. All had been developed in the usual way at the time - handed into Boots and collected later, without the developer noticing anything amiss.
Had he pled not guilty and gone to trial, I think a competent lawyer might have got him acquitted, or at least got the Scottish verdict of "Not Proven."
Certainly a large section of the congregation couldn't understand what he had done wrong, although presumably had it gone to trial they would have understood then.
The case in the OP has led made me reflect on the case in our church, over 30 years ago.
Extreme example, but you can read many summaries of The Franchise Affair (Josephine Tey) without anyone ever noting that child abuse actually occurs in it, or Last Seen Wearing (an Inspector Morse Novel) for that matter.
Nobody used to talk about “groupies” in terms of grooming.
What do you think would have happened in the year 2000 if a 17yr old boy went to the police and told them a priest groped them and made them watch porn ? Do you think the CPS would have thought they could get a conviction ?
This newspaper article relates (warning: graphic) details of abuse from his 19th known victim, who came forward in 2018:
https://www.thewhig.com/news/local-news/former-kingston-choirmaster-found-guilty-of-historical-sex-charges
In Scotland - and probably elsewhere in the UK - Safeguarding or Safeguarding Trust is the compulsory compliances that any group/organisation/charity has to conform to if engaging with either vulnerable adults or children (under 16 yrs as defined). Eg, in the Scottish Episcopal Church, all clergy and lay leaders in any kind of contact with such people are supposed to undergo Safeguarding Training, on induction to a new role, and regular updates. All Vestries of Charges (parishes) must appoint a PVG (Protecting Vulnerable Group) Coodinator who must report throughout the year to the Vestry/Priest in Charge, and submit various Diocesan yearly reports. The Coordinator is someone not usually involved with Vulnerable Adults or children within that Charge, but set apart as a go-to person in case of complaints; who in turn knows the 'flow' of how a complaint should proceed to Diocesan and Provincial level, also ensuring it's dealt with quickly using police or social services.
Safeguarding compliance involves posting the details of PVG Coordinator and Priest in Charge in the 'child information' public notice board of the church, giving social work numbers and other numbers (such as Childline or police) for people to use if they wish to report any incidents.
Apart from legal matters, I'm still old-fashioned enough to like to think that all clergy should have an explicit duty of care towards all their parishioners - regardless of age; and that Conduct Unbecoming a Minister of Religion is still a thing, when it comes to potentially exploiting the vulnerability or youth of another person when it comes to personal relationships, especially intimate ones.
Yes. In practice, this now extends to every member of a Church of England Parochial Church Council, whether or not they come into contact with children or vulnerable adults.
I do resent the too frequent safeguarding courses, especially for eg PCC members who have no contact with children.
It seems to me to be a lot of box-ticking, whilst real concerns are swept under the carpet.
Of course this is not just about children but also vulnerable adults, and not just about PCC members, but a requirement for trustees of any charity which is working or potentially working with children or vulnerable adults.
Or so I'm told - this may be anecdotal evidence, of course. However, given the prevalence of abuse cases old and new, one can see why all the box-ticking may be thought to be necessary. Whether or not it obscures real issues, I don't have enough RL experience to comment, but I take the point that it might do so.
Not to be difficult, but can you think of a better way? It’s really basic due diligence as far as I’m concerned.
I think there must be a better way on the training side of things than the way our shop is currently doing things. Though it is not as bad as it used to be.
It's fairly easy to get a DBS check. It's fairly easy for the charity/organisation to tick the box to say it has been checked. The question is whether the DBS actually protects children.
The basic system was introduced following the Soham murders. It’s a basic snapshot check, and not a substitute for good recruitment practice, and robust safeguarding practice.
I was contemplating whether credible accusations would be displayed on a DBS check, I've never seen it from the other side (nor seen one which includes anything objectionable). And what that means "x person was accused of y"?
One difficulty is that there has been some "grandfathering" of people who remain in the same post for a long time. Usually DBS checks are made as part of the process for applying for a new job, so if you don't change so regularly it is easy to avoid the system. I think it is now standard within the charity sector for employees to have an "up-to-date" DBS, but I have also recently heard of people who suddenly discovered that they didn't actually have a current one at a difficult moment.
Is it not routine for lecturers to have 17 year old students? IME, there are always a handful of students who are 17 when they start their degrees.
It's only intrusive if there's anything to disclose. All that happens is checking whether you have any criminal convictions, reported serious allegations, or are on a list of people barred from regulated work. That none of those things apply to me is not a secret, and them searching and finding nothing does't tell people anything I wasn't already required to tell them (at least for employment).
I think it might be more common elsewhere, and I know Scotland is slightly different on years.
Though not as intrusive as being on the receiving end of abuse.
When I was teaching for the Open University in pre-DBS days I had a request to allow a 15 year old to attend one of my classes (this was in the days when the Open University still ran classroom sessions). His parents brought him and sat outside the room. He was a home-schooled student taking a second year university module alongside school-level qualifications.
To visit students in prison, as I did a few times, more concern was for the tutor's physical safety. In the prison that I visited all the inmates were on life sentences. One of my students was (from things that he told me) a sex offender.
I was a 17 year old undergraduate in England. I was not the only one of my university classmates who was under 18 when we started. I wasn't the youngest in my year at school either; there was a girl in my Further Maths class who was a month or so younger than I am. She also went on to (a different) university at the same time as I did.
I think at my secondary school, there were three of us out of a year of about 100 who were younger than we "should" have been. I can't give you university numbers, because I didn't know everyone...
I'd suggest here that if one were considering employing a rapist as a student counselor, then whether the students in question are 17 or 18 seems pretty irrelevant. I'd think you'd want your answer to be "don't employ the rapist" in both cases.
I think were I the employer I would be arguing that (at least some of) the adult clients of a counselor are vulnerable adults and the counselor should be checked accordingly. Who is classed as a vulnerable adult varies considerably depending on context.
What about someone charged with rape but found not guilty in court?
Someone accused of and investigated for rape, but not formally charged due to the unlikelihood of getting a conviction?
Someone accused of rape but not investigated due to lack of evidence?
Someone who “everyone knows” is “a bad ‘un” but who has never actually been accused of anything criminal?
Someone about whom there hasn’t even been rumour or wrongdoing, but who the hirer thinks don’t look right?
At which point in the spectrum do you think it becomes ok to hire (or indeed retain the services of) someone?
I remember an intern we had at a religious organization I belonged to (yes, I'm being vague on purpose, I've belonged to quite a few organizations). Said intern started inviting teens to go on solo trips with him, just the two of them--out of state for a couple of days or more, from what I heard. The intern was probably in his mid-twenties. The teens were ages 16 or 17--still minors, and male, but still, you don't DO that--particularly skirting parental involvement and deliberately avoiding notice from the organizational powers that be.
He was explicitly warned in embarrassing detail about exactly why you don't do that, what conclusions people would draw, what the consequences would be for continuing, and so on. He was explicitly ordered not to do that. He continued. I reported it to his school, which took it super seriously. I believe it ended his career.
I remember one of the teens being super upset with me for reporting him. I don't see how we could have done otherwise, especially when it became clear shortly afterward that he had issued maybe five of these invitations to different people, even after being warned. I mean, it wasn't a one-off. And there was an additional pattern of outright disrespect for authority, including that of parents, and that didn't improve.
He didn't have a record (probably being too young to have one yet) and the whole thing was based on vibes and his outright refusal to stop. I wonder sometimes what became of him.