The employer’s opinion. If it’s an obviously ill-founded opinion they may lay themselves open to legal action, but a thought-through opinion on the balance of probabilities is enough.
For most employment law and practice, the standard is balance of probabilities.
But in whose opinion?
Help me understand how you think this should work. In an example mentioned above, a guy in a youth organisation was inviting younger people for weekends away with him.
Talk me through how you think the system should do a risk assessment about this issue for child protection.
For most employment law and practice, the standard is balance of probabilities.
But in whose opinion?
Help me understand how you think this should work. In an example mentioned above, a guy in a youth organisation was inviting younger people for weekends away with him.
Which was in clear (and apparently egregious) contravention of the organisation's safeguarding policy. That's grounds for dismissal from that organisation, sure, but it doesn't mean the person concerned is actually a threat to children.
Talk me through how you think the system should do a risk assessment about this issue for child protection.
With fairness to all concerned and a healthy appreciation of the concept of innocent until proven guilty.
If someone is accused of murder but not investigated due to lack of evidence or found not guilty in a court of law then we don't impose all kinds of restrictions on what that person can do for the rest of their life anyway. And nor should we! Someone being accused of something - even if there's enough evidence to go to court - does not mean they actually did it, and to punish them purely on the grounds of such an accusation is in my view completely wrong.
Hell, if we're going to act like that then why even bother with the courts in the first place? Just instantly lock up everyone accused or suspected of a major crime without wasting all that money deciding if the accusation/suspicion actually has any basis in fact. We'd be safer than ever before! What could possibly go wrong?
Innocent until proven guilty (beyond a reasonable doubt) is a legal term of art applying to how a court approaches a criminal trial and what is required for a government to punish someone for a crime. It is not an overarching requirement for how society at large should treat alleged perpetrators.
There is a genuine issue with people who've been falsely accused and have had their lives ruined, but there is also an issue with abusers who don't get convicted going on to abuse over and over again. To cherry pick "innocent until proven guilty" may resolve the first issue but makes the second far, far worse.
Had to make a report to Adult Protective Services last week. Picked up a elderly lady at a Doctor's office. As I was taking her home, she related how a neighbor was sexually harassing her, and another neighbor had damaged her garden--intentionally. She was pretty graphic in the details. Not for me to decide what happened. Social Services will look into it.
If someone is accused of murder but not investigated due to lack of evidence or found not guilty in a court of law then we don't impose all kinds of restrictions on what that person can do for the rest of their life anyway.
But I suppose my question would be, take a situation like Jimmy Saville - if you have many allegations over many years not resulting in convictions - as an employer is it or is not reasonable to take account of this information ?
Most major safeguarding failures are not on relation to people who have already been convicted. It's people who are convicted after decades of red flags being raised.
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.
Firing someone for gross policy breaches is completely normal. My employer, in common with many others, has a big stack of policies as regards safety (both for the employee, and for others), with regard to what is appropriate behavior at work to ensure that work is a comfortable place for all employees, with regard to conflict of interest, and so on.
Most of the behavior that breaches these policies isn't actually illegal. Most of it will get you fired.
If I tell my employees, for example, that they can't take kids off by themselves, and the employee does it anyway, then unless there's some major extenuating circumstance, that employee is getting fired for cause.
Which was in clear (and apparently egregious) contravention of the organisation's safeguarding policy. That's grounds for dismissal from that organisation, sure, but it doesn't mean the person concerned is actually a threat to children.
If a person is unwilling to follow fairly straightforward rules that are set up in the best interests of the children, and thinks that they are somehow above the rules, or that they mean well, so the rules don't apply to them, then yes, that person is a threat to children. They may not be intending to take sexual advantage of the children, but they're not a safe person to be entrusted with a child's care.
I'll tell you straight out, there was no written policy (nor oral either, the issue had never arisen) that said "You can't invite sixteen-year-olds on solo interstate trip with you." So the most this person could be, um, "charged" with was direct defiance of his supervisor plus an incredible lack of good sense.
It was enough.
And given that he aspired to one of the helping professions and would have come under professional discipline (licensing and code of conduct stuff), I can't be sorry he washed out. There's always the hope that he might have found a better career somewhere else, and not have become actually guilty of anything either. But we couldn't run the risk of passing him on through after such a (series of) red flags.
If someone is accused of murder but not investigated due to lack of evidence or found not guilty in a court of law then we don't impose all kinds of restrictions on what that person can do for the rest of their life anyway. And nor should we! Someone being accused of something - even if there's enough evidence to go to court - does not mean they actually did it, and to punish them purely on the grounds of such an accusation is in my view completely wrong.
Hell, if we're going to act like that then why even bother with the courts in the first place? Just instantly lock up everyone accused or suspected of a major crime without wasting all that money deciding if the accusation/suspicion actually has any basis in fact. We'd be safer than ever before! What could possibly go wrong?
To me, this is to misunderstand the nature of risk as an idea (specifically in relation to child protection).
One can't usually be prosecuted for a crime one hasn't committed yet, but one can clearly be assessed as to the likelihood of one's behaviour leading to risks for children.
In a similar way of thinking, probation officers assess the risk of people released from incarceration. They might indeed never do anything that justifies restrictions on their normal liberties but (for example) there are obvious issues if they are not given terms and restrictions and end up re-offending in the same way again. Particularly if there are victims that are likely to be at risk.
And, fairly obviously, these risks are assessed as significant because abusers have been found doing this stuff before, and better to falsely determine someone to be a risk to children than actually allow someone to be a risk to children.
better to falsely determine someone to be a risk to children than actually allow someone to be a risk to children.
Yeah, that’s the part I’m having trouble with. Quite apart from the utter disregard for the lives of those falsely accused, what’s to stop someone (for example) deciding that as the majority of child abusers are men they’re only going to hire women?
And, fairly obviously, these risks are assessed as significant because abusers have been found doing this stuff before, and better to falsely determine someone to be a risk to children than actually allow someone to be a risk to children.
And what happens to the person falsely accused? Ostracised from society, probably loses employment, personal relationships ruined - the list goes on. You protect the children of course, but no "false determinations".
And, fairly obviously, these risks are assessed as significant because abusers have been found doing this stuff before, and better to falsely determine someone to be a risk to children than actually allow someone to be a risk to children.
And what happens to the person falsely accused? Ostracised from society, probably loses employment, personal relationships ruined - the list goes on. You protect the children of course, but no "false determinations".
If there is no evidence beyond risky behaviours, I doubt there is much chance of being ostracised from society. Possibly they won't be able to work with children again, but if they are really thinking that they could invite minors away for the weekend (in one example) or proposition teens (in another example I know of) and really think that there's nothing wrong with this then they are probably too stupid and morally compromised to work with children. If nothing else, a person who innocently thinks that it would be fine to go away with a minor for the weekend would probably not be concerned if an actual predator did the same.
Comments
But in whose opinion?
Help me understand how you think this should work. In an example mentioned above, a guy in a youth organisation was inviting younger people for weekends away with him.
Talk me through how you think the system should do a risk assessment about this issue for child protection.
Which was in clear (and apparently egregious) contravention of the organisation's safeguarding policy. That's grounds for dismissal from that organisation, sure, but it doesn't mean the person concerned is actually a threat to children.
With fairness to all concerned and a healthy appreciation of the concept of innocent until proven guilty.
If someone is accused of murder but not investigated due to lack of evidence or found not guilty in a court of law then we don't impose all kinds of restrictions on what that person can do for the rest of their life anyway. And nor should we! Someone being accused of something - even if there's enough evidence to go to court - does not mean they actually did it, and to punish them purely on the grounds of such an accusation is in my view completely wrong.
Hell, if we're going to act like that then why even bother with the courts in the first place? Just instantly lock up everyone accused or suspected of a major crime without wasting all that money deciding if the accusation/suspicion actually has any basis in fact. We'd be safer than ever before! What could possibly go wrong?
There is a genuine issue with people who've been falsely accused and have had their lives ruined, but there is also an issue with abusers who don't get convicted going on to abuse over and over again. To cherry pick "innocent until proven guilty" may resolve the first issue but makes the second far, far worse.
Courts can make [="https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-15-sexual-harm-prevention-orders-shpos"]Sexual Harm Prevention Orders[/url] without a conviction, and I believe multi agency public protection arrangements can also be used if a person is considered dangerous enough.
But I suppose my question would be, take a situation like Jimmy Saville - if you have many allegations over many years not resulting in convictions - as an employer is it or is not reasonable to take account of this information ?
Most major safeguarding failures are not on relation to people who have already been convicted. It's people who are convicted after decades of red flags being raised.
Firing someone for gross policy breaches is completely normal. My employer, in common with many others, has a big stack of policies as regards safety (both for the employee, and for others), with regard to what is appropriate behavior at work to ensure that work is a comfortable place for all employees, with regard to conflict of interest, and so on.
Most of the behavior that breaches these policies isn't actually illegal. Most of it will get you fired.
If I tell my employees, for example, that they can't take kids off by themselves, and the employee does it anyway, then unless there's some major extenuating circumstance, that employee is getting fired for cause.
If a person is unwilling to follow fairly straightforward rules that are set up in the best interests of the children, and thinks that they are somehow above the rules, or that they mean well, so the rules don't apply to them, then yes, that person is a threat to children. They may not be intending to take sexual advantage of the children, but they're not a safe person to be entrusted with a child's care.
It was enough.
And given that he aspired to one of the helping professions and would have come under professional discipline (licensing and code of conduct stuff), I can't be sorry he washed out. There's always the hope that he might have found a better career somewhere else, and not have become actually guilty of anything either. But we couldn't run the risk of passing him on through after such a (series of) red flags.
To me, this is to misunderstand the nature of risk as an idea (specifically in relation to child protection).
One can't usually be prosecuted for a crime one hasn't committed yet, but one can clearly be assessed as to the likelihood of one's behaviour leading to risks for children.
In a similar way of thinking, probation officers assess the risk of people released from incarceration. They might indeed never do anything that justifies restrictions on their normal liberties but (for example) there are obvious issues if they are not given terms and restrictions and end up re-offending in the same way again. Particularly if there are victims that are likely to be at risk.
And, fairly obviously, these risks are assessed as significant because abusers have been found doing this stuff before, and better to falsely determine someone to be a risk to children than actually allow someone to be a risk to children.
Yeah, that’s the part I’m having trouble with. Quite apart from the utter disregard for the lives of those falsely accused, what’s to stop someone (for example) deciding that as the majority of child abusers are men they’re only going to hire women?
By the way, I was abused by a woman. I think you might be considering sexual abuse only.
And what happens to the person falsely accused? Ostracised from society, probably loses employment, personal relationships ruined - the list goes on. You protect the children of course, but no "false determinations".
If there is no evidence beyond risky behaviours, I doubt there is much chance of being ostracised from society. Possibly they won't be able to work with children again, but if they are really thinking that they could invite minors away for the weekend (in one example) or proposition teens (in another example I know of) and really think that there's nothing wrong with this then they are probably too stupid and morally compromised to work with children. If nothing else, a person who innocently thinks that it would be fine to go away with a minor for the weekend would probably not be concerned if an actual predator did the same.