Re: York Minster again

[NY]

"Martin" <m...@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:iq9u0c5rnk3vfr5ej...@4ax.com...
> https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/25/york-minster-bellringers-archbishop-john-sentamu-explain-mass-dismissal

I see a lawsuit about to happen. If the man has never been charged for the
offences then legally he is innocent. If the Minster has any further
evidence (beyond "we just don't like you") then they need to present it to
the police and to his solicitor. But the ball is in their court: if they
cannot justify to his solicitor's satisfaction that there is a valid case,
then the default state is for him to be allowed back.

They won't want to make their reasoning public (eg to newspapers) but they
should at the very least, as a courtesy to him, explain fully why they are
banning him even though he has no convictions and has never even been
charged.

I really hope that Sentamu and the Dean suffer for this one - unless he
really *is* guilty but there is insufficient evidence to prove it. But
suspicion and rumour (which may be malicious) doesn't come close to being
sufficient reason.

[Max Demian]

Since there are no more kids in the vicinity of York Minster than
there are in society at large it doesn't make any difference either
way.

This idea everybody has to be squeaky clean is ridiculous.

--
Max Demian

[NY]

"Martin" <m...@address.invalid> wrote in message

news:e7fu0cthb7pirs651...@4ax.com...
> If there is insufficient evidence then technically he is innocent.
> If there is a libel action then we might see just how thin the evidence
> is.
> It's possible that the complaints are malicious or that the ones, who made
> the
> complaint aren't willing to appear in court. as a witness.
> This leaves us with the other 29 bell ringers and the 500 brorderers and
> the
> flower arrangers, who were sacked too.

Do we know why the brorderers and flower arrangers were sacked? Is it
related to the bellringers' case - did they come out in sympathy with him -
or is it completely unrelated?

I agree that the needs to be tested - "put up or shut up". And that if there
is insufficient evidence (as the police/CPS have twice decided) then to
penalise him is to libel him.

I do hope the Minster isn't going to waste its donations on fighting a
hopeless legal case, otherwise it will find that donations will dry up very
quickly.

[AnthonyL]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 12:27:09 +0100, "NY" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

>
>I do hope the Minster isn't going to waste its donations on fighting a
>hopeless legal case, otherwise it will find that donations will dry up very
>quickly.
>

Well it has already wasted several hundreds of pounds in paying to
have the bells rung down to a safe position (mouth down and not mouth
up) which the existing ringers are competent to do and offered to do.

And the dean says they are intent on having a paid head bellringer and
I don't think such a position exists anywhere else.


--
AnthonyL

[sp...@potato.field]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 13:16:00 +0200
Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 10:49:44 +0100, "NY" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

>>I really hope that Sentamu and the Dean suffer for this one - unless he
>>really *is* guilty but there is insufficient evidence to prove it. But
>>suspicion and rumour (which may be malicious) doesn't come close to being
>>sufficient reason.
>

>If there is insufficient evidence then technically he is innocent.
>If there is a libel action then we might see just how thin the evidence is.

Beat in mind that in civil court the evidence for or against someone doesn't
have to be quite so convincing. Balance of probabilities or something. So if
he *doesn't* start libel proceedings , well, make up your own minds...

--
Spud

[Max Demian]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 13:50:35 +0200, Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 12:27:09 +0100, "NY" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> >I do hope the Minster isn't going to waste its donations on
fighting a
> >hopeless legal case, otherwise it will find that donations will
dry up very
> >quickly.

> Bad enough that they are planning pay people to do what volunteers
did very
> well. Somebody should stop York Minster building a large
bureaucracy where none
> is needed. Professional HR manager, FFS its a cathedral not a theme
park.
> The Dean and Chapter of York Minster should a log hard look at what
has happened
> to the National Trust where donations have dried up as a result of
being out of
> touch with their supporters according to The Times.

Do we have 'volunteers' any more? Or do we have unpaid employees?

--
Max Demian

[Bill Wright]

On 25/10/2016 13:29, AnthonyL wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 12:27:09 +0100, "NY" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> I do hope the Minster isn't going to waste its donations on fighting a
>> hopeless legal case, otherwise it will find that donations will dry up very
>> quickly.
>>
>
> Well it has already wasted several hundreds of pounds

I think you'll find it was a £1,500 + VAT visit.


Bill

[Norman Wells]

"Max Demian" <max_d...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:almarsoft.8805...@news.plus.net...

I'm not sure you're allowed those these days. You have to pay them the minimum
wage, you see.

Interns, on the other hand, you apparently don't.

It's all a matter of language.

[JNugent]

What?

In churches?

Absolutely not.

No parish church in the UK could run without a certain amount of
freely-donated time by volunteers. There is no question of payment.

The same is very true - obviously - of political parties.

> Interns, on the other hand, you apparently don't.
> It's all a matter of language.

Maybe.

Maybe not.

[Robin]

Do you know he could afford having to meet the costs of a libel case -
which could easily exceed £100,000?

In any event, the Church is not just entitled to take into account
accusations which do not lead to a conviction but obliged to do so if
they have eg regular contact with children or vulnerable adults.
Remember the Soham murders, Bichard Report, Disclosure and Barring
Service, etc.


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

[Peter Duncanson]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 12:27:09 +0100, "NY" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

Just a general point: the Minster and other organisations have a duty to
safeguard children.

If they see that someone is behaving towards children in a way that
causes concern, what are they supposed to do? Should they prevent that
person from having access to children, or should they wait until there
is child abuse proven in court?

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

[charles]

In article <6b3dbdc2-8eec-2218...@hotmail.com>, Robin

But, I understand that it is illegal to ask for DBS clearance for someone
who doesn't need one in their job/voluntary work. And, I don't see why a
bell ringer should need clearance.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

[charles]

In article <re2v0ch62uer9gmca...@4ax.com>, Peter Duncanson

But, have they "seen"? or are they reacting to a non-case 16 years ago?

[Peter Duncanson]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 17:44:44 +0100, charles <cha...@candehope.me.uk>
wrote:

I don't know.

[Bill Wright]

On 25/10/2016 18:44, Peter Duncanson wrote:

> I don't know.

Well make something up. This is Usenet.

Bill

[Roderick Stewart]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 17:40:06 +0100, Peter Duncanson
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

>>> If there is insufficient evidence then technically he is innocent.
>>> If there is a libel action then we might see just how thin the evidence
>>> is.
>>> It's possible that the complaints are malicious or that the ones, who made
>>> the
>>> complaint aren't willing to appear in court.

[...]

>Just a general point: the Minster and other organisations have a duty to
>safeguard children.
>
>If they see that someone is behaving towards children in a way that
>causes concern, what are they supposed to do? Should they prevent that
>person from having access to children, or should they wait until there
>is child abuse proven in court?

I understand it's a legal principle that in order to be punished for a
crime, you actually have to commit one. Why should it be any different
here? Just *thinking* that somebody *might* commit an offence should
not be grounds to take action against them.

Not only that, but I think extra care has to be taken where the
suspected thoughtcrime (i.e. the thing that somebody thinks the person
might do but hasn't actually done) involves any form of sexual
misconduct, because an entirely innocent person and their career can
be destroyed merely by a publicised accusation.

Rod.

[Robin]

Yes, DBS checks cannot be asked for without cause. And AIUI the CoE
doesn't routinely ask for them on Tower Captains (or other bell-ringers
who train) where there is no regular contact with children or adults at
risk.

But my point was that those arguing "innocent until proven guilty" are
behind the times when it comes to statutory responsibilities for
safeguarding.

[Robin]

On 25/10/2016 20:13, Roderick Stewart wrote:

>
> I understand it's a legal principle that in order to be punished for a
> crime, you actually have to commit one. Why should it be any different
> here? Just *thinking* that somebody *might* commit an offence should
> not be grounds to take action against them.
>
> Not only that, but I think extra care has to be taken where the
> suspected thoughtcrime (i.e. the thing that somebody thinks the person
> might do but hasn't actually done) involves any form of sexual
> misconduct, because an entirely innocent person and their career can
> be destroyed merely by a publicised accusation.
>

As I have already indicated, "innocent until prove guilty" has not
equated to "anyone innocent can work with children or vulnerable adults"
for a long time now.

And it ain't easy for employers to navigate the statutory requirements.
See eg

<https://yorkminster.org/geisha/assets/files/YM%20Child%20Protection%20policy%20procedures%20and%20guidance%20interim%20April%202016.doc>

[charles]

In article <852259e7-c3b9-7d1c...@hotmail.com>,

They don't seem to be conforming to the 6th bullet point on their own list.

[AnthonyL]

Do you have a source for that or gossip Bill? I heard £750+VAT and
then heard that was an exaggeration.


--
AnthonyL

[AnthonyL]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 17:40:06 +0100, Peter Duncanson
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

Of course.

>If they see that someone is behaving towards children in a way that
>causes concern, what are they supposed to do? Should they prevent that
>person from having access to children, or should they wait until there
>is child abuse proven in court?
>

But they haven't. Someone appears to have resurrected a complaint
from many years ago. The bell ringers state that they follow all
safeguarding procedures as laid down by the church. The church
appears to be saying "ban this man because an allegation was made
years ago", the bell ringers are saying "why, he's been cleared with
no case to answer", the church says "vulnerable people and survivors"
(very emotive language here). Now for arguments sake, let's say
someone has a grudge, or someone feels let down by a 16yr old
decision, where do you stop?

There has been nothing stated to indicate that this, or any other
individual in the 30 or so band, are a threat to vulnerable people and
there will not be such people up in the tower ringing those bells.

So let's ban everyone, everywhere, because they might be an abuser, or
someone has pointed a finger at them in the past.


--
AnthonyL

[AnthonyL]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 21:26:09 +0100, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 25/10/2016 20:13, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
>>
>> I understand it's a legal principle that in order to be punished for a
>> crime, you actually have to commit one. Why should it be any different
>> here? Just *thinking* that somebody *might* commit an offence should
>> not be grounds to take action against them.
>>
>> Not only that, but I think extra care has to be taken where the
>> suspected thoughtcrime (i.e. the thing that somebody thinks the person
>> might do but hasn't actually done) involves any form of sexual
>> misconduct, because an entirely innocent person and their career can
>> be destroyed merely by a publicised accusation.
>>
>
>As I have already indicated, "innocent until prove guilty" has not
>equated to "anyone innocent can work with children or vulnerable adults"
>for a long time now.
>

Nonetheless singling someone out who is not carrying out his hobby on
a one to one basis with either children or vulnerable adults seems to
be a fast track route to a court, which seems where either the Dean or
the Archbishop are headed. This sounds more like a battle for control
with a bit of dirty mud-slinging thrown in for good measure.


--
AnthonyL

[Max Demian]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 17:11:56 +0100, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> In any event, the Church is not just entitled to take into account
> accusations which do not lead to a conviction but obliged to do so
if
> they have eg regular contact with children or vulnerable adults.
> Remember the Soham murders, Bichard Report, Disclosure and Barring
> Service, etc.

It sounds as if you've swallowed the paedo panic whole.

Parents and other relatives have "regular contact with children".
Should they all be vetted? What if they refuse? Can the state support
millions of children?

--
Max Demian

[Bill Wright]

I heard £1,500 + VAT. I believed the source, but on reflection it might
or might not be true I suppose. Let's try to guess.
It's a hundred miles. It would be a full day, in that they'd get nothing
else done that day. There would be three people I suppose. Well, a
minimum of two at a pinch. I would have thought two was pushing it a bit
for a job like that. I don't know if they would need specialist gear.
The Minster is basically over a barrel and the contractor knows it.
However the contractor would probably not want to rub the Minster's nose
in it because presumably they want future business, although I don't
know how much competition there is in that field. It's very specialised.

Hmm... I doubt if £750 would cover it unless they did it as a
concession. Think about wages, overheads, etc. But £1,500 seems a bit
steep. I could easily believe £1,000 though.

Bill

[Bill Wright]

On 25/10/2016 22:58, AnthonyL wrote:

> Nonetheless singling someone out who is not carrying out his hobby on
> a one to one basis with either children or vulnerable adults seems to
> be a fast track route to a court, which seems where either the Dean or
> the Archbishop are headed. This sounds more like a battle for control
> with a bit of dirty mud-slinging thrown in for good measure.
>
>

As I recall the safeguarding issues were only mentioned after the health
and safety issue had become discredited.

Bill

[Peter Crosland]

On 25/10/2016 10:39, Martin wrote:
> https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/25/york-minster-bellringers-archbishop-john-sentamu-explain-mass-dismissal
>

There was an extensive article in the Sunday Times on the story. It
seems there is much more to it than has been published in the article
you refer to. The whole scenario has bungling incompetence written all
over it.

--
Peter Crosland

Reply address is valid

[Peter Crosland]

+1

Corporate paranoia is my term for it.

[sp...@potato.field]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 17:11:56 +0100
Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 25/10/2016 13:52, sp...@potato.field wrote:
>> Beat in mind that in civil court the evidence for or against someone doesn't
>> have to be quite so convincing. Balance of probabilities or something. So if
>> he *doesn't* start libel proceedings , well, make up your own minds...
>>
>
>Do you know he could afford having to meet the costs of a libel case -
>which could easily exceed £100,000?

I'm sure there would be plenty of no win no fee solicitors chomping at the
bit to take the case.

>In any event, the Church is not just entitled to take into account
>accusations which do not lead to a conviction but obliged to do so if
>they have eg regular contact with children or vulnerable adults.
>Remember the Soham murders, Bichard Report, Disclosure and Barring
>Service, etc.

They also have to justify it. If they can't...

--
Spud

[sp...@potato.field]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 21:18:34 +0100
Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>But my point was that those arguing "innocent until proven guilty" are
>behind the times when it comes to statutory responsibilities for
>safeguarding.

So the responsibilities are based around no smoke without fire rumoura and
supposition now are they? The police found he had no case to answer, ergo
treating him differently is discrimination. End of.

--
Spud

[AnthonyL]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 02:03:32 +0100, Bill Wright

You make the assumption that it was necessary for someone to travel a
distance and that more than one person was needed (no special
equipment is required - bells are rung up and down regularly by
ringers but heavier bells are usually left up). Though it may have
been wise from a elfin safety p o v to have two people in attendance.

However some further digging leads to the interesting snippet that the
bell ringer at the centre of all this controversy is a director of

https://www.endole.co.uk/company/07032766/john-taylor-bell-foundry-loughborough-limited?page=people

and could of course therefore have nominated himself, at an inflated
cost and as the most suitably trained person, knowing the bells the
best, to have rung them down. That would be ironic eh! £1500 to do
something offered to do for free.

However it would have served York right if all the professional bell
hanger companies refused the work in a show of solidarity, after all
they are bell hanging/bell foundry not bell ringers.
--
AnthonyL

[Woody]

"Bill Wright" <wrights...@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:nuovd0$av0$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

My F-in-L is a bleel ringer and instructor (at nearly 91!) and knows
both the company and the personnel well. He advises that it would have
been one man that he knows who is a very experienced ringer and, given
that most of the bells were made by this company, it may have been
done free for good will.


--
Woody

harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com

[Indy Jess John]

On 25/10/2016 22:55, AnthonyL wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 17:40:06 +0100, Peter Duncanson

>> If they see that someone is behaving towards children in a way that
>> causes concern, what are they supposed to do? Should they prevent that
>> person from having access to children, or should they wait until there
>> is child abuse proven in court?
>>
>
> But they haven't. Someone appears to have resurrected a complaint
> from many years ago. The bell ringers state that they follow all
> safeguarding procedures as laid down by the church. The church
> appears to be saying "ban this man because an allegation was made
> years ago", the bell ringers are saying "why, he's been cleared with
> no case to answer", the church says "vulnerable people and survivors"
> (very emotive language here). Now for arguments sake, let's say
> someone has a grudge, or someone feels let down by a 16yr old
> decision, where do you stop?

Also, *if* a person is tempted to abuse, there are far better
opportunities away from the Minster than in a bell tower where likely
victims would not be present and witnesses there will be a-plenty.
Surely by banning them from the bell-tower, that increases the risk
elsewhere?

This hasn't been thought through, has it?

Jim

[Indy Jess John]

On 26/10/2016 09:37, sp...@potato.field wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 17:11:56 +0100
> Robin<rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 25/10/2016 13:52, sp...@potato.field wrote:
>>> Beat in mind that in civil court the evidence for or against someone doesn't
>>> have to be quite so convincing. Balance of probabilities or something. So if
>>> he *doesn't* start libel proceedings , well, make up your own minds...
>>>
>>
>> Do you know he could afford having to meet the costs of a libel case -
>> which could easily exceed £100,000?
>
> I'm sure there would be plenty of no win no fee solicitors chomping at the
> bit to take the case.

I am not so sure. They usually target the easy wins, like foreseeable
accident at work, sexual or religious discrimination and the like.

The church has its own regulations in addition to statutory obligations,
and although this case looks winnable the solicitor would have to do
more research than for a typical case, and that means more costs to
write off if they don't win. They must be tempted to stick with the
devil they know.

Jim

[Roderick Stewart]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 21:38:09 +0100, charles <cha...@candehope.me.uk>
wrote:

>> And it ain't easy for employers to navigate the statutory requirements.
>> See eg
>
>> <https://yorkminster.org/geisha/assets/files/YM%20Child%20Protection%20policy%20procedures%20and%20guidance%20interim%20April%202016.doc>
>
>They don't seem to be conforming to the 6th bullet point on their own list.

Do you mean the one that says-

"Chapter will care for and supervise any member of our church
community known to have offended against a child, working alongside
statutory agencies as appropriate,"?

If so, I don't see how it is relevant, as the individual at the centre
of all this doesn't appear to have offended against any child. No
evidence of such has been found and no charges have been brought,
therefore the person is innocent and should be treated as innocent.

Rod.

[Woody]

"Roderick Stewart" <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:qfv01cde9dten0t23...@4ax.com...

I also notice that this Policy document is only interim and is dated
March this year, and that it is 62 pages long and full of
management-speak.

Now I wonder who was responsible for generating that little
lot.........................?

[Roderick Stewart]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 21:18:34 +0100, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>But my point was that those arguing "innocent until proven guilty" are
>behind the times when it comes to statutory responsibilities for
>safeguarding.

If the Law really has abandoned this fundamental principle, then we're
all in trouble.

What are we to use instead? Innocent until accused? Innocent until
somebody doesn't like you? Innocent until somebody thinks you've been
looking at them in a funny way? Innocent until somebody just *knows*
that you must be guilty of something even though there is no evidence?
Innocent until something disparaging about you "goes viral" on the
internet because gullible people believe it or somebody thinks it's
funny? Innocent until vigilante morons daub slogans on your house or
car and the newspapers report it?

I'm no expert, but I do know that the fundamental principles on which
the Law is based, and the rules about what can and cannot be presented
as evidence, have been carefully worked out over many years with the
intention that only the guilty are punished. Abandon these principles
and we'll be back to medieval witch-dunking before we know it.

Rod.

[sp...@potato.field]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 10:48:04 +0100
Indy Jess John <jimw...@OMITblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>On 26/10/2016 09:37, sp...@potato.field wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 17:11:56 +0100
>> Robin<rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 25/10/2016 13:52, sp...@potato.field wrote:
>>>> Beat in mind that in civil court the evidence for or against someone
>doesn't
>>>> have to be quite so convincing. Balance of probabilities or something. So
>if
>>>> he *doesn't* start libel proceedings , well, make up your own minds...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you know he could afford having to meet the costs of a libel case -
>>> which could easily exceed £100,000?
>>
>> I'm sure there would be plenty of no win no fee solicitors chomping at the
>> bit to take the case.
>
>I am not so sure. They usually target the easy wins, like foreseeable
>accident at work, sexual or religious discrimination and the like.
>
>The church has its own regulations in addition to statutory obligations,

The law of the land trumps company - and in this case church - rules. You
cannot discriminate against someone because they had criminal complaints made
against them that were not upheld.

--
Spud

[charles]

In article <qfv01cde9dten0t23...@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart

That's my point, if they think he has offended then they should apply the
above. If he hasn't - then why dismiss him?


> Rod.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 10:48:04 +0100, Indy Jess John
<jimw...@OMITblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>The church has its own regulations in addition to statutory obligations,
>and although this case looks winnable the solicitor would have to do
>more research than for a typical case, and that means more costs to
>write off if they don't win. They must be tempted to stick with the
>devil they know.

I expect the Church knows the Devil better than they'd like to admit.

Rod.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <350f2b0d-cefb-50fa...@hotmail.com>, Robin

<rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, DBS checks cannot be asked for without cause. And AIUI the CoE
> doesn't routinely ask for them on Tower Captains (or other bell-ringers
> who train) where there is no regular contact with children or adults at
> risk.

> But my point was that those arguing "innocent until proven guilty" are
> behind the times when it comes to statutory responsibilities for
> safeguarding.

No, someone is still innocent until a court decides otherwise.

Having a safeguarding responsibility doesn't mean they can take on the
roles of police, judge, and jury. If they have evidence, they should
promptly hand it on to the police, and then do as advised by the police.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[Bill Wright]

On 26/10/2016 10:27, AnthonyL wrote:

> You make the assumption that it was necessary for someone to travel a
> distance

The firm is in Loughborough.

> However some further digging leads to the interesting snippet that the
> bell ringer at the centre of all this controversy is a director of
>
> https://www.endole.co.uk/company/07032766/john-taylor-bell-foundry-loughborough-limited?page=people

Ah ha!

Bill

[Bill Wright]

On 26/10/2016 10:28, Woody wrote:

> My F-in-L is a bleel ringer and instructor (at nearly 91!) and knows
> both the company and the personnel well. He advises that it would have
> been one man that he knows who is a very experienced ringer and, given
> that most of the bells were made by this company, it may have been
> done free for good will.

That would be a bad move. Contractors should never take sides.

Bill

[Robin]

On 26/10/2016 11:55, Martin wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 21:18:34 +0100, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>

>> But my point was that those arguing "innocent until proven guilty" are
>> behind the times when it comes to statutory responsibilities for
>> safeguarding.
>

> Which law says that?
>

Look at the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 along with the
Children Act 2004. Then ask yourself why, if "innocent until proven
guilty" is all you need to know, an enhanced DBS check may include
disclosure of approved information - more commonly known as "police
intelligence" - which can include allegations which led to no conviction.

NB I am not saying York got it right (or anywhere near right); just that
it ain't quite as simple as "not guilty".

As a test, people might care to ask themselves if they would in 2010
have defended Jimmy Saville's right to work with children on the basis
he was "innocent until proven guilty".

[Roderick Stewart]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 12:32:00 +0100, Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk>

wrote:

>> Yes, DBS checks cannot be asked for without cause. And AIUI the CoE
>> doesn't routinely ask for them on Tower Captains (or other bell-ringers
>> who train) where there is no regular contact with children or adults at
>> risk.
>
>> But my point was that those arguing "innocent until proven guilty" are
>> behind the times when it comes to statutory responsibilities for
>> safeguarding.
>
>No, someone is still innocent until a court decides otherwise.
>
>Having a safeguarding responsibility doesn't mean they can take on the
>roles of police, judge, and jury. If they have evidence, they should
>promptly hand it on to the police, and then do as advised by the police.

And it's worth repeating and emphasising that in the special case
where the alleged or suspected issue concerns any kind of sexual
misbehaviour, extra care needs to be taken before any accusation is
made, or even suggested. For some reason, people seem to be reluctant
to accept that unfounded speculations have no validity at all, and
many seem to think that innocent just means "guilty but there's no
proof, and we know better than the court". It's depressing to see so
many news items about people who are destroyed before they even get to
court. In an area where a person is effectively only innocent until
the bloggers and vigilantes get wind of someone's suspicion, we need
to be very careful indeed to make sure that justice is done.

Rod.

[Robin]

On 26/10/2016 15:09, Martin wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 14:37:45 +0100, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 26/10/2016 11:55, Martin wrote:
>>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 21:18:34 +0100, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But my point was that those arguing "innocent until proven guilty" are
>>>> behind the times when it comes to statutory responsibilities for
>>>> safeguarding.
>>>
>>> Which law says that?
>>>
>>
>> Look at the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 along with the
>> Children Act 2004. Then ask yourself why, if "innocent until proven
>> guilty" is all you need to know, an enhanced DBS check may include
>> disclosure of approved information - more commonly known as "police
>> intelligence" - which can include allegations which led to no conviction.
>

> but the person wouldn't pass the DBS.

>
>>
>> NB I am not saying York got it right (or anywhere near right); just that
>> it ain't quite as simple as "not guilty".
>>
>> As a test, people might care to ask themselves if they would in 2010
>> have defended Jimmy Saville's right to work with children on the basis
>> he was "innocent until proven guilty".
>
>

> AFAIK he wasn't formerly accused of anything while he was alive or was he? In
> the case of Jimmy Saville, I would have banned him anyway. I never liked him
> because I found him creepy. His friendship with the peodo Mayor of Scarborough
> was well known as was the reputation of the Mayor of Scarborough. See colour
> cartoon etc. etc. here
> http://nyenquirer.uk/the-private-eye-collection/
>
> In the Minster case, the person has been investigated at least twice and has
> passed a DBS check. If he hasn't the Dean and Chapter should say so. That would
> have justified a ban and they wouldn't be in the mess they are now.
>
Would you say a person has "passed a DBS check" if it reveals no no
convictions or barring but does disclose relevant non-conviction
information?

If so, would you then not hesitate to appoint the person (assuming it'll
be *your* cock on the tabloid block if you take on another Ian Huntley
or Jimmy Saville)?

[Ian Jackson]

In message <c2d11c59eukr0dkhm...@4ax.com>, Martin
<m...@address.invalid> writes

>
>but the person wouldn't pass the DBS.
>

AIUI, you don't 'pass' or 'fail' DBS tests. Instead, information is
given about you, and those who require the information decide on your
suitability for whatever the DBS information was required or requested.

--
Ian

[Ian Jackson]

In message <00c11chofh2er980r...@4ax.com>, Roderick
Stewart <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> writes

Being condemned because of totally unfounded allegations is only a short
step away from being condemned for being the sort of person that people
tend to make unfounded allegations about - whether or not any such
allegations have actually been made.
--
Ian

[sp...@potato.field]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 16:01:27 +0100
Ian Jackson <ianTAKEOUTTH...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Being condemned because of totally unfounded allegations is only a short
>step away from being condemned for being the sort of person that people
>tend to make unfounded allegations about - whether or not any such
>allegations have actually been made.

Its only a short step away from the ducking stool and witch burning.

--
Spud

[NY]

"Ian Jackson" <ianTAKEOUTTH...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:xRyo6KEk...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...

What sort of things does a DBS check examine? I'd expect it to flag being
questioned, charged or convicted of an offence, especially a sexual one. But
what else is flagged, given that in this case the man *has* been questioned
(ie the police had suspicions) but nothing was found that was serious enough
to warrant a charge.

Does it involve checks as thorough as MOD positive vetting where they talk
to known associates and actively try to find dirt, hoping that they won't be
able to do so.


It's interesting with JS how many people now say that he was creepy, and yet
nothing was ever suspected while he was alive beyond rumour and gut feeling.
I met him at Stoke Mandeville Hospital in the early 80s when I was helping
my parents prepare for the opening of the spinal unit (my mum worked in the
pharmacy and they needed people to fetch and carry *). JS was there to jolly
everyone along. Even as a teenage man, I felt very uncomfortable in his
presence for reasons that I couldn't define, and my sister, a few years
younger, cringed and shrank away from him whenever he came close. She's
scared now to think that she was just the right age for his tastes...


(*) My dad is a qualified pharmacist, though he left hospital pharmacy very
early in his career and has worked in research ever since. But a BPharm
degree was enough for him to meet the legal requirement for him to accompany
Controlled Drugs as they were taken from the main pharmacy to the spinal
one, and so increased the number of such convoys that they could run at the
same time on the day they were setting everything up.

[Max Demian]

We've already got rid of the right to silence and double jeopardy
(thanks to Messrs Blunkett/Reid/Smith/May or whoever); presumption of
innocence and juries will be next. It looks like Magna Carta really
will have died in vain.

--
Max Demian

[charles]

In article <xRyo6KEk...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>,

The Certificates* that I hold give no information about me - just "None
Recorded" in the relebvant boxes.

*Yes, I have two. One for working with Children and the other for working
with Vulnerable Adults.

[Max Demian]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 15:45:42 +0100, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Would you say a person has "passed a DBS check" if it reveals no no
> convictions or barring but does disclose relevant non-conviction
> information?

> If so, would you then not hesitate to appoint the person (assuming
it'll
> be *your* cock on the tabloid block if you take on another Ian
Huntley
> or Jimmy Saville)?

It's no good invoking Ian Huntley: vetting wouldn't have stopped him
as his association with the girls was through his girlfriend Maxine
Carr who worked at their school. Huntley worked as a caretaker at the
Secondary School; if he had been prevented he would have had a
different job or no job and have had the same access to the girls.

--
Max Demian

[sp...@potato.field]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 17:58:21 +0200
Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
>Getting rid of double jeopardy was a good thing.

Not if it means innocent people having the potential to be hounded for life.

>There's a constant stream of successful prosecutions for serious crimes
>committed decades ago, thanks to the change in the law and improved forensic
>techniques.

As has happened in the past, what were once claimed infallible forensics
turned out to be anything but. There's a good chance some of the newer stuff
may turn out to be not so shiny white either and some prosecutions thrown out.

--
Spud

[Robin]

On 26/10/2016 16:18, Martin wrote:

> In that case he would be barred. A person can be barred without having a
> conviction.
> https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/disclosure-and-barring-service/about
>

Yes, thanks, I know that a person can be barred without a conviction.

But you seem to be asserting ("in that case...") that relevant
non-conviction information means a person is *necessarily* barred. I
cannot fathom that as disclosure of the information to an employer would
be otiose if the person was already barred from the activity in
question. Can you please tell me your source?

My understanding is that non-conviction information is meant to be used
as part of an objective risk assessment by the prospective employer. I
base that on, among other sources, the Statutory Guidance under s.82 of
the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the DBS's employer guide. And
you will find that most unions in sectors commonly affected cover this
in guidance for their members. See eg the NUT's FAQ
<https://www.teachers.org.uk/sites/default/files2014/ecr24-disclosure-of-police-information-to-employers-faqs.doc>

> There's an article here with comments, many by clergymen and church workers
> which are in line with those made in the TV newsgroups.
> http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/007380.html

>
>>
>> If so, would you then not hesitate to appoint the person (assuming it'll
>> be *your* cock on the tabloid block if you take on another Ian Huntley
>> or Jimmy Saville)?
>

> If he was cleared to do the job by DBS. They are in a better position to judge
> and have staff who are more capable of making the correct decision.
>
> DBS have all the information and decide whether a person is to be barred or not,
> not the employer.
>
> The rules for barring seem reasonable.
>
> https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/dbs-referrals-guidance--2
>
> If some body in the Minster or for example York Police disagrees with the DBS
> decision they can appeal.
>

Again, you seem to be conflating barring with disclosure of
non-conviction information.

[Robin]

On 26/10/2016 16:39, Max Demian wrote:
>
> It's no good invoking Ian Huntley: vetting wouldn't have stopped him as
> his association with the girls was through his girlfriend Maxine Carr
> who worked at their school. Huntley worked as a caretaker at the
> Secondary School; if he had been prevented he would have had a different
> job or no job and have had the same access to the girls.
>

Good luck arguing that you were right to recruit as a school caretaker
someone whose DBS check revealed a background like Huntley's if he turns
out to behave like Huntley.

[Robin]

On 26/10/2016 17:50, Martin wrote:

> Why don't you read the documents?
>
I have read the links you posted.

Have you read the ones I posted? Eg how about his bit in the NUTs FAQs:

"In what circumstances may soft information be disclosed to employers?

Soft information can appear on the Other Relevant Information section of
a DBS Disclosure certificate whenever an application is made for an
enhanced DBS check. The Chief Constable of every police force has a
statutory duty to disclose any non-conviction information held by the
local police force which s/he reasonably believes to be relevant to the
DBS application and ought to be disclosed.

In addition, the Chief Constable has common law powers which s/he can
use to share soft information with employers in circumstances falling
outside the DBS procedures (e.g., where a serious allegation of abuse
against a teacher is referred to the police, the Chief Constable may
exercise her/his discretion to bring that allegation to the attention of
the teacher’s employer(s)).

Can false or unsubstantiated allegations be disclosed in my DBS certificate?

Any soft information which comes to the attention of the police may be
disclosed as part of an enhanced DBS check, even if the information is
unfounded or unsubstantiated. The NUT believes considerable care should
be taken by the police when recording an unsubstantiated and unfounded
allegation because of the tremendous damage it can do to a teacher’s
career and reputation. In the past, we have seen police officers
investigating allegations record that there was ‘no case to answer’, or
that there was ‘not enough evidence to proceed’, or that ‘no charges
[were] brought’ but that ‘the matter was referred to the employers to
deal with internally’. If any of these or similarly worded statements
appear on your DBS Disclosure certificate, contact the Union."

Are you saying that all that is irrelevant 'cos the employer just does
what the DBS says?

[Peter Crosland]

Which is exactly why the use of DBS is manifestly unfair by any normal
standards of justice. Unsubstantiated rumour, which is what most of the
police items are has no place in any justice system. It astonishes me
that the whole scheme has not been successfully challenged under Human
Rights legislation, because it breaches all fundamental principles of
the right to a fair trial and not to be subject to arbitrary punishment.
--
Peter Crosland

Reply address is valid

[Roderick Stewart]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 14:37:45 +0100, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>

>As a test, people might care to ask themselves if they would in 2010
>have defended Jimmy Saville's right to work with children on the basis
>he was "innocent until proven guilty".

In what capacity? Hypothetically, as a jury member for example I'd
have considered the evidence presented and made a decision based on
that, if he'd been charged with anything, which he wasn't.

Again hypothetically, as a potential employer I wouldn't be bound by a
duty to prove anything, just to decide whether I wanted somebody
working in my department/company/whatever in whatever capacity it was.
I don't think employers are obliged to give reasons for picking one
candidate and not another.

It's too easy to judge with hindsight. I always thought he was a bit
of a creepy character, and there were rumours, but there are always
rumours about showbiz people. You can't report rumours to the police
and expect them to take any action. I think you still need evidence,
or to have actually witnessed something.

If I *had* ever worked closely enough to Mr Savile to have witnessed
any misbehaviour, I'd like to think I would have had the courage to
report it, though the guy could, apparently be quite intimidating at
close quarters. Who knows?

Rod.

[Peter Duncanson]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 16:00:44 +0000 (UTC), sp...@potato.field wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 17:58:21 +0200
>Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
>>Getting rid of double jeopardy was a good thing.
>
>Not if it means innocent people having the potential to be hounded for life.

It doesn't mean that.

What has happened in the UK is that that rule against being tried twice
on the same charge has been modified. If someone has been tried and
acquitted they can be retried for the same offence but only under
specific conditions.

The Criminal Justice Act 2003, provides for a retrial but:

the retrial must be approved by the Director of Public
Prosecutions, and the Court of Appeal must agree to quash the
original acquittal due to "new and compelling evidence".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy#Pre-2003

The accused person is still treated by the courts as innocent until or
unless he/she is proven guilty at the retrial.

There is much more information in this guidance from the Crown
Prosecution Service:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/retrial_of_serious_offences/index.html

A brief extract:

The law has been reformed to permit a retrial in cases of serious
offences where there has been an acquittal in court, but compelling
new evidence has subsequently come to light which indicates that an
acquitted person was in fact guilty. Examples of new evidence might
include DNA or fingerprint tests, or new witnesses to the offence
coming forward.

The measures amend the law in relation to re-investigation of
persons acquitted of serious offences in these circumstances, to
enable the prosecuting authorities to apply to the Court of Appeal
for an acquittal to be quashed, and for a retrial to take place
where the Court of Appeal is satisfied that the new evidence is a
compelling indication of the acquitted person's guilt.

They provide safeguards aimed at preventing the possible harassment
of acquitted persons in cases where there is not genuinely new
evidence, by requiring the personal consent of the DPP both to the
re-opening of investigations and to the making of an application to
the Court of Appeal. The DPP will take into account both the
strength of the evidence and the public interest in determining
whether a re-investigation or application to the Court is
appropriate.

>
>>There's a constant stream of successful prosecutions for serious crimes
>>committed decades ago, thanks to the change in the law and improved forensic
>>techniques.
>
>As has happened in the past, what were once claimed infallible forensics
>turned out to be anything but. There's a good chance some of the newer stuff
>may turn out to be not so shiny white either and some prosecutions thrown out.

--

Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

[Max Demian]

You've completely missed the point. It would have made no difference
if he had been barred.

The whole DBS system with its innuendo and insistence on people being
squeaky clean for a wide range of jobs, including ones with no more
access to 'vulnerable' people than anyone in society at large, such
as bellringers, is founded on an error of logic if it has anything to
do with the Soham case.

--
Max Demian

[Max Demian]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 16:00:44 +0000 (UTC), sp...@potato.field wrote:

Bite marks and hair shaft analysis to quote two recent examples. And
DNA analysis based on minute samples where the chance of
contamination is high.

--
Max Demian

[Max Demian]

Oh a government official has to approve it. I suppose that makes it
all right then.

--
Max Demian

[Max Demian]

I don't think there's a practical way to stop it from being applied
to ineligible occupations. I've never heard of an employer being
prosecuted for it, or asking about spent convictions.

--
Max Demian

[sp...@potato.field]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 20:13:41 +0100
Peter Duncanson <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 16:00:44 +0000 (UTC), sp...@potato.field wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 17:58:21 +0200
>>Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
>>>Getting rid of double jeopardy was a good thing.
>>
>>Not if it means innocent people having the potential to be hounded for life.
>
>It doesn't mean that.
>
>What has happened in the UK is that that rule against being tried twice
>on the same charge has been modified. If someone has been tried and
>acquitted they can be retried for the same offence but only under
>specific conditions.

So in other words they're found innocent , but oh hang on, we think they
might be guilty after all. Oh whoops, found innocent again. Better luck next
time. Wait 10 years... Hey look, we think we've got some new evidence, lets
haul them up before the court again... And so on and so forth.

I'm not against retrial per se, but unless the new evidence is almost a dead
cert - new CCTV, witness etc , not just some iffy forensics - then I'm really
not convinced of its merit.

> the retrial must be approved by the Director of Public
> Prosecutions, and the Court of Appeal must agree to quash the
> original acquittal due to "new and compelling evidence".

Well thats ok then because the DPP always make such good decisions.

>The accused person is still treated by the courts as innocent until or
>unless he/she is proven guilty at the retrial.

I should bloody well hope so!

--
Spud

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <dr2dnTRbVd_gVY3F...@brightview.co.uk>, NY

<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> It's interesting with JS how many people now say that he was creepy, and
> yet nothing was ever suspected while he was alive beyond rumour and gut
> feeling.

The current Andrew Marr TV series on detective books, etc, contains an
interesting interview with a well-known crime novelist. The conversation
centers on the point that the novelist met JS and thought him a really
nasty piece of work. Then wrote their most well known book about a
character, who was a monster, based on him. Published well before JS died.

The novelist said they were amazed no-one at the time seemed to recognise
that the book was based on JS.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <2758a969-2d41-65ed...@hotmail.com>, Robin

<rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 26/10/2016 11:55, Martin wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 21:18:34 +0100, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> But my point was that those arguing "innocent until proven guilty"
> >> are behind the times when it comes to statutory responsibilities for
> >> safeguarding.
> >
> > Which law says that?
> >

> Look at the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 along with the
> Children Act 2004. Then ask yourself why, if "innocent until proven
> guilty" is all you need to know, an enhanced DBS check may include
> disclosure of approved information - more commonly known as "police
> intelligence" - which can include allegations which led to no conviction.

That may well be reasonable for the purpose of keeping relevant people
informed on a "need to know" basis. But it is not a basis for deciding
someone *is* 'guilty'. It may well be a basis for an organisation to keep
alert in terms of how they operate and any contacts are monitored, etc.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:29:10 +0100, Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:

>The current Andrew Marr TV series on detective books, etc, contains an
>interesting interview with a well-known crime novelist. The conversation
>centers on the point that the novelist met JS and thought him a really
>nasty piece of work. Then wrote their most well known book about a
>character, who was a monster, based on him. Published well before JS died.
>
>The novelist said they were amazed no-one at the time seemed to recognise
>that the book was based on JS.

Sounds fascinating. Can you recall the name of the novelist, and the
title of their book?

Rod.

[Peter Crosland]

+1

[Peter Crosland]

On 27/10/2016 9:16, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <2758a969-2d41-65ed...@hotmail.com>, Robin
> <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 26/10/2016 11:55, Martin wrote:
>>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 21:18:34 +0100, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But my point was that those arguing "innocent until proven guilty"
>>>> are behind the times when it comes to statutory responsibilities for
>>>> safeguarding.
>>>
>>> Which law says that?
>>>
>
>> Look at the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 along with the
>> Children Act 2004. Then ask yourself why, if "innocent until proven
>> guilty" is all you need to know, an enhanced DBS check may include
>> disclosure of approved information - more commonly known as "police
>> intelligence" - which can include allegations which led to no conviction.
>
> That may well be reasonable for the purpose of keeping relevant people
> informed on a "need to know" basis. But it is not a basis for deciding
> someone *is* 'guilty'. It may well be a basis for an organisation to keep
> alert in terms of how they operate and any contacts are monitored, etc.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 17:02:16 +0200, Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:

>>>The current Andrew Marr TV series on detective books, etc, contains an
>>>interesting interview with a well-known crime novelist. The conversation
>>>centers on the point that the novelist met JS and thought him a really
>>>nasty piece of work. Then wrote their most well known book about a
>>>character, who was a monster, based on him. Published well before JS died.
>>>
>>>The novelist said they were amazed no-one at the time seemed to recognise
>>>that the book was based on JS.
>>
>>Sounds fascinating. Can you recall the name of the novelist, and the
>>title of their book?
>

>http://www.valmcdermid.com/i-based-psycho-on-jimmy-savile-says-writer-val-mcdermid/

Thanks for that. Never heard of her but Amazon reviewers seem to think
her books are good, so I've just bought the relevant one on Kindle.
Something to read myself to sleep by...

Rod.

[Peter Duncanson]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 08:37:37 +0000 (UTC), sp...@potato.field wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 20:13:41 +0100
>Peter Duncanson <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 16:00:44 +0000 (UTC), sp...@potato.field wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 17:58:21 +0200
>>>Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
>>>>Getting rid of double jeopardy was a good thing.
>>>
>>>Not if it means innocent people having the potential to be hounded for life.
>>
>>It doesn't mean that.
>>
>>What has happened in the UK is that that rule against being tried twice
>>on the same charge has been modified. If someone has been tried and
>>acquitted they can be retried for the same offence but only under
>>specific conditions.
>
>So in other words they're found innocent , but oh hang on, we think they
>might be guilty after all. Oh whoops, found innocent again. Better luck next
>time. Wait 10 years... Hey look, we think we've got some new evidence, lets
>haul them up before the court again... And so on and so forth.
>
>I'm not against retrial per se, but unless the new evidence is almost a dead
>cert - new CCTV, witness etc , not just some iffy forensics - then I'm really
>not convinced of its merit.

That is why the proposal for a retrial has to go to the Court of Appeal.
That court looks at the new evidence and decides whether it is
sufficient to warrant a retrial.

>
>> the retrial must be approved by the Director of Public
>> Prosecutions, and the Court of Appeal must agree to quash the
>> original acquittal due to "new and compelling evidence".
>
>Well thats ok then because the DPP always make such good decisions.
>
>>The accused person is still treated by the courts as innocent until or
>>unless he/she is proven guilty at the retrial.
>
>I should bloody well hope so!

--

Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <si541cl482tktjfu1...@4ax.com>, Martin

<m...@address.invalid> wrote:
> >>The novelist said they were amazed no-one at the time seemed to
> >>recognise that the book was based on JS.
> >
> >Sounds fascinating. Can you recall the name of the novelist, and the
> >title of their book?

> http://www.valmcdermid.com/i-based-psycho-on-jimmy-savile-says-writer-val-mcdermid/

Yes, I think that is it. I couldn't recall the names of the book or author
when I posted earlier!

I've not read the book, so have no idea how true the claim may be, or how
closely it actually is recognisable as JS. But it looks like some people
*did* realise he was pretty nasty simply from meeting him.