Advice needed please - Interview with police on Tuesday

Anihilator

robredz wrote: »

That is what suspension is for to allow investigations to be carried out. When OP was dismissed police were still bumbling on, so employer chanced it and got rid. Their action may have seemed right at the time, but when police found nothing, coupled with other actions by employer in their handling of the case, the dismissal was unfair.

Correct me if I'm wrong but what part of employment law allows for this. The employer makes a decision based on what happened at the time of the dismissal and whether it was fair.

That said even though the police didnt pursue it they still had reasonable grounds for dismissal imo. It would be completely neglient to continue to send her to vulnerable clients.

DVardysShadow

Anihilator wrote: »

... That said even though the police didnt pursue it they still had reasonable grounds for dismissal imo. It would be completely neglient to continue to send her to vulnerable clients.

Carry on like that Anihilator, and by the time you are old and decrepit, society will have become so risk averse that firstly no-one whatsoever will be deemed sufficiently low risk that they could be trusted to look after a vulnerable person.

And if too much of this sort of thing happens, then no-one in their right mind would ever want to care for a vulnerable person. I am beginning to feel it is a dangerous profession.

Already, protection of vulnerable people is overoptimised and I think you would continue with this false optimisation.

sexyeyes83

Anihilator wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but what part of employment law allows for this. The employer makes a decision based on what happened at the time of the dismissal and whether it was fair.

That said even though the police didnt pursue it they still had reasonable grounds for dismissal imo. It would be completely neglient to continue to send her to vulnerable clients.

No offence, but this is just going to keep going around in circles. For whatever reason, you previously made it clear that you thought I was guilty.

I havent asked anyone whether they think I will win or lose, or whether the company was right in their decision or not. I have piles of documents here which highlight policy procedure errors and also many discrepancies in the statements taken. Discrepancies that should have been picked up during the investigation, and discrepancies that should have been re-looked into once I highlighted them during meetings.

All ive asked is for specific bits of advice to assist me in preparing my case. Like the GM and SOSR. As stated, youve made it clear you think I have no case, so I kindly ask that you stay out of this thread and leave the people which wish to offer helpful advice free to do so.

robredz

Anihilator wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but what part of employment law allows for this. The employer makes a decision based on what happened at the time of the dismissal and whether it was fair.

That said even though the police didnt pursue it they still had reasonable grounds for dismissal imo. It would be completely neglient to continue to send her to vulnerable clients.

But as there was no case to answer the employer was wrong to dismiss before the police had finished their needlessly extended investigation, Perhaps you should get a job with the ISA and bar everyone from working with vulnerable people, by the way, if you get a script of the quack for some antibiotics, or painkillers YOU yourself are a vulnerable adult under the SVGA 2006. You are annoyed that your posts assuming guilt which upset OPhave been blown out of the water.. go on admit it. BTW your attitude would likely lead to you being barred by the ISA if you worked in a real advice environment.

robredz

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Carry on like that Anihilator, and by the time you are old and decrepit, society will have become so risk averse that firstly no-one whatsoever will be deemed sufficiently low risk that they could be trusted to look after a vulnerable person.

And if too much of this sort of thing happens, then no-one in their right mind would ever want to care for a vulnerable person. I am beginning to feel it is a dangerous profession.

Already, protection of vulnerable people is overoptimised and I think you would continue with this false optimisation.

Risk avoidance has gone too far, the new ISA and the way it is implementing the vetting and barring scheme has the potential to kill off most voluntary activities for children and vulnerable adults, meals on wheels volunteers, and many more activities are affected, than are at first apparent,

Anihilator

A question to Dvardyshadow and robredz.

Don't relate it to OP

You have an vulnerable parent, or vulnerable child whom you are paying £10-20 an hour for care for.

You find out that the carer has twice been accused of theft previously and that in the latest case the police actually told the firm she most likely did it.

What would you think? would you be happy?

Ok lets add a new dimension.

You are actually robbed by this person. What would your reaction be?

Fair or not I wouldnt want the OP caring for a relative and I would be quite annoyed that a care company would send her out given the history.

sexyeyes83

So much for innocent until proven guilty.

robredz

Anihilator wrote: »

A question to Dvardyshadow and robredz.

Don't relate it to OP

You have an vulnerable parent, or vulnerable child whom you are paying £10-20 an hour for care for.

You find out that the carer has twice been accused of theft previously and that in the latest case the police actually told the firm she most likely did it.

What would you think? would you be happy?

Ok lets add a new dimension.

You are actually robbed by this person. What would your reaction be?

Fair or not I wouldnt want the OP caring for a relative and I would be quite annoyed that a care company would send her out given the history.[/QUOTE

Your post shows the weakness in ANY safeguarding or vetting or checks, which also shows the flaws in a system which makes everyone a suspect, and everyone a criminal, who just hasn't been caught yet; that is the reasoning behind the DNA database. Human rights issues aside, as the OP is not guilty of any offence I would have no problem with her. If she was a convict with spent convictions under the "Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, and had turned her life around I would have no problem with her. I would be more suspicious of some breezy over officious social worker. It is up to the agency to do the required checks to discharge their duty to clients and their employees. A client could also be a thief could they not? Mistakes are made sometimes, and we have to live with them. Don't relate it to OP you put, you have in the last line!

DVardysShadow

Anihilator wrote: »

A question to Dvardyshadow and robredz.

Don't relate it to OP

You have an vulnerable parent, or vulnerable child whom you are paying £10-20 an hour for care for.

You find out that the carer has twice been accused of theft previously and that in the latest case the police actually told the firm she most likely did it.

What would you think? would you be happy?

In my experience, accusation is cheap.

And the police are an idle bunch who for quite serious investigations often think who they would like it to be and then set about making the evidence fit the accusation.

So, in your example, no one has been convicted.

Being risk averse has a flip side. It is misplaced trust and a false sense of security. I am no great believer in the current legislation for protecting children from harm from peados for exactly that reason. The damage resulting from the peado hysteria is that only peados and fools are prepared to work with children [OK, too harsh on those who do]. But activities like model aeroplane clubs have to make a choice, either to CRB every adult or exclude children. Sadly, they do one or the other, rather than carry on as before.

Now the correct way to deal with this is reduction of vulnerability. For activities with children, there should be policies along the lines but further than child and adult never alone together - which is to protect both the child and equally importantly, the adult.

In a similar way, the care scenario should be addressed.

Anihilator wrote: »

Ok lets add a new dimension.

You are actually robbed by this person. What would your reaction be?

Fair or not I wouldnt want the OP caring for a relative and I would be quite annoyed that a care company would send her out given the history.

Well, I am going to relate it to sexyeyes here, because the point is important. Seeing what has happened to her, I feel she has had a far more traumatic experience than a vulnerable person suffering a theft.

She has had her career stripped from her, the ability to gain employment from a practical and caring side of her personality is permannently impaired. She will live in fear of any CRB check which may include ignorant tittletattle from the local sergeant about these events which the police have not got the any basis to put before the courts. She will have little faith in the police or the criminal justice system - because of the totally unprofessional remarks made to her employer by a policeman, who I have no doubt was acting to destroy her career.

And she has to put up with the negative attacks of the ignorant righteous such as yourself, when she comes to seek advice and help here.

I know you believe she is guilty. I can't change that. But just imagine for a moment that she is not. What has happpened to her is far more damaging than the punishment meted out for an equivalent offence to somone who actually did it. Just imagine how your attacks would affect you if you had been the accused. I know enough about you from your posts to know that you would never be a care provider, but I also judge quite clearly that you would never abuse a vulnerable person. Now just imagine it were you. You would be far more damaged than any hypothetical relative who had been robbed by a carer.

As a society, we have lost a sense of proportion, and, Anihilator, you are right out there in front.

robredz

The police these days are not as they used to be, the fact the OP was there was like manna from heaven for them, a tame suspect they may be able to stitch up with little effort.
Anihilator, if a burglar breaks in your house and you confront them, you could end up in jail with a compensation claim from the burglar as he falls out of your door in a panic, or cuts himself with the knife he found in your kitchen. Don't believe me? Mylene Klass was lucky not to have her collar felt last week over an incident with intruders,