Advice needed please - Interview with police on Tuesday

blue_monkey_2

SE, there are some people you just want to stick on ignore IMO.

Back to the CRB though, surely if you was on the Adult Protection Register this would have shown on your CRB as you would not have been able to be employed to work with vunerable adults? If not then this was clearly added later and for what reason. I think you need to find out why this is.

It might be worth asking if the MD that you spoke to last week will give a reference or supply a copy of the reference given to the employer you are taking to ET.

Nice reply by the way!

Anihilator

robredz wrote: »

Nice rebuttal, especially point 5 the police were meddling in an improper manner here imho.

As I pointed out before, sometimes the Anihilator assumes too much on the negative side, and goes too far, remember he was blown out of the water earlier in the thread when Sexyeyes was told no case to answer. Does he not fancy a battle at the crossroads at Ogremore as part of the Horde?

Where was she told no case to answer? She was told they were not pursuing it at that time.

If there was no case to answer why is it it took almost a year for the police to stop investigating?

Anihilator

sexyeyes83 wrote: »

Correct to a degree. That allegaion was made in January, but the police said it could have been 4 or 5 people that had the opportunity. Due to the allegation of the item going missing from the post, the incident from January was re-opened.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=21107781&postcount=63

Your own post states there are two seperate allegations of theft.

1) Of money
2) (rather peculiar) of a bra

sexyeyes83

Anihilator wrote: »

Where was she told no case to answer? She was told they were not pursuing it at that time.

If there was no case to answer why is it it took almost a year for the police to stop investigating?

Seven months it took the police, not a year. Back through the thread you would have seen my updates where the police had to wait quite some time for the CPS due to holidays, the fact that he had to take more statements and the fact the police officer stated that there were a lot of discrepancies.

The case was not taken any further due to lack of evidence.

Uncertain

rupee99 wrote: »

Unfortunately under the disclosure rules relating to people dealing with vulnerable persons changes recently make the police disclose any "material circumstances" that may or may not affect the suitability of people for such work. It is a ridiculous situation and unfounded and unproven accusations, often made by confused people, end up being quite properly disclosed to people who under normal circumstances in most civilised societies would have a right to privacy. However the UK, because of a hysterical paranoia, has long been moving away from protecting such civil liberties believing everyone to be a pedeofile/rapist/thief.

That is a rather long winded way of saying that it is not improper for the employer to have the information or for the police to have disclosed it, as long as it was in the course of their duties.

This is, very sadly, quite right.

Whatever happened to innocent until proved guilty??

It stinks!

sexyeyes83

Anihilator wrote: »

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=21107781&postcount=63

Your own post states there are two seperate allegations of theft.

1) Of money
2) (rather peculiar) of a bra

1 - This happened in January. Police said it could have been 4 or 5 people and the case was closed. It was then re-opened when incident number 2 was reported.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=20643825&postcount=20

Anihilator

sexyeyes83 wrote: »

1. Was the employee given a fair hearing by the employer ?
No, the hearing was not fair. Discrepancies were raised during the hearing that were never looked into any further.

Could you remind us of these to save a 22 page read? Dont recall anything relevant.

2. What evidence was used at the hearing and was it all used ?
No evidence at all. A couple of statements that were full of discrepancies

Statements are evidence for a employment investigation as would all the information from the police. You had the chance to put your own evidence forward. I don't recall any problems with evidence being surpressed or lost etc. You have to distinguish between fair and fair in your eyes.
.
3. Did the employee have a representative at the hearing or a Trade Union official ?
Not a member of a trade union. Was told at the start of proceedings I could not talk to any staff member, so could not bring another employee in with me. In the end had to settle for one of the managers to sit with me.

Legally you were entitled to a union rep or colleague and were allowed this. Its not their problem if you didnt utilise this to your satisfaction. If you wanted a colleague you should have told the employer and asked to contact regarding it

4. If there was more than one employee involved were they all treated in the same way ?
Other members of staff mentioned, they were not suspended or treated in the same way.

Because they werent the accused parties. Your only recourse would be if someone accused 2 people and you were treated differently.

5. Had the employee done this before ?
No

Maybe not proven in court but there are 2 seperate theft allegations as well as mention in another theft (albeit just as someone who cared for them)

6. Did the employer consider warnings, were these used in the past ?
No

Not really an issue as theft is never or at least very rarely anything other than a dismissal

7. Did the employer consider the overall performance of the employee, for example did the employee previously have a long record of good work and behaviour ?
Good sick record and no previous problems.

Wouldnt really matter here as theft is not mitigated by showing up on time or not being off very often.

8. Could the employer have disciplined the employee instead of dismissing them ?
Later after the appeal they offered me a position working in the office.

Which you declined. Could they have reasonably returned you to your existing job? No. Legally could they just put you in another job without your agreement. No.

9. Did the employee have an effective right of appeal against the decision?
Yes

10. Was the whole procedure carried out in the same way as previous procedures, if not how did it differ and why ?
Unknown of there have been any previous incidents, however several parts of acas/company policy were not followed.

There may be procedural irregularities but I doubt any tribunal will find in your favour on these unless they deem the dismissal unfair also.

1) Employee was accused of theft
Correct

2) Employee had previously been accused of theft
False

As per your own post there are 2 seperate allegations of theft

3) Employee was subject to lengthy police investigation
In terms of employment, it was not lengthy. Two months at the time of dismissal.

2 months of someone on a suspension is lengthy.

4) Police officer intimated that he felt there was substance to the claims
This is not a police officers job. A police officers job is to gather evidence. Its the upto the CPS as to whether there is any substance and a judge and jury to decide on guilt.

At the end of the day thats a seperate issue for you to complain to the police on. The employer was provided this info and used it. They would be unfair if they didnt use all the evidence they had.

5) Police officer advised OP had been involved in a previous report relating to the care of someone
No, the police office advised the company I had been linked to a report, which I knew nothing about.

Involved/Linked is the same thing.

At the end of the day I would be amazed if a tribunal decides the employer didnt have just cause to dismiss. There is far too much smoke here.

Your only hope is procedural problems and if they deem the case for dismissal was fair these may not stand up to much.

Anihilator

sexyeyes83 wrote: »

1 - This happened in January. Police said it could have been 4 or 5 people and the case was closed. It was then re-opened when incident number 2 was reported.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=20643825&postcount=20

So there are 2 seperate allegations of theft ? Yes?

rupee99

Anihilator wrote: »

So there are 2 seperate allegations of theft ? Yes?

It does not matter how many allegations there are and of what crime. There have been no convictions (or cautions which would mean an acceptance of guilt).

In the UK there is the presumption of innocence, so unless you have incontravertible evidence of Sexyeyes' guilt, which you should disclose to the police, then you should shut up about it.

robredz

@rupee99 "Unfortunately under the disclosure rules relating to people dealing with vulnerable persons changes recently make the police disclose any "material circumstances" that may or may not affect the suitability of people for such work. It is a ridiculous situation and unfounded and unproven accusations, often made by confused people, end up being quite properly disclosed to people who under normal circumstances in most civilised societies would have a right to privacy. However the UK, because of a hysterical paranoia, has long been moving away from protecting such civil liberties believing everyone to be a pedeofile/rapist/thief.

That is a rather long winded way of saying that it is not improper for the employer to have the information or for the police to have disclosed it, as long as it was in the course of their duties."

This is going to be the big problem with the procedure of the new ISA vetting and barring scheme, when innocents are barred because of tittle tattle/unfounded police comments, just to show they are ticking their boxes, and barring people. When the Voluntary and Care sectors collapse as a result, the powers that be will throw their hands up in the air and say "Where did we go wrong, we only want to protect ickle children and frail vulnerable people, and prosecute frail people for confronting poor defenceless fit hoodies who wanted a donation so they could buy some more cider"

Sexyeyes, you MUST ensure your case is watertight, and stick to Relevant evidence that doesn't stray from the applicable points.