Colleague issue

1984ReturnsForReal_2

whitewing wrote: »

I hope that justice prevails in the workplace and with the police. I believe that gwen did right by involving the police and work. I would sincerely hope that had she flagged it to work, then they would have contacted the police in any case. It is a serious matter.

The police at least would put a flag against his name so if ever the issue comes up again with him they will take it seriously right from the start.

Uncertain

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Regrettably, the consequence of the involvement of the police is that in the workplace, the charge will be more strongly resisted and if the police make no headway, then the workplace charge is almost bound to fail.

I have been uncomfortable about involving the police in this one, altough it is only now that I have been able to put the argument together. It seems to me that it is a complaint which will stand in the workplace, but from the outset it would not stand in court - and if it is found not to hang together in court, this will be to the detriment of it hanging together in the workplace.

I hope that this thread is kept. The value is much wider than gwen's case.

I agree 100% with this.

I expect the lawyers (barack room and real!) will jump on this and remind us that the standards of proof are very different. However, whilst they may understand this point, if the police fail to prosecute (as seems almost certain) it will make most managers far more reluctant to take action.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Uncertain wrote: »

I agree 100% with this.

I expect the lawyers (barack room and real!) will jump on this and remind us that the standards of proof are very different. However, whilst they may understand this point, if the police fail to prosecute (as seems almost certain) it will make most managers far more reluctant to take action.

Its not up to the police, its the CPS & as it stands they wouldn't touch it with a bargepole.

Savvy_Sue

DVS, I think you are right, but that doesn't mean Gwen was wrong to go to the police.

Uncertain

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Its not up to the police, its the CPS & as it stands they wouldn't touch it with a bargepole.

I know and I agree - I was trying to keep it simple for the benefit of some on here!

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

DVS, I think you are right, but that doesn't mean Gwen was wrong to go to the police.

If this happens to anyone they should go to the police so they have a record of it & instant access every time something pops up.

Uncertain

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

DVS, I think you are right, but that doesn't mean Gwen was wrong to go to the police.

Going to the police was a gamble (as far as the outcome she was hoping for in the workplace is concerned). It seems it has not paid off (as she would see it). If this outcome encourages the firm to take less action (or none) then you could say it has backfired.

If you are talking in more abstract terms then maybe you are right.

All this assumes there is substance to her allegations.......

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Uncertain wrote: »

Going to the police was a gamble

You can go to the police & give them intelligence without reporting a crime.

Uncertain

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

You can go to the police & give them intelligence without reporting a crime.

Indeed....

1984ReturnsForReal_2

DVardysShadow wrote: »

While i can see why you say that, of course the police [ie CPS] cannot raise previous allegations in court to get a conviction - rightly so. So actually, they end up in the position of trying too hard to get a conviction on flimsy evidence after a number of difficult to uphold allegations

I dont think you do get it.

If when they check there intelligence (and they do check) on someone whilst looking at an allegation they will make more of a detailed investigation on the individual should the intelligence suggest they could be making a habit of it. It all helps.