Colleague issue

Nicki

There is also no statute of limitations in the uk, so a decision by the CPS not to prosecute today could be reviewed in the future where several similar complaints have been made against the same person, either by charging as a separate count or by allowing it to be taken into consideration on a guilty plea.

ceridwen

Errata wrote: »

It's both possible and not uncommon for a thread to be locked or deleted at the request of the thread initiator.

This is true and in fact I know of a case where a young Asian woman had started a thread talking about her plans to get married - despite the fact her family were busily planning an arranged marriage for her instead.

I went "surfing" round MSE and found she had put LOADS of identifying info. up in various places and promptly sent her a PM pointing out that I really thought for her own safety that it might be wise for her to remove the thread. She duly asked MSE to remove this and it was done.

So - I certainly believe that if a poster has put up a thread to do with something concerning their own personal life only (even if its a situation that happens to a lot of other people too) that it is entirely their decision and their right to have the thread removed if they subsequently decide to.

There is a world of difference between a "general" thread and a very "personal" thread.

Gwen has the right to do what she pleases as regards leaving the thread up/adding to the thread/having the thread removed.

It is up to her to decide (in conjunction with any advice she wishes to take from the solicitors posting on this thread) whether she feels safe to leave it here and is glad of the support on the one hand or thinks its best for her to remove it on the other hand. The ball is entirely in her court and she must do whats best for her.

I certainly dont begrudge the time I personally have spent trying to help out here - par for the course - and I hope she makes the best decision for her either way.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

DVardysShadow wrote: »

It all helps what? It helps them try too hard to get a conviction on flimsy evidence after a number of difficult to uphold allegations.

I got what you were saying first time and I pointed out a downside. Now you have restated your point, it still has the same downside.

If people are nicked, they should be nicked fair and square - not nicked on the basis of intelligence about other allegations which don't get put in court. If there is one thing worse than the police being lazy it is when they try to make up for it by trying too hard to make something stick.

I think you misunderstand how the police work.

Let me put it this way. You house gets burgled. You see who it is. No one else sees. No other evidence. He denies it. Someone elses house gets burgled. Same guy seen by the owner & names to the Police. No one else sees it & no other evidence. What do you think happens? Do you think the Police don't dig a tad harder & deeper than normal? Ask a few more questions maybe? Double check some facts? Or do you think they just forget about it?

Uncertain

ceridwen wrote: »

Gwen has the right to do what she pleases as regards leaving the thread up/adding to the thread/having the thread removed.

Absolute rubbish!

She can delete her own posts if she pleases and you can delete yours. It is not up to her, or you, to decide what to do with other posts Unless they are in clear breach of the forum rules they should be left.

This is a PUBLIC forum. Nobody made her, or you, post on it.

In any case it is almost impossible to remove all traces of anything you post on the internet. There are various web archiving sites where it could still be found. If somebody really wants to find it they will. If they don't then it doesn't matter if it is left anyway.

HugoSP

As someone who perhaps digressed earlier, I think it is important to remember who this thread is intended to help. As tempting as it is to try and settle scores with one another, maybe we should remember that it's Gwen who needs our help here.

My concern is that some of the rhetoric posted here may be discouraging other peope who can make valuable contributions when she needs them the most.

If you disagree with someone, by all means say so and why but let's not have about 3 sets of arguements going on over several pages. Just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Thank you for your lecture. I would be more interested in your advice on how to suck eggs.

Don't you not know about that either?
I would hate to think how many crimes wouldn't have been solved without the sort of intelligence that never gets to court. Keep sucking.

ceridwen

Errrr...fellas....can I echo HugoSP here...and hope that we can "leave it out now".

This is Gwen's thread and I'm not convinced these latest points are helping her....

1984ReturnsForReal_2

DVardysShadow wrote: »

This is tiresome. The kind of intelligence you are talking about is useful in Cop shows for identifying a suspect. But in terms of proving anything about an already known person, it is useless information, because the suspect is already identified. If it goes to court, previous allegations are irrelevant - rightly so - and everything must be proved on the facts of the one case.

This is a quite important point - there seems to be some consensus that if a case like this is dealt with both in the workplace and by the police and the police or CPS don't succeed, then the case is more likely to fail in the workplace. Gwen has obviously made her choice to involve the police - I don't think she was wrong, it was the best decision with the information at the time. But with the experience of this case, I would in future advise someone in gwen's position to leave the police out of it, unless the evidence looks good enough for an accusation to be made to stick in the legal system.

Your argument seems to be to inform the police so that they have 'intelligence'. But, as already explained, in this sort of case, 'intelligence' is irrelevant. If there is another allegation against someone against whom there is 'intelligence', the 'intelligence' has no value in taking the case forward, apart from tempting the police to go forward with a weak case if that is all they have. The 'intelligence' cannot be raised in court. And so, if the prosecution fails on a second case, that is twice that the alleged offender will have got away with it, both legally and in the workplace.

Put simply, the price of giving 'intelligence' to the police is likely to be that disciplinary action in the workplace fails - and the value of the 'intelligence' is minimal.

This is more than tiresome. Trust me.
Most of the information looked at & recorded by the police never goes near a court.
I would advise ALL individuals of "alleged" crimes such as these that they give the information to the Police regardless of whether or not they choose to report a crime for investigation now, later or never.

HugoSP

ceridwen wrote: »

Errrr...fellas....can I echo HugoSP here...and hope that we can "leave it out now".

This is Gwen's thread and I'm not convinced these latest points are helping her....

I know, I give up.:(

1984ReturnsForReal_2

DVardysShadow wrote: »

People should not be reporting 'tittle tattle' to the police.

tittle tattle?

Its hardly tittle tattle though is it?
Disturbed behaviour? Yes
Criminal behaviour? Yes
Habitual behaviour? Possibly.......