Falsely accused - sorry it's long

Undervalued

Thomas_The_Tank_Top wrote: »

If I were you Natty. I would go and do something far more rewarding than trying to help people.

Help out an animal sanctuary. That will make you feel a lot better. Animals don't 5hit on you.

A friend of mine who is a vet would disagree with you!

Marcon

You've already had a load of answers when you posted this elsewhere: https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/crime/3705124-Falsely-accused-sorry-its-long

Maybe read those - and possibly get yourself some help? You say you are a former service user, so should be well aware of the support available.

Manxman_in_exile

Blatchford wrote: »

...

I am not sure where you got the bit about them being a former service user from, and maybe they are...


...but surely after it has been explained at great length already, they didn't need to start it all over again, word for word?

I interpret the third paragraph from the end of the OP to mean that they are a former service user. (Although FWIW I'd already come to the conclusion that they were a volunteer driver in MH services and that they were a former service user from the content of the OP and my own experience as a MH manager).


It's entirely possible that going over it again does make the OP feel better. Whether it's in their best interests or not is a different matter.


I steer clear of mumsnet (:)) so didn't know the rest.

Marcon

Blatchford wrote: »

I am not sure where you got the bit about them being a former service user from, and maybe they are.

End of the original post: '
'It is with vulnerable adults, those with BPD and is at my old theraputic community where i have not long completed my own therapy.'

Manxman_in_exile

OP - did the trust give you any training when starting as a volunteer? I never had any direct contact with volunteers when I was working but I would have expected you to have been told to be reasonably friendly and approachable with service users, but not to become too friendly or involved with them and to keep your interactions with them at arms' length. You say you shared a recipe with one and didn't know that was "wrong". Were you given no guidelines? FWIW I wouldn't have done that and I wouldn't be showing them photos from my phone either. But that may not be obvious to you if you haven't been told not to do so.


And (and this may not be obvious either) if you are a volunteer driver I wouldn't be discussing near misses with my passengers. (Sorry if I've got that wrong but that's how I read part of your post).

Blatchford

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

OP - did the trust give you any training when starting as a volunteer? I never had any direct contact with volunteers when I was working but I would have expected you to have been told to be reasonably friendly and approachable with service users, but not to become too friendly or involved with them and to keep your interactions with them at arms' length. You say you shared a recipe with one and didn't know that was "wrong". Were you given no guidelines? FWIW I wouldn't have done that and I wouldn't be showing them photos from my phone either. But that may not be obvious to you if you haven't been told not to do so.


And (and this may not be obvious either) if you are a volunteer driver I wouldn't be discussing near misses with my passengers. (Sorry if I've got that wrong but that's how I read part of your post).

I would also have expected loads of training in safeguarding and safeguarding policies. I don't even work with vulnerable people, and I have to undertake safeguarding training every 4 - 7 months at least - that's how important it is now regarded. So for a volunteer in a service with vulnerable people to not understand or know about safeguarding policies and the need to be transparent in all allegations, well that in itself is a really serious matter. Not only that, but they have gone and disclosed details to multiple friends, who have then contacted the agency involved to lobby for their friend. Which is entirely inappropriate on so many levels.

Yes I did miss that the poster was in therapy at the same unit. But that doesn't change the fact that they must raise that such allegations, true or not, must be investigated, and threatening to sue them is unreasonable. The allegations against Jimmy Saville also weren't true. Until they were true. If people hasn't made assumptions of innocence, had conducted proper investigations, had not simply disregarded the word of vulnerable children and adults simply because their word want to be believed, many hundreds of people could have been saved misery.

The poster is being unreasonable, not because they are upset but because they have had this all explained to them already, and have decided that how they feel about it is more important than ensuring the safety of vulnerable people.

lincroft1710

Marcon wrote: »

You've already had a load of answers when you posted this elsewhere: https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/crime/3705124-Falsely-accused-sorry-its-long

Maybe read those - and possibly get yourself some help? You say you are a former service user, so should be well aware of the support available.

I agree, there seems little point in repeating the post here

Brynsam

lincroft1710 wrote: »

I agree, there seems little point in repeating the post here

Interesting to note a post from OP in the same thread in mumsnet: 'at the moment my husband is still in his job and still a governor smile I was being my normal histrionic self and working myself up.'

This really does sound like one for professional help rather than speculation on a public forum, given that OP has clearly battled her own demons in recent years (and I very much hope will do so successfully to overcome this setback).