So now it’s guilty until proven innocent?
Dear DCSF,
I appreciate that in your role as the department responsible for the well-being of children, you will look for ways to protect them against dangerous individuals, but I’m beginning to wonder whether you feel there are any boundaries to your actions that supposedly protect children. In response to the news that local authorities are setting up databases to hold records of accusations made about anyone from teachers and doctors to Scout leaders and private tutors, even if the accusations are entirely false, you stated that “it is quite right that records of all allegations are kept on file for an appropriate time [because] if similar allegations arise in the future it might be possible to make the case that a pattern of behaviour is emerging, and that action might then be taken.” Oh – my – god.
Let me explain a little something about the law in this country. Our entire legal system is founded on the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. Even though this may mean that some criminals escape conviction because the case against them isn’t strong enough, we as a society believe that the onus should be on proving that someone is guilty instead of proving that someone is innocent. Now we have a situation – fully supported by you – in which local authorities are employing staff just to look into claims of inappropriate behaviour (which can be made anonymously) who are required to contact police, social services or the adult’s employer and keep track of the case. As if that wasn’t bad enough, details of the allegation are kept on the accused’s personnel file until they retire so they can be seen by potential employers, and in a disgusting reversal of the most basic tenet of our legal system they will only be deemed innocent if they can prove it.
As with many other Labour initiatives, this was brought in to appease the public after the Soham murders to help keep track of child abuse suspects, but anyone with even the mildest hint of intelligence can see the potential for innocent professionals to have their careers destroyed by malicious, anonymous allegations (which can be made to a dedicated call centre). In fact, putting these procedures in place creates an incentive for children to make totally fictitious allegations against someone they don’t like – including school teachers. Our legal system does not and should not take into account ‘patterns of behaviour’ over time, as its sole focus should be on proving that a crime has been committed in this instance. This latest blow comes after the introduction of a new ‘vetting system’ being implemented for everyone who works with under-16s, the Independent Safeguarding Authority, which will lead to 11.3 million adults having their backgrounds checked.
John Dunford, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, has said that “there’s got to be a balance between child safety and the duty to look after employees” and I completely agree with him. Of course we need to protect children from situations where they might suffer abuse but destroying the most basic principle of English law to do so is totally unjustifiable. Although I didn’t realise this, councils, police and employers have long held files on allegations made against employees but after the killings of schoolgirls Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells by Ian Huntley in 2002, the Government encouraged the creation of an army of unelected Local Authority Designated Officers. Their job is to record and monitor allegations of abuse and tell the employee’s manager about the allegation, as well as the complainant’s parents, and decide if police or social services should get involved. Councils now keep a “comprehensive” summary of the allegations, possible outcomes of which consist of ’substantiated’, ‘unsubstantiated’, ‘unfounded’ or ‘malicious’. But, shockingly, even unfounded, unsubstantiated and malicious allegations are kept on a file until the accused retires. If there is no evidence against them then they are innocent in the eyes of the law and should remain so for the rest of time until new evidence is presented. What comfort does it give for a teacher or doctor to be told that their permanent record now includes allegations of child abuse, but its ok because their record says the claims were ‘unsubstantiated’?
I’m so angry about this that I’m really struggling to control myself. When will Labour’s attack on our civil liberties end? When will reason and common sense become part of our lives again? When will the innocent be free from government intrusion and suffocation? For a government department to promote the behaviour of local councils in this manner makes me realise how desperately we need something akin to a Bill of Rights to protect us from dispicable organisations like yourselves.
Yours contemptfully,
A.Tory
Witanagemot Blogs
>> When will Labour’s attack on our civil liberties end?
May 2010, I’m afraid….
Is this the same bungling DCFS that so spectacularly failed to protect this child, despite actual evidence of abuse…?
“Our entire legal system is founded on the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’.”
I think ‘was founded’ would have been more appropriate. It certainly isn’t a factor now…
Dear Tory
I agree with your view but don’t see the evidence that your party will sweep away these procedures and erase data held
Julia, I fear that you might well be correct.
Will, point taken. When I heard the reports that David Davis resigned because Cameron wouldn’t commit himself to the civil liberties cause at the next election, I wasn’t surprised.
I am gutted that the Conservatives show such little regard towards civil liberties, although strategically I suspect / hope their silence is the result of a desire to not be accused of being ’soft on terrorism’, which Labour tried during the 42-day debate. I wish I could share Patently’s optimism.
Patently,
Don’t get your hopes up. There’s very little evidence that Cameron will take a stand against the Daily Mail. At least he appointed Dominc Grieve rather thann someone of the Michael Gove stripe. But it is worrying that many, who want to appear hard men but are actually very weak, are in such high positions in the Tory party & would like to inflict this bilge on us.
There are also the happy followers like Gideon Osbourne & a large chunk of the parliamentary party, who will go along with anything that is in the polls this week.
As much as I disagree with the Liberal Democrats on certain matters, they are the only people to have taken a principled stand, apart from Davis, whom as we have identified was the victim of elements in his own party.
I know very little of the EU Human Rights legislation other than it seems to have been used by convicted criminals to avoid deportation. Surely with a name like Human Rights it could be used to block this. Perhaps somebody who understands its ins and outs would like to comment.
listening on 5 live it seems that people giving out leaflets in parks [climate change, iraq] and single adults in the park are being told by the council parks authorities that they need a CRB check before they can be there? Tune in , I can’t quite follow it.
A few blogs picked up on this yesterday – it’s almost as bad as my blog post this morning in terms of its ramifications for civil liberties:
http://www.wonkosworld.co.uk/wordpress/2008/09/08/telford-tries-its-hand-at-facism/
I only said Labour’s attack on civil liberties would end then…
I remain hopeful that things will not get worse, but worry that we will see the birth of “ratchet authoritarianism” 30 years after we dealt with ratchet socialism…
I do share your concerns. As I’ve said before, if Cameron wants to focus on civil liberties he could attract the swing Con/Lib voters and leave the liberal left in a horrible conundrum.
Then again, I always thought civil liberties were a matter of principle, not posturing.
I am not sure that the conservatives are against protecting our civil liberties so much as frightened to say anything that may alienate some of their current supporters that provide their poll lead.
In the past, we have all known what the conservatives stood for, they would never leave us in doubt, now however, they simply avoid difficult questions such as “what would you do?”. Cameron and co would, in my humble opinion, gain more support if they gave us a cluse as to where they stood on important issues, rather than just poining out the obvious, what is wrong.
You have made a stro0ng point there, LFAT. I think the vaguely liberal floating voters outnumber the Daily Mail.
Cameron would be better off going for them, offering more sensible spending policies, lower taxes, controlled immigration, achievable policies to conserve our natural environment, a restriction of intrusive laws on social & economic matters (focusing immediately on ID cards, 42 days & what have you, in the long term on all the nany state hysteria), personal responsibility, encouragement of the voluntary sector, & a firm stance on the European Union.
It would not be hard to unveil such policies. As I am not partisan, I would welcome it if it were sincere. But I consider him to be weak & beholden to reactionaries in his party & this imaginary picture he has of a Daily Mail reading voter who must be placated at all costs.
He should also sort out the outrage that is sixth form & university education
UK voter, I agree that Cameron is hesitant but that makes it impossible to work out whether he cares about civil liberties.
Asquith, the point about lowering spending through small government is something that I’m sure the Conservatives are very keen on. Whether restriction of intrusive laws is part of that remains to be seen.
What I mean is graudally reducing the need for government by a) encouraging self reliance & b) identifying pointless expenditure, ID cards being #1. I’m not getting my hopes up
Superb post. Agree with it all, especially the barely suppressed rage.
I see our mother country has now begun floundering down the same slippery slope her former colonies have. Way to go, y’all!
Soon you too will be a fascist regime just like the U.S. of A.
I’m so proud.
Now our “leaders” plan on passing the International Megan’s Law which will prevent registered (but not unregistered) sex offenders (even those people cause peeing in public) from traveling outside the country.
We hate SO’s and don’t want them to live within some arbitrary distance to schools, daycares, parks, public pools, bus stops, and “places where children are likely to congregate” AND we don’t want them to leave the country!
Now there’s this: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/every-child-born-safe
I see. So presumably the plan is to make sure all sex offenders remain on American soil but keep them in a box so that they can’t move, communicate with everyone or cause any mischief?