85yo man investigated for a "non-crime hate incident"

AdrianBalboa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s not the reason he was interviewed by police though? He was interviewed by police because a complaint was made against him for his behaviour. No reason he couldn’t still be a grumpy old fart and keep his opinions to himself as opposed to risking upsetting people who he had to have known would be upset by his actions.

Or even send his response to the newspaper like any sane person, of any age, at any time in history, would have done.

joseywhales

joseywhales wrote: »

Yes and what happens after the investigation if the accused is found innocent? Will a record of the accusation show up on a vetting report for a childcare role?

Thats all I want to know really.

Everybody is innocent until proven guilty. There is no such thing as found innocent.
In some cases there will be a prosecution, in some cases there may not be a prosecution and in other (very rare) cases it maybe that it was a vexatious complaint.
I have never heard of that in a child sexual abuse case, however.

If the person has been investigated he or she will be aware that any application for a role working with children will result in garda vetting.
As it is an issue of child protection, each case is taken on an individual basis and the details of what will be given will be decided by the officer in charge.

It's a case of better safe than sorry when it comes to the protection of our children.

joseywhales

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s not the reason he was interviewed by police though? He was interviewed by police because a complaint was made against him for his behaviour. No reason he couldn’t still be a grumpy old fart and keep his opinions to himself as opposed to risking upsetting people who he had to have known would be upset by his actions.

I guess that's the disagreement then. I don't believe that he would have known that she would be upset by his actions.

joseywhales

bubblypop wrote: »

Everybody is innocent until proven guilty. There is no such thing as found innocent.
In some cases there will be a prosecution, in some cases there may not be a prosecution and in other (very rare) cases it maybe that it was a vexatious complaint.
I have never heard of that in a child sexual abuse case, however.

If the person has been investigated he or she will be aware that any application for a role working with children will result in garda vetting.
As it is an issue of child protection, each case is taken on an individual basis and the details of what will be given will be decided by the officer in charge.

It's a case of better safe than sorry when it comes to the protection of our children.

Ok so it is a possible tool for coersion, given that one can make a false accusation that can affect another person's career using the apparatus of the garda vetting system. And you believe that because it's better to be safe than sorry when it comes to the protection of children, that this is an acceptable exploit? I do not.

joseywhales

joseywhales wrote: »

Ok so it is a possible tool for coersion, given that one can make a false accusation that can affect another person's career using the apparatus of the garda vetting system. And you believe that because it's better to be safe than sorry when it comes to the protection of children, that this is an acceptable exploit? I do not.

no it's not possible.
Complaints are investigated. You are suggesting that a child would fabricate a complaint of sexual assault against someone. For what end? And that the child would be able to fool police investigators, specialist child interviewers, social workers and psychologists?

A garda vetting report is shared between AGS, the person it is about and the organisation looking to fill a position. The person is aware they have been investigated, so they are aware it will be disclosed.
So yes, the protection of children is most important and I cannot believe you would prefer the system that we had years ago, where children were not believed and were victims of systematic abuse.

joseywhales

[QUOTE=bubblypop;117032574

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

I cannot believe you would prefer the system that we had years ago, where children were not believed and were victims of systematic abuse.[/QUOTE]

Can you please highlight where I stated this

joseywhales

joseywhales wrote: »

Can you please highlight where I stated this

Good, so you agree our system of child protection is better then not having one.

joseywhales

bubblypop wrote: »

Good, so you agree our system of child protection is better then not having one.

Yes but I don't believe that the threshold for reporting on a vetting form should be that an investigation took place. An investigation does not imply the guilt of the subject no more than implies you or I are guilty of a crime.

joseywhales

joseywhales wrote: »

Yes but I don't believe that the threshold for reporting on a vetting form should be that an investigation took place. An investigation does not imply the guilt of the subject no more than implies you or I are guilty of a crime.

It doesnt.
If a person is looking for work with children, then any child protection issues are disclosed.

joseywhales

bubblypop wrote: »

It doesnt.
If a person is looking for work with children, then any child protection issues are disclosed.

Is an investigation of a sexual crime considered a child protection issue?

tjhook

In terms of the contents of the letter, I think offense was taken rather than given. If the same letter was published in the newspaper, I wouldn't see it being investigated, even by the UK police force.

So the other issue is sending the letter to a citizen unsolicited. I wonder if this applies to other forms of personal communication - phone, email, call to the door, Boards PM?

That's a slightly smartarse question, but on a more serious note I wouldn't be comfortable with a police force policing behaviour that isn't criminal in nature, creating records of non-criminal "incidents" for later retrieval and use. Imagine if 20 years ago the Gardai were recording the identities of people who went to the UK for abortions. Not illegal, but "frowned upon" at the time.


(No, I'm not comparing the writing of a grumpy letter with an abortion. I'm showing how policing of non-criminal activity is a bad idea)

joseywhales

joseywhales wrote: »

Is an investigation of a sexual crime considered a child protection issue?

If it is a sexual assault on a child yes. Obviously

joseywhales

bubblypop wrote: »

If it is a sexual assault on a child yes. Obviously

Is it only in the case of this crime, child sexual assault or is it all sexual crimes?

Can you see there is a moral hazard there? I can, depending on my social or political power and however difficult it might be, get somebody investigated for such a crime.

Even if it was child sexual assault, can the matter have been reported by a child's parent or teacher? And adults have been known to quite easily manipulate children.

The rarity of it happening does not seem important to me, the fact that you can predjudice someone for a mere investigation is the issue for me, in this case if they are apllying for a job in childcare.

joseywhales

joseywhales wrote: »

Is it only in the case of this crime, child sexual assault or is it all sexual crimes?

Can you see there is a moral hazard there? I can, depending on my social or political power and however difficult it might be, get somebody investigated for such a crime.

Even if it was child sexual assault, can the matter have been reported by a child's parent or teacher? And adults have been known to quite easily manipulate children.

The rarity of it happening does not seem important to me, the fact that you can predjudice someone for a mere investigation is the issue for me, in this case if they are apllying for a job in childcare.

So what's your solution to this? How do you think we should proceed?

joseywhales

joseywhales wrote: »

Is it only in the case of this crime, child sexual assault or is it all sexual crimes?

Can you see there is a moral hazard there? I can, depending on my social or political power and however difficult it might be, get somebody investigated for such a crime.

Even if it was child sexual assault, can the matter have been reported by a child's parent or teacher? And adults have been known to quite easily manipulate children.

The rarity of it happening does not seem important to me, the fact that you can predjudice someone for a mere investigation is the issue for me, in this case if they are apllying for a job in childcare.

Nope.
A child sexual abuse case is investigated, you're suggesting that a child would fool police investigators, specialist child interviewers, social workers, doctors and psychologists. You're suggesting that all those people cannot do their job correctly.

You are also saying that no-one suspected of a crime against a child could be stopped from working with children in the future, does this seem reasonable to you?
You would prefer to protect an adult and allow them to take a job, rather then err on the side of caution, and protect children.
A person can get another job, a child abused cannot get a childhood without abuse.

This is gone completely off topic here now. I would suggest you start another thread of you think people accused of child abuse are hard done by, by the child protection we have in this country.

joseywhales

bubblypop wrote: »

Nope.
A child sexual abuse case is investigated, you're suggesting that a child would fool police investigators, specialist child interviewers, social workers, doctors and psychologists. You're suggesting that all those people cannot do their job correctly.

Is this the barrier before the alleged crime will be investigated? That the allegations are deemed likely true by a police investigator, social worker, doctor and a psychologist? This is before they decide to investigate?

bubblypop wrote: »

You would prefer to protect an adult and allow them to take a job, rather then err on the side of caution, and protect children.
A person can get another job, a child abused cannot get a childhood without abuse.

What do you want me to say? Yes child abuse is horrible, I wholeheartedly agree.
What would I be protecting the child from here? An ordinary citizen? In which case we should protect children from all adults.

joseywhales

joseywhales wrote: »

Is this the barrier before the alleged crime will be investigated? That the allegations are deemed likely true by a police investigator, social worker, doctor and a psychologist? This is before they decide to investigate?



What do you want me to say? Yes child abuse is horrible, I wholeheartedly agree.
What would I be protecting the child from here? An ordinary citizen? In which case we should protect children from all adults.

That is part of an investigation.
The children would be protected from a suspected child abuser.
Now, I'm not discussing this anymore, it's way off topic, like I said, start another thread if you think suspected child abusers are hard done by, by our child protection systems.

tjhook

bubblypop wrote: »

You are also saying that no-one suspected of a crime against a child could be stopped from working with children in the future, does this seem reasonable to you?

I'd be in general agreement with you on this point - suspicion of having committed a crime should be recorded, even if not proven. E.g. in Ireland the Special Branch keeps records, and nobody with a "Special Branch File" has a hope of obtaining certain positions (e.g. in the judiciary). Likewise, I'd imagine somebody suspected of having committed crimes with an organised crime gang might struggle somewhat to obtain employment with the Revenue Commissioners.

However, that's slightly different to the subject of this thread, where the recorded incident is explicitly "non-criminal".

joseywhales

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

So what's your solution to this? How do you think we should proceed?

Well that's the hard part. I'm not a believer in "well they can always just get another job", they may in fact be school teachers, it could end their entire career. I have to believe that with current best practice, child never alone supervised by a single adult in a school for example or school cctv footage, hopefully a more comfortable environment for children to report issues, in this environment, that this kind of childcare vetting should only contain convictions which should obviously bar someone if it is a serious conviction.

There are probably a good few examples of where this has failed in that somebody accused but not convicted later went on to perpetrate a crime, probably moreso than those without even an accusation. Can an accusation be a good indicator? yes. Will it lead also lead to ordinary people being barred from their profession? I think so yes. It is my understanding that the law is more concerned with not doing injustice than it is with delivering justice. As it should be.

joseywhales

joseywhales wrote: »

Will it lead also lead to ordinary people being barred from their profession? I think so yes.

Where would you possibly get this idea?
Do you have any evidence at all that people are being barred from their careers because of vexatious complaints from children?

joseywhales

bubblypop wrote: »

Where would you possibly get this idea?
Do you have any evidence at all that people are being barred from their careers because of vexatious complaints from children?

Tell me how would I find this if it existed, apparently the reports are only shared with AGS and the portential employer. So how would this get reported?

Again, it is my belief that the complaint does not need to be initiated by the child. You have also confirmed that there is no well defined threshold for an investigation to take place. Am I correct in that? The panel of investigators only appear once the investigation begins?

joseywhales

joseywhales wrote: »

Tell me how would I find this if it existed, apparently the reports are only shared with AGS and the portential employer. So how would this get reported?

Again, it is my belief that the complaint does not need to be initiated by the child. You have also confirmed that there is no well defined threshold for an investigation to take place. Am I correct in that? The panel of investigators only appear once the investigation begins?

What are you talking about?
An investigation takes place when a complaint is made.

What do you want to find out? Do you want to find out if there is information about you?

joseywhales

bubblypop wrote: »

What are you talking about?
An investigation takes place when a complaint is made.

What do you want to find out? Do you want to find out if there is information about you?

I don't understand, I've reiterated many times my problem is that we are enabling predjudice against people who are not guilty of any crime.

What has it got to do with me?

joseywhales

joseywhales wrote: »

I don't understand, I've reiterated many times my problem is that we are enabling predjudice against people who are not guilty of any crime.

What has it got to do with me?

You asked how you would find out if a report existed.

We are not enabling any prejudice, we are protecting children. I believe you are being purposefully argumentative now.
I'm out.

joseywhales

bubblypop wrote: »

You asked how you would find out if a report existed.

We are not enabling any prejudice, we are protecting children. I believe you are being purposefully argumentative now.
I'm out.

You asked me for evidence, I state that you cannot get evidence because of privacy issues and you asked me if I am looking for information specific to me?

You can enable prejudice and protect children at the same time, it doesn't mean it's the best solution.

AdrianBalboa

AdrianBalboa wrote: »

Or even send his response to the newspaper like any sane person, of any age, at any time in history, would have done.

People have been sending unsolicited letters since the beginning of the postal service. If it was harassment I could sue many a company and all local politicians.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

People have been sending unsolicited letters since the beginning of the postal service. If it was harassment I could sue many a company and all local politicians.

So what? So what if people have been sending unsolicited letters since the beginning of the postal service? People have been engaging in shìtty behaviour too since the beginning of time. That’s never made shìtty behaviour acceptable nor justifiable.

That’s the kind of reasoning I’d expect of an immature child, certainly not the kind of reasoning I’d expect of a retired teacher. His age is no excuse, it’s every reason to expect he would know better.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So what? So what if people have been sending unsolicited letters since the beginning of the postal service? People have been engaging in shìtty behaviour too since the beginning of time. That’s never made shìtty behaviour acceptable nor justifiable.

This is a false equivalence since sending unsolicited mail isn’t in and of itself shìtty behaviour. The content might have been, but in this case wasn’t.

That’s the kind of reasoning I’d expect of an immature child, certainly not the kind of reasoning I’d expect of a retired teacher. His age is no excuse, it’s every reason to expect he would know better.

This is the logical fallacy of begging the question, or presuming the conclusion. Your first sentence stated , without proof, that the letter was bad behaviour and this paragraph builds on that to condemn the letter writer.

There there’s the straw men about how his age is no excuse as if that were a rebuttal to anything I said. And you quoted me. I don’t think anybody used age as a defense.

AdrianBalboa

Sending an unsolicited letter in this case is in itself ****ty behaviour despite how polite and well-reasoned the letter itself is. He looked up her personal details and her address on the internet from a letter she has printed in the paper and used that information to avoid the proper etiquette of replying to a letter to the editor by sending her his response himself.

It doesn’t matter how easy it is to find her address on the internet, it doesn’t matter that he didn’t threaten her in his letter or how “polite” the letter was, it doesn’t matter that he is from a different generation where people might have behaved similarly in the past (they didn’t), it doesn’t matter that anyone reading this gets junk mail or birthday cards or Christmas cards or bills they don’t want themselves. He behaved like a creepy weirdo stalker and she was right to be concerned and go to the police.

I am bowing out here, if anyone has any further points to make for me to consider you can find me in the white pages.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This is a false equivalence since sending unsolicited mail isn’t in and of itself shìtty behaviour. The content might have been, but in this case wasn’t.

This is the logical fallacy of begging the question, or presuming the conclusion. Your first sentence stated , without proof, that the letter was bad behaviour and this paragraph builds on that to condemn the letter writer.

There there’s the straw men about how his age is no excuse as if that were a rebuttal to anything I said. And you quoted me. I don’t think anybody used age as a defense.

I’ll make it really simple for you - he was acting under the impression that he had the right to do what he did. The police, as an objective party, informed him that his behaviour is not acceptable. He’s still of the opinion that he’s the victim and he’s very annoyed, very annoyed. He’s not being treated any differently to anyone else who did what he has done. He appears to be under the impression that the standards which apply to everyone in society shouldn’t apply to him.