NO2ID

If anyone wants to see a real life example of how we've moved away from the concept of innocent unless proven guilty, how innuendo and false allegations can be held against you by the authorities, and how dangerous the ISA is, read this thread.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/sho ... ?t=1620163

It's very very long so I'll summarise the 26-page saga into a medium length explanation.

A carer with years of service is accused of theft during a home help visit. It later transpires that the client has (a) a history of making claims against helpers and (b) can't actually say for definite money has gone. The police are nevertheless called in.

The carer is asked to attend a voluntary interview at the police station, but on arrival is arrested, swabbed for DNA, fingerprinted and photographed, and held for hours. The allegation is that within a four day period a sum of money went missing and she visited the house once during that time. She visits other clients and is told a neighbour of one client in a block of flats had a bra stolen from a package in a communal hall way. Because of the first allegation they’ve linked her to the second. Whilst in custody the police search her house and rifle through her underwear drawer looking for the missing bra - a completely different size to the ones she wears.

The investigating officer informs her employer that he thinks she is guilty. They sack her.

The police also inform her that they already had her on their system. Years previously a former elderly client was robbed whilst on a day trip with her family. The carer wasn’t even around that day, but the police and social service authorities decided to link her to the theft on their systems – she and her then employer were never informed of this or given an opportunity to rebut the claims – it just went on her record.

The case against her is dropped as there’s no evidence that the first theft actually happened, or that she had anything to do with the second theft. She launches an unfair dismissal case against her employer and they settle to her satisfaction out of court. She complains against the officer who informed the employer she was guilty. Her complaint is upheld. However, the police refuse to delete her DNA.

She puts the saga behind her and gets a new job. Months later the Independent Safeguarding Authority has contacted her to say that because of the multiple allegations against her, it is investigating her with a view to putting her on the list of people barred from contact with children and vulnerable adults. She is at her wits end.

It’s a terrifying saga with no end in sight, and shows just how vulnerable people are – particularly those in caring roles – to long-term damage as a result of false or mistaken allegations.

I actually posted some advice to the OP on that forum thread warning her to be ready for some unwanted attention to these people, who will kill off or paralyse the care sector, and seriously impact on volunteers who will stop volunteering rather than get involved in even more draconian red tape.

Having visited a few relatives in care homes over the years, it's actually very common for the elderly to lose or mislay items, claim they owned something they didn't, and shout 'theft' at the drop of a hat. That's not to say that employers don't need to be careful, but an understanding of the environment in which carers work is needed. It's not just elderly care. I've got a friend teaching at a school where one rather disturbed child has accused multiple teachers (male and female) of sexual and physical abuse over the years. All investigated by the police, all proven false - although what's on the teachers' enhanced CRBs now I dread to think.

If anyone didn't know the details of the case I highlighted I'm sure they'd think 'how can you have three false accusations against you, surely there's no smoke without fire?'

When you actually look into it you see the oldest allegation (never revealed to the carer) related to a robbery which took place when the victim was on holiday with her family - in a completely different town to the carer! The second allegation was the very common situation of elderly accuser with 'form' around false allegations, and no actual evidence of theft. The final accusation related to being in a bulding with multiple visitors around the time a package went missing (similar to being in a shop around the day something was shoplifted) - only tagged on because of previous unproven allegations. Very frightning how easily an innocent person can get caught up in a horrible situation.

Good concise summary, which illustrates the big problem with the ISA as it is set up. Doubtless the barring decisions will be made by AO grade staff (salary with checking and appeals by EO staff, but the real elephant in the room is the soft evidence disclosed to the ISA that a "victim" knows nothing about so is denied a fair opportunity to rebut or correct any potentially erroneous information held on them.