Historic Sexual Abuse Audit

Adult Staff Execs
89

Hang on, it’s late… Have I categorically said an individual case shouldn’t ever be referred externally? I recall saying that another procedural review wouldn’t be necessary at this point and that someone resigning or trying to makes no difference regarding any pending or ongoing investigation… And that a dismissal would be able to affect someone outside the RAFAC bubble…

The employer status thing has been covered and semantics wouldn’t fly, especially considering the additional guidance notes from DBS opens up the definition of who can refer.

92

But if he had been found not guilty in court I presume their would have been some sort of internal-investigation?

94

In my anecdotal experience with the ATC, we do not seem to be resourced or capable of carrying out such an investigation in a timely manner, leaving things to drag on and on. I don’'t know if the ACF are in a better position, but given the balance of permanent staffing I suspect that they might be.

The same issue affects complaints against cadets as it does those against staff: internal investigations (where those are the appropriate measure) may not be performed with any sense of haste, leaving the suspended individual in limbo until we get a move on.

95

I think incubus makes a fair point there.

But I’m confused. If the matter has been externally investigated and resulted in no case to answer, why would the ACF - or any other in the organisation presume to have extra powers above and beyond. It isn’t a military organisation so surely the rule of double-jeopardy must apply and not to respond immediately in returning the alleged is tantamount to discrimination (at that point).

I get that the organisation has a right to who it lets in etc. But for someone to have been let in and then subject to a process only to be found innocent - by the police - and then suffer colleague suspicion and general harassment from a process that is under-resourced, under-trained and with a bias towards the reputation rather than victim at all costs defeats me. Especially when any secondary findings would have to be passed to the police for action (as the ATC cannot itself act) and then you are left with the question as to why such info might not have been forward to the police as part of its original investigation!

… being the burden of proof in a civil court.

Pass it to the police, and/or safeguarding agencies, co-operate and respect their decision. Carry on running cadets and stop creating more overhead for ATC-HQ.

Quite different if there remains a concern or a shortcoming in evidence, or guilt. But then the police will make a written statement to the offender and the ACO to that effect anyway. If found guilty the offender is out de facto

96

The Police and CPS only work to the burden of proof required for “beyond all reasonable doubt” which is the CRIMINAL burden of proof. In such circumstances our internal misconduct will work to “on the balance of probabilities” which is the CIVIL burden of proof.

In no way is it outside the rules or the law for any organisation to hold its own investigation and misconduct procedures after a criminal investigation is closed, indeed its to be expected in all walks of life.

It’s not a case of expecting our investigation to turn up new evidence, it’s a case of looking at the evidence and deciding based upon the lower burden of proof whether you did it or not.

If you were to be accused of a crime at work and the Police or CPS were to decide it’s NFA as they don’t have a realistic prospect of conviction you would still expect to face an internal disciplinary procedure this is exactly the same. (We have even had a case in this country where a victim has taken her rapist to civil court who have ruled he did it and awarded compensation based upon the Civil Burden of Proof after the Police and CPS NFA’d the case).

1 Like
97

Absolutely not, as was made very clear in the report.

If there is, let’s say, a 75% surety that the accused did it then that’s not beyond reasonable doubt and so won’t be convicted, but is past the balance of probabilities and so can be removed from the organisation - and the DBS will inform any other organisation of the facts if they apply.

98

I know and understand.

It is just that my experience is that when this precise situation arose, the organisation did not remove … I mean no disrespect but other priorities overrule what should be written and acted upon in stone.

C’mon Warkitten … you are back from your lengthy winter holiday now. Must be time for you to rock up with some supportive to protect your pension :slight_smile:

1 Like
99

I know that this is nothing to do with the RAFAC, but Air Cadets in Australia and Canada were established to mirror the ATC, and it seems they experience the same issues.

This is an interesting because it brings bullying and abuse together, and shows how the authorities re-act - surely a mechanism for cover up.

An example where there was no fear of reprisal, but it happened anyway.

I wonder how many subscribe to the belief it cannot happen in the RAFAC?

101

If she’s 16 it wouldn’t even go to court unless the relationship started before she was 16.

2 Likes
102

Depends what she’s alleging

103

If said person gets the boot from the RAFAC form doing something that is not illegal then he can have recourse through the courts. The rules of the organisation have to be based in law.
The corps could probably justify getting rid on the balance of probability of doing something illegal but if the chuck somebody who is 21 because they did something legal with a 18 year old. They would be on a very sticky wicket.

104

There are various scenarios.
On one hand, a legal relationship between 2 individuals could lead to the sticky wicket you speak of, but with a signed agreement to comply with our rules, and those rules being clear and justifiable, I think we will be OK.
In the Factotum scenario, the allegations surrounding the legal relationship highlighted a breach of club rules.

Also, if there is insufficient evidence to prosecute then there will be no criminal charge, but this is the time when a general awareness of the “dodginess” of an individual could lead to the decision that they are not suitable. This could be based partly on “soft” information held by the police and which can also bring into question the suitability of a person to hold a child-care position. This sort of thing should be happening already at time of appointment (though it is maybe just a Scottish thing at the moment) and could happen at other times too.

In all cases, we need transparent, robust, lawful regulations and we need to ensure that all cases are dealt with professionally. We need every member of the organisation to understand the rules that we aim to apply to them and to agree to this as a condition of their service. That should help to grease the wickets.

1 Like
106

Nothing illegal about standing in front of your squadron and telling the visiting Regional Commandant to but pretty sure you’d be kicked out for that as well

2 Likes
107

There is the law and there are rules. If 21 yr old has sex with 16 yr old, that is not against the law; but it is against the RAFAC rules, which ‘everyone’ has now signed under the VA.

108

Interesting comment that, and this should be true not just for CP matters, but again one might have reservations that this is actually the case. And then there appears to be a lot of faith in the ability to take wrongful accusations to court. Is the RAFAC prepared to defend anyone in that predicament, or does it depend on rank ? Might it be easier to remove the innocent party and reduce the paperwork?.

Wrongful accusations and then a failure on the part of the organisation to support the ‘volunteer’ can have as traumatic effect on an innocent party, as might be experienced by any victim of abuse.

2 Likes
109

Not just defend but bear the costs of such a case.

110

If you align an organisation’s CP rules with the law, there is no confusion or wriggle room.
At the moment we have a very strange mix, such as said you can be entirely within the law and not the ‘club’ rules and find yourself in what is inconsequential trouble. Whereas if the rules aligned with laws it is crystal clear and no one escapes the noose.

111

This is from behind the Times paywall about the Oxfam scandel, paralle’s much.

A second safeguarding chief has left Oxfam in less than a year, shortly before the publication of a report on the charity’s cover up of sexual misconduct in Haiti, The Times has learnt.

Sian Thomas, an experienced child protection expert, left the charity after she became disillusioned over its approach to safeguarding issues, sources claimed. It is understood that Ms Thomas had declined requests to apply for a newly created role of director of safeguarding.

Last night she denied that she was disillusioned with the charity and attributed her move to a career choice.

Her departure comes as the Charity Commission is finalising the report of a statutory inquiry into the Haiti case, which was exposed by The Times last year, and the results of an independent review into Oxfam’s handling of safeguarding incidents over several years.

Ms Thomas took over the safeguarding role after Hannah Clare left Oxfam in early February last year. Ms Clare had campaigned for safeguarding to be given a higher priority in the humanitarian organisation and for more resources for her small team, which was trying to record and investigate cases from around the world.

Speaking at a conference in Geneva in March, Ms Clare said that she felt Oxfam had been “defensive” when faced with criticism over sexual misconduct cases and that her team and her work “felt under-prioritised”.

Ms Clare had succeeded Helen Evans, who resigned from Oxfam in 2015 and reported her concerns about the charity’s approach to safeguarding to the charity regulator and the Department for International Development.

Ms Evans had complained that she was denied the resources to tackle a surge in reported sexual exploitation cases, including a number of concerning incidents in charity shops on British high streets. She told a select committee inquiry that she felt the number of cases being reported to her was “the tip of the iceberg”. Ms Evans also said a meeting with Oxfam’s senior management team to discuss a surge in safeguarding cases was cancelled without explanation.

She now campaigns for reform across the aid sector and has called for charities to be required to make an annual report of safeguarding incidents.

This week an independent commission reported how a “toxic work environment” had developed in many Oxfam offices around the world, with widespread bullying.

An Oxfam spokeswoman said that Ms Thomas left after the charity decided to create a “new and more strategic role, reporting directly to the chief executive as part of our senior leadership team”. She added: “We are extremely grateful for the vital contribution she has made.”

The charity said Ms Thomas had taken the job on an interim basis.

Ms Thomas said last night that she had made a “career choice”, adding: “I am not disillusioned with Oxfam and wish them well with their safeguarding work in the future.”

112

So you have stolen the TImes’s intellectual property and posted it here?

1 Like
113

I’ve purchased it,just the same as giving it to you in paper form.