RTÉ's religiously biased coverage of Ferns report?

Well, in cases such as child abuse I believe that one should err on the side of caution in terms of protecting the potential victims.
 
This policy if implemented would mean that people would face automatic suspension from their job even where there are deep suspicions that the complaint is vexatious or frivolous. This would be a recipe for disaster and goes against the grain of all recommended industrial relations procedures.
 
Hi ubi

It's not quite as against the grain as you suggest. It is normal industrial relations practice where an employee is accused of bullying or where an employee is a possible danger to others to suspend them from the postition while an investigation takes place. Sometimes, it is felt that a proper investigation cannot take place with the person in situ. It has to be stressed to the employee that the employer is making no judgement, but is taking a precautionary step because of the serious nature of the accusations.

It is very unfair to an innocent person who has been unjustly accused. And it would be wrong to do it if it was felt that the complaint was vexatious. But in the case of suspected child abuse, it would be a much greater wrong to leave children at risk.

It's a tough one and there is no easy answer.

Brendan
 
Hi Brendan

Fair enough.

I know of a case last year where a teenage boy told his soccer coach that he would accuse him of molestation if he was substituted in the course of a game. The coach (a volunteer whose own son was playing on the same team) immediately walked out, resigned his position as coach and reported the incident formally to the soccer club. I don't know what happened afterwards but it would be ludicrous were a law to be introduced compelling that man to step aside from his job pending an investigation into the incident.
 
Just to add a quick note: the controversy in Tuam (i.e. the specific issue of having an accused priest "stand aside") does not relate to an accusation of child abuse. The Irish "Independent" seems to feel that this is the correct approach. I am not so sure.

It is perhaps stating the obvious that nobody under investigation for rape should (as part of their work duties or otherwise) be put in the position of being alone with anybody - that is as much for the protection of the accused as anybody else. But being suspended from all work?
 
I never mentioned suspension. I was talking about, for example, reassignment to other duties not involving children in the case of accusations of child abuse that require investigation.
 
In many cases there would be no other duties to reassign people to - for example in a school.
 
Yes - I'm sure that teachers (especially secondary teachers) do a lot more in their day to day work than just teaching the class. Why do you think that my suggestion is not serious?
 
Because it doesn't make sense, unless you arrange some sort of setup where teachers correct other teachers classes' homework and/or in subjects they are not competent in. Also it would be hard to imagine a scenario where a teacher could meaningfully occupy themselves for an entire working week correcting homework.
 
Well are you or anybody else seriously asserting that a, for example, a teacher under investigation for alleged child abuse should be allowed to continue as normal in the close company of children (individuals or groups)?
 
From friends and family of mine working in secondary schools, it is more likely that the teacher will suffer sexual harrassment in secondary schools than the pupils. Some schools I know of (in small county towns) have installed CCTV because things have become so bad. Students are disciplined only when a case can be proved.

Rebecca
 
Well are you or anybody else seriously asserting that a, for example, a teacher under investigation for alleged child abuse should be allowed to continue as normal in the close company of children (individuals or groups)?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, but that isn't my point (funny how some people like to put words in the mouths of others in debates such as this). My point is that where the circumstances of a case are such that the authorities have good reason to suspect that an accusation is likely to be vexatious or scurrilous, they should have the power to allow the employee concerned to remain in their position pending investigation rather than be forced to suspend them.
 
ubiquitous said:
funny how some people like to put words in the mouths of others in debates such as this
Click to expand...
How exactly is asking you (and others) a question "putting words in the mouths of others"?
 
ubiquitous said:
You did say.. .. in referencer to something I never said.
Click to expand...
A reasonable inference to my mind is that by disagreeing (several times above) with my suggestion that those under investigation for certain misconduct/offences might be reassigned to other duties that removes them from contact with the alleged victims you, in contrast, believe that they should not be so reassigned and should remain in their normal role even if it means dealing with the alleged victims.
 
I don't see why its necessary for you to make inferences as to my own opinions or beliefs. I would have thought that it was valid for me to make the comments that I did and that doing so should not give you or anyone else a licence to hassle me about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register