[momentaryloss]

I understand that the NHS Trust involved was “supporting” the member of staff.

A breach of confidentiality is gross misconduct and can lead to a member of staff being sacked, as well as a referral to the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC), which can result in removal from the register.

Public servants appear to be public enemy number one at the moment with politicians and the media calling for sackings every time a mistake is made. The management of the Trust would have been aware of this and would have been expecting serious repercussions, despite the fact that this was clearly a matter of dishonesty on the part of the DJs. (Indeed playing such a tape on radio is an offence both here and in Australia if the participants do not consent to it being played.)

The NHS has one of the most brutal management cultures in the UK, goaded on by politicians eager to make political capital. In what way was this member of staff was made explicitly aware of the situation, and the consequences for both her and the Trust (as a nurse she would have known this any case)?

In such a situation, where she clearly was at risk of losing her job and her career, I wonder how “supportive” her employers were in practice, and what effect her dilemma had on her mental state. Only the Trust and the poor woman herself will ever know the answers to these questions and sadly she is now dead.

This is not just a case of someone who made a decision because she was embarrassed by the publicity.

So who exactly is to blame?

[momentaryloss]

@mrs_teapot wrote:

I often wonder about Eddie…. hope he is OK especially as Gaz has moved house… Hi to Gaz too :D

Yes where are Gaz and Eddie?

Miss Gaz’s unique style.

:?

[momentaryloss]

People do tweet. I have a Twitter account.

By the way the past tense of tweet is twat, or is that the name for someone who tweets?

:lol:

[momentaryloss]

Apologies and final long posting on this subject.

Was just trying to make a complex point in a difficult area, rather than directly disagreeing with others as such.

I honestly believe that we are failing people in too many ways, and the more cases of “we’ll do something if more people come forward” I hear, the more worried I am. Serial offenders exist, but they are very far from the whole story, as people I have been involved with know only too well.

I am happy that disclosure works for some, but for many an attitude that requires more victims, only means cursory investigation, followed by no justice.

[momentaryloss]

The concerns I am expressing here are actually less about the accused and more about the effect on the victims.

No matter what other allegations there are, each case still has to stand or fall by its own merits, and cases brought against serial criminals fail for lack of evidence (the Yorkshire ripper was found guilty ten times, but not guilty twice, in the same trial). So are we saying that our justice system wont kick in for many victims of abuse, and proper investigations wont take place, until more people come forward?

We appear to be suggesting that we need multiple accusations in some cases before the Police investigate. If that is true, we are setting ourselves up for more Saviles, or worse, condemning people who are victims of one off abusers to never having justice. Sadly I think in practice, this is exactly what happens for many people, faced with accusing a “respectable” person, as opposed to an ordinary Jo.

I’m not sure what we are saying here. Either the Police don’t take things seriously until there is what amounts to overwhelming pressure, or that they prioritise other cases because they don’t have the resources. In either case its hardly a situation we can cheer about. Public life is littered with people who, with all the best intentions, do what they think is best. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t question it.

I have no doubt that, in practice, in the case Jen highlights, the initial small piece in the press was the key to unlocking the path to justice for the family. However not all arrests reach the press.

So victims have to rely on the possibility of the press publishing in order to get justice? Just as well we had disclosure and that the press lottery worked, or Jen’s friend would never have obtained justice. Whatever the rights and wrongs of disclosure, it is the random nature of this that really worries me. Whoever is to “blame” we can hardly regard this as a fully functioning justice system.

Guilty is of course a legal definition and there is no guilty verdict without getting cases to trial. We know that most victims of sexual crimes never report them, and those who do often withdraw their complaints, when the consequences of an investigation (or lack of it) becomes clear.

I am not against disclosure. I am just concerned about some of the reasons we think we need it. Disclosure is clearly a double-edged sword, which is in practice used very unevenly. There is big difference between asking the public if they recognise someone on CCTV, and parading a series of potential abusers in front of them to see if they will come forward as new victims. There is no system whereby all arrests are placed in the local press so that people can trawl through to check if they have anything to contribute. As a consequence we don’t have a handy list of potential abusers to refer to (whether or not that would be desirable for other reasons). It is therefore a lottery.

We are half in and half out of disclosing things to the public. We rely on stories being juicy or scandalous enough to report, and the Police deciding to disclose in the first place. Justice for some and not for others. I am just genuinely pleased that this rather flaky system eventually led to a proper investigation in the said case. I just worry about the countless others it doesn’t work for.

This is a difficult area which would worry most sensitive people. There are no perfect answers, and no principles we can cling to no matter what.

Apart from the need to listen carefully to victims’ stories and investigate them properly. And we know that doesn’t always happen.

[momentaryloss]

@wordsworth60 wrote:

@momentaryloss wrote:

@rusty trawler wrote:

Shouldn’t we be decorating this place for the annual Christmas shindig by now?

And can we please refrain from repeating the embarrassing shenaningans of last year when drunken Brother Scep simulated coitus with Brother Sgt’s Darts trophy?

I see my plea for the Club to give all its extra money to charity and keep the inside of the Club a Christmas free zone has fallen on deaf ears.

:?

I’m not a big fan of the hairshirt approach to charitable giving myself. Let’s not pretend that we’re a bunch of paupers. Some of us like the festive cheer, and what would we tell the orphans when they come to sing carols and there’s no tree or presents?

However in the spirit of your suggestion, why not see if we can rustle up a tree and decorations and donate the value of the decorations if they were bought to charity. I’m sure I have a spare House of Lords bauble somewhere and there’s a pine at the end of the drive that looks a bit out of place . . . . . .

You are indeed a scholar and a gentleman.

I hate to admit my public spiritedness was in fact motivated more by a desire to hide from Christmas. However your eagerness to bring some Christmas cheer has melted my hard heart.

I’m sure I can bring along a decent malt to oil the wheels of celebration of man’s endeavour to provide hospitality to his fellows.

Go in peace.

8)

[momentaryloss]

Best laugh of the day. Especially the bit about the line up.

Thanks Tinks.

8)

[momentaryloss]

I see where you are coming from Rusty.

It is certainly true that we can never be entirely sure what evidence the Police do and don’t have.

I agree in principle with the principle, but not always in practice, and not at all if it is simply to fish for further accusations (if that makes any sense).

:?

[momentaryloss]

The great one will return.

Panda will return to post again.

And have the last word………………..

[momentaryloss]

Just when you thought it was dead.

Duh, Duh, Duuuuuuuuuuh……..

:P

[Author]

Posts