Re: Presumed guilty

On Aug 28, 12:07 am, Palindrome <m...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
R. Mark Clayton wrote:
"Webmanager_CritEst" <webmana...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0504f953-4bfe-486c-899c-559e8d9157d8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Aug 27, 6:16 pm, "R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclay...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Webmanager_CritEst" <webmana...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:5f041963-76b7-425f-914e-21dbd7e5d16b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Aug 27, 5:43 pm, "The Todal" <deadmail...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Webmanager_CritEst wrote:
Presumed guilty: The loving stepfather devoted to helping autistic
youngsters now fighting to clear his name
By Natasha Courtenay-Smith
Last updated at 12:26 AM on 27th August 2008
Every second Thursday, John Pinnington follows the same, rather
bleak
routine.
After breakfast, he heads to his local JobCentre, where he collects
his dole money for the week ahead.
It is a paltry sum, a mere fraction of what he used to earn when he
was the respected deputy headmaster of an Oxfordshire college for
young adults with learning difficulties.
He and his wife Rosie no longer enjoy the comforts of the lifestyle
they once led.
Instead of playing the martyr and appealing for help from Daily Wail
readers, he should behave like a professional. Apply for jobs, submit
his
CV
and explain if necessary with a copy of the court judgment that he is
in
fact scrupulously honest and has never abused anyone.
But he has probably got himself a reputation now as a whinger and a
troublemaker.
Again, you have no idea.
WM
Once is unfortunate, twice careless, but three times...
Point please?

WM

Beyond reasonable doubt (should he go to prison?) it could not be proved -
poor witnesses and no corroboration.

On the balance of probabilities (should he keep his job?) the balance tips
the other way.

A jury would have decided "beyond reasonable doubt".

No one decides "balance of probability" so, if the suspicions are
recorded, even a 0.1% probability of guilt will be as effective as a 50%
(or eve 99%) one in closing off areas of vocation and employment.

In practice, teachers/lecturers practices and office spaces have all
changed to eliminate the possibility of a credible accusation. Students
with difficulties (eg identified to be likely candidates for "bad news",
those with mental problems, etc) are handled especially carefully - as
they are the most likely to make (false) complaints.

No student would ever be allowed to be alone, unobserved, with a member
of staff. Only if that happens can there be even a 0.001% probability of
guilt.

In this case, if other members of staff had been in a position to state
categorically that the individual was never alone with the student, this
whole unfortunate sequence of events would have ended, immediately.

--
Sue

What you describe is an effective, back-watching CP Policy :)

WM
.