AIBU to think a vicar accused of sexual assault shouldn't be visiting schools?

[AnnieLobeseder]

I've just read our school newsletter, and it says that the local vicar, who hasn't been visiting in a while because of a disciplinary injunction, will be coming back at some point soon. I knew nothing about this so Googled him, and it turns out this "injunction" was a charge of sexual assault by a local teen, and that while he hasn't admitted guilt on that, he did admit to failing to follow child protection policy.

I'm absolutely gobsmacked that the school think it's okay to have him working with children.

I'm very much opposed to visits by religious people anyway, but this really has me raging.

I've written to the school telling then I don't want this man anywhere near my children.

Of course there is the possibility that he's innocent. But why take the risk? Surely it's no huge detriment to his career if he doesn't visit schools anymore?

'Okay. Not sure how that's relevant....'

You were saying you're opposed to the man and more inclined to believe he's an offender because he's a vicar, so northern saying it wouldn't be acceptable to say 'I'm very much opposed to Jewish people anyway' was a good example given that you're Jewish yourself and how that thinking spiraled into the holocaust.

You might not have mentioned a specific religion, but we're talking about a christian vicar, so again, not a huge leap to make to get to christianity.

It's not OK to judge someone as more likely to be an offender because of the job they do, because you don't like their religion, because of their physical/mental health, skin colour or sexual orientation.

It's discrimination.

She's not judging someone on the job he does. She's judging someone because he breached child protection rules and was accused of sexual assault.

At risk or repeating myself...

AnnieLobeseder Sun 15-Sep-13 16:42:50
No, I don't think he's more likely to be guilty because he's a vicar . Where have I said that?

The two issues are mutually exclusive.

1. He's been accused of sexual assault.

2. He's a vicar.

No connection between the two except that they happen to be the same man. It's just that gives me two reasons not to want him near my children instead of one.

Nowt wrong with Godwins law Sabrina it's a significant recent event good for exploring how unbelievable things can happen relatively easily.

And how criminalizing groups of people based on their religious or political ideas is dangerous.

I disagree, you've connected the two by introducing your views on school policy.

If it didn't influence you, why bring it up?

You've made it relevant.

You are right Agent - criminalising people based on their religious or political ideas is a very bad thing.

So it's a good job nobody here's doing that.

Could you ask the school if they have done a risk assessment around this individual (if they haven't, they should, purely on failure to follow CP protocol)? You could ask to see the risk assessment to appease your concerns around their presence in your child's school.

It's a difficult one, OP. On the one hand you have to respect that the person is innocent until proven otherwise and the charges were dropped. On the other hand it's frightening on a gut level to think that someone accused of sexual assault against a teenager is being allowed to mix with schoolchildren. It would be a very cavalier parent who didn't have a negative reaction to that!

But ultimately you have to accept the schools decision. And I don't think the clergy are as protected as they used to be, just in my county alone three priests have been convicted of child sexual abuse in the last three years, three that I've read about, there may even be more.

If another poster had introduced religion in schools you could say it had nothing to do with you thinking the vicar's committed a criminal offence OP, as it's an irrelevant subject to the one in your title, but you brought it up.

The OP is criminalizing him Sabrina, she's influenced by something into thinking he's a sex offender even though he should be be innocent until proved to be guilty. She's said she doesn't like religion in schools anyway, that she's got double the reason to keep her children away from the Preacher of Untruths.

I can't see any way those two reasons can possibly be separate.

annie - i don't understand why you're getting such a hard time on here - you sound perfectly reasonable to me. i don't know what i'd do in your shoes but i think i would be worried.

AgentZigzag, I very much suspect you have some personal agenda/issues you're trying to pin on me, so I shall assure you one last time, this man's religious affiliation and the crime of which he was accused have absolutely no connection in my mind.

What's happening in your mind, however, is another matter entirely.

Although I didn't engineer it deliberately, it's a bit rich of you to be at me thinking you're guilty of something when you know you're innocent.

Everyone's got personal agendas/issues, I'm no different.

She's telling you over and over what she's influenced by Agent. Why don't you listen to her?

I would not expect our childrens school to allow ANYONE who had been accused of child abuse in the school. End of discussion.

I know exactly how rare a conviction is for historic child abuse is and how easy it is to get away with.

If my childrens school went down this path, and I knew, I would remove my children from the school on the days this person was there.

FWIW I am not at all happy with parent volunteers in school full stop, but I accept that I have to live with that or home ed.

Because what the OP says conflicts with other bits of what she's saying.

I'm only giving my opinion on what I've read here, and I can understand why the OP might not like that opinion, but I'm not keen on her opinion of the vicar and the reasons she's given to think he's sexually assaulted a child when there's no evidence.

how would you all feel about someone who had neither been found guilty or innocent - ie hung charges - being allowed into a school, this has happened twice where we live.

Make a complaint to Ofsted making it clear that it is a safeguarding issue and that it is a school wide issue (so not just concerning your own DC). Safeguarding complaints are usually taken seriously.

Loa is correct. Ian Huntley had never been convicted of a sexual offence against children/young girls even though he was well known to the police in his original area - well known for intimidating and controlling very young women/girls. There had been many complaints to the police but for whatever reason he was never charged so he passed a police check for his caretaker job at the school in Soham. CRB checks which allowed 'other information' in addition to convictions to be recorded were introduced as a result.

Agent The original mention of him being a vicar in the OP's post is for context.

The other mention of religion I'm very much opposed to visits by religious people anyway, but this really has me raging. is an aside, and does not link OP's issues to his job.

Personally I just think you are offended that she doesn't like religious people visiting schools, and that is not the point at all. AnnieL shouldn't have made a snarky/throw away remark in AIBU as they always get misinterpreted here and she ought to know better, but really Agent I think you are on your own mission.

The Soham Murders have seen the biggest changes in policing this century, it was found that the internal computer systems in force did not talk to each other, neither did they talk to other forces.

Since the Bichard Report, a huge database linking all forces, the PND, has now been set up of arrests, charges and intelligence, so if someone of "interest" comes to a forces attention, they can look and see which other forces hold information on that person.

As opposed to the old system someone no longer has to be charged or convicted.

In addition, internal systems are now all linked, so no longer can CID know something (other than what is in their head) and the drug squad (just randomly picking examples here) not, which is what happened re Huntley.

However, an enhanced CRB check would be required really, and not just the standard one.

What happened to Holly and Jessica was a terrible, terrible occurrence, but it was one of the rare events that did actually change things, no doubt their deaths have gone on to save countless others from abuse and worse.

I don't think he sexually assaulted a girl. I knowhe was arrested for allegedly doing so, but that the charges were subsequently dropped due to lack of evidence. None of this is my opinion; it is fact. A lack of evidence, in my mind, is not enough for me to be confident enough of his innocence to want him around my children.

Prey tell, what reasons have I apparently given for "thinking" he sexually assaulted her?

I have no opinion of him as a vicar, except that I don't think children should be made to take part in acts of worship (of any religion) at school.

For these two completely separate reasons, I don't think he should be leading children in acts of worship.

Clear enough?

Annie, my understanding is he would be flagged up on an enhanced CRB check, and then his employers have to risk assess it, as an employer I'd be risk assessing the minuscule likelihood of a false allegation, against the overwhelmingly poor conviction rates this country has.

There are plenty of other roles a vicar can carry out, without being sent into schools with this accusation against him.

So that's it then is it? One accusation and you are considered guilty? How can that be just? I think people need to be very careful with this thinking. These people accused are somebody's spouse, somebody's child. It could be yours.

northern thats why we need a system that doesn't fail as badly as the current one does, so that the innocent are believed as well as the guilty punished.