Is this a police matter or a civil matter

[ixqic]

I suspect someone I work with has written a letter of complaint about me pretending to be a member of the public to get me into trouble at work. In short, I work with children/vulnerable adults so the implications for me could have been significant.

In short it has become evidence in a disciplinary hearing which has already happened and which has been dismissed.

I think I now have evidence which seems to confirm my suspicion and I want to know where I stand.

Where ought to I go next? I know I can go to my union with my suspicion but I wonder if going to the police is also a possibility.

Thanks in advance for reading and replying.

I name change every day. (I'm paranoid) . So don't count me in any Argie bargy. If you check my profile you can see I have been a member for a while.

I commented because posters seemed to be getting defensive with no reason.

Westmorland I've posted on your thread about your DHs farm.

Ws. And what about JaneParker. She has been on mumsnet for years and years as you probably know.

I will repeat Nn is a police officer. WS is not in the correct legal part of the law in the slightest for this thread.

I have been on mumsnet for about 3 years under different names. I am not legal and would not post unless I had plenty of enough legal knowledge of this particular law area.

WS. You have posted often enough and consistently enough over weeks if not years, for people to really be in no doubt that you are a farmer!

I will have a look at timings of threads.

With respect, but agree that I dont know him, AmateurDad sounds like he very much knows what he is talking about.

And I do bristle when I find that a man on mumsnet is dismissed purely because he is a man. That is discrimitory and I dont like it.
Dont be intimidated by a man. Totally unnecessary.

Had a look at timings. Yes, this thread came first, and not the other one.

Hang on, I was never on a thread about Amateurdad and feeling talked down to because he was a man!!

Going to bed. I will take a look in the morning. Night all.

Lol, the OP hasn't even been on the thread for the last week.

Hopefully Setting will come back in the morning and correct her comment about me feeling talked down to by AD. I assume she is talking about the thread about a poster having to be a witness at court.

No comments were made by me about AD being a male.

I can't link to the case, but I am aware of a similar situation to the OP's being prosecuted for misconduct in public office.

I have no idea if the OP or the relevant manager is in the public sector though.

I would say the main crux of that case would be the part about misconduct in a public office rather than the letter itself?

But according to some, (not you Beryl), what would I know? I've not been to law school.

And FYI setting, you are aware that being a solicitor doesn't mean a person is qualified in criminal law, don't you? They could work in conveyincing, family law etc? (Jane, that's not a dig at you, I have no idea what field you work in but Setting has implied that a solicitor generally will have more criminal law knowledge than a police officer. That's not necessarily the case).

Since police officers dont seem to have been to law school, then yes, I would expect a solicitor to have more criminal law knowledge than a police officer.
Do they not?
I had never thought about police officers not having much knowledge of the law before. But now I can see that they dont necessarily.
I would have expected police officers to know more than they probably do

Nichnacky. You were on a thread with AmateurDad. You did talk "at him", rather rudely.
But no,true, you did not specifically mention that he was a male.

A solicitor who specialises in say, conveyancing will obviously not have expertise in criminal law. Surely that is obvious?

I wouldn't go to a conveyancing solicitor if I was accused of a crime.

I'm not sure how I was rude? I asked who he was aiming a post at, and asked why he was suggesting a poster complains and if he was a lay person himself.

That's a far cry from being sexist as you suggested. It may be an idea in future to be certain before you accuses a poster of something, no?

You appeared sexist. Only you can know for sure whether you were or are or not.

How did I appear sexist?? Because the poster was a man!! I would have asked the same question if his name had been Amatuermum.

That is not quite right. I learned a huge amount of criminal law to qualify as a solicitor. I know quite a lot of it. However I certainly accept that some people might forget some of what they learn and most people do not keep up to date in areas they do not practise in. I certainly know a lot of criminal case and statute law because I had to learn it for exams about criminal law. Criminal law is one of the mandatory subjects for qualifying law degrees. This is one reason solicitors are different from non solicitor staff - they have to have studied and passed the exams in that and other elements which will not be the case for people who aren't qualified. Anyway it's not important - it's all rather off topic.

I am not legally qualified in any shape or form, not one single line of qualification in legal matters.

However years ago when I worked in the county court I remember having to explain a particularly obscure bit of procedure to a Recorder who had never come across it. It was one of the 'well, what normally happens' moments. Sometimes it is the person on the sharp end that knows a bit more. On the other hand sometimes the finer details are best handled by professionals. It's worth paying attention to all areas.

In this case, it is probably a good start to think of what sort of outcome you want and what sort of outcome you can get within different jurisdictions. As a non qualified person I think it is probably worth dealing in house.

Apologise for using you as an example Jane, as I said I have no idea of your background and thanks for clarifying that.

police officers DO have to do a degree ir equivalent to pass probation, which is 2 years. the training in law us quite in depth. I.just needed to point that out for tbose who think wr just don a uniform and crack on....

No problem.
At the moment all kinds of people are setting up legal services and I am in favour of free competition so I have no problem with that. What does bother me is that sometimes the public think someone called legal adviser or legal consultant will know the law and have qualifications when often they don't - the fake law firm letters from student loans co, Wonga and others are in the same vein. We need more people to realise anyone on mumsnet could set themselves up tomorrow as a legal adviser and not breach the law just as I could call myself a therapist and need consumers to become a bit more savvy about the differences between solicitor and other words used.

Thanks for that information JP. I for one certainly didnt know that.

Definitely take this further with your union and employer. You may have been cleared but this person is still in a position of authority.

Something similar happened to me where I was accused of hitting a vulnerable person. The whole 'case' hung on another employee who was there at the time and because I was suspended I was unable to speak face to face but I phoned her and she denied she had made a complaint against me.

Long story short. Someone in management listened to twisted rumours, tried to coerce the witness into lying, destroyed her signed statement and wrote her own! My union rep ripped the case to shreds and it was dropped. I was leaving anyway and the rep said there was no record of the allegations allowed to stand and it was easier to leave it. This has always rankled but I am also sure it would come to light but don't know of any outcome.

It's sounds far fetched that someone will fabricate 'evidence' but I know from experience it happens.