Met Police officer David Carrick admits to being serial rapist

Trouble is, people do lie. Hardly any are formally dealt with, this is a rare case where she has been:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-64950862

 

Yes but that’s very much the exception rather than the rule. By its nature it’s extremely difficult to determine, but most of what I’ve read suggests that actual number of women who claim to have been falsely raped is very low indeed.

 

That's true, but the damages awarded might sting a bit.

 

Indeed. A large organisation, say for example an NHS trust in the NE of England, might sack a prominent trade unionist, who subsequently wins an unfair dismissal case at an ET. The ET direct the trust to re-employ the staff member, but the trust refuse, and are willing to cough up an hefty fine as the price to pay for getting rid of a hugely ‘troublesome’ trade unionist.

 

Very rarely, the median payout is only a few thousand - and obviously you have to win first. Most unions won't touch it because the cost of running the case will usually far outweigh the likely compensation. I don't think most people realise just how scant it is.

"the median awards in unfair dismissal cases, over the last 8 years, have remained more static all being between £6,243 and £8,015. This year is no exception with the median award being £7,650."

https://www.morton-fraser.com/insig...pensation-award-statistics-published-20212022

 

Definitely very few women claiming to have been falsely raped!

On a serious note, (typo accepted) , where are there figures to show numbers of false allegations?

 

Apologies, it seems Police are not subject to the same rules as regular employees - it is detailed here:

https://www.serjeantsinn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/CORPORATION-OF-LONDON-TALK.pdf

But, the regulations for the police seem to set a higher bar on proof. Which we know, from many of the cases we have seen.

 

Very difficult to ascertain, it also depends hugely on who is compiling the statistics. This from the Open University suggests research indicates anywhere between 2%-6% of rape allegations are proved false, but I have no idea what methodology was employed to arrive at those figures. In any case, the available evidence would suggest it is not a widespread phenomenon.

https://www.open.ac.uk/research/news/false-accusations-sexual-violence

 

It really isn't, but carry on.

 

OK, I've re-read your example and I see your point. I'm still struggling with having been found not guilty (by a jury of peers) and then someone pops a gross misconduct on you. It still looks like 2 bites at you when 12 good people have judged there's no offence.

 

Burden of proof.

That's all there is to it.

 

The point is that gross misconduct doesn't have to involve a criminal offence. In my fictitious case I was fighting at work. Depending on the circumstances, that's not a crime. Certainly not if he hits me first and I can claim self defence. The police wouldn't charge, and if they did I might get off. That doesn't mean that my behaviour isn't still very poor. My employer can still say "gross misconduct, out".
Another fictitious example. I go to work, find a black guy. Call him a n-word. Are the police going to charge me? No, certainly not. Am I getting sacked? Oh yes.

 

The jury decided that, even though it was accepted that she bludgeoned the victim 6 times, her involvement was not sufficient to convict her of the criminal offence of manslaughter.

The fact remains that she did bludgeon the victim 6 times and that her employer considered that was gross misconduct according the terms and conditions of her employment. It is normal for criminal proceedings to be concluded before any work-related disciplinary action.

 

I understand your view. Mine remains that if found not guilty at court, disciplinary proceedings are a second bite at the employee.

in your examples there’s been no criminal trial, so yes, it’s appropriate to have a disciplinary.

 

I don't think you can be so sure. If the person you insulted chose to, it would be reported as a hate crime and the CPS is quite proactive in charging people for that sort of offence. https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/hate-crime

 

A finding of ‘not guilty’ in court is not proof of innocence. It’s a legal finding that there was insufficient proof for a conviction, but it cannot be inferred that the person is blameless. There’s a formal presumption of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ but that’s the legal position as regards punishment. Remember that in some cases, victims have sued for damages and won a civil claim against a party found not guilty at court. Because there’s a lower standard of proof for a civil claim and the evidence may clear that hurdle, but fall at the higher standard.

 

Got to love the internet and people’s presumptions about your knowledge….

 

Well you objected to a ‘second bite’ via employer disciplinary, I was simply pointing out that the law also allows a second bite, via a civil claim. If you knew that, why would you seem to argue that a second bite is inherently unfair? What do you think I was presuming, and why might you think it was presumptuous?

 

You are wrong, as many have pointed out.

 

Sure, but they aren't going to call it a hate crime if I get into a row with a guy and call him an N-word, once. Of that I am sure. If they did, they'd be charging somebody every week.

Look at the Clarkson incident. What was it? He called some member of staff a "stupid Irish c**t" or similar. Do that at work, it's GM, racist insult, and you are out. Clarkson was. But hate crime? Please.