It's revealing that they can't even follow their own vetting procedures but is a blanket ban on anyone who has ever been the subject of an investigation remotely justifiable, regardless it seems of whether they were convicted, prosecuted or even cleared?A suspected child sex attacker was recruited as a police community support officer and is alleged to have indecently assaulted a female colleague, The Times has learnt.
The case raises serious concerns over vetting standards in the Metropolitan Police because the 19-year-old man was able to join the force despite disclosing that he had been investigated for a sexual assault on a three-year-old girl.
...........
He was not charged over the incident but that he had been the subject of a criminal investigation into a sex offence should have barred him from joining the police service.
It isn't even as if it protects the public because even supposing it does prevent someone who was guilty of a sexual offence (but never charged) become a PCSO, it isn't as if they can do noticeably more harm in that role than as a member of the public.
1 comment:
'is a blanket ban on anyone who has ever been the subject of an investigation remotely justifiable, regardless it seems of whether they were convicted, prosecuted or even cleared?'
Such a policy has zero justification- and if it were to be consistently applied it would make some of the 'diversity' quotas for PCSOs completely unrealisable.
Post a Comment