Tweet
Some 18 months ago we had a police raid where they believed he had child images on his PC. My son always vehemently denied this. They took away 2 PCs, mobile phone and several USB sticks. There was 12 years of history on those machines. There was nothing found in his room – not even ‘ordinary’ porn.
The analysis took 9 months and came back clear. No images found – no further action, BUT because he works driving school children, the police (in their infinite wisdom) informed the Disclosure & Barring service that there had been an investigation and they believed that certain search terms used were ‘indicative’ of a possible risk to children.
This resulted in information being put into the ‘Relevant Information’ box on his DBS certificate essentially losing his job. The search terms were over a relatively short period – 3 to 4 months – where he had become obsessional (being into football) with the Andy Johnson case. Gossip forums had indicated there was ‘much more’ to the allegations than had been reported, and he had been digging for the juicy gossip.
In addition, he used to frequent Limewire for mainstream feature films and music. The police said he had clicked PTHC which is apparently used by peodos, but my son was not aware of this abbreviation and assumed something ‘home camcorder’ NOT ‘hard core’. The third search term was Japenese Lolitas, which apparently is a well known gaming cult – even I have seen this on a magazine.
Despite appealing at every stage, the DBS have now barred him from working with children. He has a 16 year exemplary record of driving children for a private school without an escort. There has never been an inkling of any problems. He has multiple supportive references written by family, friends and the school in his favour. We have a large family with numerous grandchildren, nieces and nephews. Never has there been the slightest hint of anything inappropriate.
The vast majority of search terms were ‘teen’. The DBS based their case on 2 ‘unambiguous’ search terms which my son has explained. There was never an arrest, charge or conviction. As I am due to get Special Guardianship of my 2 granddaughter, Children’s Services have also directed him to move out of the family home. So he has lost his job and his home and done nothing wrong.
Taking a hammer to crush a nut doesn’t even come close to describing this injustice. We are in the process of asking permission for a judicial tribunal. Currently, DBS – as Respondant – have been granted a stay in proceedings until December pending a new assessment of the case.
Can anyone tell me if, at this stage, we can send DBS further information regarding the case.
i.e.
At the time of the entering of the search terms my son was addicted to an ‘over the counter’ codeine-based painkiller (for which he was accessing professional services for help). Heavy use of this opiate-based pain killer had rendered his sex-drive to nil. DBS have never had this information.
Also, the police seemed to have had a predetermined opinion he was guilty before they even came to the house – particularly the policewoman. From the way she spoke to me she had him guilty and when they interviewed him (informally in my lounge) she was calling him a liar to his face when he was strongly denying any wrong doing. The last thing she said on leaving the house was, ‘well, computers don’t lie’. The computer didn’t lie and came back clean.
Information requested from the police subsequently (most of it was blanked out) shows an email from one of the officers second guessing their own forensic team - ‘Can we get ***** to re-look at this as we find it surprising’.
We suspect it is this policewoman who has spoken to DBS and Children’s Services.
I imagine these investigations cost thousands and wouldn’t look good if they drew a total blank.
Never mind ruining someone’s life.
The current mood of social hysteria re child abuse seems to force every public body to ‘cover their backs’ no matter what the cost to an innocent individual.
The analysis took 9 months and came back clear. No images found – no further action, BUT because he works driving school children, the police (in their infinite wisdom) informed the Disclosure & Barring service that there had been an investigation and they believed that certain search terms used were ‘indicative’ of a possible risk to children.
This resulted in information being put into the ‘Relevant Information’ box on his DBS certificate essentially losing his job. The search terms were over a relatively short period – 3 to 4 months – where he had become obsessional (being into football) with the Andy Johnson case. Gossip forums had indicated there was ‘much more’ to the allegations than had been reported, and he had been digging for the juicy gossip.
In addition, he used to frequent Limewire for mainstream feature films and music. The police said he had clicked PTHC which is apparently used by peodos, but my son was not aware of this abbreviation and assumed something ‘home camcorder’ NOT ‘hard core’. The third search term was Japenese Lolitas, which apparently is a well known gaming cult – even I have seen this on a magazine.
Despite appealing at every stage, the DBS have now barred him from working with children. He has a 16 year exemplary record of driving children for a private school without an escort. There has never been an inkling of any problems. He has multiple supportive references written by family, friends and the school in his favour. We have a large family with numerous grandchildren, nieces and nephews. Never has there been the slightest hint of anything inappropriate.
The vast majority of search terms were ‘teen’. The DBS based their case on 2 ‘unambiguous’ search terms which my son has explained. There was never an arrest, charge or conviction. As I am due to get Special Guardianship of my 2 granddaughter, Children’s Services have also directed him to move out of the family home. So he has lost his job and his home and done nothing wrong.
Taking a hammer to crush a nut doesn’t even come close to describing this injustice. We are in the process of asking permission for a judicial tribunal. Currently, DBS – as Respondant – have been granted a stay in proceedings until December pending a new assessment of the case.
Can anyone tell me if, at this stage, we can send DBS further information regarding the case.
i.e.
At the time of the entering of the search terms my son was addicted to an ‘over the counter’ codeine-based painkiller (for which he was accessing professional services for help). Heavy use of this opiate-based pain killer had rendered his sex-drive to nil. DBS have never had this information.
Also, the police seemed to have had a predetermined opinion he was guilty before they even came to the house – particularly the policewoman. From the way she spoke to me she had him guilty and when they interviewed him (informally in my lounge) she was calling him a liar to his face when he was strongly denying any wrong doing. The last thing she said on leaving the house was, ‘well, computers don’t lie’. The computer didn’t lie and came back clean.
Information requested from the police subsequently (most of it was blanked out) shows an email from one of the officers second guessing their own forensic team - ‘Can we get ***** to re-look at this as we find it surprising’.
We suspect it is this policewoman who has spoken to DBS and Children’s Services.
I imagine these investigations cost thousands and wouldn’t look good if they drew a total blank.
Never mind ruining someone’s life.
The current mood of social hysteria re child abuse seems to force every public body to ‘cover their backs’ no matter what the cost to an innocent individual.
Comment