2 ms·

> The tribunal heard all three had to tell their employers about the accusations made against them. > The innocent woman was advised her children could not liv

> The tribunal heard all three had to tell their employers about the accusations made against them. > The innocent woman was advised her children could not live with her alone until she was cleared, and the two men faced child protection referrals. The first male claimant was placed on restricted duties at work and the second had a job offer withdrawn. > The three were never charged, and police later identified and prosecuted the actual offender who lived nearby. > The tribunal did not find grounds for compensation or remedies for the three claimants, as the force had acted within the law and responded appropriately once the error was discovered. I cannot believe that there is no compensation for the affected individuals. They lives were destroyed. Their employers were notified. They could not carry on their normal lives as parents. Its damage extends to the children of the defendants. Surely there should be massive compensation and also jail time for the false accusation - otherwise why would there be any incentive to do better?

ratelimitsteve 1y ago
wild, other professionals are responsible when their mistakes cause damage. when did we in the west start moving toward a model where law enforcement has a lower standard of responsibility than everyone else?
- drweevil 1y ago
  >The tribunal did not find grounds for compensation or remedies for the three claimants, as the force had acted within the law I totally agree that they should be held responsible. Acting "within the law" is not sufficient. Their job is to get it right. They got it wrong. Doesn't matter how; tech is not infallible, and they should know and consider that before ruining someone's reputation based solely on an IP address. Other forensic evidence is not treated in this cavalier manner. Neither should computer tech. I thought they might have learned this lesson after the Post Office scandal, but apparently not.
  - ratelimitsteve 1y ago
    they did learn their lesson after the post office scandal. They learned that they make the law, and can just declare themselves not responsible for their own actions, and that far from disqualifying them from management decisions the fact that machines can't be held accountable makes them a nifty layer of insulation between people who hurt people and people who get hurt. They'll still arrest you for implying support for forbidden ideas, though. Not for actually hurting people, and evidently not for child sex abuse in some cases, but there always seems to be a spare officer available if someone has an idea that enough people find unpleasant.

ratelimitsteve 1y ago

wild, other professionals are responsible when their mistakes cause damage. when did we in the west start moving toward a model where law enforcement has a lower standard of responsibility than everyone else?

drweevil 1y ago
>The tribunal did not find grounds for compensation or remedies for the three claimants, as the force had acted within the law I totally agree that they should be held responsible. Acting "within the law" is not sufficient. Their job is to get it right. They got it wrong. Doesn't matter how; tech is not infallible, and they should know and consider that before ruining someone's reputation based solely on an IP address. Other forensic evidence is not treated in this cavalier manner. Neither should computer tech. I thought they might have learned this lesson after the Post Office scandal, but apparently not.
- ratelimitsteve 1y ago
  they did learn their lesson after the post office scandal. They learned that they make the law, and can just declare themselves not responsible for their own actions, and that far from disqualifying them from management decisions the fact that machines can't be held accountable makes them a nifty layer of insulation between people who hurt people and people who get hurt. They'll still arrest you for implying support for forbidden ideas, though. Not for actually hurting people, and evidently not for child sex abuse in some cases, but there always seems to be a spare officer available if someone has an idea that enough people find unpleasant.