Interesting Dilemma

All things Rugby
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: Interesting Dilemna

Post by dr dre2 »

DAC2016 wrote:
Yes DAC. Really speaking it's best to have one for every possible scenario you are likely to put a member of staff in to.
I have a friend who works on a project in Wales where basically no hopers are given a last chance to sort their lives out. The target of the project is to get them into some sort of housing.

There are about 25 of them living in joint sheltered accommodation and my friend is a team lead and is basically responsible for the "clients" health and safety as well as their team. There are murders, rapes, suicides, knife crimes, and rampant drug use within the accommodation.

There are no risk assessments for the staff, surely this is illegal?
It's not illegal it just leaves them wide open to get sued. They are failing in their duty of care to the staff. How can they train them to deal with the risks if they are not aware what they are. They are not minimising the risk as far as possible.

It's not a black and white thing. If everyone is crazy, and you aware of it the the risk assessments would be on the scenarios not the people. Concentrating on policy that minimises the danger if it can't be eradicated. 2 members of staff to enter a room or metal objects in pocket etc. You just have to consider the situations and what can go wrong, point that out to the staff and if they don't folllow the rules and enter a room on their own get their fidget spinner taken out their pocket and rammed in their eye ball it's the member of staff's fault not yours. "Sign to say you've received the training please, there will be a certificate and everything" means, "you've signed that if that scenario happens it's tour fault".
Last edited by dr dre2 on Thu May 18, 2017 4:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
DAC2016
Posts: 3891
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 4:32 pm

Re: Interesting Dilemna

Post by DAC2016 »

dr dre2 wrote:
DAC2016 wrote:
Yes DAC. Really speaking it's best to have one for every possible scenario you are likely to put a member of staff in to.
I have a friend who works on a project in Wales where basically no hopers are given a last chance to sort their lives out. The target of the project is to get them into some sort of housing.

There are about 25 of them living in joint sheltered accommodation and my friend is a team lead and is basically responsible for the "clients" health and safety as well as their team. There are murders, rapes, suicides, knife crimes, and rampant drug use within the accommodation.

There are no risk assessments for the staff, surely this is illegal?
It's not illegal it just leaves them wide open to get sued. They are failing in their duty of care to the staff. How can they train them to deal with the risks if they are not aware what they are. They are not minimising the risk as far as possible.
Well the risk score would prevent them for doing anything anyway.
ovalball
Posts: 13395
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Interesting Dilemna

Post by ovalball »

There aren't any risk assessments done by me (we use a community facility that carries out risk assessments) - and I do not allow minors to be involved. I certainly wouldn't consider starting risk assessments for each person that joins the club - that would be absurd.

And, it would be the Authorities that have carried out such an assessment when they released him back into society. I couldn't possibly provide the level of expertise that they would have already employed. There must be thousands of people with mental issues that have been released - who knows what someone's background is when we meet them - we have to rely on the Authorities doing their job.

I think posters here are starting to voice some of the issues I'm mulling over.
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: Interesting Dilemna

Post by dr dre2 »

DAC2016 wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
DAC2016 wrote:
Yes DAC. Really speaking it's best to have one for every possible scenario you are likely to put a member of staff in to.
I have a friend who works on a project in Wales where basically no hopers are given a last chance to sort their lives out. The target of the project is to get them into some sort of housing.

There are about 25 of them living in joint sheltered accommodation and my friend is a team lead and is basically responsible for the "clients" health and safety as well as their team. There are murders, rapes, suicides, knife crimes, and rampant drug use within the accommodation.

There are no risk assessments for the staff, surely this is illegal?
It's not illegal it just leaves them wide open to get sued. They are failing in their duty of care to the staff. How can they train them to deal with the risks if they are not aware what they are. They are not minimising the risk as far as possible.
Well the risk score would prevent them for doing anything anyway.
No DAC, if you spell the risks out to people they can do what the feck they want. You just have to spell out the risks. Then give them training on how to deal with the scenarios and get them to sign that they understand. If that scenario happens they were A) Aware of it and chose to do it anyway. B) If they don't follow the exact training, why? C) You've shown you cared.
Mick Mannock
Posts: 27625
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Interesting Dilemna

Post by Mick Mannock »

ovalball wrote:There aren't any risk assessments done by me (we use a community facility that carries out risk assessments) - and I do not allow minors to be involved. I certainly wouldn't consider starting risk assessments for each person that joins the club - that would be absurd.

And, it would be the Authorities that have carried out such an assessment when they released him back into society. I couldn't possibly provide the level of expertise that they would have already employed. There must be thousands of people with mental issues that have been released - who knows what someone's background is when we meet them - we have to rely on the Authorities doing their job.

I think posters here are starting to voice some of the issues I'm mulling over.
It would be absurd, I agree.

Do schools have to carry out risk assessments on every parent who attends Parent's Day whilst there are children about?
DAC2016
Posts: 3891
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 4:32 pm

Re: Interesting Dilemna

Post by DAC2016 »

dr dre2 wrote:
DAC2016 wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
DAC2016 wrote:
Yes DAC. Really speaking it's best to have one for every possible scenario you are likely to put a member of staff in to.
I have a friend who works on a project in Wales where basically no hopers are given a last chance to sort their lives out. The target of the project is to get them into some sort of housing.

There are about 25 of them living in joint sheltered accommodation and my friend is a team lead and is basically responsible for the "clients" health and safety as well as their team. There are murders, rapes, suicides, knife crimes, and rampant drug use within the accommodation.

There are no risk assessments for the staff, surely this is illegal?
It's not illegal it just leaves them wide open to get sued. They are failing in their duty of care to the staff. How can they train them to deal with the risks if they are not aware what they are. They are not minimising the risk as far as possible.
Well the risk score would prevent them for doing anything anyway.
No DAC, if you spell the risks out to people they can do what the feck they want. You just have to spell out the risks. Then give them training on how to deal with the scenarios and get them to sign that they understand. If that scenario happens they were A) Aware of it and chose to do it anyway. B) If they don't follow the exact training, why? C) You've shown you cared.
My friend was literally held hostage the other week and she's suffering really badly from stress, I'd like her to sue the company she works for, has she got a case?
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: Interesting Dilemna

Post by dr dre2 »

ovalball wrote:There aren't any risk assessments done by me (we use a community facility that carries out risk assessments) - and I do not allow minors to be involved. I certainly wouldn't consider starting risk assessments for each person that joins the club - that would be absurd.

And, it would be the Authorities that have carried out such an assessment when they released him back into society. I couldn't possibly provide the level of expertise that they would have already employed. There must be thousands of people with mental issues that have been released - who knows what someone's background is when we meet them - we have to rely on the Authorities doing their job.

I think posters here are starting to voice some of the issues I'm mulling over.
There may be 1000s, but few have killed multiple people. The key thing is that you have identified a risk and you are duty bound to assess it. Your assessment may conclude there is no problem but a lack of one could be seen as you neglecting your duty of care should things go wrong. Sports clubs do have a legal duty of care. And it's one that could go very badly wrong, it's not a sprained ankle, it's one where questions would be asked, everything looked in to. It's not one I'd let slide, it's the opposite of that.
Mick Mannock
Posts: 27625
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Interesting Dilemna

Post by Mick Mannock »

Go and take some proper legal advice where you can reveal more than on here.
Mick Mannock
Posts: 27625
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Interesting Dilemna

Post by Mick Mannock »

Or telephone the relevant CMHT, and have a word with them.
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: Interesting Dilemna

Post by dr dre2 »

Mick Mannock wrote:
ovalball wrote:There aren't any risk assessments done by me (we use a community facility that carries out risk assessments) - and I do not allow minors to be involved. I certainly wouldn't consider starting risk assessments for each person that joins the club - that would be absurd.

And, it would be the Authorities that have carried out such an assessment when they released him back into society. I couldn't possibly provide the level of expertise that they would have already employed. There must be thousands of people with mental issues that have been released - who knows what someone's background is when we meet them - we have to rely on the Authorities doing their job.

I think posters here are starting to voice some of the issues I'm mulling over.
It would be absurd, I agree.

Do schools have to carry out risk assessments on every parent who attends Parent's Day whilst there are children about?
The whole thing is scaled to the risk and situation. A risk assessment on the likelihood of a dangerous person attending used to produce policy and training on how to deal with it would be fine. But if Jim my Saville was due for a visit then this may need something more specific.
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: Interesting Dilemna

Post by dr dre2 »



My friend was literally held hostage the other week and she's suffering really badly from stress, I'd like her to sue the company she works for, has she got a case?
I'm not a solicitor DAC, that would depend on a great many things. All I can tell you there is the employer hasn't covered it's arse well enough and a visit to a solicitor may be worth while.
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: Interesting Dilemna

Post by dr dre2 »

Mick Mannock wrote:Go and take some proper legal advice where you can reveal more than on here.
Absolutely. I'm suggesting how to cover your arse. And how business covers it's arse.
DAC2016
Posts: 3891
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 4:32 pm

Re: Interesting Dilemna

Post by DAC2016 »

dr dre2 wrote:


My friend was literally held hostage the other week and she's suffering really badly from stress, I'd like her to sue the company she works for, has she got a case?
I'm not a solicitor DAC, that would depend on a great many things. All I can tell you there is the employer hasn't covered it's arse well enough and a visit to a solicitor may be worth while.
Of course, thanks.
frillage
Posts: 6663
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Interesting Dilemna

Post by frillage »

ovalball wrote:There aren't any risk assessments done by me (we use a community facility that carries out risk assessments) - and I do not allow minors to be involved. I certainly wouldn't consider starting risk assessments for each person that joins the club - that would be absurd.

And, it would be the Authorities that have carried out such an assessment when they released him back into society. I couldn't possibly provide the level of expertise that they would have already employed. There must be thousands of people with mental issues that have been released - who knows what someone's background is when we meet them - we have to rely on the Authorities doing their job.

I think posters here are starting to voice some of the issues I'm mulling over.
Ignore the risk assesment jobsworth. The risk assessment (from your point of view) is covered by his release and conditions attached to it.
Unless the club is a highly stressful environment (I'm guessing it isn't and likely a social/sporting thing more likely to relieve stress?) I can't see how it would change that. It's nit a weed smoking club is it?

Would give serious thought to the possibility of any outing of his previous leading to being ostracised and possibly removed from an environment he likely enjoys which could be much more detrimental to him than the minor risk your club is likely under from the possibility of him reoffending and if he did it being someone from your club rather than a close relative or work colleague.
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: Interesting Dilemna

Post by dr dre2 »

Here's a typical risk management chart.
Image

Lower priority / lower severity things need less attention and general policy can apply.

Given the level of severity and also likelihood must be reasonably high I'd suggest you are borderline tolerable risk / unacceptable risk. If there worst did happen you'd get a lot of heat for not properly assessing it. For lots of people including maybe the press people would ask why you ignored an intolerable risk (to them).
frillage
Posts: 6663
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Interesting Dilemna

Post by frillage »

dr dre2 wrote:Here's a typical risk management chart.
Image

Lower priority / lower severity things need less attention and general policy can apply.

Given the level of severity and also likelihood must be reasonably high I'd suggest you are borderline tolerable risk / unacceptable risk. If there worst did happen you'd get a lot of heat for not properly assessing it. For lots of people including maybe the press people would ask why you ignored an intolerable risk (to them).
Oh do fudge off, the likelihood must be reasonably high!
Yes sure it is a ticking time bomb to him killing again and will definitely be at the club.
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: Interesting Dilemna

Post by dr dre2 »

frillage wrote:
ovalball wrote:There aren't any risk assessments done by me (we use a community facility that carries out risk assessments) - and I do not allow minors to be involved. I certainly wouldn't consider starting risk assessments for each person that joins the club - that would be absurd.

And, it would be the Authorities that have carried out such an assessment when they released him back into society. I couldn't possibly provide the level of expertise that they would have already employed. There must be thousands of people with mental issues that have been released - who knows what someone's background is when we meet them - we have to rely on the Authorities doing their job.

I think posters here are starting to voice some of the issues I'm mulling over.
Ignore the risk assesment jobsworth. The risk assessment (from your point of view) is covered by his release and conditions attached to it.
Unless the club is a highly stressful environment (I'm guessing it isn't and likely a social/sporting thing more likely to relieve stress?) I can't see how it would change that. It's nit a weed smoking club is it?

Would give serious thought to the possibility of any outing of his previous leading to being ostracised and possibly removed from an environment he likely enjoys which could be much more detrimental to him than the minor risk your club is likely under from the possibility of him reoffending and if he did it being someone from your club rather than a close relative or work colleague.
Ah OK. So my ex-sales manager was completing a suspended sentence. He was considered unfit to own a camera or to be around children.

If I had not carried out the risk assessment and bothered to find these things out then sent him in to certain situations and he'd offended. I could not have said "The Authorities deemed him fit". I would have been liable, I would have failed in my duty of care.

For all you know his handlers are suggesting that he not be allowed to do certain things.
frillage
Posts: 6663
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Interesting Dilemna

Post by frillage »

You have kids at your work?
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: Interesting Dilemna

Post by dr dre2 »

frillage wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:Here's a typical risk management chart.
Image

Lower priority / lower severity things need less attention and general policy can apply.

Given the level of severity and also likelihood must be reasonably high I'd suggest you are borderline tolerable risk / unacceptable risk. If there worst did happen you'd get a lot of heat for not properly assessing it. For lots of people including maybe the press people would ask why you ignored an intolerable risk (to them).
Oh do f**k off, the likelihood must be reasonably high!
Yes sure it is a ticking time bomb to him killing again and will definitely be at the club.
It's likely enough, it's happened before. It's common to relapse especially if it's brought on by drugs. But you are confident enough to pass him fit. The point of course is you and I are not his Dr. And you and I don't know. The duty of care is to find out and get his Dr. To point to the likelihood box. Then if things go wrong then you point at the Dr. Pointing at the unlikely box and say I did all I can I'm not arguing with a dr.. That is the duty of care.
Last edited by dr dre2 on Thu May 18, 2017 6:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: Interesting Dilemna

Post by dr dre2 »

frillage wrote:You have kids at your work?
Field sales. We could have sent him in to a school or day nursery.
frillage
Posts: 6663
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Interesting Dilemna

Post by frillage »

dr dre2 wrote:
frillage wrote:You have kids at your work?
Field sales. We could have sent him in to a school or day nursery.
Was it not a condition of his release if he was deemed unfit to be around children?

How are you aware he was unfit to own camera or be around children, did he voulenteer it or did you force it from him?
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: Interesting Dilemna

Post by dr dre2 »

frillage wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
frillage wrote:You have kids at your work?
Field sales. We could have sent him in to a school or day nursery.
Was it not a condition of his release if he was deemed unfit to be around children?

How are you aware he was unfit to own camera or be around children, did he voulenteer it or did you force it from him?
We spoke to his handler, he volunteered the conviction. We had to assess the risk. We did l, felt it low and that we could keep an eye. He hypothetically could have felt he had to do what we requested of him from a position of power. Especially the camera because it was part of his job to carry out risk assessments :lol: . He contracted the customer then before we could send in a subcontractor they required us to assess the site. We decided pictures were not really required and bough him an £8 Nokia with no camera. If he'd done something stupid we feel we had assessed it well enough and would keep him away from anything sensitive. We did actually have 16 and 17 year olds there at the time on a scheme. We obviously couldn't let him near them unsupervised. So as part of the assessment we decided that he did not attention the office until they had left. Which worked out fine as he was on the road and headed back after 3 when they were gone. The easiest thing to do would have been to show him the door and assess him as too high of a risk.

You are required to assess the risk and do all you can to mitigate it. Half the time this is where consultants earn their money. You've sought advice, they are to blame :lol:
frillage
Posts: 6663
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Interesting Dilemna

Post by frillage »

dr dre2 wrote:
frillage wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
frillage wrote:You have kids at your work?
Field sales. We could have sent him in to a school or day nursery.
Was it not a condition of his release if he was deemed unfit to be around children?

How are you aware he was unfit to own camera or be around children, did he voulenteer it or did you force it from him?
We spoke to his handler, he volunteered the conviction. We had to assess the risk. We did l, felt it low and that we could keep an eye. He hypothetically could have felt he had to do what we requested of him from a position of power. Especially the camera because it was part of his job to carry out risk assessments :lol: . He contracted the customer then before we could send in a subcontractor they required us to assess the site. We decided pictures were not really required and bough him an £8 Nokia with no camera. If he'd done something stupid we feel we had assessed it well enough and would keep him away from anything sensitive. We did actually have 16 and 17 year olds there at the time on a scheme. We obviously couldn't let him near them unsupervised. So as part of the assessment we decided that he did not attention the office until they had left. Which worked out fine as he was on the road and headed back after 3 when they were gone. The easiest thing to do would have been to show him the door and assess him as too high of a risk.

You are required to assess the risk and do all you can to mitigate it. Half the time this is where consultants earn their money. You've sought advice, they are to blame :lol:
Completely different scenarios, he voulenteered the information and either gave his handler permission to speak to you or is a legal requirement for him to be able to.
This guy has kept his history quiet, likely trying to move on and live his life and move on as much or as little as he can and his doctor certainly cannot discuss his problems with anyone without say so of the man.
Bringing it up to individuals or a group would be exactly what he doesn't want and possibly precisely what he does not need.

With no evidence of further drug abuse or further information I can only see it as unlikely there will be reocurance,especially in the setting described.
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: Interesting Dilemna

Post by dr dre2 »

frillage wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
frillage wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
frillage wrote:You have kids at your work?
Field sales. We could have sent him in to a school or day nursery.
Was it not a condition of his release if he was deemed unfit to be around children?

How are you aware he was unfit to own camera or be around children, did he voulenteer it or did you force it from him?
We spoke to his handler, he volunteered the conviction. We had to assess the risk. We did l, felt it low and that we could keep an eye. He hypothetically could have felt he had to do what we requested of him from a position of power. Especially the camera because it was part of his job to carry out risk assessments :lol: . He contracted the customer then before we could send in a subcontractor they required us to assess the site. We decided pictures were not really required and bough him an £8 Nokia with no camera. If he'd done something stupid we feel we had assessed it well enough and would keep him away from anything sensitive. We did actually have 16 and 17 year olds there at the time on a scheme. We obviously couldn't let him near them unsupervised. So as part of the assessment we decided that he did not attention the office until they had left. Which worked out fine as he was on the road and headed back after 3 when they were gone. The easiest thing to do would have been to show him the door and assess him as too high of a risk.

You are required to assess the risk and do all you can to mitigate it. Half the time this is where consultants earn their money. You've sought advice, they are to blame :lol:
Completely different scenarios, he voulenteered the information and either gave his handler permission to speak to you or is a legal requirement for him to be able to.
This guy has kept his history quiet, likely trying to move on and live his life and move on as much or as little as he can and his doctor certainly cannot discuss his problems with anyone without say so of the man.
Bringing it up to individuals or a group would be exactly what he doesn't want and possibly precisely what he does not need.

With no evidence of further drug abuse or further information I can only see it as unlikely there will be reocurance,especially in the setting described.
The setting described? The man killed 2 women without motive due to an episode, brought on for no other reason than a chemical dependency. So the actions were too random to rule out the setting, the reason to addictive to assume the recovery is permanent. The whole point and I mean the WHOLE f**king point is it's your duty of care to seek evidence, make a reasoned judgment on it and decide on a course of action to mitigate it happening on your watch. That is a legal responsibility given he knows about it.

You've set it to unlikely without seeking evidence. And I can only assume suggesting that's the end of it. That would be bad news for you if something happened in that scenario. Let's not forget that even if you set it to unlikely the rating still comes out as tolerable risk due to the severity. You are now obliged to manage the risk. Put a plan in place. And that's on your very liberal judgement.

Chances are nothing will happen or he could get away with admitting not knowing. But I'm talking about covering his own arse and protecting his members. As it stands he's exposed. Why expose yourself?
Last edited by dr dre2 on Thu May 18, 2017 8:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
frillage
Posts: 6663
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Interesting Dilemna

Post by frillage »

The setting I refer to is the social/sport/ whatever club he is involved in. What makes you think if (and a big fcuking if) he will reoffend it will involve anyone from a club he spends a short time a week with rather than an acquaintance/friend/colleague/random?

Sorry where did we clarify the op was in some way responsible for the club or the legalities of it? You are talking bollocks anyway, no way if the guy did kill someone from the club the op would have any responsibility just because he knew it had happened before.
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: Interesting Dilemna

Post by dr dre2 »

frillage wrote:The setting I refer to is the social/sport/ whatever club he is involved in. What makes you think if (and a big fcuking if) he will reoffend it will involve anyone from a club he spends a short time a week with rather than an acquaintance/friend/colleague/random?

Sorry where did we clarify the op was in some way responsible for the club or the legalities of it? You are talking bollocks anyway, no way if the guy did kill someone from the club the op would have any responsibility just because he knew it had happened before.
My God you are dense. It doesn't matter if it's the most likely place. He just needs to cover his arse just in case it is, the risk is that the worst happens on his watch.

He said he runs it. Oh OK you know best. Clubs don't have a duty of care they don't have to assess risk.

What happens if the worst does happen. The man gets taken away. Then it comes to light that he knew about it and sat on it? The family may take action the press would rip him apart. If he does the checks that exposure goes away. He won't look like a liberal nice guy at that point. He'll get painted as an irresponsible, negligent coward. Maybe in court.

Nah f**king it I reckon he's alright let him get on with it. Don't look in to it f**king it. We'll done, sound advice.

What is he gaining by doing nothing? Considering the risk? Most people would ask him politely not to attend. What I'm suggesting probably gives him a chance to attend.

He'd have to confront the guy and ask to speak to the handler, pay an expert for advice or tell the guy to sling his hook.
frillage
Posts: 6663
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Interesting Dilemna

Post by frillage »

dr dre2 wrote:
frillage wrote:The setting I refer to is the social/sport/ whatever club he is involved in. What makes you think if (and a big fcuking if) he will reoffend it will involve anyone from a club he spends a short time a week with rather than an acquaintance/friend/colleague/random?

Sorry where did we clarify the op was in some way responsible for the club or the legalities of it? You are talking bollocks anyway, no way if the guy did kill someone from the club the op would have any responsibility just because he knew it had happened before.
My God you are dense. It doesn't matter if it's the most likely place. He just needs to cover his arse just in case it is, the risk is that the worst happens on his watch.

He said he runs it. Oh OK you know best. Clubs don't have a duty of care they don't have to assess risk.

What happens if the worst does happen. The man gets taken away. Then it comes to light that he knew about it and sat on it? The family may take action the press would rip him apart. If he does the checks that exposure goes away.

Nah f**k it I reckon he's alright let him get on with it. Don't look in to it f**k it. We'll done, sound advice.
So we have gone from highly likely to just in case?

By all means look into it through outside sources (more knowledgeable than posters here and a jobsworth like you). There is no need to open it to all and sundry except most trusted friends at the club.

Yeah fudge the ramifications for a guy who has been deemed to pay his debt and been released back into the community I am going to potentially fudge him over just in case the remote possibility he reoffends so I don't feel bad.

Please find and cite some cases where someone with knowledge of a previous crime has been held in any way responsible for them reoffending just because they knew.
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: Interesting Dilemna

Post by dr dre2 »

frillage wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
frillage wrote:The setting I refer to is the social/sport/ whatever club he is involved in. What makes you think if (and a big fcuking if) he will reoffend it will involve anyone from a club he spends a short time a week with rather than an acquaintance/friend/colleague/random?

Sorry where did we clarify the op was in some way responsible for the club or the legalities of it? You are talking bollocks anyway, no way if the guy did kill someone from the club the op would have any responsibility just because he knew it had happened before.
My God you are dense. It doesn't matter if it's the most likely place. He just needs to cover his arse just in case it is, the risk is that the worst happens on his watch.

He said he runs it. Oh OK you know best. Clubs don't have a duty of care they don't have to assess risk.

What happens if the worst does happen. The man gets taken away. Then it comes to light that he knew about it and sat on it? The family may take action the press would rip him apart. If he does the checks that exposure goes away.

Nah f**k it I reckon he's alright let him get on with it. Don't look in to it f**k it. We'll done, sound advice.
So we have gone from highly likely to just in case?

By all means look into it through outside sources (more knowledgeable than posters here and a jobsworth like you). There is no need to open it to all and sundry except most trusted friends at the club.

Yeah f**k the ramifications for a guy who has been deemed to pay his debt and been released back into the community I am going to potentially f**k him over just in case the remote possibility he reoffends so I don't feel bad.

Please find and cite some cases where someone with knowledge of a previous crime has been held in any way responsible for them reoffending just because they knew.
:lol: reasonably likely I said.
:lol: I've been advocating a risk assessment, not telling all and sundry. I've been suggesting asking for his cooperation and writing a report.
:lol: It would be a civil case you spaz. You'll find loads of cases where they go after the organisation after the offender gets put away.
You'll find even more cases where people have been refused employment/membership for bad behaviour let alone killing people.
:( Why risk your own prosperity and reputation for anybody else.
:lol: I've not even suggested banning him.

You made it all up. Or more likely don't understand.
frillage
Posts: 6663
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Interesting Dilemna

Post by frillage »

fudge that is a world of smilies.

You said likelyhoid reasonably high he will do it again.

Why are you talking about work? He is discussing a club. Is it because you struggle to grasp anything except what you have had experience of and can't think of any other possibilities except the way you were told to deal with it?
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: Interesting Dilemna

Post by dr dre2 »

frillage wrote:f**k that is a world of smilies.

You said likelyhoid reasonably high he will do it again.

Why are you talking about work? He is discussing a club. Is it because you struggle to grasp anything except what you have had experience of and can't think of any other possibilities except the way you were told to deal with it?
All the events are "rare" so within reason, within the bounds. I'm sure you'll agree that the gentleman is in a high risk group.

It's because similar rules apply to employees, customers, members.... you have a duty of care from a position of trust. If you read the thread he employs a third party who already deal with the "sprained ankle" risk assessments. This in comparison is dynamite. He needs to handle it himself and not ignore it.

If there is risk, you must assess it then plan to mitigate it as best as you can. Failure to do so can see you liable.
User avatar
happyhooker
Posts: 23140
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Interesting Dilemna

Post by happyhooker »

"handler"

Ffs
ovalball
Posts: 13395
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Interesting Dilemna

Post by ovalball »

OK

So Risk Assessment

He's been released by highly qualified and trained professionals because they believe he is now safe to be in society. So, I rate the chances of an incident as being very unlikely (Anything less than that and they would not have released him). Consequences would be 'major/catastrophic' = acceptable risk.
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: Interesting Dilemna

Post by dr dre2 »

happyhooker wrote:"handler"

Ffs
Yeah "case handler".
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: Interesting Dilemna

Post by dr dre2 »

ovalball wrote:OK

So Risk Assessment

He's been released by highly qualified and trained professionals because they believe he is now safe to be in society. So, I rate the chances of an incident as being very unlikely (Anything less than that and they would not have released him). Consequences would be 'major/catastrophic' = acceptable risk.
Right now were you aware his Dr had advised him to stay away from large groups for the time being (hypothetically), were you aware that he'd advised him to inform people such as yourself and request they contact him. Before making your judgement did you look at the relapse rates. Did you seek advice?
Moderate quality evidence suggests rates of relapse are around 28% at one year post-treatment and up to 54% at three years post-treatment. 70% of patients and 93% of family members could identify changes in experience or behaviour that preceded a psychotic relapse.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?biw=360 ... rHU#xxri=3

Did you put any plans in place to minimise the risk and protect the women in your group.

It is of course, simply best practice to avoid blame later. That's all it is. I'm not making a moral judgement, I'm not suggesting he's actually going to kill anyone. I'm just saying cover your arse.
Last edited by dr dre2 on Fri May 19, 2017 7:09 am, edited 3 times in total.
Sundy
Posts: 986
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Interesting Dilemma

Post by Sundy »

Is it a Park Run?
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: Interesting Dilemma

Post by dr dre2 »

Sundy wrote:Is it a Park Run?
I think he said it was. But it's organised enough for him to pay for risk assessments for minor things to ne carried out. Vicarious liability can be applied to sports clubs, it hangs on how organised they are and how in his command he is. But I personally wouldn't want that tested.
Sundy
Posts: 986
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Interesting Dilemma

Post by Sundy »

dr dre2 wrote:
Sundy wrote:Is it a Park Run?
I think he said it was. But it's organised enough for him to pay for risk assessments for minor things to ne carried out. Vicarious liability can be applied to sports clubs, it hangs on how organised they are and how in his command he is. But I personally wouldn't want that tested.

If it's something like a Park Run I don't think he is obligated to do risk assessments etc. There is nothing preventing someone with past criminal record joining and all activities are undertaken in a public setting.
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: Interesting Dilemma

Post by dr dre2 »

Sundy wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
Sundy wrote:Is it a Park Run?
I think he said it was. But it's organised enough for him to pay for risk assessments for minor things to ne carried out. Vicarious liability can be applied to sports clubs, it hangs on how organised they are and how in his command he is. But I personally wouldn't want that tested.

If it's something like a Park Run I don't think he is obligated to do risk assessments etc. There is nothing preventing someone with past criminal record joining and all activities are undertaken in a public setting.
It hangs on how organised it is. A football game on council land is public. Amateur sports clubs are covered. It's the fact that he's aware of the risk that may make him liable. That and his inaction. Well, you can be liable if one competitor/employee with no criminal record at all attacks another. The fact that he's seen it necessary to run assessments for other things suggests a degree of organisation, almost business like. He may run induction and hand out policy forms to be signed etc.
ovalball
Posts: 13395
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Interesting Dilemma

Post by ovalball »

Sundy wrote:Is it a Park Run?
No.
backrow
Posts: 23590
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Interesting Dilemma

Post by backrow »

How did he kill them ?
Post Reply