When does a company or organisation have a right or duty to investigate a criminal allegation?

[dickie davies]

You missed out thumping your girlfriend

Boyfriend
She has a cock

 

[Johnny Mars Bar]

In before it's pulled

Oh matron.

 

[Johnny Mars Bar]

For me if something is properly criminal (and I don't mean Debra in finance has been caught nicking staples and pencils) then it's straight to the rozzers.

In a completely hypothetical example, say a high level employee of a publicly funded body who is a well known influential public figure was caught doing illegal shit and paying off teenagers back in May, then I'd probably want the police involved before the middle of July. Just an example off the top of my head of course.

 

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

For me if something is properly criminal (and I don't mean Debra in finance has been caught nicking staples and pencils) then it's straight to the rozzers.

In a completely hypothetical example, say a high level employee of a publicly funded body who is a well known influential public figure was caught doing illegal shit and paying off teenagers back in May, then I'd probably want the police involved before the middle of July. Just an example off the top of my head of course.

I worked at a place where a manager of a department "didn't come back to work" and we found out he'd been taking money. The company fired him but didn't want the police or a court case involved. They didn't want clients to know, bad publicity and all that. I also think the manager agreed to pay it back in exchange for not going down a legal route.

 

[mosssideblue]

If a criminal allegation was made against members of staff in most companies, I believe most employers would hand the investigation over to the police, perhaps after a very cursory look at the seriousness of any allegation ?

As an employer I wouldn't expect to investigate such issues myself.

Why are large organisations allowed to,
or infact want to, investigate criminal allegations with their staff ? Surely such allegations should be immediately handed to the police to ensure correct procedures are followed and evidence is not disturbed or lost.

Depends on the nature of the offence. Companies can and do conduct their own investigations to determine whether it warrants the old bill being notified. Often, companies Ts & C's will outline their disciplinary procedures.

 

[blueish swede]

It depends on the nature of the offence. It could have been committed against the company, for the benefit of the company, or have no relation to the company. In the case of the first two I would imagine an internal investigation would be necessary to judge the extent of the damage.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

For me if something is properly criminal (and I don't mean Debra in finance has been caught nicking staples and pencils) then it's straight to the rozzers.

In a completely hypothetical example, say a high level employee of a publicly funded body who is a well known influential public figure was caught doing illegal shit and paying off teenagers back in May, then I'd probably want the police involved before the middle of July. Just an example off the top of my head of course.

Hypothetically What if the aforementioned high level employee was accessing this person through Only Fans that only allows over 18s and the person had signed up underage?

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Maybe they should collate enough evidence first to make sure the Sun isn't lying again?

 

[NZBlue]

Maybe they should collate enough evidence first to make sure the Sun isn't lying again?

It's the old joke though- how do you tell when Boris Johnson is lying? His lips move. If it's in the Sun there is a good chance you can use similar logic

 

[domalino]

Maybe they should collate enough evidence first to make sure the Sun isn't lying again?

I know we’re not talking about a specific case that’s in the press, but it does seem to me that the tabloid in question is incredibly legally exposed if some of the counter-factuals that came out yesterday are true.

I remember @tolmie's hairdoo saying that if The Sun had lost the Johnny Depo case then they would have ceased to exist. You wonder if they might have finally bitten off more than they can chew.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

I know we’re not talking about a specific case that’s in the press, but it does seem to me that the tabloid in question is incredibly legally exposed if some of the counter-factuals that came out yesterday are true.

I remember @tolmie's hairdoo saying that if The Sun had lost the Johnny Depo case then they would have ceased to exist. You wonder if they might have finally bitten off more than they can chew.

Possibly, but their owner may think the damage inflicted on the BBC is worth it in his quest to get rid of publicly funded media he can't control.

 

[waspish]

This person now denying what the sun has reported about this bbc presenter, also the lawyer this person has is a very expensive one! Think of that as you will..

 

[domalino]

Possibly, but their owner may think the damage inflicted on the BBC is worth it in his quest to get rid of publicly funded media he can't control.

I suspect the desire to damage the BBC, especially in the wake of the Lineker & Richard Sharp controversies, was the primary motivation for the story, you can tell that by the way they immediately jumped from celebrity sex scandal to focusing on the mum telling the BBC 2 months ago.

But that animosity and need to kill the BBC might have lead to a costly misstep if it doesn't play out as the mum sees it.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

I suspect the desire to damage the BBC, especially in the wake of the Lineker & Richard Sharp controversies, was the primary motivation for the story, you can tell that by the way they immediately jumped from celebrity sex scandal to focusing on the mum telling the BBC 2 months ago.

But that animosity and need to kill the BBC might have lead to a costly misstep if it doesn't play out as the mum sees it.

Hopefully

 

[denislawsbackheel]

Met police tell BBC to stop their investigation as the police start a criminal investigation.

 

[mackenzie]

Hypothetically What if the aforementioned high level employee was accessing this person through Only Fans that only allows over 18s and the person had signed up underage?

That's a very good point IMHO.
However, I don't think it's about the "legality" with some employers eg public service or similar, more the "disrepute."

 

[domalino]

Todays new info in the story this thread is definitely not about is really weird.

 

[mackenzie]

Todays new info in the story this thread is definitely not about is really weird.

Yeah. Multi layered.
Not that it's real life or anything, just talking hypothetically

 

[deano ou812]

So another person has come forward in this case ..

 

[fulabeer]

Not relating to a certain current case.

If an employer was informed about a "possible" illegal activity, then it should be immediately reported to the police.
Only when the Police deem that no offence has taken place should an employer then decides if the employee has breached any contract or rules.

Too often a (legally) innocent person could have their life/career ruined by a media/public witch-hunt.
Trouble is, having a media blackout or not naming the person almost has the opposite affect.
I'm not that tech savvy, yet i have repeatedly found getting the relevant persons name takes minutes.
So we end up with a scenario where everybody knows who it is, yet nobody is allowed to talk about it.

Moral behaviour is a different thing. Somebody who is in the public/media has to understand that their whole career depends on public opinion.
So just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean it is right.
Basically if it is something you have to hide, then you are probably best not doing it!