Social Services call it 'Protocol'

[sir.prize]

Is there justification or not?

http://www.mirror.co....m-being-alone-1434804

[emmie]

no idea, but if the allegations against him are proven then what is to say they aren't right.

[LazyGun]

Given the nature of the allegations, given his high profile and the level of public interest in the whole SoVile enquiry, it would seem prudent of the social services to observe the protocols.

Not entirely sure why he would have arranged a press interview in this case, unless it is an attempt to elicit public sympathy. I think he would be better advised to keep a low profile and just co-operate whilst the investigation is continuing.

[jake-the-peg]

Difficult call this isn't it?

On one hand you can say someone is innocent until proven guilty but on the otherhand if there are credible allegations against someone (And we can only assume SS think the allegations are credible) then failing to take action would be irresponsible.

The Innocent until proven guilty line only goes so far

I wouldn't think aybody would argue that that principle should mean that nobody should be ever be locked up prior to a trial - some precautionary actions may be necessary.

Is it justified in general? -yes, in some cases I'm sure it is

In this case? - I have no idea

[Brenden]

It is a hard one to call, but I think if you or I were in the same position this action would be taken if children are involved - after baby P case they have to do all in their power to protect the children.

[hc4361]

I think there is a huge difference between a bloke in his 20s trying to grope a 14 year old girl at a party; and a 70 year old molesting his own children.
I think his kids are under ten, aren't they?

[New Judge]

They are twelve and six.

I am extremely uneasy with the Savile affair. I was not at all happy from the outset that a dead man could have allegations hurled at him by anybody who feels like it and those allegations seem to have been accepted at face value. I was even less so after the Lord McAlpine allegations were found to be blatently untrue.

Now we have the Social Services (aptly abbreviated to "SS" by some) telling a father that he cannot be alone with his children on the back of some more, as yet unfounded allegations.

[Snafu03]

I have thought about this and initially was against SS's decision. But they're damned if they do and damned if they dont. I dont envy their position in all of this.

[sir.prize]

Freddie is innocent of any wrong doing.

However the actions of Social Services would indicate otherwise. If he is banned from being alone with his children that in itself is a punishment. A punishment for what? He is innocent.

[jake-the-peg]

Innocent because he hasn't been found guilty?

Saville is innocent on that basis too

[LazyGun]

Well, you say he is innocent, and he could very well be. Social Services cannot take any chances.

Were I him, I would not have been so quick to run to the press with my complaints.

[jake-the-peg]

By your logic being held on remand prior to a trial is a similar punishment

Shall we abolish that?

[jackthehat]

Although he has been arrested, he is 'presumed innocent' as he has not yet had his day in court.

Once that happens, he may well be found guilty.

The time between these two eventualities has to be taken into consideration and the authorities are erring on the side of caution.....

[bazwillrun]

Why cant the mother decide whats best, and ensure that hes not left alone with them, if shes even worried that is

[Zeuhl]

^
that's not borne out by experience.

frequently when one parent (or step parent) is abusing, the other parent is complicit or in denial

Leaving the decision to the mother would hardly be a safe option and would set a risky precedent for many situations.

[hc4361]

So now Freddie's children are victims are victims of something that may have happened 40 years ago.
Not only can they not be alone with their dad, you can bet their school mates 'know' their dad is a 'perv'.