Not true - you can have instant dismissal on grounds of gross misconduct. You could argue that they have to investigate but if that only takes an hour then it is pretty much instant and no payed leave is required.

Obviously you can appeal but that's a separate issue. I've seen loads of instants through the years one as recent as last year involving facebook of all things.

There may be exceptions where unions are strong and have special deal and maybe education etc but for ordinary folk it's tuff.

Have to?

Not at all. An allegation is just that. Although from the snippets of information we have it looks like he is guilty, there will be far more evidence than that to consider before he is found guilty.
Why would you not be allowed to work until something is proved?

It's like someone turning up to your work and accusing you of assaulting them......and the company promptly suspend you until they prove you didn't.

Don't get me wrong, on what I have read, he has no chance of getting off..........but that isn't how the law, either criminal or employment law, works.

No - criminal law and employment law are totally different animals; for example, the burden of proof in criminal proceedings is 'beyond reasonable doubt,' whereas in employment law, it's the much less stringent 'on the balance of probability.' And because we work in a safeguarding environment, we're required to suspend on allegation - remember of course that suspension is a neutral act, and doesn't infer guilt or otherwise - it's designed to protect everyone involved while an investigation is carried out. If someone is facing criminal proceedings for an alleged crime outside of work that would make it impossible for them to work in our environment - we'd suspend; or if the alleged crime was related to work, we'd lobby the police to do our own investigation alongside theirs and if the outcome wasn't in their favour, would dismiss, regardless of what happens at court.

The reality of this situation is that Mr Moore hasn't done anything that would suggest his presence at the club is a risk to anyone; other than to the reputation of the club, which seems to be something that most RL clubs are prepared to wear if the player is good enough. On that basis, I'd have him back and insist that he signs up to a behaviour agreement that curtails his conduct - particularly when in drink, which seems to be his weakness.

All depandant on the working environment. As with bren2k scenario,any employee working under safeguarding practices could face suspension or dismissal for an offense committed by a family member,even though the employee had no involment in the offense.Is that fair?
Biggest problem is people take suspension as being a form of guilt,when really its a protection process for all concerned.

That's not what I said at all, and I can't think of a single example in a 20 year career when I've suspended or dismissed someone due to an offence committed by a family member.

I asked on the new Moore thread if anyone knew if he was actually in training as the BBC site says MC would not confirm if he was suspended or not. Apologies for repeating but I haven't seen anything that says he is and given all the comments on the complexities of suspension or not I wondered if he was in our plans as the waiting game is one we cant really afford.

He is entitled to confidentiality, so it's probably right that MC neither confirms or denies if he's been suspended; as much as people like to know all the ins and outs, you'll just have to trust that the club are handling it in their own best interests.

Do you mean to say,the last time you took a look at your safeguarding policies was 20 years ago? They do get updated! Possibly you should go review the updates.

Yes there are but it also depends upon pleas as well which can stretch the process further.

I write them, so I'm good with the updates thanks.

If you have a point to make, go right ahead, but don't hijack my post with some made up congruence that doesn't exist; we're talking about Scott Moore and the options available to his employer - offences committed by family members is completely irrelevant.

Wasn't there a rumour a few years back that Bailey had been a naughty boy outside his work environment and Leeds stuck by him?

Wasn't a rumour he went to prison.

That looks a strong squad. Could maybe play around with B Tupou for Gibson/Arundel but pretty much what I'd go with.

I would not be far off that , but would go for Grix at full back. The reason being that he is , according to Crabtree, one of the best at organising a team's defensive line.