Originally Posted by
Endus
If you can't tell if Tom, Dick, or Harry are mistaken or lying, then you're acknowledging that they might be telling the truth. This wouldn't be enough to justify a criminal conviction, but otherwise, yes, the possibility that it's true is enough. If you found out your kid's teacher was accused of molesting a student, do you want him to keep teaching students while it's investigated, even if that investigation takes months? Or do you want him put on leave so he can't victimize anyone else in the event that it turns out the accusation was well-founded?
That an accusation is enough to get someone to step aside while it's worked out is standard procedure. Again, we are not talking about criminal convictions. Just whether or not there's any possible validity to the accusation. If it could be true, you have to act as if it is true, or you're in a situation where you supported that individual knowing what they might have done. While it's unfortunate when it turns out the accusation was nothing, it's so much worse when it turns out to have been true. See the above example of a teacher accused of molesting students. Assuming the accusations are false just leaves him in a position to victimize more children, which is why he's going to be put on leave the moment the accusation is made, until it's cleared up, because the risk of it being true is too great.