Pendleside Christmas Dingbats. Cd 6/1/25
Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Sex offenders and working with children
Is it too much to ask of someone who has been convicted or cautioned for downloading child pornography why they cannot choose a career that does not involve working with children in schools? Does the minister Ruth Kelly not wonder why they wish to apply to her to allow them work with children. For gods sake there is enough work out there that does not bring them into one to one contact with children. Is this not just plain common sense. Child pornography...no school work.
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Dom Tuk. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Makes perfect sense to me! Obviously there will be one or two cases of people being on the sex offenders register that will fall into a much greyer area. I'm thinking off the top of my head, maybe a young man who thinks he's sleeping with a 17 yr old girl, and it turns out she's 15 etc. Instances like this can be reviewed. However, if you're convicted of downloading images of children, it's simple, you're never going to work in a field where interaction with children will occur.
Hi DomTuk, when I attended 'teacher training' after Uni we were made aware of something called 'List 99', which is a list of all teachers and child workers banned from working with children because they had abused their position and the sense of trust placed in them.
I was always led to believe this list was regularly checked with sex offender registrations and the like, but obviously this is not the case. I find it amazing that governments set up such lists with the best of intentions and no one remembers, or bothers to update or check them on a regular basis.
This government, and previous governments of the last forty years, have been simply unable to leave education to the people who know about it - the teachers.
Since the Conservatives came to power and saw the vote-catching potential of telling parents they had 'parent power' each Minister has done more and more damage, with more and more meddling, and more beurocracy and interference, until we reach the current incumbent - Ms. Ruth Kelly.
Ms. Kelly was appointed with little experience under the whimisical notion that, being a mother of four small children, she will understand about education. That is a logical as me saying that because i am short-sighted, i will be uniquely gifted to train as an optitian!
The crass appointment of Ms. kelly has taken a long time to be fully revealed, but given that she is in charge of a wilfully inefficient and medddling department, with no serious experience, it was purely a matter of time before her lack of ability and judgement came to be exposed.
She has added to her disgraceful lack of common sense and basic intelligence by trying to pass the buck on this whole sorry incident. This issue is not the problem, it's the tip of the iceberg . Get rid of Ruth Kelly, leave education alone, keep perverts out of child-centred jobs. How complicated can it be?
I think there is more to it than meets the eye. There was a curious statement in last nights C4 news that Tony Blair has aksed his back benchers if they will support his education reform agenda if Ruth Kelly is moved from her job. He wants top push his reform agenda at all costs and if it means sacrificing his trusted people so be it. So how come all this has come out in the open all of a sudden. If Ruth Kelly had to make decisions on this matter so did all the education secretarys before her. She did not change the rules. is this a labour compromise to push Kelly out and get the bill passed. Can Blair be so cold and calculating?
I think they need to make the process of checking whether people have a conviction quicker. I work with children and all the staff are currently being CRB checked - it is taking absolutely ages and involves a lot of faffing about. My friend accepted a job working with children last year and he wasn't allowed to start work until the results came through. They took 3 months which is ridiculous as the company was therefore short of a member of staff and my friend was without a job.
littleoldme, all I meant is that this is something she (probably) wouldn't have done if she'd thought it through, rather than something that she was forced to do because ideology compels it. In other words, blame her for being careless, but not because getting paedophiles to work with children is some kind of New Labour plot. As for how terrible a mistake it was, nobody actually seems to have come to harm because of it; so I'd be inclined to order her to shake her ideas up rather than sacking her. Tories will of course think just the opposite, which is not unreasonable. I'd have no quarrel with DT's suggetion that paedophiles should never work in schools.
Yes, Ruth Kelly should go; the buck stops with her. She, like most of those before her have no idea of what's needed at the 'chalk face.'
As a retired teacher with thirty years' experience in a non-selective secondary school, I totally agree with you, andy; local schools should be able to decide for themselves what curriculum content best serves the needs of their local children.
haha andy lets fly - I agree with most of it too. I cannot stand 'Blair's babes' as I find them singularly incompetent. Ms Kelly is merely the latest to be discovered.
Vic - it is somewhat relevant but I do not think the school itself should have the power to override a police and govt rule about who works there. They do not have the experience and should not have the authority.
Vic - it is somewhat relevant but I do not think the school itself should have the power to override a police and govt rule about who works there. They do not have the experience and should not have the authority.
Not often that I agree with Dom's views but on this occasion I do with regard to child pornography. Anyone who downloads this stuff is "sick" and should not be allowed to work with children.
On a wider note I think that there is a problem with the Sex Offenders Act. On the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2 today a Magistrate quoted a case that he had been involved in. Two consenting 15 year olds were involved in a bit of "hanky-panky" when they were discovered by the girl's parents. They insisted that the boy was charged and as a result he served a 1 year prison sentence and is now labelled as a sex offender for life. Is that just?
On a wider note I think that there is a problem with the Sex Offenders Act. On the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2 today a Magistrate quoted a case that he had been involved in. Two consenting 15 year olds were involved in a bit of "hanky-panky" when they were discovered by the girl's parents. They insisted that the boy was charged and as a result he served a 1 year prison sentence and is now labelled as a sex offender for life. Is that just?
Is anyone capable of answering the question of just what exactly is a "sex offender"? The public generally jump to conclusions such as paedophilia or downloading and viewing child porn but is it really as simple as that? What used to be known as top-shelf magazines are available everywhere, television is full of sexual content or just talking about it. Do we ban Page 3 pictures because of the moral damage they could be causing, or is it OK in order to sell newspapers?
If I understand the current situation correctly there wasn't even a prosecution, only a police warning. However....the guy must be guilty....no smoke without fire....let's stone him to death....that'll teach them. I thought this country was more civilised than that.
I have also heard of a university student who was caught short heading back to his residence after a few pints and nipped down an alley to relieve himself. He was caught in the act, convicted of gross indecency and is now a registered "sex offender". Does that mean he should never be allowed to be a teacher or work with children?
There are far too many grey areas which should be cleared up instead of classifying everyone on the register as being equally dangerous.
This is true ianess - however I do not believe that Ms Kelly should be the one making judgements from afar about how safe this man is. She has never met him, merely reviewed 'the file'. As I understand, the man in question was cautioned about viewing child pornography over the internet - hence he has paedeophilic tendencies. I am all for further categorisation of sex offenders, but in this case I believe the fears are well justified.
anybody know exactly what this teacher did - or is supposed to have done? The BBC says he received a caution for incitement to download child pornography. I have no idea what this means, and wonder if there is any actual evidence that he's a paedophile at all. No doubt the police think he is; but the police can't tell a Brazilian plumber from a Muslim terrorist, so I'm not always inclidned to take their word for things, and I don't think they should be in charge of selecting schoolteachers.
1 to 17 of 17
