If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Paedophiles infest our schools. Well, sort of.
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Ruth Kelly, the Education Secretary who sounds like a 14-year old bloke whose voice hasn't broken yet, isn't having the best of times. As well as her education reforms being attacked by Neil Kinnock, that fossil of Labour's past, she now has to admit her department is allowing sex offenders to work in schools. How many? She doesn't know. Who made the decision to let these people in? She doesn't know. Will she still be in a ministerial post by the end of the week? Well, she's in a Blair government, so almost certainly.
Clicky.
So, what do you make of the news that our schools are infested with paedophiles? (well, that's if you believe the media hysteria over this) Personally, I'm not convinced it's a huge problem. I seriously doubt schools and colleges are filled to the rafters with sex offenders. But the fact that sex offenders are even in the system at all is worrying. I thought sex offenders were automatically banned from working with children. And were I a parent, I'd probably be worried about this.
Clicky.
So, what do you make of the news that our schools are infested with paedophiles? (well, that's if you believe the media hysteria over this) Personally, I'm not convinced it's a huge problem. I seriously doubt schools and colleges are filled to the rafters with sex offenders. But the fact that sex offenders are even in the system at all is worrying. I thought sex offenders were automatically banned from working with children. And were I a parent, I'd probably be worried about this.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
Not to mention that there are very different kinds of 'sex offenders'. Not all of them are paedophiles of course. Or violent. Or dangerous.
The story broke after it was found that a 'sex offender' was working in a school but he had told the school when he applied for the job and had some kind of 'special permission' from Kelly because his offence it seems was to that he accidentally viewed some child porn and thus it was thought he posed no actual danger to kids..........
OMG ...
His explanation simply does not wash. As far as I'm concerned, the man is a filthy paedophile and he should not be let anywhere near a school, never mind working in one. I hope there's only a few of these in our schools and that they're hounded out of their jobs as a result. It is a national disgrace that a sex offender was there in the first place, though the media are prone to exaggerate the scale of this problem.
Sounds like those to blame are pointing the finger at one another, quelle surprise. Do I sense another Labour implosion?
so we have this guy, ian huntley, countless others whos names I can't remember. Shocking really.
Obviously I do not know much about the details of the case but the fact that he had special permission form Ruth Kelly does kind of suggest there was something more to it than 'lets get the evil paedo'.
Remember the Pete Townsend situation?
Not everyone on the Sex Offenders Register is a paedophile. I've said before I know of one man on it because he groped a middle-aged woman in a pub.
Not everyone who has a paedophilic conviction is a paedophile. Unless you're going to say anyone who views gay porn is gay, anyway.
Not every paedophile is dangerous. Most actually aren't.
I think Kelly quite sensibly used discretion, and its a good thing to see in Government. Taking into account the facts of a case, and making a human decision.
It's terrible that she is being vilified for making a sensible decision, and over-riding the stupid rules when the rules are obviously stupid.
Walkindude, Ian Huntley had no sex convictions when he was employed as a caretaker. I know you're a fool, but can you at least be a fool who gets his facts right?
maybe he was looking for normal porn, as many of us do, and there was an incorrectly titled page which had child porn on?
no ...he shouldn't be in the job.
the slightest hint of deviance should be enough to say no job.
Which, of course, raises the immediate question of who defines "deviance"?
thats enough for me to say a polite goodbye to him ...sorry no job mate.
theres plenty more people could be doing the job.
i would not take the risk with YOUR children or mine.
if it turns out ...it wasn't accidental ...what then?
if it turns out it was ...tough ...he'll not make that mistake again in a hurry.
it won't be the end of his world ...but possibly could end up being for the child ...children ...
A very, very important point in relation to this story and the recent reporting. I've shouted at the radio a lot over the past few days as I've heard reporter after reporter and caller after caller ignore this fact.
Not everyone on the SO list represents a threat to children.
It depends what you term as a 'kid'. How does someone know who is looking at porn on the net (something A LOT of people do) that the girl they are seeing is 15 rather than a little older?
If it can be shown someone has an attraction to viewing such images they shouldntbe teaching.
lots of sites have a thing at the bottom that say they comply to US regulations which are over 18
Because they could and it looked good on their records to be 'doing something' about the issue. If the evidence was really that slight he could have fought it and won but probably didnt want to or didnt know he could.
Lots of reasons why he might prefer a caution. Possibly he didn't want to go to court and have to admit in public he'd being looking at bukkaka babes or lesbian threeways. Or possibly he was worried that even if he went to court there be a miscarriage of justice or that given that lynch mobs had stormed a paedtricians house he might have felt that the British people don't really take much notice of verdicts in child porn cases.
The point is that a) the police didn't have enough evidence to convict b) the evidence was then looked at again by several civil servants and then a Minister and they all felt that the evidence wasn't strong.
I used to think we were ruled by laws, not newspaper headlines.
And of course all porn sites which say that are totally honest?
i said theres lots, and theres lot of really iffy ones also but you can normally tell if they arent as the legit ones have the same people it seems......
not that i watch porn
I'm not sure if I could tell the difference between a topless 15 and 16 year old.
The point is if his probation officer and the police dont think he is a threat in anyway, then whats the problem?
The lists are only effective for those who have been caught anyway, there is always the risk from those without convictions.
As for the point about paedophiles, the fact they are on the Sex Offenders Register would be worrying enough for me. Were I a headteacher to a school and needed to hire someone, I wouldn't bring a sex offender into the school. The risk simply is not worth it. Not dangerous? What are they doing on the list, then? I usually disagree vicariously with my parents, but this is one issue I'm fully in agreement with them on.
And it would be nice if, for once in your life, you could drop your bullying tendencies and reply to threads without pursuing personal vendettas. I've repeatedly said on the forums that you are a bully, a man who hates dissent, who thinks anyone who doesn't agree with him is some kind of alien. And every day that goes by proves this is true. I am one person who won't stand for your bullying tactics.
yeh i not getting involved in the overall topic because we dont know enough really to be commenting
and looking at topless 16 year olds, is technically legal i believe
sexual acts have to be over 18 as pornographic material, as it is in america also