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.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
But is an unknown person (one with no record) more or less risky than one who has been checked out by the police and deemed to be no risk?
the minimum age for porn including pics is 18.
though you are legal at 16 to have sex.
evidence suggests that many people now have acxesst to porn who wouldn't have years ago.
the internet being a very tempting and productive instrument ...
but thats ok now?
It would of course depend to what extent his record "incriminated" him for us to be able to make a proper decision on whether he was rightly or wrongly passed.
I have two children of my own but they go to a private school, so we won't be affected but I can see why some parents would be as the thought of a paedophile working with our children does send shivers down our spines but as I say, I believe the media has blown it out of all proportion.
It isn't Ruth Kelly's fault that the law doesn't say "if you get put on the Sex Offender's Register you then get put on List 99". It is debatable whether it should say that or not, but that's not the point. When Kim Howells looked at the file he had to make his own decision, by examining all the facts of the case, without any prejudice otherwise the person concerned could have challenged the decision. The decision he made in this case was that the criteria for inclusion on List 99 had not been met. It seems that there are a handful of other situations where people on the Sex Offenders Register have similarly not met the criteria for inclusion on List 99.
Kermit has pointed to a few people he knows of who are on the Sex Offenders Register and might not need to be on List 99 as they might not pose any risk to children at all. The government is going to legislate to bring the various sexual offences and child/vulnerable adult protection lists closer together - and maybe there is a valid criticism of the government that it did not do this sooner, but - as Ruth Kelly said, List 99 is not the only resource available to schools. Schools get to decide who to employ so long as that person is not on List 99. They can require an applicant to subject themselves to a Criminal Records Bureau check, which I believe would have revealed the Caution. They then get to make the decision whether to employ someone.
In this case, it seems that the police realised this person was employed in a school and said this was an issue. The school then said that they thought that the police were happy as the person wasn't on List 99 and then learned that the police don't have as much input into the process as the school thought they did. I'm not sure about other people, but I'd far rather that ministers or Whitehall officials - or preferably an independent court or tribunal - made these kind of complex decisions than giving the police carte-blanche to decide who should and shouldn't be allowed to work in schools.
Sorry, long post, but I'm rather annoyed about this whole affair.
I didn't and the clincher for me was when she said that the changes to the system would remove Ministers from the decision making process. Why?
Because then they'll always have someone else to blame.
Fuckers.
He would have been convicted under Ore because of teh credit card details; surely just by viewing a site and not downlaoding/having anything on your PC all they have to go on is your IP?
And also, in regards to spreading the blame, ministers have told civil servants to check files from the past 30 years. Presumably this has nothing to do with the safety of children and everything to do with trying to blame the Tories for this unedifying mess.
I imagine that the idea of removing ministers is because it is uncomfortable for ministers, who are under considerable political pressure, to have to make the decisions. I'm not sure they are the ones who ought to make the decisions actually. But this is the crux of the issue: do we want a system where this is automatic - if you are cautioned or convicted of a particular class of crime you are automatically barred for life from working with children and vulnerable adults? Or do we want a system which is more flexible, one where there is a real consideration of the facts of a particular situation and an assessment of the risk that each individual might pose to children and/or vulnerable adults? It seems as if those gunning for Ruth Kelly think the process should be automatic, and she seems to agree. If that's the case, no-one has to make any decisions! If we do want a flexible system - well I would prefer these decisions to be made by people who are far more removed from the political process than ministers - and to my mind that means a judicial process of some sort.
you have been right throughout this topic.
if there is any doubt at all then they should not be allowed within the school gates. it is far too serious an issue for there to be things like this overlooked or second chances given.
whether or not they are a paedophile is irrelivent. if they are on the sex offenders register then they should be allowed nowhere near a school. what they have done shouldn't come into it, it is too big a risk to take.
yes, it's as simple as that.
i wouldn't want someone who has been cautioned or convicted of anything working with my children, whatever their crime was, and whatever their excuses are.
Personally, I think that's like saying homsexuality is an illness. What do others think?
Indeed, you won't find me arguing with you on that score.
I think it's foolish to let known padeophilies work with children, or even those where the police has significant doubts and List 99 is good for that. BUt honestly it isn't going to stop everyone and thakfully such occurences are very rare.
So someone cautioned for possession of cannabis 20 years ago is a dangerous threat to children?
Yes, it is important to have a list of people bared from working with children, yes that should include sex offenders. But no, we shouldnt work ourselves into a total lather about it, calling people monsters and evil doesnt help reduce what is already a very small risk.
I mean yes the media does get hysterical over this kind of thing. I totally got what Brasseye was trying to say, though I didn't think it was a funny programme, it was right in what it said.
Mind you then again, have had 2 cases in recent weeks where a gang of men have actually gone into a house, kidnapped a 6year old and 3 year old respectively, and treated them to a brutal ordeal.
that is very worrying and those men ARE highly dangerous.
the mysterious of humanity, biology, the mind are fascinating, intriguing, dark and disturbing.
no easy answers here.
Interestingly one of the men who prompted this media hysteria was convicted of assaulting a 15 year old and placed on the register. What hasn't been mentioned much is that he later married the girl...
They then stayed together for 20 years and had three kids, he's hardly your average kiddy fiddler.
the psychiatric report said thaat given the chance he would be very likely to commit a sexual act with young boys so ...they now only let him work with young girls!
totaly wrong.
this guy is more than guilty of downloading this stuff ...he is guikty of supporting a very dangerous and cruel industry.
he shouldn't be allowed anywhere near children.
I feel very sorry for guys that have sex, willing sex, relationships with a girl that is only just under age an dget labelled a pedophile. Coz I don't reckon they are. Unless they ar ewell old or summat like that. I mean how many times has a girls said she's older and looked older only for the guy to get caught out.
I didnt say theose men were teachers, just highly dangerous.
yeah, I saw an interview with that guy thats allowed to teach in girls schools coz he downloaded pics of young boys. Don't they think he can use the girls to get to young boys??
and he wants to be back teaching all sexes, and what smore he doesn't think he should be banned because get this......he got his illegal child porn from aborad!!!!
i believein the case in the newspapers, the guy in question was given a police caution and put o nthe sex offenders list, because they worked out his credit car was used on a child porn site, even though they didn't find any on his computer in particular. Really odd circumstances
having sex with an under 16 isnt paedophilia, havign sex or sexual relations with someone who hasnt even started/finished puberty yet is - just so your aware
I wouldn't want a member of the Labour Party in charge of my children, and they've done far more harm to this country than someone who looked at a nude picture once or twice.
Should I be allowed to veto that too?
All this misses the point that the person most likely to rape my daughter is me. It's a point not illustrated enough.
As for the other issues:
Convicted paedophiles, or people on List99, should have no place in schools. I think that's fair enough. Cautions muddy the water, as they are not convictions, and if it was serious the police would not offer a caution. If there wasn't the evidence to prosecute, then I don't think those people should be barred for life.
Ian Huntley was never convicted of any sexual offences. He was acquitted of rape. Should those who are acquitted not be allowed to work in schools either?
Stargalaxy, shut up. You make yourself look a fool. Pete Townshend was believed by the police, who did not prosecute. That the investigating officer was satisfied by the explanation means that you should shut up about it. To point this out is not bullying.
In case anyone missed it before, the Sex Offenders Register is not just for paedophiles. And while I don't think rapists of any age should be working in schools, there are many people on the SOR for quite daft reasons. There's the man I know of, there's a taxi driver round herewho was in the papers who's on it because he scratched his balls in public and admitted a caution for it. Are they dangers to children?
As for the man who can work in girls schools, if the media reporting is accurate then that was a mistake. I don't normally expect any media reporting to be accurate.
Things are never as cut-and-dried as "he's on the SOR, he's a nonce who should be banned from schools!" Too many people are put on the SOR for it to mean any such thing. Such as the man who married the girl he "abused".