PDA

View Full Version : Sex offenders in our schools



squidge
18-Jan-06, 23:36
I have been waiting for someone to put something up about the sex offenders working with children and the issues that Ruth kelly is facing just now. No one has and Im interested in finding out what people think about this issue.

golach
18-Jan-06, 23:43
HMG has mucked up, she must go, its her head that needs to roll

JAWS
19-Jan-06, 00:01
What has been happening is about a sensible as sending an alcoholic to work in a Distillery in the belief he won't drink.

Was it about four years ago that all the problems about keeping track of paedophiles was going to be sorted out as a matter of urgency.

Now we find out that there are several different and completely separate registers so a person can be missed because he is not on the one which had been checked.
There are large numbers on the Registers but nobody knows where they are or where they are working.
Then there are those who are on the right registers with all the right details which can be easily checked but he's such a nice man that we'll ignore it.

And four years after the "matter of urgency"?
Well we are going to get round to it as a matter of urgency soon!

I darenít make my deeply held feelings known about what is happening, not because I would be banned before I got half way through but because I donít want my house to burn down when my puter exploded. [mad]

scotsboy
19-Jan-06, 11:02
Conspiracy theory

Catholic Church sex scandals and cover ups

Known sex offenders being granted permission to work in schools

Ruth Kelly a member of Opus Dei

brandy
19-Jan-06, 13:04
it makes no sence to me! homeschooling is looking a lot better by the day!
why do they not simply have one big public detailed registry?

squidge
19-Jan-06, 13:15
Is it ok though that everyone convicted of a sex offence and on the sex offenders register is banned form working with children for life. Is that actually a sensible thing to do?

Rheghead
19-Jan-06, 13:15
I think every case needs to be judged individually as to whether if those applicants are a danger to children.

brandy
19-Jan-06, 13:25
now i agree with this.. expecially when its a case of an 18 year old sleeping with a 16 yer old and someones parents have gone ballistic or the girl got caught and screamed statutory rape..
theres a big dif between that and an adult hurting a child

angela5
19-Jan-06, 13:30
Any adult with child images on their computer should be a risk to our children it's not the norm. Why view it if it's of no interest to them.

wicker
19-Jan-06, 13:58
The guy at centre of this is not a threat in my eyes, he was charged years and years ago and the girl was 15 at the time and he is now married and has kids with her

badger
19-Jan-06, 14:51
The guy at centre of this is not a threat in my eyes, he was charged years and years ago and the girl was 15 at the time and he is now married and has kids with her

Sorry Wicker, can't agree with this. I heard his interview on the radio and his plea was that he had personal problems and needed someone to talk to. I'm sure lots of teachers have personal problems but don't discuss them with their pupils. There should be a complete bar on teacher/pupil relationships, just as there is with doctor/patient. He was also in trouble for other things.

One thing that bothers me in Scotland (and I took this up with Jamie Stone a while ago) is that I don't think the Disclosure system works. Anyone working with vulnerable people - children, elderly, whatever - whether paid or voluntary, has to go through the Disclosure procedure. You have to get a separate Disclosure Certificate for every organisation you work for and as far as I can see there is no link between each application. This means if you work for 2 organisations, then commit an offence, then apply for a third - the offence will show up on the third one but will not pass back to the first two who will be unaware of the offence. Also an offence is logged on the Police records but again not passed back to existing disclosure records. Every disclosure application is logged separately so I don't see how the system can possibly work. There are many people with multiple Disclosure Certificates and no link between them on the central computer. I was told this is being looked at but can't understand how it was ever allowed in the first place. Seems crazy :roll:

At least since the Children Act anyone in churches involved with children, including Sunday Schools, has to apply for a Disclosure Certificate and there are all sorts of rules about never being alone with a child. However, as with everything else, I am sure the rules will continue to be broken.

weeboyagee
19-Jan-06, 15:22
I think we have to be careful with this one. There is a danger of throwing the baby out with the bath-water here. I agree with golach - the minister's position is untenable given the inconsistencies that prevail in the department and the lack of control that obviously exists to ensure protection of our children. The state has to provide security for the well-being of the younger generation and if we cannot introduce and implement effective government policy to do this consistently, then the person ultimately responsible has to bow out and give way to someone more able.

Rule making is different from operating. The courts, the judiciary, the police and the social workers are the people who are the tools of society to ensure that the protection is effectively delivered. Government ministers ensure that this is measured. How ministers can make such profound decisions on individual cases is beyond me.


Any adult with child images on their computer should be a risk to our children it's not the norm
Thoroughly disagree with you!

Images of children on a computer should NOT be a crime - it's their use that deteremines whether it is a crime. I am sure that many friends, families, organisations have many images of children on their computers for very legitimate and perfectly innocent reasons.


The guy at centre of this is not a threat in my eyes, he was charged years and years ago and the girl was 15 at the time and he is now married and has kids with her
In certain societies, "going" with a 15 year old is not a crime. I agree - if it was an 18 or 19 year old "going" with a 15 year old - would we see it in the same light as a 30, 40 or 50 year old instead? Some would say one is young love and the other a dirty old man. In this case, he was a teacher in a responsible position and crossed the mark. You take on the responsibility - you take on the demands of the position. I think on this one that because he was already tempted in that situation he should not be allowed to teach again - for his OWN protection.

but,...wait for it,........here's the one that will have all the PC bad rep'n me......

....how many of us reading these posts realise that society is WELL aware of the sexual awareness of teenagers and that, as I think Brandy was touching on, some can be very promiscuous. Adults should be more discerning with what they are allowing themselves to be subjected to and therefore avoid the penalties that are to be paid if they fall subject to the advances of those who may not yet know better!! If you are not responsible enough as an adult,....be aware of the penalty that society will make you pay. Avoid the temptation and you avoid the penalty but make the advance on children without provocation, commit the crime and society should and MUST deal with it severely.

Look at the case of the bloke that raped the baby! Outside the court room, round the back and bang,....end of problem. I have said nothing more in that sentence than will have been promoted by those who said that hanging should still be a deterant. :mad:

weeboyagee
19-Jan-06, 15:39
Just so that everyone knows,.....my apologies to angela5, I didn't realise that she meant "indecent" images,......sorry. WBG :cool:

angela5
19-Jan-06, 15:42
Just so that everyone knows,.....my apologies to angela5, I didn't realise that she meant "indecent" images,......sorry. WBG :cool:

Thank you weeboyagee my post was'nt clear easy mistake.:D

cuddlepop
19-Jan-06, 16:27
There are more children with additional needs acessing mainstream education .Many of them are openly affectionate andlove a reassuring hug.This is in appropriate behaviour and has to be discouraged.The distressing part of this is that sometimes a hug or gentel contact would stop bad behaviour.If you do that your hold over the coals.
The point i.m trying to make is that its confusing at the best of times for these kids.Removal of all sex offenders recardless of what age etc would remove the chance of misinterpreting a gesture.from either party concerned:eyes

squidge
19-Jan-06, 17:13
What about someone who committed an offence at eighteen and at 40 wants to work with children. They may have been convicted of a sexual offence over twenty years ago - should they STILL be banned from working with children? Should it be that a single mistake at eighteen should bar you from working with children for the rest of your life? I dont beleive it should but then If not then who makes the decision to allow them to work with children and how is it made? And if we say yes they should be banned then how are we going to police other people like taxi drivers, bus drivers and cleaners and ice cream salesman are we not very quickly into the realms of disclosure checking each and every one of us for everything?

Its an absolute minefield to be honest and im really not sure where i stand

paris
19-Jan-06, 18:01
As a young girl,( 8 at the time ) i was abused by someone i thought was a normal family man. His children of which he had 4 were my friends so it was quite normal for me to be in their home . I was so frightened i never said a word to anyone and i cried about it for years. To this day i felt as if it was my fault, what if this and what if that ect. I read about women years later coming forward to tell on their abusers but you know what---- i still couldn't tell, even now. I know i should but i also think there's a stigma attached to a victim in these circumstances.
Once you've touched a child where you shouldn't, be it by a man or woman and however many years ago it may of been, in my eyes you are and always will be a sex offender till the day you die .

squidge
19-Jan-06, 18:05
sex offenders arent just people who abuse children though Paris but maybe that is where the line is.

If you are ever convicted of abusing a child then you cant ever work with children again, however what about the 19 year old boy and the 15 year old girl or the 17 year old girl and the 14 year old boy???

paris
19-Jan-06, 18:19
I cant really answer that one. My views are quite strong about all of this and it may well blow my computer up. seriously though if I'm honest i don't see a problem with the age groups your talking about, its just i have a BIG problem with lets say a50 yr old and a 17 yr old or a 25 yr old with a 14 yr old, but if its out of love then who are we to condemn someone as a child abuser. where do we draw the line? Its a hard question i suppose to answer. who's right and who's wrong?

mischief
19-Jan-06, 18:26
no offence guys but i don't think sex offenders should be in schools the government should keep an eye on them after their sentence because it's not fair on the kids.
they chose to do what they did to start with![disgust]

landmarker
19-Jan-06, 18:46
I think it's totally innappropriate at best, and at worse dangerous, for people with a salacious & sexual interest in children to work in schools.

At the extreme end of the spectrum they should be incarcerated anyway, whilst those with child pornography on their computer have no place in education.

Of course there is a right of appeal but these appeals should be handled by professional educators and law enforcement officers, definitely NOT politicians.

Why is any other course of action - other than a total ban - worth the risk?

JAWS
20-Jan-06, 00:22
One of the men Ruth Kelly authorised as fit to work in a school had been downloading child pornography. It seemed to be that this was fairly recent and he was on the appropriate register. Kelly was aware of this when she wrote saying she saw no reason for him to work in schools.

It was only when the fact that he was became known to the Police and they had contacted the Headmaster that all this came out.
The Headmaster, who was unaware, as soon as he found out sacked him immediately.
The only way I can think of for this to happen was that when enquiries about him were made, as a result of Ruth Kelly's actions, the school got what was in effect a 'Nothing Known' reply.

A previous Education Secretary, now kicked upstairs into the Lords, apparently commented today that Ruth Kelly had done a good job because parents must be a lot less concerned than they were a fortnight ago.

A Fortnight Ago? This was supposedly sorted out four years ago and somebody has done "A Good Job!" in the last fortnight .

You try telling your boss that you know something has been going wrong for four years but it's OK because you fixed it last week and see what he says.

Her actions were an absolute disgrace but, unless she has operated under her own rules, there are others to blame for it to have gone on for that length of time.

What is worse still is that it is accepted that nobody knows how many thousands (not my number by the Government's) of cases there are where the same could happen because the whereabouts of the people concerned is totally unknown and so is at what or where they are working.

And parents feel safer than they did a fortnight ago? Which planet are these people on because it isn't one I recognise!
(Perhaps this should go under the, 'It makes my Blood Boil' Thread! because it certainly does)

Oddquine
20-Jan-06, 01:04
This is maybe a contentious thread in which to make my first post, but why dip your toe in the water when you can go in over your head!

In my opinion, the sex offenders register should be limited to those who download child pornography, physically/sexually abuse children or take advantage of their position to abuse special needs children and should not include those who become consensually involved with children who are slightly underage, particularly if that involvement is the only instance and is one which ends in a long-term relationship.

After all, in the case of teachers, social workers etc, there is already a system in place within the employment situation which allows them to be dismissed and permanently banned, if it is felt that they have abused their position.

In my opinion it is inequitable to criminalise any individual simply because they are over sixteen, and have become consensually involved with an under-sixteen year old.

By the way............hello, everybody, nice to meet you! :D

DrSzin
20-Jan-06, 01:51
Nice first post Oddquine. Welcome. :)

I agree with you.

When I was 16 I had a girlfriend who was 14. We didn't get up to much, but if she'd complained, and some people's opinions held sway, then I'd likely be on the sex offenders' list for life. :rolleyes:

As for current procedures -- what a shambles. It's all been said already...

JAWS
20-Jan-06, 03:27
You have a good point there DrSzin, and how many both males and females have been in a very similar situation. (I nearly used a different word there :D )

What puzzles me is the age of consent.
We are constantly assured that children are maturing much earlier than previously.
All sorts of age limits have been reduced or having attempts made to reduce them.
The age of consent has remained the same, I think, since Victorian Times.
I can't recall ever having heard of a mention of it being lowered.

Obviously the idea of creating a situation which allows much older males to prey on young girls is not acceptable.
That being said I'm sure that a way which involves a lot more common sense could be found when it comes to young teenagers.
And no, I don't want to see more school girl pregnancies.

And something I have never considered previously whilst thinking on my feet. (OK, I'm sitting down so shut up)
We take a naturally occurring stage in the lives of young adolescents, which happens in every society around the world, and what do we do with it?
We criminalize it.
When I look at it like that then it seems crazy to me.

Dons_Lad
20-Jan-06, 16:04
Graham Rix got away with it at Hearts and shouldn't of, so in my view there shouldn't be sex offenders in schools. It's totally wrong. Why don't they have to fill out a Disclosure Scotland before applying for a job in a school?

jings00
20-Jan-06, 17:13
I have been put through three disclosures, and i don't mind how many i do have to submit, as i have nothing to hide.
I am employed by the council and work with young children, there are volunteers who work with us too who have not been put through a disclosure. It is up to the employer to decide if the person should be employed, once the disclosure has been put through.
My first boyfriend was in his twenties when i was fifteen, and we were together for over a year, had it been "discovered" he would have been on the sex offenders list, tho i was a willing partner, so what i think it boils down to is each case should be judged by its own merit.