PDA

View Full Version : The Ruth Kelly "Affair"



jasonh
12-01-2006, 09:43 AM
I would expect that no-one wants children to be exposed to paedophiles, but one thing has concerned me about the media rush to condemn the latest news about a person on the Sex Offenders register being employed as a PE teacher. Now correct me if I am wrong, but is everyone on the register a paedophile? I would expect not - it could be just a person who got very drunk and exposed themselves in public, and got a caution for it. Should such a person be barred from certain jobs for life - I don't think so. Nothwithstanding the people who may have been cautioned/charged for something they have never done - unless we can suddenly assume that the police are infallable?!

Typical of the tabloid (and other media) to jump to the conclusion that sex offender = paedophile. Where's Chris Morris when you need him to puncture a moral panic "bubble".

john eden
12-01-2006, 10:18 AM
There are some civil liberties issues here, but I will not be adding the "justice for people who got drunk and exposed themselves in public" campaign to my list of things to do this week.

There is hysteria about this issue, both from within communities and in the press. But there is also bureaucratic indifference to some communities which is just as dangerous. No prizes for guessing which sort of areas people on the register are rehoused in - leafy middle class suburbs, or council estates?

bassnation
12-01-2006, 10:29 AM
There are some civil liberties issues here, but I will not be adding the "justice for people who got drunk and exposed themselves in public" campaign to my list of things to do this week.

There is hysteria about this issue, both from within communities and in the press. But there is also bureaucratic indifference to some communities which is just as dangerous. No prizes for guessing which sort of areas people on the register are rehoused in - leafy middle class suburbs, or council estates?

i'm not one of those people that subscribe to witchhunts, but i'd be nervous about someone on the sex offenders register working as a PE teacher.

while its true that a range of offenses from minor to more serious can get people added to the register, i think as far as child safety is concerned, you can't really take any chances. being on the list doesn't stop people from taking other jobs where children are not involved.

john eden
12-01-2006, 10:38 AM
Agreed - I think there need to be clear criteria for appealing againt inclusion on the register, tho. (Presumably there are already?)

It would suck if your lifes' mission was to teach PE, but on the weighing scales of (potential) harm to benefit, that doesn't amount to much.

Mind you, most PE teachers I had the misfortune to encounter were vicious sadists anyway, register or no register. But that's another issue.

Be interesting to know if any of the Dissensus teaching massif have any insights into this issue?

matt b
12-01-2006, 12:36 PM
Be interesting to know if any of the Dissensus teaching massif have any insights into this issue?

hello!

right, there are a number of issues (as always) involved here, but before that i just want to say that anything that speeds up the resignation of ms kelly is to be welcomed.

there are two lists related to this, the sex offenders register (controlled by the police) and list 99 (education depts own list of banned individuals). you can be on the former, without being on the latter- as this case highlights.

therefore there are issues of beaurocracy (sp?) and how different departments talk to each other (a general problem with new labour, who like eye catching policies but don't think about implementation).

anyway, you can be put on the sex offenders register without being found guilty of anything and the 'offense' does not have to be sexual- as john pointed out, drunkenly pissing in a back alley could get you a place on the list. accepting a police caution for such behaviour would also get you on the list (although it seems that this is rarely made clear by the police).

so, the sex offenders register is a very blunt tool (fnarr) to use when deciding whether or not someone is fit to teach: list 99 should be used imo, but this also raises issues as the people who decide who goes on that list are politicians, so they may be influenced by other factors such as the daily mail/notw etc, therefore leading to a whole host of other problems.

finally, in order to work with children under 16 you need to undergo a CRB (criminal records bureau) check-run by capita- costing 15.00 a time (i think). now you would think this would link directly to list 99 (eg: that shows all those people who it has been decided are unfit to work with children), but instead it links to the sex offenders register.

basically the system is a mess, with different lists and checks being taken, not one of them being definitive.
however, on the bright side at least capita (profit last year estimated to be over 150m) are making a bit of cash out of others suffering.

Paul Hotflush
12-01-2006, 12:56 PM
so, the sex offenders register is a very blunt tool (fnarr) to use when deciding whether or not someone is fit to teach: list 99 should be used imo, but this also raises issues as the people who decide who goes on that list are politicians, so they may be influenced by other factors such as the daily mail/notw etc, therefore leading to a whole host of other problems.

finally, in order to work with children under 16 you need to undergo a CRB (criminal records bureau) check-run by capita- costing 15.00 a time (i think). now you would think this would link directly to list 99 (eg: that shows all those people who it has been decided are unfit to work with children), but instead it links to the sex offenders register.

As is sort of indicated above, List 99 is the list that precludes people from working in schools. The debate is really about why certain people don't make it from the sex offenders list to List 99. Clearly these decisions shouldn't be made by politicians (and you'd think politicians would be quite keen to be absolved of this reponsibility, given the risk of situations arising such as the current Kelly one), although that is currently the case. The main point of this whole affair is why the government hasn't implemented the recommendations following the Soham inquiry which would have prevented all this from happening. I don't think this is a resignation issue for Kelly (although I wish she would fuck off), but clearly urgent action is needed.

Finally, most checks against people wanting to work unsupervised with kids are against BOTH lists AND the Criminal Records Bureau. Certainly in my experience this is the case (having worked for public institutions and private companies in the education field).

matt b
12-01-2006, 01:01 PM
As is sort of indicated above, List 99 is the list that precludes people from working in schools. The debate is really about why certain people don't make it from the sex offenders list to List 99. Clearly these decisions shouldn't be made by politicians (and you'd think politicians would be quite keen to be absolved of this reponsibility, given the risk of situations arising such as the current Kelly one), although that is currently the case. The main point of this whole affair is why the government hasn't implemented the recommendations following the Soham inquiry which would have prevented all this from happening. I don't think this is a resignation issue for Kelly (although I wish she would fuck off), but clearly urgent action is needed.

'kin ell, me and mr hotflush in agreement shocker!

Rambler
12-01-2006, 01:21 PM
Apologies if this seems like an obvious query, but is it possible to be on List 99, but not on the sex offenders list, or is List 99 by definition a subset of the SE list?

matt b
12-01-2006, 01:37 PM
Apologies if this seems like an obvious query, but is it possible to be on List 99, but not on the sex offenders list, or is List 99 by definition a subset of the SE list?

i work with post-16s, so am no expert and the whole area is stupidly confused, but; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/2223657.stm

"The "standard disclosure" for people working with children and "vulnerable adults" checks the Police National Computer for any court convictions plus details of any police cautions, warnings or reprimands, and runs a List 99 check.

The "enhanced disclosure" for people "in sole charge of children or vulnerable adults" is the same as a standard disclosure but can also include locally-held police intelligence about an applicant, and obtaining that still takes time.

The CRB accesses the Police National Computer which has details of offences from England and Wales, and copies of relevant Scottish and Northern Ireland criminal records."







and this from a house of commons debate suggests that list 99 is comprised of those teachers who have been sacked- the list appears to be informal:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmhansrd/vo990125/debtext/90125-11.htm


so, maybe you could be on list 99 and not the SOR?

Paul Hotflush
12-01-2006, 02:00 PM
Yeh I don't think List 99 just refers to sexual offences.

bassnation
12-01-2006, 02:20 PM
Yeh I don't think List 99 just refers to sexual offences.

well, this thread has opened my eyes - didn't realise it was so complicated. also didn't realise that people could end up on the register for such minor things.

in this particular case though, the teacher was found with child pornography on his pc. i think thats more than enough to disqualify him as a PE teacher.

Paul Hotflush
12-01-2006, 02:22 PM
The reason it was up for debate is that he was only cautioned by police, not formally charged. These cases are decided by the DfES.

matt b
12-01-2006, 02:32 PM
The reason it was up for debate is that he was only cautioned by police, not formally charged. These cases are decided by the DfES.

yeah, so in theory, he could have simply accepted the caution in order to get it over with and move on, even though the pictures were of his young kids having a bath (like the news reader- julia???), so no offense (again in theory) had been committed

bassnation
12-01-2006, 02:34 PM
yeah, so in theory, he could have simply accepted the caution in order to get it over with and move on, even though the pictures were of his young kids having a bath (like the news reader- julia???), so no offense (again in theory) had been committed

is this true? goes to show shouldn't believe everything you read in the papers.

Paul Hotflush
12-01-2006, 02:39 PM
Certainly that kind of thing isn't beyond the realms of possibility.

jenks
12-01-2006, 03:23 PM
I suppose i am suspicious of the amount of press this has got - kelly is clearly seen as not long for this role (however they've been saying this from the moment she got appointed)

she seems to be one of those govt ministers that doesn't get the protection from the big guns that the others do - young woman with RC views, she gets flak almost weekly - is she opus dei etc is she up to the job, who looks after her kids etc even odone has bashed her recently

she made a huge mistake in dismissing tomlinson so completely, she's made so many enemies within teaching - heads as well as classroom teachers and unions - that i think blair is letting her hang herself.

yes this incident is bad - people with kid porn on their computers should not be teaching but also i smell hunting season

Rambler
12-01-2006, 03:27 PM
yeah, so in theory, he could have simply accepted the caution in order to get it over with and move on, even though the pictures were of his young kids having a bath (like the news reader- julia???), so no offense (again in theory) had been committed

That's similar to the version I've read as well (I think I saw it in the Guardian).

According to Liberty a caution is enough to get you on the register:

http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-rights/chapters/the-right-to-privacy/spent-convictions-and-rehabilitation-of-offenders/sex_offenders_register.shtml

And seeing as - in this case it seems - there is plenty of room within the charges that are 'registerable' for accident (I read that he'd accidentally stumbled upon the sites, for example), not just criminal intent, then people could conceivably be on the list without actually having committed, or intended to commit, a sexual offence.

Looking into the 'drunk taking a leak on the way home angle', it is plausible - remotely - that this could be interpreted as 'exposure with intent to cause harm or distress', although that would be a pretty harsh interpretation. If you were then approached by said policeman, the chances are you'd say, 'yeah, whatever' to a caution and breath a sigh of relief - but that would be enough to put you on the register.

At least that's my interpretation. I'm certainly a little worried that no one seems to be probing further into what the 10 new cases that Kelly is in trouble over are actually on the register for - the immediate assumption by most of the press has been that they're convicted paedophiles, rapists, etc, when in fact they could be guilty of much, much lesser charges, if guilty at all.

More info:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/communications/fs-sexoffences.html

Sex offenders act 1997:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1997/1997051.htm

matt b
12-01-2006, 03:32 PM
I suppose i am suspicious of the amount of press this has got - kelly is clearly seen as not long for this role (however they've been saying this from the moment she got appointed)

she seems to be one of those govt ministers that doesn't get the protection from the big guns that the others do - young woman with RC views, she gets flak almost weekly - is she opus dei etc is she up to the job, who looks after her kids etc even odone has bashed her recently

she made a huge mistake in dismissing tomlinson so completely, she's made so many enemies within teaching - heads as well as classroom teachers and unions - that i think blair is letting her hang herself.

yes this incident is bad - people with kid porn on their computers should not be teaching but also i smell hunting season


WHAT!!!!!! she's had nuff support form TB (including a statement yesterday)- the fact is she's awful and is hated by most teachers and anyone with any knowledge of education for good reason. her policies have been ill thought out, spin led and media focussed whilst her attitude is condescending at best.

the sooner she goes the better, frankly.

(she visited my workplace recently and reports from people who met her were far from glowing)

matt b
12-01-2006, 03:42 PM
I'm certainly a little worried that no one seems to be probing further into what the 10 new cases that Kelly is in trouble over are actually on the register for - the immediate assumption by most of the press has been that they're convicted paedophiles, rapists, etc, when in fact they could be guilty of much, much lesser charges, if guilty at all.

yeah, absolutely- its the old slavering at the mouth 'hang them' hypocricy rearing up again.



i also find it a little strange that the whole system stops at 16- teachers in 16-19 institutions don't have CRB checks at all. and in past jobs i have known teachers who have been sexual predators and got away with it.

Rambler
12-01-2006, 03:49 PM
I think the difference there is that 16+ means sexually adult, and so predatory teachers are just the same sexual predators in any aspect of life - just as bad, but no longer a special case, and it's up to the (adult) victim to bring charges after the fact than the institution to have a responsibility to filter potential dangers.

bassnation
12-01-2006, 03:54 PM
I think the difference there is that 16+ means sexually adult, and so predatory teachers are just the same sexual predators in any aspect of life - just as bad, but no longer a special case, and it's up to the (adult) victim to bring charges after the fact than the institution to have a responsibility to filter potential dangers.

didn't the government redefine cases such as these recently as a breach of trust? don't think its regarded as quite so serious, more inappropriate and shows lack of judgement on the part of the teacher.

matt b
12-01-2006, 04:01 PM
I think the difference there is that 16+ means sexually adult, and so predatory teachers are just the same sexual predators in any aspect of life - just as bad, but no longer a special case, and it's up to the (adult) victim to bring charges after the fact than the institution to have a responsibility to filter potential dangers.

its just a nominal cut-off though: under the children's act, 16 year olds are still 'children' who are vulnerable (at 18 this changes- so for example, whilst the parents of 16 and 17 year olds have every right to know what their kids are doing at college etc, at 18 they don't), whilst under CRB 16 year olds are 'adults'. off topic though, so sorry.

jenks
12-01-2006, 09:01 PM
the fact is she's awful and is hated by most teachers and anyone with any knowledge of education for good reason. her policies have been ill thought out, spin led and media focussed whilst her attitude is condescending at best.

the sooner she goes the better, frankly.

(she visited my workplace recently and reports from people who met her were far from glowing)

don't disagree with any of that - recently been on the sharp end of one of her new style inspections and think tomlinson could have sorted some of the pig's ear which is current educational policy.

however clarke was not much better and morris awful, blunket shit - when was the last time we had someone half decent in the post - keith joseph? fowler/ken clark/baker/gillian whatsher face - all dreadful

my point was just that she has been a constant target and that blair probably likes it that way - i am often told by those who claim to be in the know that she isn't up to it and i think the govt bods will let her continue to hobble along rather than put her out of her misery - blair issues a policy statement but he's not really that interested in supporting her -
she hasn't a clue but who has had?

droid
12-01-2006, 10:31 PM
All this fuss! I always thought you had to be a sex offender in order to qualify for a job as a PE teacher! :D

corneilius
21-01-2006, 06:09 AM
I sent this to various media in the UK today. Not one reply. You know why

start of letter

Sir/Madam,

I am 46. I was subjected to abuse as a child, in Catholic Boarding Schools, in the so called 'swinging 60s'. There were many children like me. The Irish Government and Catholic Church tried to buy our silence, by putting up a fund of 258 million punts, with an expiry date set for Dec. 15 2005.

That date has passed, and I have not applied. Why?

Because it is a cop-out. The issue is much deeper than the media have ever alluded to, partly because the media, and the establishment, are implicated, in how they seek control people, and protect their obscene wealth by re-inforcing dysfunctional stereotyoes, in advertising and editorial.

It is a fact, though from reading your paper, and many others, one might assume otherwise, that all human dysfunction arises from one unassailable factor, and that is the adverse conditioning of children by adults, who themselves are mostly unaware of their own adverse conditioning, in such a way that the childs knowing of themselves as innately joyous and loving beings, in an innately functioning environment is destroyed.

That is the issue. Are you williing to face it?

end of letter

Furthermore :

The picture, painted by various forms of mass media, by religions and ideologies of people as selfish, competitive and insecure, posing as creative art, is what they feed us daily. That is what our children become, if we hand them over to their ministrations. And sadly, many of us do,

No, it does not surprise me that the media and establishment do what they do, and seek to justify it. That is the way of the dysfunctional. It does however stir a great anger, for they have been informed by those who know, by people like Alice Miller, Carl Rogers, Monbiot, Chomsky to name a few, and by many, many others who have communicated with them and with the various departments of government, local and national, who ought to be looking after our interests, and the interests of our children, on our behalf, (for that is after all their stated role, to communicate on our behalf, and for government to collect resources - taxes - then to and to use them on our behalf) down through the years. And they have steadfastly ignored them. The result? A world of horror upon horror. A world where nuclear power, civil or military is the only option. A point of no return, indeed. A world where abuse of children is the basis for 'civilisation'.

So be it. Unless of course it does not have to be that way. And it doesn't, does it? That's why we are communicating, working day in, day out to create the change.