Why all this hysteria about paedophiliac teachers?

[OwlHoot]

With reference to that recent thread about what you would do if you ran the country, one of the first things I'd do is dispense with the Sex Offender's Register and "List 99" etc.

I firmly believe that sex crimes should be treated like any other - Once the perps have done their bird, they should be treated like anyone else, even if the recidivism rate is higher than for most crimes.

The vast majority of kiddie fiddlers are no more than a nuisance and a bore to kids, and it's well known that some of the best and most inspiring teachers are at least potential paedos. How could one expect otherwise, if they have an exceptional ability and desire to "interact" with a bunch of noisy, smelly, ill disciplined kids year after year for a modest salary?

How many people reading this must have known dodgy, or even blatantly well-dodgy, teachers or scout masters as a kid? Any undue concern for your own kids, or others, is no more than conceit - that somehow you were tougher than kids are today, and they can't be expected to deal with these supposed monsters as you and your contemporaries must have done.

Discuss, abuse fungus's Ford Ka, or whatever...

(Hey fungus, yours must be the only Ka in the village )

[Alf W]

I think Ian Huntley pretty much shoots this down on his own.

You obviously don't have kids. If I discovered my kid was the subject of inappropriate behaviour I wouldn't leave it to him sort out. I'd break every ******' bone in the b*st*rd who was doing its body.

You get a bit protective you see. It's nothing to do with conceit.

[Skeptical]

With reference to that recent thread about what you would do if you ran the country, one of the first things I'd do is dispense with the Sex Offender's Register and "List 99" etc.

I firmly believe that sex crimes should be treated like any other - Once the perps have done their bird, they should be treated like anyone else, even if the recidivism rate is higher than for most crimes.

The vast majority of kiddie fiddlers are no more than a nuisance and a bore to kids, and it's well known that some of the best and most inspiring teachers are at least potential paedos. How could one expect otherwise, if they have an exceptional ability and desire to "interact" with a bunch of noisy, smelly, ill disciplined kids year after year for a modest salary?

How many people reading this must have known dodgy, or even blatantly well-dodgy, teachers or scout masters as a kid? Any undue concern for your own kids, or others, is no more than conceit - that somehow you were tougher than kids are today, and they can't be expected to deal with these supposed monsters as you and your contemporaries must have done.

Discuss, abuse fungus's Ford Ka, or whatever...

(Hey fungus, yours must be the only Ka in the village )

You could be right, but try to explain it to Joe the Voter... In any case, I don't think this legislation will cause any serious harm. At least, they're not attempting to "redistribute" more money.

[Churchill]

I think Ian Huntley pretty much shoots this down on his own.

You obviously don't have kids. If I discovered my kid was the subject of inappropriate behaviour I wouldn't leave it to him sort out. I'd break every ******' bone in the b*st*rd who was doing its body.

You get a bit protective you see. It's nothing to do with conceit.

You'd still let him be an altarboy...?

[Spartacus]

Having just watched the news, the latest histrionics seem to be because of a guy who did one day's supply work in 2003 and one day in 2004.

To put a bit of perspective on this, a colleague of Mrs Spartacus was placed on the sex offenders register a couple of years ago (for 10 years) for "innappropriate touching". What happened was a girl in the nursery class he was supervising fell over and hurt herself. She ran over to him in tears and he picked her up. The head teacher was in the class and felt this was in breach of child protection regulations (the guidelines there were that you must have no physical contact with a child whatsoever) and reported it to the old bill. When he went to court the case was highlighted in the local rag and he's had his windows bricked more than once. It is likely he will never work again and he is understandably very bitter.

[Churchill]

Having just watched the news, the latest histrionics seem to be because of a guy who did one day's supply work in 2003 and one day in 2004.

To put a bit of perspective on this, a colleague of Mrs Spartacus was placed on the sex offenders register a couple of years ago (for 10 years) for "innappropriate touching". What happened was a girl in the nursery class he was supervising fell over and hurt herself. She ran over to him in tears and he picked her up. The head teacher was in the class and felt this was in breach of child protection regulations (the guidelines there were that you must have no physical contact with a child whatsoever) and reported it to the old bill. When he went to court the case was highlighted in the local rag and he's had his windows bricked more than once. It is likely he will never work again and he is understandably very bitter.

Hey, at least it gives the plebs something to vent their spleen against...
(Tongue in cheek Btw).

[mcquiggd]

One of the problematic issues with sex offences is that the people who commit such crimes seem to be .. addicted... driven by a 'desire' in the same way as someone who has become hooked on the high of a drug such as heroin.... you simply cannot predict their behaviour...

And frankly, if its a choice between a child being protected, or someone who has been proven to have abused a child - potentially being allowed near children - then the childs safety has to come first. I welcome others opinion but I cannot really imagine a situation where I would not err on the side of caution and choose the rights of the child over the rights of the adult in that scenario.

And yes, I do realise that the current media coverage is about a man who has NOT been found guilty of abusing children.

[Fungus]

I think Ian Huntley pretty much shoots this down on his own.

You obviously don't have kids. If I discovered my kid was the subject of inappropriate behaviour I wouldn't leave it to him sort out. I'd break every ******' bone in the b*st*rd who was doing its body.

You get a bit protective you see. It's nothing to do with conceit.

I'm with you on this one. And one of those people was caught with child porn images. Although most child porn users probably do not go on to abuse children, they are complicit in and encourage child abuse, by virtue of purchasing child porn images, and I would not want them near children.

Fungus

[Fungus]

Having just watched the news, the latest histrionics seem to be because of a guy who did one day's supply work in 2003 and one day in 2004.

To put a bit of perspective on this, a colleague of Mrs Spartacus was placed on the sex offenders register a couple of years ago (for 10 years) for "innappropriate touching". What happened was a girl in the nursery class he was supervising fell over and hurt herself. She ran over to him in tears and he picked her up. The head teacher was in the class and felt this was in breach of child protection regulations (the guidelines there were that you must have no physical contact with a child whatsoever) and reported it to the old bill. When he went to court the case was highlighted in the local rag and he's had his windows bricked more than once. It is likely he will never work again and he is understandably very bitter.

How do you know about this person's behaviour? Is this first hand information, or second hand, via the person concerned?

If true, then it is absurd isn't it? There are a lot of people who refuse to interact with children for fear of abuse allegations. You even have to be careful when taking candid photos in the street. It's best not to get a child in the image.

Fungus

[Spartacus]

It is first hand information - Mrs Spartacus was there when it happened and worked with the guy. According to her the head teacher had always felt that men applying for child supervision jobs were inherently suspect. She was very paranoid and thought there was a paedophile hiding behind every street light (assuming there was room next to the fanatic terrorists Chico believes are there).

An interesting point was made on The Wright Stuff yesterday in response to someone else making the observation that mcquiggd does above, i.e. that children must be protected at all costs, no matter what measures are required, and even if that means it is unfair to some people: the biggest killer of children is the motor car, so surely if we are serious that children have to be protected from danger "at all costs and better to be safe than sorry" we should ban cars?

In my mind, and in the current climate, you have to be off your head if you want to work with children and you are a man. You are at siginificantly higher risk of all sorts of malicious accusations and no one is going to believe your story.

On a lighter note, a few Friday's ago on the Radio 4 comedy slot (18:30), some guy was doing some standup. It went something like: "if you say you like children people think what a nice person you must be. But is that right? After all when you say you like children aren't you really saying you only like people for a short period of time? And, of course, there are dangers in being too specific. After all, saying you like children is fine, but saying you like twelve year olds can land you in all sorts of trouble."