Ruth Kelly Vetting

[AtW]

I bet if it was you, you would win

If it was untrue information then I'd certainly win, the question of reputation applies to damages awarded - those who have feck all reputation will therefore win 10 quid, but someone who is well known will get far more since their reputation is worth a lot more.

That's why papers are not afraid to publish all sort of rubbish about convicted criminals - even if its untrue their reputation is so low that they will win 10 quid at best.

It does not preclude the principle however that if lie is printed then you can sue and win - you just won't become millionaire through it.

[Mailman]

This is merely another example of laws being created by the tabloids.

Some of the misinformation that has been purposely propogated by the media is absolutely shocking! Just goes to show that there is a very real need for an "ethical" standards organisation to deal with the deceit being spread by the media.

I think its absolutely disgraceful how the tabloids can destroy a persons life like this without any fear of reprisals (legal or otherwise)!

This guy is neither a menace OR a peado however much the media bleats!

Mailman

[Spartacus]

Thing is, Mailman, many people, even some posters on this board, say that destroying the livelihood of a few probably harmless but slightly shady characters is a price worth paying as children must be protected "at all costs". What from, I'm not sure. How many cases of teachers killing and/or abusing their pupils have there been? Very few compared to the number of kids killed and abused by their own parents is the answer.

In my view, the "no price too great" attitude is complete bollox, but it seems to be the prevalent view (until those holding that view fall victim to it, of course).

[Phoenix]

If it was untrue information then I'd certainly win, someone who is well known will get far more since their reputation is worth a lot more.

Proof you are up youre own ar*s!
Oh dear have I quoted you.....out of context?

[Jabberwocky]

We should treat these people just like potential witches. The Hopkins three-part test is at the forefront of witchhunting and it is a proven and tested method:

The "swimming" part of Hopkins's three-part test was a foolproof method of determining the guilt or innocence of a witch. Hopkins would have the witches bound in a painful position with their right thumb to their left big toe and their left thumb to their right big toe, then he would order them thrown into a river or a deep pond. If the witches sunk and drowned, they were innocent. It was clear that they possessed no supernatural powers, after all. If they somehow managed to stay afloat, however, they were judged guilty of witchcraft and men with long poles would push them under the water until they drowned. Either guilty or innocent, of course, the accused witch was eliminated as a real or a potential emissary of Satan on Earth.

[AtW]

Proof you are up youre own ar*s!
Oh dear have I quoted you.....out of context?

From usage of insults it is pretty clear that you have no good arguements.

[ASB]

Well what about...

The deputy head who was jailed yesterday.

He had been reported a couple of years back for "inappropriate behaviour" and nothing done. He was also investigated by the police and no wrong doing was decided.

So should he have been blacklisted or not?

Me, I go for the latter. Firstly he was, it appears, exonerated of any criminal activity. Therefore he had done nothing wrong. Secondly if you want to create a society that can destroy somebody at will you'd better be bloody sure there is a good reason for it. At the time, in this case there quite cleary wasn't.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Maybe best just to lock everybody up at bitrth to be on the safe side.

[BobTheCrate]

The underlying problem here was and is caused by those who continue the flawed argument 'child protection overrides all other considerations'.

Ruth Kelly I think is one of those and is therefore is reaping what she subscribed to.

It has produced a ridiculous mass hysteria surrounding paedophiles.

The sex offenders register is full of people who, rather than contest in a public court an 'accusation' of child abuse, agree to a private Police caution. And who could blame them in such a hysterical environment. As a result apparently they are then placed on the register.

Far too many people are being labelled as offenders by a system 'scared' not to do anything when an accusation is made. Far too often the offence was not an offence but perfectly innocent and natural behaviour, perverted by the accuser.

And the Police are not to blame too much. They too are unfairly castigated everytime there is a rare tragedy. So reason & common sense again flies out of the window in place of covering their own position.

Will these measures prevent 'real' child abuse ? I suspect not. These measures are a real pig's ear.

Other than that I believe the decisions Ruth Kelly's department made, those we know of anyway, were correct.

[wendigo100]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't going with a 15-year-old legal in many countries, including The Netherlands and anywhere east of Austria?

Why did we set a legal limit at 16 anyway?

[ASB]

The sex offenders register is full of people who, rather than contest in a public court an 'accusation' of child abuse, agree to a private Police caution. And who could blame them in such a hysterical environment. As a result apparently they are then placed on the register.

I believe that it is only a recent change that means you go on the register.

The most stupid recent case I heard of was a nursery. Small sprog falls over and hurts herself. Runs to care who picks her up (there is a no touching guideline) and say "there there". Comforts her and puts her down. He's now accepted a caution and is on the list forever to be prevented from working with children.

Just what sort of unbalanced individuals are we going to end up as the next generation of society with all this cosetting and mud slinging?

I have been known to let my children out of my sight. Go the the park. Enjoy the outdoors etc. Clearly I am totally irresponsible. Better pack my bag and go meet bubba.