Why all this hysteria about paedophiliac teachers?

[xoggoth]

The overreaction to this subject is bizarre.

I sometimes used to nip my kids on the bum when they got ready for bed, who doesn't? Horror! When the Ma in Law came to stay one of them solemly reported "Daddy fiddles with our bottoms". Just as well the missus was there to say what he meant.

file:///C:/Websites/xoggoth/bloggoth2.html#correct

[stackpole]

This paranoia is ridiculous. I hate people like Mrs Sparticus's school head. Am I still allowed to cuddle my own kids?

[The Lone Gunman]

Difficult and emotive subject.
I agree with the point of those who look are promoting for those who "do", yet we are not berating any of the men on here who are thoroughly enjoying a certain thread in light relief. Surely there is an inference there about exploitation there. Would it be right to put us on a sex offenders register as we are clearly potential rapists? A step too far I thnk.

It has always been my opinion the child sex offenders are not criminals. I fully understand the protective parents, but these people are mentaly ill and do not understand what they are doing is wrong. I had not considered the adict idea, but I could follow that.
These people need treating in mental institutions or rehab centres. As long as they are treated under law as criminals they are subject to criminal procedures which means we can not deal with them properly.

Problem is we no longer have mental institutions as we only do care in the community these days.

BTW. Why do people always go for teachers, scouters and the clergy when talking on this subject? It is a known fact that the majority of child sex abuse is commited by relatives or close family friends.

[Spartacus]

Good spot, Dodgy. I think this is an excellent summation of what should have happened.

How I would have admired Miss Kelly if she had told the House: "I myself took the decision to allow Mr Reeve to go on working in schools because I judged, on all the evidence available to me, that he posed no risk to children. We live in a country in which we believe it is wrong for the Government to destroy a man's career, on the untested say-so of the police. Long may we continue to do so."

The way everyone seems to be going on it's as if the DoE looked at the guy's file and said, "oh, this guy is a real menace and danger to children, let's put him in charge of some kids for a laugh to see what happens."

[DodgyAgent]

Tom Utley

I thought Tom Utley put this issue into a logical perspective last week in the Telegraph

http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/o.../13/do1301.xml

[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."

[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

[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

[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.

[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).

[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]

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...?

[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.

[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.

[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 )