Has this teacher been convicted of anything or not? From the article
below, it looks as if he hasn't: it says the police "believed he had
accessed paedophile websites" - whatever they might be - whereas the
Education Secretary says that "the evidence against the man was
inconclusive." Don't we have law courts to determine this sort of
thing?

If he *hasn't* been convicted, how is it that all the papers are
talking about a "sex offender row", and how can he have been placed on
a "sex offender register"?

------------------------------
KELLY FACES SEX OFFENDER ROW

The police and NSPCC are calling for policy reform after the Education
Secretary backed a suspected paedophile to become a school PE teacher

By Jamie Doward, home affairs editor

The Observer, UK: 8 January 2006
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/publicservices/story/0,11032,1681907,00.html
Or,  http://tinyurl.com/9bbnt

Campaigners are demanding an urgent reform of Britain's child
protection system after The Observer revealed last night that the
Education Secretary, Ruth Kelly, had approved the appointment of a
registered sex offender as a PE teacher.

Kelly's decision - in the full knowledge that the man had been placed
on the register by police, who believed he had accessed paedophile
websites - has astonished children's charities and triggered calls for
politicians to be prevented from deciding who should be barred from
working in education.

Last night the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Children said lessons had still to be learnt following the murders of
Soham schoolgirls Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in 2002. After Ian
Huntley was convicted of the pair's murder, it emerged the school
caretaker had been linked to a catalogue of allegations of rape,
indecent assault and sex with underage girls.

The revelation prompted the Bichard Inquiry, which called for more
stringent vetting of those working with children and criticised
agencies and police for failing to check Huntley's background. 'The
NSPCC has been concerned for some time that the decision to bar
someone from working closely with children rests with the Secretary of
State for Education on the advice of civil servants rather than child
protection experts,' said Natalie Cronin, head of policy and public
affairs at the NSPCC.

'It is not clear whether civil servants have the degree of knowledge
necessary to make such a decision. To judge whether someone will be a
risk to children, you need to consider a number of potential risks.
You also need knowledge of employment law, criminal law and a detailed
knowledge of child protection.'

The Observer can reveal that the teacher was given a position within
the physical education department at The Hewett School in Norwich in
December but was suspended before taking up the position following
protests from police.

Last May, the Department for Education and Skills' Safeguarding
Children unit wrote to Norfolk County Council, saying that the
Secretary of State for Education had 'considered all aspects of the
case, including sex offender registration, and decided that the risks
of the teacher being allowed to continue teaching were acceptable'.

The Safeguarding Children unit said Kelly believed the man should not
be placed on list 99, the national list of people barred from working
with children. There have been suggestions that she believed the
evidence against the man was inconclusive. However, police are
understood to have followed stringent Home Office guidelines when
deciding to place the man on the register and privately express deep
reservations that their risk assessment was overruled.

Last night Norfolk Social Services issued a statement calling on the
DfES to review its guidance to schools. 'This case highlights a
serious policy contradiction that we are keen that the DfES addresses
urgently - namely that it is possible for a teacher to have their name
on the sex offender register, but not on list 99. We have written to
the DfES highlighting these concerns and have been informed they are
reviewing these matters.'

In a prepared joint statement, Tom Samain, the headteacher at The
Hewett School, and Marion Wright, its chair of governors, said: 'Child
protection is our paramount concern at The Hewett School and we take
our responsibilities very seriously indeed.

'The person concerned is no longer employed and there will be a full
examination of the processes in this case. This is the first time we
have had such a case and received such a notification from the DfES.
We are concerned at the policy contradictions it throws up and have
raised our concerns with the DfES.'

Simon Morgan, a spokesman for Norfolk police, said they had acted
immediately on learning of the man's appointment. 'Swift action was
taken as soon as this matter came to our attention. We convened an
urgent meeting with all relevant partner agencies and individuals
including the headteacher to review the situation and determine the
most appropriate course of action. The issues which arose from that
meeting are now being pursued by children's services and Norfolk
County Council and the Department for Education and Skills.'

A spokesman for the DfES said it didn't discuss individual cases and
that it was up to local education authorities to assess the risk posed
by a potential teacher.

'We urge all employers in the education sector to carry out thorough
pre-employment checks, including Criminal Record Bureau checks, on
prospective employees and there is an onus on them to do this. For
those working as teachers, employers should obtain a CRB-enhanced
level disclosure, which will reveal whether the individual is on the
sex offender register, along with other important information that
employers should consider when deciding whether to employ someone.'

Brave New Britain  wrote in
news:1g52s1lklc6p69g752f5q3kjj8u8d2bpdu@4ax.com: 

> Has this teacher been convicted of anything 

Yes, he's on the sex offenders register (see reports all over the press). 
What he's specifically convicted of though hasn't yet been made public and 
it may well be something pety in nature.



-- 
Regards or otherwise,

Periander

Periander wrote:
> Brave New Britain  wrote in
> news:1g52s1lklc6p69g752f5q3kjj8u8d2bpdu@4ax.com: 
> 
> 
>>Has this teacher been convicted of anything 
> 
> 
> Yes, he's on the sex offenders register (see reports all over the press). 
> What he's specifically convicted of though hasn't yet been made public and 
> it may well be something pety in nature.

It just said on the BBC news that he's never been convicted, but the 
police put him on the SOR.

I didn't know they could do that. How does this work without a conviction?

martin  wrote in
news:43c16156$0$23296$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk: 

> Periander wrote:
>> Brave New Britain  wrote in
>> news:1g52s1lklc6p69g752f5q3kjj8u8d2bpdu@4ax.com: 
>> 
>> 
>>>Has this teacher been convicted of anything 
>> 
>> 
>> Yes, he's on the sex offenders register (see reports all over the
>> press). What he's specifically convicted of though hasn't yet been
>> made public and it may well be something pety in nature.
> 
> It just said on the BBC news that he's never been convicted, but the 
> police put him on the SOR.
> 
> I didn't know they could do that.

They can't

> How does this work without a
> conviction? 

It doesn't.
 
Someone's reporting is wrong somewhere.

-- 
Regards or otherwise,

Periander

"Periander"  wrote

> > Has this teacher been convicted of anything
>
> Yes, he's on the sex offenders register (see reports all over the press).

Well The Sunday Times says as follows:

Kelly backed job for sex offender:

A REGISTERED sex offender was given clearance by Ruth Kelly, the
education secretary, to work as a teacher, it emerged last night.

The man was given a job in the physical education department of the
Hewett school in Norwich last month, but was stopped when police
found out and warned that he could be a risk. Kelly apparently
believed evidence the man had used paedophile websites was
inconclusive.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Few points here:
1. The man  was REGISTERED sex offender, we do not know why.

2. Kelly apparently believed evidence the man had used paedophile websites
was inconclusive. Is it not possible she could be correct.

3. Even if the man *only* downloaded porn that is not proof ie is, or will
be risk to children.

Derek

Derek Hornby wrote:
> Few points here:
> 1. The man  was REGISTERED sex offender, we do not know why.
>
> 2. Kelly apparently believed evidence the man had used paedophile
> websites was inconclusive. Is it not possible she could be
> correct.
>
> 3. Even if the man *only* downloaded porn that is not proof ie
> is, or will be risk to children.

Quite so - if he was convicted of public indecency following a 'cottaging' 
encounter for example, then would be no inherent grounds to regard him as 
unfit to teach.  Such decisions should be made on a well-informed review of 
the case.

On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 13:49:00 +0000, Brave New Britain 
wrote:

>Has this teacher been convicted of anything or not? From the article
>below, it looks as if he hasn't: it says the police "believed he had
>accessed paedophile websites" - whatever they might be - whereas the
>Education Secretary says that "the evidence against the man was
>inconclusive." Don't we have law courts to determine this sort of
>thing?
>
>If he *hasn't* been convicted, how is it that all the papers are
>talking about a "sex offender row", and how can he have been placed on
>a "sex offender register"?

That is a mystery to me too. If he hasn't been convicted surely he
shouldn't be on the sex offenders register. If the police believe that
strongly he should be on the sex offenders register they have more
than enough ways of stitching him up.
pete


-- 
Due to privacy considerations, I will not respond to mail from gmail.com.
For more information, please visit www.google-watch.org/gmail.html

On 8 Jan 2006 14:00:38 GMT, Periander
 wrote:

>Brave New Britain  wrote in
>news:1g52s1lklc6p69g752f5q3kjj8u8d2bpdu@4ax.com: 
>
>> Has this teacher been convicted of anything 
>
>Yes, he's on the sex offenders register (see reports all over the press). 
>What he's specifically convicted of though hasn't yet been made public and 
>it may well be something pety in nature.

Being on the sex offender register isn't petty so IMO a 'petty' crime
should not result in ones name being placed there.
pete

-- 
Due to privacy considerations, I will not respond to mail from gmail.com.
For more information, please visit www.google-watch.org/gmail.html

On 8 Jan 2006 19:07:46 GMT, Periander
 wrote:

>martin  wrote in
>news:43c16156$0$23296$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk: 
>
>> Periander wrote:
>>> Brave New Britain  wrote in
>>> news:1g52s1lklc6p69g752f5q3kjj8u8d2bpdu@4ax.com: 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>Has this teacher been convicted of anything 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Yes, he's on the sex offenders register (see reports all over the
>>> press). What he's specifically convicted of though hasn't yet been
>>> made public and it may well be something pety in nature.
>> 
>> It just said on the BBC news that he's never been convicted, but the 
>> police put him on the SOR.
>> 
>> I didn't know they could do that.
>
>They can't
>
>> How does this work without a
>> conviction? 
>
>It doesn't.
> 
>Someone's reporting is wrong somewhere.

Yes quite obviously. The police reporting.
pete

-- 
Due to privacy considerations, I will not respond to mail from gmail.com.
For more information, please visit www.google-watch.org/gmail.html

turtill@hotmail.com wrote in
news:2c03s1p8tsgnv2cm8fd4jh4imm22vethvc@4ax.com: 

> On 8 Jan 2006 14:00:38 GMT, Periander
>  wrote:
> 
>>Brave New Britain  wrote in
>>news:1g52s1lklc6p69g752f5q3kjj8u8d2bpdu@4ax.com: 
>>
>>> Has this teacher been convicted of anything 
>>
>>Yes, he's on the sex offenders register (see reports all over the
>>press). What he's specifically convicted of though hasn't yet been
>>made public and it may well be something pety in nature.
> 
> Being on the sex offender register isn't petty so IMO a 'petty' crime
> should not result in ones name being placed there.

I was trying to be nice and accomodate the apologists that inhabit this 
group. More fool me.

You are quite correct, a sex offence is not petty offence, a sex offender 
is not a petty offender and the botto line is that every person setting out 
to be a teacher knows from day one that if they are convicted of a sexual 
offence they will be placed on the SOR and that will disqualify them from 
teaching. The object of the lesson is simple enough if you want to be a 
teacher (or remain a teacher) do not commit a sexual offence, if you would 
prefer to be a sex offender look for another career (perhaps poitics?)


-- 
Regards or otherwise,

Periander

On 8 Jan 2006 21:30:28 GMT, Periander
 wrote:

>turtill@hotmail.com wrote in
>news:2c03s1p8tsgnv2cm8fd4jh4imm22vethvc@4ax.com: 
>
>> On 8 Jan 2006 14:00:38 GMT, Periander
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>>Brave New Britain  wrote in
>>>news:1g52s1lklc6p69g752f5q3kjj8u8d2bpdu@4ax.com: 
>>>
>>>> Has this teacher been convicted of anything 
>>>
>>>Yes, he's on the sex offenders register (see reports all over the
>>>press). What he's specifically convicted of though hasn't yet been
>>>made public and it may well be something pety in nature.
>> 
>> Being on the sex offender register isn't petty so IMO a 'petty' crime
>> should not result in ones name being placed there.
>
>I was trying to be nice and accomodate the apologists that inhabit this 
>group. More fool me.
>
>You are quite correct, a sex offence is not petty offence, a sex offender 
>is not a petty offender and the botto line is that every person setting out 
>to be a teacher knows from day one that if they are convicted of a sexual 
>offence they will be placed on the SOR and that will disqualify them from 
>teaching. The object of the lesson is simple enough if you want to be a 
>teacher (or remain a teacher) do not commit a sexual offence, if you would 
>prefer to be a sex offender look for another career (perhaps poitics?)

Well you maybe correct that you are a fool but the rest of your post
makes absolute sense. However we are talking about a man on the sex
offenders register who does not seem to have offended. If he has
offended then there is no problem but so far it doesn't appear that he
has offended. That is the issue.
pete

-- 
Due to privacy considerations, I will not respond to mail from gmail.com.
For more information, please visit www.google-watch.org/gmail.html

turtill@hotmail.com wrote in 
news:lv03s1p77dn61ejj6jj5n05i0usoclrh7c@4ax.com:

> On 8 Jan 2006 19:07:46 GMT, Periander
>  wrote:
> 
>>martin  wrote in
>>news:43c16156$0$23296$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk: 
>>
>>> Periander wrote:
>>>> Brave New Britain  wrote in
>>>> news:1g52s1lklc6p69g752f5q3kjj8u8d2bpdu@4ax.com: 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>Has this teacher been convicted of anything 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, he's on the sex offenders register (see reports all over the
>>>> press). What he's specifically convicted of though hasn't yet been
>>>> made public and it may well be something pety in nature.
>>> 
>>> It just said on the BBC news that he's never been convicted, but the 
>>> police put him on the SOR.
>>> 
>>> I didn't know they could do that.
>>
>>They can't
>>
>>> How does this work without a
>>> conviction? 
>>
>>It doesn't.
>> 
>>Someone's reporting is wrong somewhere.
> 
> Yes quite obviously. The police reporting.

Obviously, there can be no other explanation.


-- 
Regards or otherwise,

Periander

On 8 Jan 2006 21:39:24 GMT, Periander
 wrote:

>turtill@hotmail.com wrote in 
>news:lv03s1p77dn61ejj6jj5n05i0usoclrh7c@4ax.com:
>
>> On 8 Jan 2006 19:07:46 GMT, Periander
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>>martin  wrote in
>>>news:43c16156$0$23296$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk: 
>>>
>>>> Periander wrote:
>>>>> Brave New Britain  wrote in
>>>>> news:1g52s1lklc6p69g752f5q3kjj8u8d2bpdu@4ax.com: 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>>Has this teacher been convicted of anything 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yes, he's on the sex offenders register (see reports all over the
>>>>> press). What he's specifically convicted of though hasn't yet been
>>>>> made public and it may well be something pety in nature.
>>>> 
>>>> It just said on the BBC news that he's never been convicted, but the 
>>>> police put him on the SOR.
>>>> 
>>>> I didn't know they could do that.
>>>
>>>They can't
>>>
>>>> How does this work without a
>>>> conviction? 
>>>
>>>It doesn't.
>>> 
>>>Someone's reporting is wrong somewhere.
>> 
>> Yes quite obviously. The police reporting.
>
>Obviously, there can be no other explanation.

Sooner or later if your usual practise is followed you will deny that
post as being 'off the cuff' or similar. That is why it is good
practise to examine everything you post with a jaundiced eye.
pete

-- 
Due to privacy considerations, I will not respond to mail from gmail.com.
For more information, please visit www.google-watch.org/gmail.html

Derek Hornby wrote:
> "Periander"  wrote
> 
> 
>>>Has this teacher been convicted of anything
>>
>>Yes, he's on the sex offenders register (see reports all over the press).
> 
> 
> Well The Sunday Times says as follows:
> 
> Kelly backed job for sex offender:
> 
> A REGISTERED sex offender was given clearance by Ruth Kelly, the
> education secretary, to work as a teacher, it emerged last night.
> 
> The man was given a job in the physical education department of the
> Hewett school in Norwich last month, but was stopped when police
> found out and warned that he could be a risk. Kelly apparently
> believed evidence the man had used paedophile websites was
> inconclusive.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Few points here:
> 1. The man  was REGISTERED sex offender, we do not know why.
> 
> 2. Kelly apparently believed evidence the man had used paedophile websites
> was inconclusive. Is it not possible she could be correct.
> 
> 3. Even if the man *only* downloaded porn that is not proof ie is, or will
> be risk to children.
> 

OTOH, would you with hindsight say that it was right to let Ian Huntley 
work in a school?

wrote in message 
news:2c03s1p8tsgnv2cm8fd4jh4imm22vethvc@4ax.com...
> On 8 Jan 2006 14:00:38 GMT, Periander
>  wrote:
>
>>Brave New Britain  wrote in
>>news:1g52s1lklc6p69g752f5q3kjj8u8d2bpdu@4ax.com:
>>
>>> Has this teacher been convicted of anything
>>
>>Yes, he's on the sex offenders register (see reports all over the press).
>>What he's specifically convicted of though hasn't yet been made public and
>>it may well be something pety in nature.
>
> Being on the sex offender register isn't petty so IMO a 'petty' crime
> should not result in ones name being placed there.
> pete
>
> -- 
> Due to privacy considerations, I will not respond to mail from gmail.com.
> For more information, please visit www.google-watch.org/gmail.html
>
I have heard of a case where a 17 year old boy was prosecuted and placed on 
the SOR for having sex with his 15 year old girl friend. They are now in 
their early twenties and married - he is still on the SOR - that sounds 
petty to me

On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 22:00:00 +0000, anthonyberet <nospam@me.invalid>
wrote:

>Derek Hornby wrote:

>> Few points here:
>> 1. The man  was REGISTERED sex offender, we do not know why.
>> 
>> 2. Kelly apparently believed evidence the man had used paedophile websites
>> was inconclusive. Is it not possible she could be correct.
>> 
>> 3. Even if the man *only* downloaded porn that is not proof ie is, or will
>> be risk to children.

>OTOH, would you with hindsight say that it was right to let Ian Huntley 
>work in a school?

Well it would have made no practical difference as his access to Holly
and Jessica was through Maxine Carr which would have existed if he had
worked in the local garage or he had been unemployed. (He was employed
as a caretaker at a different school from the girls.)

-- 
Brave New Britain

On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 22:17:57 -0000, "Torch"  wrote:
>
>I have heard of a case where a 17 year old boy was prosecuted and placed on 
>the SOR for having sex with his 15 year old girl friend. They are now in 
>their early twenties and married - he is still on the SOR - that sounds 
>petty to me 
>

One lad about 13 got on the SOR for snapping (Pulling an inch or so
and releasing) the elastic bra-strap of one his female classmates.

A tiresome pest no doubt. When my daughter was at school it was the
sort of act that just guaranteed you didn't get invited to parties.

But the act of putting him on the SOR devalues the value of the
register as a definitive list of people who have actually committed
harmful sex offences, and cannot be trusted with children.

As the thread subject implies , now no-one can have any confidence in
whether he's safe with children or not.

Nice One.

DG

turtill@hotmail.com wrote in 
news:jn13s1l2g6iulhp47ttvh2t2mjp01r9nee@4ax.com:

> On 8 Jan 2006 21:39:24 GMT, Periander
>  wrote:
> 
....
>>
>>Obviously, there can be no other explanation.
> 
> Sooner or later if your usual practise is followed you will deny that
> post as being 'off the cuff' or similar. That is why it is good
> practise to examine everything you post with a jaundiced eye.

It is "off the cuff" (there I've brought a smile and a little sunlight in 
your sad and pathetic life). It could well be that the police are to blame, 
however it is far from being the only possible explanation. The difference 
is that I keep an open mind.


-- 
Regards or otherwise,

Periander

"anthonyberet" <nospam@me.invalid> wrote

> OTOH, would you with hindsight say that it was right to let Ian Huntley
> work in a school?

No it wasn't,  but that's because of his actual contact with children
he got the job.

My point was simply that just because a person is on sex offender register
doesn't  necessarily mean they're a danger to children.

I mean for example the act of downloading porn isn't proof that the
porn downloaded  will ever be a risk to  children.
Even  the act  of exchanging emails doesn't  mean the email sender is a risk
to  children as it would depend on the content of such mail.
I was reading in Readers;  Digest few moths ago that in the States,
They  actually  encourage  school children to sort of  adopt
as a pen  pal, folks in the armed  services usually during a war.
Derek (I  have many pen pals,  but i am not in the  US  services)

Torch wrote:
>>
> I have heard of a case where a 17 year old boy was prosecuted and
> placed on the SOR for having sex with his 15 year old girl friend.
> They are now in their early twenties and married - he is still on the
> SOR - that sounds petty to me
>
There are also examples of young gay men who had sex with other adult men, 
but under the age of 21, who are on the SOR.  Sounds like a fucking disgrace 
to me, but I don't expect to hear sense from Periander.

"Harry The Horse"  wrote in
news:1136760282.48837.0@iris.uk.clara.net: 

....
> fucking disgrace to me, but I don't expect to hear sense from
> Periander. 

That's because you don't listen, still that's your problem not mine.


-- 
Regards or otherwise,

Periander

Derek ^ wrote:

> One lad about 13 got on the SOR for snapping (Pulling an inch or so
> and releasing) the elastic bra-strap of one his female classmates.

Really? That was one of my favourite tricks to play on my sister. What
is the most trivial act to get you on the register?

anthonyberet wrote:
> Derek Hornby wrote:
>> "Periander"  wrote
>>
>>
>>>> Has this teacher been convicted of anything
>>>
>>> Yes, he's on the sex offenders register (see reports all over the 
>>> press).
>>
>>
>> Well The Sunday Times says as follows:
>>
>> Kelly backed job for sex offender:
>>
>> A REGISTERED sex offender was given clearance by Ruth Kelly, the
>> education secretary, to work as a teacher, it emerged last night.
>>
>> The man was given a job in the physical education department of the
>> Hewett school in Norwich last month, but was stopped when police
>> found out and warned that he could be a risk. Kelly apparently
>> believed evidence the man had used paedophile websites was
>> inconclusive.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Few points here:
>> 1. The man  was REGISTERED sex offender, we do not know why.
>>
>> 2. Kelly apparently believed evidence the man had used paedophile 
>> websites
>> was inconclusive. Is it not possible she could be correct.
>>
>> 3. Even if the man *only* downloaded porn that is not proof ie is, or 
>> will
>> be risk to children.
>>
>
> OTOH, would you with hindsight say that it was right to let Ian Huntley
> work in a school?

Considering his working at the school played no part in the deaths of the 
children, or the reason why they went round to his house.

Gaz

Brave New Britain wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 22:00:00 +0000, anthonyberet <nospam@me.invalid>
> wrote:
> (He was employed
> as a caretaker at a different school from the girls.)

To be fair, the school shared the premises, with the other school which was 
for an older group of children.

Gaz

joe wrote:
> Derek ^ wrote:
>
>> One lad about 13 got on the SOR for snapping (Pulling an inch or
>> so and releasing) the elastic bra-strap of one his female
>> classmates.
>
> Really? That was one of my favourite tricks to play on my sister.
> What is the most trivial act to get you on the register?

Probably as above - it's a well-reported case, as the family tried to appeal 
it IIRC.

Periander wrote:

> You are quite correct, a sex offence is not petty offence, a sex
> offender is not a petty offender and the botto line is that every
> person setting out to be a teacher knows from day one that if
> they are convicted of a sexual offence they will be placed on the
> SOR and that will disqualify them from teaching.

I _nearly_ agree with you on that line, but I'm troubled by the inclusion of 
'consenting adults' offences - eg cottaging, or the infamous Spanner case. 
Not entirely convinced that such conduct should be a crime, never mind a 
reason to exclude from a profession.

Cheers -

On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 22:17:57 -0000, "Torch"  wrote:

>
> wrote in message 
>news:2c03s1p8tsgnv2cm8fd4jh4imm22vethvc@4ax.com...
>> On 8 Jan 2006 14:00:38 GMT, Periander
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>Brave New Britain  wrote in
>>>news:1g52s1lklc6p69g752f5q3kjj8u8d2bpdu@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> Has this teacher been convicted of anything
>>>
>>>Yes, he's on the sex offenders register (see reports all over the press).
>>>What he's specifically convicted of though hasn't yet been made public and
>>>it may well be something pety in nature.
>>
>> Being on the sex offender register isn't petty so IMO a 'petty' crime
>> should not result in ones name being placed there.
>> pete
>>
>> -- 
>> Due to privacy considerations, I will not respond to mail from gmail.com.
>> For more information, please visit www.google-watch.org/gmail.html
>>
>I have heard of a case where a 17 year old boy was prosecuted and placed on 
>the SOR for having sex with his 15 year old girl friend. They are now in 
>their early twenties and married - he is still on the SOR - that sounds 
>petty to me 

Yes that certainly does if it was true. AFAIAA the sex offenders
register hasn't been around that long.
pete
-- 
Due to privacy considerations, I will not respond to mail from gmail.com.
For more information, please visit www.google-watch.org/gmail.html

Derek Hornby wrote:
>
> I mean for example the act of downloading porn isn't proof that the
> porn downloaded  will ever be a risk to  children.
>
That statement is even more true if the government gets its way and makes 
the viewing of adult S&M porn a 'sex offence'.  It will devalue the register 
even more.

On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 23:13:53 -0000, "Steve Walker" 
wrote:

>joe wrote:
>> Derek ^ wrote:
>>
>>> One lad about 13 got on the SOR for snapping (Pulling an inch or
>>> so and releasing) the elastic bra-strap of one his female
>>> classmates.
>>
>> Really? That was one of my favourite tricks to play on my sister.
>> What is the most trivial act to get you on the register?
>
>Probably as above - it's a well-reported case, as the family tried to appeal 
>it IIRC. 
>

It comes back to me now.

IIRC He accepted an official caution for it, which meant he had
accepted he was guilty (But guilty of what?) without being warned it
would mean an entry in the SOR.

His family tried to appeal afterwards.

DG

On 8 Jan 2006 22:44:50 GMT, Periander
 wrote:

>turtill@hotmail.com wrote in 
>news:jn13s1l2g6iulhp47ttvh2t2mjp01r9nee@4ax.com:
>
>> On 8 Jan 2006 21:39:24 GMT, Periander
>>  wrote:
>> 
>...
>>>
>>>Obviously, there can be no other explanation.
>> 
>> Sooner or later if your usual practise is followed you will deny that
>> post as being 'off the cuff' or similar. That is why it is good
>> practise to examine everything you post with a jaundiced eye.
>
>It is "off the cuff" (there I've brought a smile and a little sunlight in 
>your sad and pathetic life). It could well be that the police are to blame, 
>however it is far from being the only possible explanation. The difference 
>is that I keep an open mind.

That is obviously untrue as well. You do not know me or of my life or
my circumstances and yet you state as fact that your nonsense post
would bring a smile and a little sunlight etc....  The big fault in
your posting style is that you take all around you to be inferior to
you just as a cop wannabe might.
pete

-- 
Due to privacy considerations, I will not respond to mail from gmail.com.
For more information, please visit www.google-watch.org/gmail.html

wrote in message
news:be73s1d45v6dfjdvgksitovdkadlmvui25@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 22:17:57 -0000, "Torch"  wrote:
>

> >I have heard of a case where a 17 year old boy was prosecuted and placed
on
> >the SOR for having sex with his 15 year old girl friend. They are now in
> >their early twenties and married - he is still on the SOR - that sounds
> >petty to me
>
> Yes that certainly does if it was true. AFAIAA the sex offenders
> register hasn't been around that long.
> pete

Luckily for Peter Turtill.
Otherwise he would have had a few entries under his own name on there.

Exposing himself, underage sex etc.... if you can honestly believe anything
he brags about, that is.

On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 23:09:36 -0000, "Gaz"  wrote:

>Brave New Britain wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 22:00:00 +0000, anthonyberet <nospam@me.invalid>
>> wrote:
>> (He was employed
>> as a caretaker at a different school from the girls.)
>
>To be fair, the school shared the premises, with the other school which was 
>for an older group of children.

That's not "to be fair" at all.

If Huntley had been employed elsewhere, no doubt the couple would have
lived in a house elsewhere in the village, to which the girls would
have walked to see their friend Maxine.

-- 
Brave New Britain

On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 22:44:40 -0000, "Harry The Horse"
 wrote:

>Torch wrote:
>>>
>> I have heard of a case where a 17 year old boy was prosecuted and
>> placed on the SOR for having sex with his 15 year old girl friend.
>> They are now in their early twenties and married - he is still on the
>> SOR - that sounds petty to me
>>
>There are also examples of young gay men who had sex with other adult men, 
>but under the age of 21, who are on the SOR.  Sounds like a fucking disgrace 
>to me, but I don't expect to hear sense from Periander.

If so, that would be because Periander dislikes shirt lifters.

On 9 Jan 2006 16:54:20 GMT, Periander
 wrote:

>Same thing (in practice), offence committed, offence admitted, offence can 
>be cited in court as if it were a conviction.
>
>It is important to note that a caution cannot be administered unless teh 
>criminal admits the offence he is being cautioned for.

It is also important to note that when there is no case the cops will
often bluff a suspect into receiving a caution in place of a
prosecution. In fact it is such a common practice all cops know of it.
pete

-- 
Due to privacy considerations, I will not respond to mail from gmail.com.
For more information, please visit www.google-watch.org/gmail.html

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 17:53:10 -0000, "Steve Walker" 
wrote:

>Paul Robson wrote:
>
>> I would bet this means he was caught in the Op Ore trawl, the Cops
>> could find zero evidence of him accessing such sites, and was
>> offered a caution rather than the pleasure of having his name
>> splattered all over the papers ; the usual approach.
>
>If a caution was offered, then he knowingly admitted criminal guilt in the 
>process of accepting it.  Something on those lines is read aloud to the 
>subject, and signed by them, after taking legal advice if they wish to do 
>so.
>
>I'm not saying people don't sometimes cop for a caution when there's 
>reasonable doubt re their culpability, because it certainly happens, but 
>they do so as a matter of choice and they must take the consequences.

Well no. I am not so sure about that. It surely seems that way I
suppose on the first sight but just imagine if this was a particularly
timid individual who had been banged up with a couple of smelly drunks
and was offered a way out such as this. Of course there is no way of
me knowing this and I am only giving a 'for instance' but you will see
the possibilities. It also raises the point that if this man was
guilty why wasn't he charged. The police should not be judge and jury.
pete

-- 
Due to privacy considerations, I will not respond to mail from gmail.com.
For more information, please visit www.google-watch.org/gmail.html

On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 19:07:46 +0000, Periander wrote:

>> It just said on the BBC news that he's never been convicted, but the 
>> police put him on the SOR.
>> 
>> I didn't know they could do that.
> 
> They can't

They *could* put him on the "CRB list" - this doesn't actually exist (!)
but is effectively the same thing, whereby his CRB check would return this
information. However, it *should* return it as a "he was questioned over".

God alone knows. 

The whole thing is a complete shambles. The CRB check is an incompetent
joke (unsurprisingly its run by Crapita). The old List 99 check, done by
the cops, was vastly superior. 

The primary reason for this is that AFAICS the Police checked
intelligently (e.g. for John Smith they checked for J Smith and Jon Smith
as well) whereas CRB apparently checks purely against the name *exactly
matching*.

So if the monkeys typing the forms in enter "Perriander" rather than
"Periander", and you don't spot it when the forms come back, you'll get a
clear CRB check for "Perriander" even though "Periander" might be a mass
murderer. (sorry !). (The CRB check doesn't actually check the named
person exists in any way)

Errors are common ; my known record for an individual (who had a difficult
African name) was four repeat requests. On the application form it was
spelt correctly every time, of course.

The only downside of List 99 was the Police/DfES wouldn't check anyone who
didn't have regular unsupervised access to children. 

This *had* to be changed in response to Soham, except it didn't, because
the Soham Contacts were via Maxine Carr. Huntley could have worked in the
local shop.

On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 20:42:41 +0000, Steve Walker wrote:

> Quite so - if he was convicted of public indecency following a 'cottaging' 
> encounter for example, then would be no inherent grounds to regard him as 
> unfit to teach.  Such decisions should be made on a well-informed review of 
> the case.

Seems bizarre though. Accessing paedophile websites one would think put
one on the SOR.

On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 22:00:00 +0000, anthonyberet wrote:

> 
> OTOH, would you with hindsight say that it was right to let Ian Huntley 
> work in a school?

It would have made no difference.

Also, if you refuse to employ people with unsubstantiated allegations made
against them, then virtually no-one will work in residential care or EBD,
and there will be no Police either.

On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 23:19:39 +0000, Steve Walker wrote:

> Periander wrote:
> 
>> You are quite correct, a sex offence is not petty offence, a sex
>> offender is not a petty offender and the botto line is that every
>> person setting out to be a teacher knows from day one that if
>> they are convicted of a sexual offence they will be placed on the
>> SOR and that will disqualify them from teaching.
> 
> I _nearly_ agree with you on that line, but I'm troubled by the inclusion of 
> 'consenting adults' offences - eg cottaging, or the infamous Spanner case. 
> Not entirely convinced that such conduct should be a crime, never mind a 
> reason to exclude from a profession.

There's also several Ore prosecutions for thumbnails, combined with the
rather variable definition of "Child Porn". It devalues the SOR.

wrote in message 
news:be73s1d45v6dfjdvgksitovdkadlmvui25@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 22:17:57 -0000, "Torch"  wrote:
>
>>
>> wrote in message
>>news:2c03s1p8tsgnv2cm8fd4jh4imm22vethvc@4ax.com...
>>> On 8 Jan 2006 14:00:38 GMT, Periander
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>>Brave New Britain  wrote in
>>>>news:1g52s1lklc6p69g752f5q3kjj8u8d2bpdu@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> Has this teacher been convicted of anything
>>>>
>>>>Yes, he's on the sex offenders register (see reports all over the 
>>>>press).
>>>>What he's specifically convicted of though hasn't yet been made public 
>>>>and
>>>>it may well be something pety in nature.
>>>
>>> Being on the sex offender register isn't petty so IMO a 'petty' crime
>>> should not result in ones name being placed there.
>>> pete
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Due to privacy considerations, I will not respond to mail from 
>>> gmail.com.
>>> For more information, please visit www.google-watch.org/gmail.html
>>>
>>I have heard of a case where a 17 year old boy was prosecuted and placed 
>>on
>>the SOR for having sex with his 15 year old girl friend. They are now in
>>their early twenties and married - he is still on the SOR - that sounds
>>petty to me
>
> Yes that certainly does if it was true. AFAIAA the sex offenders
> register hasn't been around that long.
> pete
Perhaps maths is not your strong point - the 1997 Sexual Offence Act set up 
the SOR - nearly 9 years ago. More than enough time for the petty offence 
and to put a 15 year old into her early twenties

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 08:14:33 -0000, "Torch"  wrote:

>
> wrote in message 
>news:be73s1d45v6dfjdvgksitovdkadlmvui25@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 22:17:57 -0000, "Torch"  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> wrote in message
>>>news:2c03s1p8tsgnv2cm8fd4jh4imm22vethvc@4ax.com...
>>>> On 8 Jan 2006 14:00:38 GMT, Periander
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Brave New Britain  wrote in
>>>>>news:1g52s1lklc6p69g752f5q3kjj8u8d2bpdu@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Has this teacher been convicted of anything
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, he's on the sex offenders register (see reports all over the 
>>>>>press).
>>>>>What he's specifically convicted of though hasn't yet been made public 
>>>>>and
>>>>>it may well be something pety in nature.
>>>>
>>>> Being on the sex offender register isn't petty so IMO a 'petty' crime
>>>> should not result in ones name being placed there.
>>>> pete
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Due to privacy considerations, I will not respond to mail from 
>>>> gmail.com.
>>>> For more information, please visit www.google-watch.org/gmail.html
>>>>
>>>I have heard of a case where a 17 year old boy was prosecuted and placed 
>>>on
>>>the SOR for having sex with his 15 year old girl friend. They are now in
>>>their early twenties and married - he is still on the SOR - that sounds
>>>petty to me
>>
>> Yes that certainly does if it was true. AFAIAA the sex offenders
>> register hasn't been around that long.
>> pete
>Perhaps maths is not your strong point - the 1997 Sexual Offence Act set up 
>the SOR - nearly 9 years ago. More than enough time for the petty offence 
>and to put a 15 year old into her early twenties 

I did post AFAIAA. Obviously I was not aware of the 1997 starting
point.
pete


-- 
Due to privacy considerations, I will not respond to mail from gmail.com.
For more information, please visit www.google-watch.org/gmail.html

Paul Robson wrote:
> 
> Seems bizarre though. Accessing paedophile websites one would think put
> one on the SOR.

No reason why it should. Plenty of "paedophile" websites contain nothing 
illegal.

-- 

rgds
LAurence

....What do you mean, QWK? It took over an hour to read!

Gaz  posted
>Brave New Britain wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 22:00:00 +0000, anthonyberet <nospam@me.invalid>
>> wrote:
>> (He was employed
>> as a caretaker at a different school from the girls.)
>
>To be fair, the school shared the premises, with the other school which was 
>for an older group of children.

No, the two schools have separate premises, although they are next door
to one another. Soham's a small place so everything is close to
everything else anyway. The key point is that Huntley had no contact
with the girls through his job; only through Maxine.

-- 
PeteM

On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 07:56:42 +0000, Paul Robson
 wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 22:00:00 +0000, anthonyberet wrote:
>
>> 
>> OTOH, would you with hindsight say that it was right to let Ian Huntley 
>> work in a school?
>
>It would have made no difference.
>
>Also, if you refuse to employ people with unsubstantiated allegations made
>against them, then virtually no-one will work in residential care or EBD,
>and there will be no Police either.

I think it will be a long time before we reach the critical point
where there are so many people deemed 'unsuitable' for this and that
for the country to cease working. We don't need all that many police,
teachers, care workers etc.

Just the quality of the workers will steadily decline as the choice of
candidates reduces.

Eventually all these 'key workers' will be nincompoops without the
imagination to do anything 'naughty'.

-- 
Brave New Britain

On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 07:53:52 +0000, Paul Robson
 wrote:

>The only downside of List 99 was the Police/DfES wouldn't check anyone who
>didn't have regular unsupervised access to children. 

The downside of List 99 is that it is based on unproven innuendo and
those on it have no opportunity to clear their names (or even know
they are on it).

-- 
Brave New Britain

On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 13:49:00 +0000, Brave New Britain 
wrote:

>Has this teacher been convicted of anything or not? From the article
>below, it looks as if he hasn't: it says the police "believed he had
>accessed paedophile websites" - whatever they might be - whereas the
>Education Secretary says that "the evidence against the man was
>inconclusive." Don't we have law courts to determine this sort of
>thing?
>
>If he *hasn't* been convicted, how is it that all the papers are
>talking about a "sex offender row", and how can he have been placed on
>a "sex offender register"?
>
>------------------------------
>KELLY FACES SEX OFFENDER ROW
>
>The police and NSPCC are calling for policy reform after the Education
>Secretary backed a suspected paedophile to become a school PE teacher

Clarification emerges:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1976571,00.html

"He had been arrested for accessing paedophile websites but was never
convicted. However, the man, who is about 30, was put on the sex
offenders register after a caution."

We know that a formal caution leads to entry on the SOR.

(It's still not self-evident that "accessing paedophile websites"
(presumably meaning some kind of 'child porn' in the sloppy language
people like to use) should mean automatic disqualification from
teaching, but that is a Larger Question.

-- 
Brave New Britain

On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 11:40:20 +0000, Brave New Britain wrote:

> On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 07:53:52 +0000, Paul Robson
>  wrote:
> 
>>The only downside of List 99 was the Police/DfES wouldn't check anyone who
>>didn't have regular unsupervised access to children. 
> 
> The downside of List 99 is that it is based on unproven innuendo and
> those on it have no opportunity to clear their names (or even know
> they are on it).

..... not IME. It seems to be based on the PNC. 

The CRB has, IME anyway, vastly more unproven innuendo. Allegation against
you, it'll be up there, and then people are going to be loathe to take
you on. Or it might not, if Crapita foul up again.

On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 11:38:19 +0000, Brave New Britain wrote:

>>Also, if you refuse to employ people with unsubstantiated allegations made
>>against them, then virtually no-one will work in residential care or EBD,
>>and there will be no Police either.
> 
> I think it will be a long time before we reach the critical point
> where there are so many people deemed 'unsuitable' for this and that
> for the country to cease working. We don't need all that many police,
> teachers, care workers etc.
> 
Yes..... but there aren't that many people who want to do it anyway (the
rules don't apply to the Police, but imagine what would happen if they
were !), many of those who want to do it want out.

> Just the quality of the workers will steadily decline as the choice of
> candidates reduces.
> 
> Eventually all these 'key workers' will be nincompoops without the
> imagination to do anything 'naughty'.

That's the problem. You don't need to do anything "naughty". If you
interact with behaviour disordered children "stuff" will happen, however
good you are, because that's how they are. The better you are the more
likely it is to happen, because it's the good ones who take them out, play
footie with them and all the other sorts of stuff.

On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 11:45:53 +0000, Brave New Britain wrote:

> Clarification emerges:
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1976571,00.html
> 
> "He had been arrested for accessing paedophile websites but was never
> convicted. However, the man, who is about 30, was put on the sex
> offenders register after a caution."
> 
> We know that a formal caution leads to entry on the SOR.
> 
> (It's still not self-evident that "accessing paedophile websites"
> (presumably meaning some kind of 'child porn' in the sloppy language
> people like to use) should mean automatic disqualification from
> teaching, but that is a Larger Question.

I would bet this means he was caught in the Op Ore trawl, the Cops
could find zero evidence of him accessing such sites, and was offered a
caution rather than the pleasure of having his name splattered all over
the papers ; the usual approach.

Given the Op Ore list is mostly those who access adult pornography,
there's no real reason to bar him.

The Daily politics claim he was caught accessing 'pedeophile websites', he 
admitted it and was cautioned.

Following the caution he was put on the SOR.

Gaz

"Periander"  wrote

> > I didn't know they could do that.
>
> They can't
>
> > How does this work without a
> > conviction?
>
> It doesn't.

Well  seems it does.
See vekiw  detailed report
Note this bit:
"he disclosed his status as a sex offender but denied the
allegations. However, to receive a caution, he must have admitted an
offence in front of a senior police officer."

So the point is he still  didn't have a conviction!

From The Times 9 January 2006
Kelly under attack for approving sex offender in PE job.
By Joanna Bale

Child protection agencies and teachers' unions yesterday demanded
urgent reforms after it emerged that Ruth Kelly, the Education
Secretary, had approved the appointment of a sex offender as a PE teacher.

The man, who has not been named, had just started work at a
comprehensive school in Norwich when police found out and protested,
prompting his suspension and resignation. He had been arrested for
accessing paedophile websites but was never convicted. However, the
man, who is about 30, was put on the sex offenders register after a caution.

When he applied for a job at the Hewett School, a 2,000pupil
comprehensive that was put on special measures in 2004 for failing to
improve, he disclosed his status as a sex offender but denied the
allegations. However, to receive a caution, he must have admitted an
offence in front of a senior police officer.

The fact that Ms Kelly approved the appointment knowing his history
has astonished teachers' unions, children's charities and social workers.

The Department for Education and Skills said yesterday that it was
reviewing its policy and that it would close any loopholes if
required. Many agencies and teachers said that lessons had still to
be learnt after the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, the
Soham schoolgirls, in 2002. Ian Huntley, convicted of their murder,
was their school caretaker and had been linked to allegations of rape
and sex with underage girls.

Mick Brookes, the general secretary of the National Association of
Head Teachers, said that the case highlighted the need to change
further the education employment system. "This case demonstrates a
need to make sure all parties work together with agencies on a
regional and national level," he said.

Ms Kelly apparently believed that evidence that the man in this case
had accessed paedophile websites was inconclusive and that he did not
belong on list 99, the national list of people barred from working
with children. She gave him the green light to work in schools last
May. The Hewett School was put on special measures in December 2004
after Ofsted found that it had poor standards, pass rates and attendance.

Tom Samain, the school's headteacher, and Marion Wright, the chairman
of the governors, said in a statement about the teacher's removal:
"We are concerned at the policy contradictions it throws up, and have
raised our concerns with the DfES."

RECORD CHECKS

* Teachers get criminal record checks every three years, or when they
start at a new school

* A new system for staff registration is expected this year after Ian
Huntley, the Soham murderer, passed a record check despite a string
of sex allegations

* The Criminal Records Bureau found that a third of organisations
were failing to confirm applicant identities accurately

* Headteachers last year began testing interview techniques designed
to stop them appointing staff who pose a risk to children

* The Government hopes to set up a registration system by next year
that would require teachers to have a licence showing they could work
with children

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Harry The Horse"  wrote

> That statement is even more true if the government gets its way and makes
> the viewing of adult S&M porn a 'sex offence'.  It will devalue the register
> even more.
>

Agreed
It's as  ridiculous as say  bann someone for life  for working in a bank
simply  because they  nicked a bar of chocolate from the corner shop!

 There needs to be some commonsense!

Here is more reaction  from  Today's Guardian.

Natalie Cronin, head of policy and public affairs at the NSPCC,
complained that the decision to bar someone from working closely
with children rests with the secretary of state on the advice of
civil servants rather than child protection experts. "It is not
clear whether civil servants have the degree of knowledge
necessary to make such a decision."

Martin Ward, deputy general secretary of the Association of School
and College Leaders, said: "We need to strike a balance between  being
absolutely sure we protect our children and making sure we have a workforce
at all. We cannot strike people off from working with children if they have
done nothing to deserve it."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

And isn't this the point at issue, if a person is on sex offenders register
they  do  not always deserve to be on it.
Surly  the whole point of this register was so that it's easier to keep
a track on those that *are*  a risk  to others, and bann such people from
certain jobs due to the risk  to to others.
Derek

"Steve Walker"  wrote in
news:42dl09F1hl43qU1@individual.net: 

> Periander wrote:
> 
>> You are quite correct, a sex offence is not petty offence, a sex
>> offender is not a petty offender and the botto line is that every
>> person setting out to be a teacher knows from day one that if
>> they are convicted of a sexual offence they will be placed on the
>> SOR and that will disqualify them from teaching.
> 
> I _nearly_ agree with you on that line, but I'm troubled by the
> inclusion of 'consenting adults' offences - eg cottaging,

I'd take issue with this due to it's public nature and also I'd take issue 
with your suggestion that this is an "consenting adults only" offence 
however ...

> or the
> infamous Spanner case. 

I'd be prepared to be pursauded on that (if she had a springly enough 
whip). ;-)


-- 
Regards or otherwise,

Periander

turtill@hotmail.com wrote in
news:nu73s1dkvr72qrsn020d3oq1074dvm3va3@4ax.com: 

> On 8 Jan 2006 22:44:50 GMT, Periander
>  wrote:
> 
>>turtill@hotmail.com wrote in 
>>news:jn13s1l2g6iulhp47ttvh2t2mjp01r9nee@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On 8 Jan 2006 21:39:24 GMT, Periander
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>...
>>>>
>>>>Obviously, there can be no other explanation.
>>> 
>>> Sooner or later if your usual practise is followed you will deny
>>> that post as being 'off the cuff' or similar. That is why it is good
>>> practise to examine everything you post with a jaundiced eye.
>>
>>It is "off the cuff" (there I've brought a smile and a little sunlight
>>in your sad and pathetic life). It could well be that the police are
>>to blame, however it is far from being the only possible explanation.
>>The difference is that I keep an open mind.
> 
> That is obviously untrue as well. You do not know me or of my life or
> my circumstances and yet you state as fact that your nonsense post
> would bring a smile and a little sunlight etc....  The big fault in
> your posting style is that you take all around you to be inferior to
> you ...

Oh gracious no, you have to work hard to get on the list. I commend your 
industry.


-- 
Regards or otherwise,

Periander

"Patch"  wrote in news:42dlv8F1ikdj9U1@individual.net:

grow up.


-- 
Regards or otherwise,

Periander

IanAl  wrote in
news:lp83s1peu1btdcgd15iu3rq62qoffmf974@4ax.com: 

> On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 22:44:40 -0000, "Harry The Horse"
>  wrote:
> 
>>Torch wrote:
>>>>
>>> I have heard of a case where a 17 year old boy was prosecuted and
>>> placed on the SOR for having sex with his 15 year old girl friend.
>>> They are now in their early twenties and married - he is still on
>>> the SOR - that sounds petty to me
>>>
>>There are also examples of young gay men who had sex with other adult
>>men, but under the age of 21, who are on the SOR.  Sounds like a
>>fucking disgrace to me, but I don't expect to hear sense from
>>Periander. 
> 
> If so, that would be because Periander dislikes shirt lifters.

Well no, more because Harry's talking bollox, when labour changed the law 
to provide a bit of fresh meat the SOA had a schedule attached to removed 
the registration requirement for those who's previous behaviour had just 
been de-criminalised.

If some of them are still on the register it won't be for simple buggery 
with consent.
 

-- 

Regards

Periander

"Derek Hornby"  wrote in
news:dptmat$jj9$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com: 

> "Periander"  wrote
> 
>> > I didn't know they could do that.
>>
>> They can't
>>
>> > How does this work without a
>> > conviction?
>>
>> It doesn't.
> 
> Well  seems it does.

Same thing (in practice), offence committed, offence admitted, offence can 
be cited in court as if it were a conviction.

It is important to note that a caution cannot be administered unless teh 
criminal admits the offence he is being cautioned for.


-- 
Regards or otherwise,

Periander

Derek Hornby wrote:
> "Harry The Horse"  wrote
>
>> That statement is even more true if the government gets its way and
>> makes the viewing of adult S&M porn a 'sex offence'.  It will
>> devalue the register even more.
>>
>
> Agreed
> It's as  ridiculous as say  bann someone for life  for working in a
> bank simply  because they  nicked a bar of chocolate from the corner
> shop!
>
Actually banks take crimes of dishonesty very seriously.  If as an adult you 
were convicted of shop lifting then I doubt you'd get a job in bank.

> There needs to be some commonsense!
>
Indeed.

> Here is more reaction  from  Today's Guardian.
>
> Natalie Cronin, head of policy and public affairs at the NSPCC,
> complained that the decision to bar someone from working closely
> with children rests with the secretary of state on the advice of
> civil servants rather than child protection experts. "It is not
> clear whether civil servants have the degree of knowledge
> necessary to make such a decision."
>
> Martin Ward, deputy general secretary of the Association of School
> and College Leaders, said: "We need to strike a balance between  being
> absolutely sure we protect our children and making sure we have a
> workforce at all. We cannot strike people off from working with
> children if they have done nothing to deserve it."
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> And isn't this the point at issue, if a person is on sex offenders
> register they  do  not always deserve to be on it.
>
I think the more pertinent question is what is the Sex Offenders' Register 
for?  It currently includes rapists, 13 year olds who pulled a classmate's 
bra strap, gay me who slept with 20 year old men, child sex murderers.  Some 
of these people have no business ever been employed with children.  Others 
pose no risk whatsoever.  It would appear that the child protection industry 
will see any entry on the register as being a bar on employment with 
children.

> Surly  the whole point of this register was so that it's easier to
> keep
> a track on those that *are*  a risk  to others, and bann such people
> from certain jobs due to the risk  to to others.
>
One might have thought so.

Paul Robson wrote:

> I would bet this means he was caught in the Op Ore trawl, the Cops
> could find zero evidence of him accessing such sites, and was
> offered a caution rather than the pleasure of having his name
> splattered all over the papers ; the usual approach.

If a caution was offered, then he knowingly admitted criminal guilt in the 
process of accepting it.  Something on those lines is read aloud to the 
subject, and signed by them, after taking legal advice if they wish to do 
so.

I'm not saying people don't sometimes cop for a caution when there's 
reasonable doubt re their culpability, because it certainly happens, but 
they do so as a matter of choice and they must take the consequences.

Paul Robson wrote:

> The whole thing is a complete shambles. The CRB check is an
> incompetent joke (unsurprisingly its run by Crapita). The old
> List 99 check, done by the cops, was vastly superior.

99's still active, and part of an enhanced CRB

Brave New Britain wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 07:53:52 +0000, Paul Robson
>  wrote:
>
>> The only downside of List 99 was the Police/DfES wouldn't check
>> anyone who didn't have regular unsupervised access to children.
>
> The downside of List 99 is that it is based on unproven innuendo
> and those on it have no opportunity to clear their names (or even
> know they are on it).

I had understood that the Sec of State informed nominees that they've been 
put forward, and invited them to make any representations they may wish 
before a decision is made.   Ultimately it can also go to Judicial Review 
IIRC, as in the case of the Climbié social worker who successfully appealed 
her listing.

Derek Hornby wrote:
> Note this bit:
> "he disclosed his status as a sex offender but denied the
> allegations. However, to receive a caution, he must have admitted
> an offence in front of a senior police officer."
>
> So the point is he still  didn't have a conviction!

Irrelevant.   He made an informed admission to a crime.

On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 17:53:10 +0000, Steve Walker wrote:

> Paul Robson wrote:
> 
>> I would bet this means he was caught in the Op Ore trawl, the Cops
>> could find zero evidence of him accessing such sites, and was
>> offered a caution rather than the pleasure of having his name
>> splattered all over the papers ; the usual approach.
> 
> If a caution was offered, then he knowingly admitted criminal guilt in the 
> process of accepting it.  Something on those lines is read aloud to the 
> subject, and signed by them, after taking legal advice if they wish to do 
> so.
> 
> I'm not saying people don't sometimes cop for a caution when there's 
> reasonable doubt re their culpability, because it certainly happens, but 
> they do so as a matter of choice and they must take the consequences.

I agree.

The point was I think Ore has a history of threatening people though with
the "publicity" angle, a la Langham, attempting to force through
'convictions' for those with a credit card entry on the Landslide
database, who may either have had their card details nicked or
alternatively been accessing legal porn.

I think it damages the SOR, clogs it with junk.

On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 17:55:22 +0000, Steve Walker wrote:

> Paul Robson wrote:
> 
>> The whole thing is a complete shambles. The CRB check is an
>> incompetent joke (unsurprisingly its run by Crapita). The old
>> List 99 check, done by the cops, was vastly superior.
> 
> 99's still active, and part of an enhanced CRB

Yes, but it doesn't seem to work as well as it did before. I'm pretty sure
the Police used to actually verify the existence of the person somehow or
other previously ; they apparently do not now as we had regular clear
checks for non-existent people (with names which were clearly wrong), e.g.
for Steve Wzlkqr kind of things.

On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 17:59:21 +0000, Steve Walker wrote:

> Irrelevant.   He made an informed admission to a crime.

Am I right that caution is exactly the same as conviction, just a zero
penalty result ?

>
> Agreed
> It's as  ridiculous as say  bann someone for life  for working in a bank
> simply  because they  nicked a bar of chocolate from the corner shop!
>

Doesn't David Cameron want to ban chocolate bars?

How about a Chocolate Offenders Register for those that might corrupt
young kids with their eating habbits.

>
> > I would bet this means he was caught in the Op Ore trawl, the Cops
> > could find zero evidence of him accessing such sites, and was
> > offered a caution rather than the pleasure of having his name
> > splattered all over the papers ; the usual approach.
>
> If a caution was offered, then he knowingly admitted criminal guilt in the
> process of accepting it.  Something on those lines is read aloud to the
> subject, and signed by them, after taking legal advice if they wish to do
> so.
>
> I'm not saying people don't sometimes cop for a caution when there's
> reasonable doubt re their culpability, because it certainly happens, but
> they do so as a matter of choice and they must take the consequences.

Which means he was arrested and then hung out to dry for twelve months
waiting for the police to get round to checking his computer.

Meanwhile the social services have been let loose on his wife and kids
and he has been suspended from his job.

Eventually, the police admit his computer contains no evidence - no
doubt assuming it was there once but the suspect has deleted it - so
inform him that his credit card details are still evidence that he was
trying to find illegal porn.

He is then offered a caution or the prospect of a highly publicised day
out at court in front of a jury that's already made up its mind. Some
choice, so he accepts a caution and has to admit guilt.

Do you not wonder what sort of state of mind he might have been in by
this stage?

The police are just getting away with using dubious credit card
evidence that proves nothing.

The really stupid thing is that he could have been as guilty as hell
but reported his card stolen at the time of downloading. Then, two
years later, when the police were compiling their lists he would have
been automatically excluded from their enquiries.

Don't you think this is what even half-bright pedos might be doing or
just maybe even using somebody else's credit card details.

Why don't the police seem to realise that when credit cards are used
on dubious web sites there is a high likelihood of fraud and therefore
a high likelihood that they are about to turn the life of an innocent
person upside down with no return.

My neighbour had his card fraudulently used on a website in the US but
reported it. The laugh is, he has never even been on the interweb or
even owned a computer. So what could have happened to him if he
hadn't checked his statement properly and the website had turned out
to be dodgy?

Steve Walker wrote:
> Paul Robson wrote:
>
> > I would bet this means he was caught in the Op Ore trawl, the Cops
> > could find zero evidence of him accessing such sites, and was
> > offered a caution rather than the pleasure of having his name
> > splattered all over the papers ; the usual approach.
>
> If a caution was offered, then he knowingly admitted criminal guilt in the
> process of accepting it.  Something on those lines is read aloud to the
> subject, and signed by them, after taking legal advice if they wish to do
> so.
>
> I'm not saying people don't sometimes cop for a caution when there's
> reasonable doubt re their culpability, because it certainly happens, but
> they do so as a matter of choice and they must take the consequences.

Which means he was arrested and then hung out to dry for twelve months
waiting for the police to get round to checking his computer.

Meanwhile the social services have been let loose on his wife and kids
and he has been suspended from his job.

Eventually, the police admit his computer contains no evidence - no
doubt assuming it was there once but the suspect has deleted it - so
inform him that his credit card details are still evidence that he was
trying to find illegal porn.

He is then offered a caution or the prospect of a highly publicised day
out at court in front of a jury that's already made up its mind. Some
choice, so he accepts a caution and has to admit guilt.

Do you not wonder what sort of state of mind he might have been in by
this stage?

The police are just getting away with using dubious credit card
evidence that proves nothing.

The really stupid thing is that he could have been as guilty as hell
but reported his card stolen at the time of downloading. Then, two
years later, when the police were compiling their lists he would have
been automatically excluded from their enquiries.

Don't you think this is what even half-bright pedos might be doing or
just maybe even using somebody else's credit card details.

Why don't the police seem to realise that when credit cards are used
on dubious web sites there is a high likelihood of fraud and therefore
a high likelihood that they are about to turn the life of an innocent
person upside down with no return.

My neighbour had his card fraudulently used on a dodgy website in the
US but reported it. The laugh is, he has never even been on the
interweb or even owned a computer. So what could have happened to him
if he hadn't checked his statement properly and the website had
turned out to be more than just dodgy?

allan tracy wrote:
>> Agreed
>> It's as  ridiculous as say  bann someone for life  for working in a bank
>> simply  because they  nicked a bar of chocolate from the corner shop!
>>
>
> Doesn't David Cameron want to ban chocolate bars?

No he doesnt. Prick.

Gaz

Steve Walker wrote:
> Paul Robson wrote:
>
>> I would bet this means he was caught in the Op Ore trawl, the Cops
>> could find zero evidence of him accessing such sites, and was
>> offered a caution rather than the pleasure of having his name
>> splattered all over the papers ; the usual approach.
>
> If a caution was offered, then he knowingly admitted criminal guilt in the
> process of accepting it.  Something on those lines is read aloud to the
> subject, and signed by them, after taking legal advice if they wish to do
> so.
>
> I'm not saying people don't sometimes cop for a caution when there's
> reasonable doubt re their culpability, because it certainly happens, but
> they do so as a matter of choice and they must take the consequences.

You are a school teacher, you like a bit of adult internet porn, police 
come, confiscate all your equipment, interview you for eight hours, tell you 
about all the evidence they have on you, and how it will all go away, if you 
accept a caution.

In these circumstances, the person has a bit of a Hobsons choice. He has 
nothing to gain from standing up for himself, a caution, and a hope that it 
will all be forgotten about it best course.

Gaz

"Paul Robson"  wrote in 
message 
news:pan.2006.01.09.18.07.11.44561@autismuk.muralichucks.freeserve.co.uk...
> On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 17:59:21 +0000, Steve Walker wrote:
>
>> Irrelevant.   He made an informed admission to a crime.
>
> Am I right that caution is exactly the same as conviction, just a zero
> penalty result ?

Almost right.

There IS a penalty. The (ex)teacher is paying it now.
>
>

"Steve Walker"  wrote


>  He made an informed admission to a crime.

How do you know it was an *informed* admission?

 We do  not know what was actually said at the interview, nor do we know
whether the man did, or did not understand the implications of what he was
admitting to  have done.
So it surly follows we also do not know whether the man did, or did not,
deserve to  be on sex offenders register.
Derek

turtill@hotmail.com wrote in
news:d3u5s1tugbf3p03ejfupks2qn84d9788so@4ax.com: 

> On 9 Jan 2006 16:54:20 GMT, Periander
>  wrote:
> 
>>Same thing (in practice), offence committed, offence admitted, offence
>>can be cited in court as if it were a conviction.
>>
>>It is important to note that a caution cannot be administered unless
>>teh criminal admits the offence he is being cautioned for.
> 
> It is also important to note that when there is no case the cops will
> often bluff a suspect into receiving a caution in place of a
> prosecution. In fact it is such a common practice all cops know of it.

Yeah right, AIUI the form the criminal has to sign during the process of 
being cautioned is quite explicit as is the requirement that the criminal 
admits teh offence. Would you admit to something you hadn't done? I 
wouldn't.
 

-- 

Regards or otherwise,
Periander

"Derek Hornby"  wrote in
news:dq0ben$if9$3@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com: 

> "Steve Walker"  wrote
> 
> 
>>  He made an informed admission to a crime.
> 
> How do you know it was an *informed* admission?
> 
>  We do  not know what was actually said at the interview, nor do we
>  know 

Nor wil