So, Pete Lewis, your "hero" thinks its ok to have sex offenders working in Schools.
18 January 2006, 11:11 AM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Talk to the hand....
Posts: 13,331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forget the nitty gritty. The important thing is that Ruth Kelly is incompetent (and ugly) and should be removed from any position of responsibility as soon as possible.
18 January 2006, 11:15 AM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 9,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Paul Habgood
Oh come on, how can anyone really answer that, in which case we may as well not bother with any safeguards and trust people to do the right thing.
That will work!
I suppose we will have to agree to dissagre in this case
That will work!
I suppose we will have to agree to dissagre in this case
i dont know much about the soham case- was just curious if him being "known" would have made any difference in that case.
18 January 2006, 12:01 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: www.tiovicente.com
Posts: 2,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Paul Habgood
It is not just this case the catalyst seems to have been another teacher who was cautioned by police for looking at/downloading indecent pictures of children. This i would say is pedophile behaviour.
As for this chap who married this girl he was 30 at the time they got together, she was 15 when they me. That i feel is inappropriate behaviour, especially for a teacher whio is in a position of trust. OK they went on to be married and good luck to them but 30 y/o blokes should notr be getting involved with 15 y/o girls even if just once.
As for this chap who married this girl he was 30 at the time they got together, she was 15 when they me. That i feel is inappropriate behaviour, especially for a teacher whio is in a position of trust. OK they went on to be married and good luck to them but 30 y/o blokes should notr be getting involved with 15 y/o girls even if just once.
Ruth Kelly, whilst clearly out of her depth should not be sacked because she is responsible for the system which actually works but the way she has handled the the whole mess in her attempts to justify it.
18 January 2006, 01:12 PM
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Flatcapdriver
Hang on a minute Paul. The bloke you're referring to had his card details on a website dealing with underage pictures and was cleared by Police as they couldn't actually find any evidence to suggest it was either him or that if it was he had actually looked at them.
Ruth Kelly, whilst clearly out of her depth should not be sacked because she is responsible for the system which actually works but the way she has handled the the whole mess in her attempts to justify it.
Ruth Kelly, whilst clearly out of her depth should not be sacked because she is responsible for the system which actually works but the way she has handled the the whole mess in her attempts to justify it.
can you post a link to this information?
18 January 2006, 01:19 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
NOTHING is as it is reported in the press - they want headlines!!!
Look into the details and you will 'generally' find a common-sense reason why a decision was made.
I am ultimately responsible to see that over 1000 pupils are safe and secure within our College ............ we do Police Checks and Register checks.
I see things from well inside the Education system ............ I am MUCH closer to the management of schools than most of you armchair moaners!
Pete
Look into the details and you will 'generally' find a common-sense reason why a decision was made.
I am ultimately responsible to see that over 1000 pupils are safe and secure within our College ............ we do Police Checks and Register checks.
I see things from well inside the Education system ............ I am MUCH closer to the management of schools than most of you armchair moaners!
Pete
18 January 2006, 01:21 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pslewis
I am ultimately responsible to see that over 1000 pupils are safe and secure within our College ............ we do Police Checks and Register checks.
I see things from well inside the Education system ............ I am MUCH closer to the management of schools than most of you armchair moaners!
Pete
I see things from well inside the Education system ............ I am MUCH closer to the management of schools than most of you armchair moaners!
Pete
Oh, that makes me feel so much safer, nothing to worry about then!
18 January 2006, 01:27 PM
#38
Scooby Regular
Originally Posted by Dracoro
Pete - so do you agree that people on 'the list' can work in schools?
And also answer this question, "Should a man who married a young girl he was teaching and had 3 children with her, bearing in mind that he did not have sexual relations with her while she was a child, be banned from ever teaching again? Remember too that there is NO other indication at all that he is a danger to children"
Pete
18 January 2006, 01:28 PM
#39
Scooby Regular
Originally Posted by Paul Habgood
Oh, that makes me feel so much safer, nothing to worry about then!
Pete
18 January 2006, 01:31 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pslewis
As I carry out my duties for FREE - in my OWN time - even on cold, dark wet evenings ... I would have thought I was due a little more respect than that?
Pete
Pete
18 January 2006, 01:31 PM
#41
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pslewis
As I carry out my duties for FREE - in my OWN time - even on cold, dark wet evenings ... I would have thought I was due a little more respect than that?
Pete
Pete
18 January 2006, 01:31 PM
#42
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A powerslide near you
Posts: 10,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pslewis
Please specify which list?
And also answer this question, "Should a man who married a young girl he was teaching and had 3 children with her, bearing in mind that he did not have sexual relations with her while she was a child, be banned from ever teaching again? Remember too that there is NO other indication at all that he is a danger to children"
Pete
And also answer this question, "Should a man who married a young girl he was teaching and had 3 children with her, bearing in mind that he did not have sexual relations with her while she was a child, be banned from ever teaching again? Remember too that there is NO other indication at all that he is a danger to children"
Pete
and
the 99 list
Yes or no to both please.
As to your question: Then what's the chap doing on the register if he's no danger to children? Either he should be on the register and not work with kids OR he should not be on the register and can work with kids. It's very simple really.
18 January 2006, 01:36 PM
#45
Scooby Regular
Originally Posted by Paul Habgood
Are you really a crossing guard? - it kinda makes a lot of sense!
Pete
18 January 2006, 01:37 PM
#46
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pslewis
They get paid ................ I don't!
Pete
Pete
18 January 2006, 01:41 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
Originally Posted by Dracoro
The Sex Offenders register
and
the 99 list
Yes or no to both please.
As to your question: Then what's the chap doing on the register if he's no danger to children? Either he should be on the register and not work with kids OR he should not be on the register and can work with kids. It's very simple really.
and
the 99 list
Yes or no to both please.
As to your question: Then what's the chap doing on the register if he's no danger to children? Either he should be on the register and not work with kids OR he should not be on the register and can work with kids. It's very simple really.
Similar details of people who have been struck off the Register of Teachers in Scotland or barred from teaching in Northern Ireland are included in Annexes to the List. The suitability of these people has not been considered by The Secretary of State, but action under the regulations could be taken should it come to light that any of them were seeking relevant employment in England and Wales.
List 99 is a sensitive and confidential document and access to it is strictly limited to individuals responsible for checking the suitability of applicants. The purpose of List 99 is to enable employers to safeguard against employing a barred person.
It should be emphasised that not all those on the list are perceived to be a danger to children"
Personally, myself, I would not agree to the employment at my College of anyone who's name appeared on either list .................... however, I am 'in-the-loop' of only the very Senior Members of Staff. That said, I would be consulted if a more junior member of staffs name appeared and I would have an input at that point.
Pete
18 January 2006, 01:52 PM
#50
Scooby Regular
Originally Posted by Dracoro
Thanks for the explanation of the list.
So your answer to my question is no on both counts?
So your answer to my question is no on both counts?
However, I can see where there may be 'more-to-it' than meets the eye in some cases.
Pete
18 January 2006, 01:54 PM
#51
Scooby Regular
Originally Posted by Paul Habgood
Thanks for the info Pete
BTW pretty much anybody who gives up their spare time for good causes get's my respect
RESPEC!
BTW pretty much anybody who gives up their spare time for good causes get's my respect
RESPEC!
I'm now in my SEVENTH year!! Talk about dedication!!
Pete
18 January 2006, 02:00 PM
#52
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A powerslide near you
Posts: 10,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pslewis
My own PERSONAL answer is NO - I would not hire if their names appeared on either list.
Evidently Tony Blair and Ruth Kelly are in disagreement with yourself as they are responsible for allowing people who's names are on the list to work in schools. They have decided that 'yes', person 'a' who is on the list can work in schools.
18 January 2006, 02:07 PM
#53
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Talk to the hand....
Posts: 13,331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pslewis
As I carry out my duties for FREE - in my OWN time - even on cold, dark wet evenings ... I would have thought I was due a little more respect than that?
Pete
Pete
respec' ....
18 January 2006, 02:09 PM
#54
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 15,623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
*So, Pete Lewis, your "hero" thinks its ok to have sex offenders working in Schools.*
Is this The Sun or Scoobynet.Big headline then dissapointing story.
Is this The Sun or Scoobynet.Big headline then dissapointing story.
18 January 2006, 02:10 PM
#55
Scooby Regular
Originally Posted by Flatcapdriver
Hang on a minute Paul. The bloke you're referring to had his card details on a website dealing with underage pictures and was cleared by Police as they couldn't actually find any evidence to suggest it was either him or that if it was he had actually looked at them.
Ruth Kelly, whilst clearly out of her depth should not be sacked because she is responsible for the system which actually works but the way she has handled the the whole mess in her attempts to justify it.
Ruth Kelly, whilst clearly out of her depth should not be sacked because she is responsible for the system which actually works but the way she has handled the the whole mess in her attempts to justify it.
The problem arises from the fact that the same people were operating 'legitimate' pornography websites, which this guy has never denied accessing. Despite a lengthy investigation which revealed no evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever, the police force involved have continued to persecute their victim.
18 January 2006, 02:12 PM
#56
Scooby Regular
However, the way in which Ruth Kelly has handled herself throughout this whole situation has left me in no doubt that her limitations are far in excess of her abilities.
18 January 2006, 02:15 PM
#57
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CrisPDuk
The guy's name came up as a result of the operation (I forget the name) in the States which revealed a large number of credit card details on the servers of people operating child pornography websites.
The problem arises from the fact that the same people were operating 'legitimate' pornography websites, which this guy has never denied accessing. Despite a lengthy investigation which revealed no evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever, the police force involved have continued to persecute their victim.
The problem arises from the fact that the same people were operating 'legitimate' pornography websites, which this guy has never denied accessing. Despite a lengthy investigation which revealed no evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever, the police force involved have continued to persecute their victim.
Operation ORE i believe.
18 January 2006, 05:36 PM
#59
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regardless of all the arguments about the eligibility of some of these people to work with children or not, the facts remain that she has been over promoted into a job that she is not capable of doing effectively. Our children's education is too important to have an incompetent running things.
Les
Les
