The Devil is in the Details.
Ruth Kelly is having some problems over the last few days regarding people on the Sex Offenders Register working in schools. Read more here.For what it's worth I must admit I find it funny but the situation is not.
Here we have a list which is populated with all the convicted sex offenders in the UK and also those suspected of sex offences but not charged. Because of this the Government has compiled a, slightly, smaller list of those who should not have jobs with children. As usual they have cocked it up. Mainly do to putting unconvicted people on the main register who they know presents no risk to children.
It used to be convicted people only, then after Soham, all suspected were also put on the register in a knee jerk reaction to appease the people.
This caused many travesties as, for example, people have been added to this list for taking pictures of their children naked in the bath. Pictures that, in my youth, my mother displayed to my girlfriends. Is she a pedophile? She is, under these ridiculous laws. If you are a young man experimenting with sex with a young girl of the same age. On you go as well. So, we have many people on the Sex Register who, even the Government knows, are not a danger to children. Unfortunates caught in the crossfire.
Now if I was on there and refused a job without being convicted I would sue for loss of livelihood in the European Court if necessary. I suspect that the dozen or so the fuss is about fall into the unconvicted category and the Government doesn't want to risk any controversy.
The Sex Offenders Register should be made up of all convicted Sex Offenders and any not convicted should be removed from it, tried in a court and if found guilty put back on the register. All those on this register should not ever be given a job with anyone at risk. All those suspected of sex crimes should be suspended on full pay and face a quick trial. Let's face it the evidence must be available at this point.
posted by Bag @ 8:55 am
2 Comments:
What if the sexual offence had nothing to do with children? Why should someone who is no threat to children be prevented from teaching, however exotic his or her sexual history?
The turnover of teachers is enormous and they are harder and harder to recruit. When your pupils chant the Childline number at you if you rebuke them, you understandably wonder why you are wasting your skills in such a terrible job. A mere accusation is enough to ruin your life, let alone your career in the current Cromwellian climate.
This whole "scandal" was a pathetic witch-hunt. Comprehensive education has convinced two or three generations of eejits that their view is as valid as any other - however stupid and misguided it may actually be.
We have therefore made our chavs ungovernable and Ministers like Ruth Kelly (operating what seem to have been perfectly sensible and discreet procedures) must kowtow to them whenever they are whipped into a frenzy by the gutter press.
One of the many anomalies this knee jerk reaction causes. If I worked with children I'd be looking for a differnt job because there is so much that can go wrong and you don't get any help, advice or protection from Government. You are accused, out of a job, nobody believes you and you get a life sentence with a tag.
The whole thing is a disgrace.
Post a Comment
<< Home