Teacher Row

I've just been watching Sky News. They were discussing the case of a teacher in Yorkshire who had been caught with over 100 indecent images of children on his computer. He was obviously sacked.

But now it's been decided he can return to work as a teacher. Has this country gone completely fucking mental? Shocking in my opinion and the people who have made this decision need sacking along with the nonce teacher.

Anybody think it's correct to give him another chance?

Here's the story in The Guardian........

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jun/06/teacher-child-images-schools-panel

I think it's fooking disgusting. Saw some knob on BBC this morning trying to defend him because he only had "low level" child porn on his PC.

I can't see any school actually taking him on, but that isn't the point.

What's even more concerning is that he was an RE teacher. I know everyone deserves a second chance but in his case he should never be allowed to work with children in any capacity.

Don't think the subject he teaches is relevant. Fact is that he perceives children in the wrong way and shouldn't teach, run a scout patrol, do childcare or take responsibility for kids in any way as he has shown that he doesn't think of children as being in need of protection - from people like him.

Seems a baffling decision to me. Clearly this man does pose a threat to children.

I had no idea what "low level" child porn is until I looked it up on Wikipedia

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FCOPINE_scale&ei=wHqwUYzEE4TQ0QWLlYHADA&usg=AFQjCNFt_4juGS0A5L2W8OAK2uUSJjaAQA&sig2=njXUzmq97_vU4MX4LzbSXQ&bvm=bv.47534661,d.d2k

but he is a paedophile even if he hasn't done anything more serious yet.

xmiles wrote:Seems a baffling decision to me. Clearly this man does pose a threat to children.

I had no idea what "low level" child porn is until I looked it up on Wikipedia

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FCOPINE_scale&ei=wHqwUYzEE4TQ0QWLlYHADA&usg=AFQjCNFt_4juGS0A5L2W8OAK2uUSJjaAQA&sig2=njXUzmq97_vU4MX4LzbSXQ&bvm=bv.47534661,d.d2k

but he is a paedophile even if he hasn't done anything more serious yet.

I understand your point but disagree with your conclusion.
Having 100 pictures of other people's children (regardless of whether they are sexualised or not) is fundamentally weird.
Now I have over 100 pictures of my own children and that's normal because I have an interest in them as a parent. But other people's children who are not related to him in any way? If I thought that a stranger had pictures of my children when they were young on their laptop I would want to have a quiet word. And I certainly wouldn't want them around my kids.

What bit did you disagree with?

wanderlust wrote:

xmiles wrote:Seems a baffling decision to me. Clearly this man does pose a threat to children.

I had no idea what "low level" child porn is until I looked it up on Wikipedia

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FCOPINE_scale&ei=wHqwUYzEE4TQ0QWLlYHADA&usg=AFQjCNFt_4juGS0A5L2W8OAK2uUSJjaAQA&sig2=njXUzmq97_vU4MX4LzbSXQ&bvm=bv.47534661,d.d2k

but he is a paedophile even if he hasn't done anything more serious yet.

I understand your point but disagree with your conclusion.
Having 100 pictures of other people's children (regardless of whether they are sexualised or not) is fundamentally weird.
Now I have over 100 pictures of my own children and that's normal because I have an interest in them as a parent. But other people's children who are not related to him in any way? If I thought that a stranger had pictures of my children when they were young on their laptop I would want to have a quiet word. And I certainly wouldn't want them around my kids.

I don't think we are disagreeing. Neither of us would be happy having him anywhere near our children/grandchildren. He appears to be a paedophile (i.e. sexually aroused by children) even if he has done no more than have a lot of pictures of children that he has no other reason to have.

Has this guy been found guilty of any kind of sexual contact with kids? If not, surely having pictures of kids - although weird - on his PC cannot say he's a pedo. If having pictures of kids you don't know on your PC is criminal, then Facebook must be run by the biggest bunch of pedos around.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't a parent get some grief for taking a picture of their child in the bath? One officious twat at boots took exception if I correctly remember when the film was taken in for developing?

There's a balance to be struck between child protection on the one hand and overzealous paranoid delusion on the other, but if there is any doubt whatsoever, child protection has to take priority.
Now this guy knows how paranoid people get about child images. He knows that as a teacher he has to be extra vigilant about his behaviour in this regard. Yet despite this he risked potential job loss and infamy to keep 100 pictures of other people's kids on his laptop - so he must have really wanted those images.
It's true that he hasn't been convicted of anything, but the fact that he is prepared to take that risk despite the potential problems suggests that something is wrong. Furthermore he hasn't given any reason for having the pictures other than liking looking at pictures of other people's kids. There may be a perfectly innocent reason but if there is a) he should give it and b) I can't think of a perfectly innocent reason that would indicate he is able to look at the children in his care in a balanced way.
It may seem heavy-handed to some people, but where there is doubt as to his motives as there is in this case, society should err on the side of caution and put child protection ahead of "innocent until proven guilty" IMO (perhaps an "innocent until proven dubious" decision?)
That said, the authorities should handle cases such as this with confidentiality. This could be done by having a quiet word with the guy and if there is no legal case to answer but doubts remain, he should be given the opportunity to resign - rather than the story being leaked to the press.
I'm a great believer in personal freedoms but when it comes to looking after vulnerable people I want to see hard evidence that the carers are beyond reproach. This guy isn't.

Sometimes I think people deliberately set things up so there is a reaction and then they can sue the people who react. Many years ago I worked for a large US company who had many government contracts. A guy who worked there started coming to work dressed as a woman. They told him he had to go home and come back to work dressed accordingly. He continued to show up dressed in womens clothing and they continued to send him home. They fired him and he sued. He was eventually given a salary package which would continue his salary and medical insurance for the rest of his life - he was 25 at the time.

waynagain wrote:Sometimes I think people deliberately set things up so there is a reaction and then they can sue the people who react. Many years ago I worked for a large US company who had many government contracts. A guy who worked there started coming to work dressed as a woman. They told him he had to go home and come back to work dressed accordingly. He continued to show up dressed in womens clothing and they continued to send him home. They fired him and he sued. He was eventually given a salary package which would continue his salary and medical insurance for the rest of his life - he was 25 at the time.

Quite right too, what is wrong with a man wearing women's clothes? He/she is still the same person doing the same job.

There's a huge difference between gender-identification discrimination and the discrimination I'm outlining inasmuch that the risk analysis in the 2 scenarios is different. Worst case scenario for the cross-dresser is that some customers and colleagues may be prejudiced against him making it difficult for him to do his job well. Big deal.
Best case scenario for the teacher would be that he has the ability to teach children that he objectifies without warping their perception of others as a teacher is a key player in personal development. Worst case doesn't bear thinking about.

Soul Kitchen wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't a parent get some grief for taking a picture of their child in the bath? One officious twat at boots took exception if I correctly remember when the film was taken in for developing?

It was the ITN Newsreader Julia Somerville.

Reebok Trotter wrote:

Soul Kitchen wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't a parent get some grief for taking a picture of their child in the bath? One officious twat at boots took exception if I correctly remember when the film was taken in for developing?

It was the ITN Newsreader Julia Somerville.

Cheers RT

The Government has jumped on this bandwagon:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22806586