Who Would Even Employ Him?? How Could He Even Work?

[bednobs]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22793239
i think he would be in danger from the kids, not the other way round!

[LazyGun]

I would imagine that any school or head that employed him would have to be prepared for noisy and high profile protests by concerned parents.

[Gromit]

I assume the images were found by a technician who alerted the police. He may not have kept them. If he clicked on an image it would be on his hard drive even if he clicked away (and didn't keep them). There were many images on the computer that had not been viewed. This would be like the sunflowers in the top corner of this page. We have accessed this page, so that image is stored on our computer, as well as a record of when we clicked the link (and when we clucked the ladt link on this page). That would give the police an idea of how long he was on a site.

[ChillDoubt]

IMHO, in regards to whether he is a danger to children can be summed up in three words:

Ticking time bomb.

[ummmm]

So why on earth would he accept a caution?

[jake-the-peg]

Looking at this there's something called the Copine scale which categorises these images

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COPINE_scale

143 images were level 1 which means

'Non-erotic and non-sexualised pictures showing children in their underwear, swimming costumes from either commercial sources or family albums. Pictures of children playing in normal settings, in which the context or organisation of pictures by the collector indicates inappropriateness.'

46 were at level 3 but he'd not looked at them


Now I've not read this report but at face value the description in the article 'child abuse images' seems grossly misleading.

He may have been ill-advised to accept the Police caution - If he'd declined it and gone to court he may well have been acquitted

As it stands you're right I can't see how he'd be remployed

But I don't think you can conclude he'd be a danger to kids without more details

I'd strongly suggest you look at the Copine scale link and see the descriptions of sort of material that was found before rushing to judgement

[ummmm]

/46 were at level 3 but he'd not looked at them /

How do you get those images onto your computer then?

I'm computer stupid!

[jake-the-peg]

A number of ways - they could have been in a downloaded zip file that had not been opened for example.

When you go to a site adverts are often automatically served to your screen and those are cached on your local hard disk

It's all about context

Context that we don't have

Most of us have level 1 images of our own children playing

Level 3 (the most serious pictures he had) can involve fully clothed children where there's a suggestion of sexual interest.

You know those programs about those American child beauty pagents - that could easilly be level 3.

It's all about context here - and we just don't have that

But I'm pretty sure that describing these images as 'child abuse' is likely to be woefully misleading

[andy-hughes]

I find it as mystifying as anyone else why this individual would be considered suitable to work with children ever again - and as advised, who would show that level of breathless absence of judgement to employ him.

The paralel is of a man who let off a shotgun in a shopping centre, but because he didn't hit anyone, he can be allowed to take his gun to the shopping centre again - no problem.

This is not a case of misaligned conclusions by media spin as jake appears to infer - this man has been cautioned by police, and placed on the Sex Offenders' Register (I think the clue is in the name there Jake) for two years.

You can always find individuals who will bend over backwards to find the good in anyone and everyone - to an extent i am like that myself as my arguments on this site will verify.

But this is a case of a man who thinks it acceptable to collect images of children on a graded scale of abuse level, and has been cautioned and sacked as a result.

How on earth do we go from thats scenario to thinking he is an appropriate person to teach young children?

No matter how you try and make it fit otherwise, this man has an unacceptable attitude towards children, and should not under any circumstances be put in a position where he is in regular contact with the stimulus for his unacceptable viewing habits.

A report i read said the decision was influenced in part by the fact that he was considered an 'excellent' teacher.

I find it hard to believe that the Education Authority is so short of excellent teachers that it needs to re-employ a dismissed paedophile.

I would put a chimpanzee in front of a class before I would give this man a job mopping up vomit in a school!

[andy-hughes]

jake - I have Level One pics of my children, but I don't have Level Three pictures of strangers' children.

there is a difference as I am sure you can appreciate.

Your attempts to be even-handed here are admirable, but I fear, doomed to fail under any basic analysis of the facts.

[ummmm]

Cheers Jake.

[cassa333]

I have discussed this before with friends qand I seem to be one of the few that believe this but here goes for my 2p worth...

Those that abuse children for their own (or others) sexual gratification are the lowest of the low. Those that view such abuse either in person, still photos or moving images are, in my book, AS BAD.

To excuse that behaviour as 'I was only looking I didn't abuse anyone' is reprehencable. Although there will always be perverts, without the 'market' of viewers I don't believe there would be as much abuse. Abuse to order, and sharing abuse victims images perpetuates the market.

If viewing such pictures carried as much penalty as doing the abusing would it result in less abuse. I think it would. It wouldn't erqdicate it but it would lower it.

I would not like to have a peadophile living near me nor would I want a viewer of child porn near either.

[andy-hughes]

cassa - I am inclined to agree with your viewpoint.

In an indeal world, you would be able to ask any individual if they had any interest in looking at pictures of children uknown to them in a manner that would result in being placed on the Sex Offenders' Register.

Anyone who said Yes would be banned from ever accessing a computer ever again, and would be simultaniously banned from any contact whatever with children - including their own.

The world is not ideal - but that should not prevent us from using the laws and cultural atttitudes that we have to keep this reptilian individual away from any child ever again.

[Gromit]

ummmm

Your avatar is now on my computer. When I clicked on this page I did not know it was going to be there. But the fact that this page has open on my screen means it is now on my computer. If I click on your avatar it links to another page. But I have not done that. Likewise, images have appeared on whatever site he opened which were non sexualised pictures, but there were adverts and links whose graphics his computer had retained, even though he did not go looking at the links.

[ummmm]

I think I understand it now.

[ludwig]

I wonder if the people who made the decision would be happy for him to teach their kids. I doubt it. He's probably only completely safe when it's other peoples children involved.

[emmie]

strange decision if you ask me, and no he shouldn't be working with children ever again

[jno]

I remain baffled by a couple of things.

First, he is on the offenders register, and yet a panel has concluded he is not a danger. Then why is he on the register? I thought the whole point of the register was to note thoase who are a danger.

Second, if he is innocent, why did he accept a caution and allow his name to go on the register? Why not clear his name in court?

I wouldn't want to be vindictive against the genuinely innocent. But there are many unanswered questions and apparent contradictions in all this. If my child were to come into contact with him, I would want these answered - and to my satisfaction, not Mr Gove's.

[Gromit]

Let's be clear, he is NOT on the sex offenders register. He was cautioned in December 2010 and went on the register for 2 years, which has now elapsed.

Perhaps he agreed to a caution to avoid a high publicity trial (no smoke without fire etc) not realising the result on his future employment. Now he is off the register, in theory there is no reason he cannot work again. And Mr Gove agrees.

[ludwig]

// in theory there is no reason he cannot work again. //

In practice though there is - with children at least. He needs a career change.