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!

[ummmm]

Unbelievable isn't it? If he hadn't been caught what level would the 500th image be at?

I doubt he'll get employment working with children as it will show on his CRB checks.

[jno]

beats me. I suppose they have concluded that he was a dabbler rather than a fulltime paedophile; but I still wouldn't want him around my child.

[B00]

Danger from the kids??

But no, I wouldn't allow him to teach my children. I'd go to the lengths of removing my child from the school if necessary.

[Baldric]

///His behaviour did not show a "deep-seated attitude which leads to harmful behaviour",///

At least, not yet,
obviously just starting out,
I wouldn't let him anywhere near a school!!

[bednobs]

yes, if the kids found out what had happened (which of course they would) he would be subject to physical harm i reckon (at least that's what would have happened at my school)

[LazyGun]

I read this myself and was sort of surprised that he has been cleared to carry on working with children again.

The pictures he accessed might be "at the least serious end" of the scale, but it appears to point to a sexual prediliction for young children. Allowing him to continue teaching young children seems to be putting temptation in his way - and more to the point, who would actually employ him, given that record?

[mikey4444]

Not sure that makes any sense at all. Just who WOULD employ this man in any job where contact with children was possible ?

[B00]

oh right bednobs, gotcha now.

Yes see what you mean, and whilst I don't normally condone violence, id be hard pressed not to do a secret inward "hah!" should that happen. See how he feels being a victim :-)

[jim360]

On the face of it it's an amazing judgment. I hope they are right. Mind, if his name is known and publicised he will be lucky to get a job in teaching anyway.

[mikey4444]

Name and location quite clearly shown in the above link.

[Gromit]

We do not know what he was was viewing or why.

The Police did not prosecute him, and he was therefore never convicted of anything.

I would therefore assume that what is referred to as 'child porn' images in this case, were not 'porn' but images of children. The were at the lower end of the scale, and how he arrived at the site was by intent or mistake we do not know.

What we do know, is that everyone from the Education Secretary downwards seems to accept he is not a danger and can go back teaching. I cannot see why they would come to that conclusion if it was not the right one. They are privvy to the evidence, and we are not.

[bednobs]

that's a really interesting answer gromit, however, my original question remains - who would employ someone on the sex offenders register in a school and how could he work when he would be at risk from the kids?

[B00]

Voice of reason there Groms, and one which is sensible, but I'm afraid where my children are concerned and go with a knee jerk reaction. Even on a sniff of suspicion i'd make sure he wasn't teaching my children, be that view right or wrong.

[Baldric]

The Copine Scale
Level 1,
Indicative
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.
Level 3,
Erotica
Surreptitiously taken photographs of children in play areas or other safe environments showing either underwear or varying degrees of nakedness.
He was working his way up, slowly by the look of it!

[RATTER15]

I certainly wouldnt want him looking after my grandchildren, but saying that, his only crime is looking at pictures. Im not sure that suggests he would ever do anything more than that. Most men have seen porn but that doesnt mean we will go out attacking women.

Either way, he needs to be kept away from children.

[Gromit]

Sorry, I am a bit busy to check, but is he on the sex offenders register? He was never prosecuted or convicted. He was caution. Even if that caution shows up on a police check, it may only say something like 'cautioned under the telecommunications act'.

Apparently he was a good teacher for 10 years, and his last school might have him back. I realise that many parents may be unhappy about that, but may be persauded if they see the evidence that Gove and Co have accepted.

[ummmm]

He was put on the sex offenders register for 2 years.

[jno]

I don't know why he wasn't prosecuted, but he accepted a caution, which for parents' purposes would be as persuasive as being convicted. The story says the pictures were of child abuse, which suggests they weren't just kids modelling underwear. However he stumbled on them, he kept them.

[Gromit]

I am reminded of a colleague of mine who did a google image search and put in some innocent keywords. We heard her reaction to the results, which when we looked were mostly hardcore gay porn images.

I am not saying this is what occured here, but it is possible he searched for something innocent for example 'children's petting zoo' and got some strange results. Whatever, those who have seen the evidence, accept he is not a danger to children.

[ummmm]

He saved the images!!

He accepted a caution.

He was put on the sex offenders register.