Does this make sense?

[xoggoth]

I certainly agree that anyone that convicted of certain crimes should be barred from any job connected with children or other vulnerable people but banning those who live with such a person?? The law gets sillier by the day.

Teachers to be barred for living with offenders under new rules - Education News - Education - The Independent

Heads and teachers will be barred from working in schools in future if they live with someone who has a conviction for a violent or sexual crime, according to new rules.

[minestrone]

yes

[vetran]

unfortunately yes, its the same for childminders.

it makes sense.

[BrilloPad]

I suppose it adds red tape admin jobs in the short term - but makes the UK totally noncompetitive in the long term.

In the article there is no justification whatsoever - I guess it relates to that Plymouth case where the woman was taking pictures on her mobile for her boyfriend. But this regulation would not have stopped that case - the issue there was banning mobile phones in child care centers.

I do remember in that case the bloke approached many many ladies on social media and got actively chatting to about 20. When he suggested child porn to those 20, but not one reported him - and 4 went ahead with his request. He was only caught as his work colleague got suspicious.

I suppose politicians need to be seen to be doing something - even when it does no good.

[BrilloPad]

yes

unfortunately yes, its the same for childminders.

it makes sense.

I am interested. Why does it make sense?

[minestrone]

If you were hiring someone for a role in a bank would you consider the partner of a convicted bank robber?

[BrilloPad]

If you were hiring someone for a role in a bank would you consider the partner of a convicted bank robber?

I think I would. As long as the partner has no access to the bank premises - which they would not.

What am I missing?

[minestrone]

I don't think I would be comfortable leaving my child with someone who has a partner who has a conviction for sexually criminal behaviour. I say comfortable as in if that is known to me it will not happen.

I will qualify that by saying I don't think many teachers would be a partner of someone with a sexual criminal past.

[BrilloPad]

I don't think I would be comfortable leaving my child with someone who has a partner who has a conviction for sexually criminal behaviour. I say comfortable as in if that is known to me it will not happen.

I will qualify that by saying I don't think many teachers would be a partner of someone with a sexual criminal past.

So this new law (or new implementation) is purely designed to make parents feel more comfortable? There is no other basis besides that?

[xoggoth]

I think I would. As long as the partner has no access to the bank premises - which they would not

Quite. Checks should apply to the person actually involved in the job. Possible some people will serve their partner's interests in crime but the idea that intelligent people in responsible positions like teaching will do so does not look overly convincing. Even if someone is not actually living with a paedophile/bank robber etc, nowt to say they aren't involved with one anyway.

Best I can find is this, mostly covers pretty drug dealers, muggers etc

http://www.uk.sagepub.com/cross/file...5-Article3.pdf