• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Ruth Kelly Vetting

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Ruth Kelly Vetting

    Paedo

    I have to say, when I read the initial newspapers with the picture of this chap, I was amazed that the guy would landed up working in a school. Then read the case

    It was back in 1980, had a GF who was 15/16 who he later married and stayed married to for 19 years and has three kids!!!!!!!!!

    So he's on the register and she passd him to teach(quite rightly). Its not exactly the same slant the newspapers put on it is it.

    Reminds me of Brass Eye
    What happens in General, stays in General.
    You know what they say about assumptions!

    #2
    Originally posted by MarillionFan
    Paedo

    I have to say, when I read the initial newspapers with the picture of this chap, I was amazed that the guy would landed up working in a school. Then read the case

    It was back in 1980, had a GF who was 15/16 who he later married and stayed married to for 19 years and has three kids!!!!!!!!!

    So he's on the register and she passd him to teach(quite rightly). Its not exactly the same slant the newspapers put on it is it.

    Reminds me of Brass Eye
    Hey, let's not let the facts get in the way of a good lynching!

    Comment


      #3
      What do you mean? The papers/media never bend the truth do they?
      AtW taught me that if it's in the paper it must be true.........

      Comment


        #4
        Problem with having a criminal conviction of that sort is that it automatically destroys reputation and thus it is impossible to sue for libel/slander as one has to have reputation to lose and presense of conviction of that sort automatically whacks it ...

        But the guy had balls to come forward and talk - as you can see BBC published about him so he got his side of story and I think there will be actually some sympathy for him even though on balance its probably best to lower age of consent rather than allow convicted for sex offences to teach in school.

        Comment


          #5
          Shame On You

          Now, now, MF, you want to be careful saying things like that in the current climate. Defending people who have already been branded as a menace to children will lead to one of two things: at best people will say to you "well obviously you don't have children and wouldn't understand" and at worse you will be told "well you're obviously a paedophile as well then".

          As some members of this board have stated, children must be protected at all costs, no matter what the consequences and if some innocent people have their lives destroyed well that's a price worth paying and after all there's no smoke without fire.

          As the two biggest killers and/or abusers of children (by far) are the car and their own parents, presumably these model risk-assessing parents never allow their children to get in a car or be left alone with themselves.

          After all, we'll have no judgemental hypocrites here, eh?
          I'm Spartacus.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by AtW
            Problem with having a criminal conviction of that sort is that it automatically destroys reputation and thus it is impossible to sue for libel/slander as one has to have reputation to lose and presense of conviction of that sort automatically whacks it ...

            But if he's in the right surely you told us that he will definately win!

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Phoenix
              But if he's in the right surely you told us that he will definately win!
              He can still sue but he won't get big reward since he lacks reputation due to previous conviction -- hardly the same case as Sven's who did not even try to deny the words quoted in papers.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by AtW
                He can still sue but he won't get big reward since he lacks reputation due to previous conviction -- hardly the same case as Sven's who did not even try to deny the words quoted in papers.
                I bet if it was you, you would win

                Comment


                  #9
                  I have to agree with MF..... the innocence of the 'child' has to be questioned and the whole circumstances taken into consideration before damning someone in such a way.... obviously not true for a LOT of cases though...

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Bumner
                    I have to agree with MF..... the innocence of the 'child' has to be questioned and the whole circumstances taken into consideration before damning someone in such a way.... obviously not true for a LOT of cases though...
                    If it's not true for this case, how can you be so sure it is for the others?
                    I'm Spartacus.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X