review of sex offenders in schools
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4602060.stm
This made , me mad
why in gods name are we allowing these inept education secetaties to breach clear policies !!!
that are in place to protect our children , after all tragic events of soham
this woman needs to be sacked absolutly no confidence in this government !!
and blairs comment
A spokesman for Tony Blair said the PM had full confidence in Ms Kelly.
But Norfolk Police had reportedly followed strict Home Office guidelines in placing the teacher on the sex offenders' register and he resigned from his post after they intervened.
well done Norfolk police
This made , me mad
why in gods name are we allowing these inept education secetaties to breach clear policies !!!
that are in place to protect our children , after all tragic events of soham
this woman needs to be sacked absolutly no confidence in this government !!
and blairs comment
A spokesman for Tony Blair said the PM had full confidence in Ms Kelly.
But Norfolk Police had reportedly followed strict Home Office guidelines in placing the teacher on the sex offenders' register and he resigned from his post after they intervened.
well done Norfolk police
It is *all crap* the line on this story, and I'm thoroughly pi**ed off that the blame in this shambles is everywhere except where it belongs.
I am no fan of Ruth Kelly, I think she's an idiot in fact, but it is clear from statements from Norfolk County Council and/or Hewitt School that:
(1) they appointed Reeve without doing the appropriate checks (Criminal Record Bureau). This would have revealed the SoR entry and the caution. They had "begun" those checks and not completed them. This is Rule#1 of appointing teachers. You don't start work until you have a clear CRB.
(2) they knew *something* was "wrong" with Reeve, it isn't clear what. They say things like "the risk was worth it" and referred it to via internal Child Protection routes to check it. This is not something you would normally do. This means, presumably, they *knew* there was a risk. *What* did they know ?
I think NCC and Hewitt were well aware that there was a problem with Reeve, and it is likely that they knew of the caution for CP. The most likely reason is they were desperate for a PE teacher (Hewitt is not the nicest school in Norfolk, shall we say !). CRB checks can take a month or more to come through.
So Kelly responsible ?
No, Norfolk CC and the Hewitt School are simply throwing mud around in an attempt to hide the *fact* they ignored the rules on appointing teachers for convenience and the *likelihood* they appointed someone they knew had such a record.
If you think it's unlikely ; I live in Norfolk and I personally know three people who have been given unchecked access to children, for example left alone to help them get dressed after swimming lessons.
One of those people is me.
I am no fan of Ruth Kelly, I think she's an idiot in fact, but it is clear from statements from Norfolk County Council and/or Hewitt School that:
(1) they appointed Reeve without doing the appropriate checks (Criminal Record Bureau). This would have revealed the SoR entry and the caution. They had "begun" those checks and not completed them. This is Rule#1 of appointing teachers. You don't start work until you have a clear CRB.
(2) they knew *something* was "wrong" with Reeve, it isn't clear what. They say things like "the risk was worth it" and referred it to via internal Child Protection routes to check it. This is not something you would normally do. This means, presumably, they *knew* there was a risk. *What* did they know ?
I think NCC and Hewitt were well aware that there was a problem with Reeve, and it is likely that they knew of the caution for CP. The most likely reason is they were desperate for a PE teacher (Hewitt is not the nicest school in Norfolk, shall we say !). CRB checks can take a month or more to come through.
So Kelly responsible ?
No, Norfolk CC and the Hewitt School are simply throwing mud around in an attempt to hide the *fact* they ignored the rules on appointing teachers for convenience and the *likelihood* they appointed someone they knew had such a record.
If you think it's unlikely ; I live in Norfolk and I personally know three people who have been given unchecked access to children, for example left alone to help them get dressed after swimming lessons.
One of those people is me.
From this morning's paper :
"Mr Reeve began working at the Hewett School even though the school was aware that he had received a caution and had been put on the sex-offender register for child-pornography offences. His employment there stopped, after a few days, when the police became aware of his appointment and raised an objection."
.... right, so everyone is complaining about what precisely ?
If true, and I believe it is, the school appointed him knowing precisely what he had admitted to.
So whose fault is it but theirs and the Council's ?
"Mr Reeve began working at the Hewett School even though the school was aware that he had received a caution and had been put on the sex-offender register for child-pornography offences. His employment there stopped, after a few days, when the police became aware of his appointment and raised an objection."
.... right, so everyone is complaining about what precisely ?
If true, and I believe it is, the school appointed him knowing precisely what he had admitted to.
So whose fault is it but theirs and the Council's ?
Yes, they are long winded.
But the procedures are an irrelevance in this case, (i) because they weren't followed and (ii) the school and LEA *had* all the relevant information anyway.
They appointed Reeve *knowing* he had a conviction for Child Porn (caution .... different ?) and are complaining, basically, because Kelly's Dept allowed them to do something they already had done.
It is arguable whether all cautions should go on List99 ; but it shouldn't really matter because all cautions (and in fact unproven allegations) would come up on the CRB check. This was not done.
But the procedures are an irrelevance in this case, (i) because they weren't followed and (ii) the school and LEA *had* all the relevant information anyway.
They appointed Reeve *knowing* he had a conviction for Child Porn (caution .... different ?) and are complaining, basically, because Kelly's Dept allowed them to do something they already had done.
It is arguable whether all cautions should go on List99 ; but it shouldn't really matter because all cautions (and in fact unproven allegations) would come up on the CRB check. This was not done.
There's something very funny about the timing of all this - apparently he was approved to work in schools last May, but only started work at the school last month.
Also, of course, he's been cautioned, rather than convicted, presumeably because they didn't think there was enough evidence to secure a conviction.
However, of all teaching posts, I would have thought PE was the one that needed exceptional caution, for obvious reasons.
Also, of course, he's been cautioned, rather than convicted, presumeably because they didn't think there was enough evidence to secure a conviction.
However, of all teaching posts, I would have thought PE was the one that needed exceptional caution, for obvious reasons.
autismuk said:
They appointed Reeve *knowing* he had a conviction for Child Porn (caution .... different ?) and are complaining, basically, because Kelly's Dept allowed them to do something they already had done.
His credit card details were found in the posession of a dodgy website and he took a caution rather than make a big deal of it, possibly not realising that a caution put you on the list.
Not exactly the same thing as having a conviction for child porn. You should check out this thread for some more examples of what gets you on the list: www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=234760&f=141&h=0
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff