Wrongly accused teacher acquitted.
Discussion
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/87902...
Social services even had to be present at his own childs birth. What an absolutely absurd situation.
What was he going to do, give it a little molest while no one was looking.
This is why I could never work with kids. It's just not worth the risk of one little scrote going through a bad stint of puberty and deciding to ruin you.
Social services even had to be present at his own childs birth. What an absolutely absurd situation.
What was he going to do, give it a little molest while no one was looking.
This is why I could never work with kids. It's just not worth the risk of one little scrote going through a bad stint of puberty and deciding to ruin you.
Oakey said:
What f
king 'legal reasons'? So it's perfectly okay to destroy the reputations of innocent people but the accusers get their identity protected? what a fked up country this is.
Google the chap's name and hey presto...king 'legal reasons'? So it's perfectly okay to destroy the reputations of innocent people but the accusers get their identity protected? what a fked up country this is. http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=223772...
So the school appears to be this one: http://www.norbreck.blackpool.sch.uk/
Adrian W said:
He must be able to sue the school, cps and social services,
Not being able to see his newborn for the first 8 months of its life? Surely terms to sue under. That's an important time for bonding and such.
If I was him I'd be claiming I couldn't feel attached/couldn't love to my baby because I felt removed. Bam, compensation out the wazoo.
6 separate allegations of inappropriate behaviour - not sure what else the school could be expected to do except wash their hands of him until the matter was brought to court. It's the kids who are at fault, not the school.
Do agree though that the actions of social services seem way ott here. It's more vindictive than anything else.
Do agree though that the actions of social services seem way ott here. It's more vindictive than anything else.
Making him sign an agreement saying he can't see his family seems way way OTT here.
Deserves some kind of compensation, imo. Totally vindictive behaviour.
The accusations didn't even sound that bad. A pat on the arse, a rubbed back, cheek to cheek. It's hardly violent sexual assault, is it.
Certainly not the kind of thing you'd stop someone seeing their newly formed family over.
Deserves some kind of compensation, imo. Totally vindictive behaviour.
The accusations didn't even sound that bad. A pat on the arse, a rubbed back, cheek to cheek. It's hardly violent sexual assault, is it.
Certainly not the kind of thing you'd stop someone seeing their newly formed family over.
Damned if you investigate take action. Damned if you don't.
He seems to admit the touching but that it wasnt for sexual gratification.
It's a primary school so 11 and under for the ages at a guess.
I'm not sure how many of you deal with or have dealt with children abused sexually. It's very very difficult to gather evidence and prosecutions most often fall before charge.
Whether he will have civil remedy is not always connected to being cleared. Burdens of proof for conviction are rightly high in criminal matters. Beyond all reasonable doubt is a lot of evidence.
Slating social services actions without knowing what information they had to base a decision on is a little unfair.
He seems to admit the touching but that it wasnt for sexual gratification.
It's a primary school so 11 and under for the ages at a guess.
I'm not sure how many of you deal with or have dealt with children abused sexually. It's very very difficult to gather evidence and prosecutions most often fall before charge.
Whether he will have civil remedy is not always connected to being cleared. Burdens of proof for conviction are rightly high in criminal matters. Beyond all reasonable doubt is a lot of evidence.
Slating social services actions without knowing what information they had to base a decision on is a little unfair.
V8mate said:
Article said:
During the trial, Mr Wilson broke down in the witness box as he denied gaining any sexual gratification from his behaviour, and said that the touching had been completely innocent.
So he did do it. He just didn't get the boner he was hoping for?Mr_annie_vxr said:
Slating social services actions without knowing what information they had to base a decision on is a little unfair.
Not at all.Their judgement in taking separate Court action to extend police bail conditions effectively removing the wife as a supervisor of her husband, in order to separate the man from his family completely, was wrong-headed and excessive unless they considered the wife and mother of the children to be complicit. There were no charges against the wife and mother. She was and is innocent. Therefore the action was totally unjustified.
On the basis of so may of these incidents that get to Court this is typical of the get-it-wrong-one-way or get-it-wrong-the-other-way outcomes from inept social services. They either do nothing due to incompetence, and a child suffers and possibly dies, or go compeletely berserk more to cover their own ass than anything else and a family are broken up and all members of it suffer needlessly. Competency and sound judgement, both sadly lacking.
Outcomes matter: something the public sector and its process worshipping drones need to get around the drinks machine to discuss. They stuffed up badly (again) and no amount of weasel words changes that.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff