Ruth Kelly Affair what do you think
Discussion
Education secretary Ruth Kelly's judgment was criticised last night after it emerged that she cleared the way for a registered sex offender to work as a Norfolk school teacher.
Ms Kelly's decision was made in the full knowledge that the man had been placed on the register by police who believed he had accessed paedophile websites.
It astonished campaigners and sparked calls for politicians to be prevented from deciding who should be barred from working in education.
The man was only stopped at the last moment when police, who had already warned he could be a risk, discovered his appointment and alerted the headteacher.
He was given a position within the PE department at Hewett School, in Norwich, last month, but was suspended before taking it up following police protests.
Ms Kelly is understood to stand by the decision made in May to give him the green light to work in schools, which is likely to further alarm experts who say politicians should not decide on who is allowed to work with children.
The NSPCC said lessons had still to be learnt following the murders of Soham children Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in 2002 by Ian Huntley, who slipped through police checks to be appointed a school caretaker.
In this latest case the teacher was placed on the sex-offender register without being convicted, but was not subsequently put on 'List 99' banning him from working with children, after Ms Kelly apparently believed that evidence that he had accessed paedophile websites was inconclusive.
Tom Samain, headteacher at the Hewett, and Marion Wright, its chair of governors, said in a joint statement: “Child protection is our paramount concern at the Hewett School and we take our responsibilities very seriously indeed.
“The person concerned is no longer employed and there will be a full examination of the processes in this case.
“This is the first time we have had such a case and received such a notification from the by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES).
“We are concerned at the policy contradictions it throws up and have raised our concerns with the DfES.”
Simon Morgan, for Norfolk police, said: “Swift action was taken as soon as this matter came to our attention. We convened an urgent meeting with all relevant partner agencies and individuals, including the headteacher, to review the situation and determine the most appropriate course of action.
“The issues which arose from that meeting are now being pursued by children's services and Norfolk County Council and the DfES.”
The DfES wrote to Norfolk saying Ms Kelly had “considered all aspects of the case, including sex offender registration, and decided that the risks of the teacher being allowed to continue teaching were acceptable”.
Lisa Christensen, director of childrens services in Norfolk, said: “This case highlights a serious policy contradiction that we are keen that the DfES addresses as a matter of urgency.
“We have written to the DfES highlighting these concerns, and been informed they are reviewing these matters currently.”
Natalie Cronin, of the NSPCC, said the children's charity had been “concerned for some time” that the decision to blacklist someone rests with the Education Secretary and not experts.
“It is not clear whether civil servants have the degree of knowledge necessary to make such a decision,” she said.
A spokesman for the DfES said it would not comment on individual cases but added: “Stringent measures are put into action where there is evidence of a threat to children.”
Shadow Education Secretary David Willetts said: “It is extraordinary that Ruth Kelly should have approved a registered sex offender becoming a PE teacher.
“It is a serious lapse of judgment and raises wider questions about the role of the Secretary of State in individual cases like this
Ms Kelly's decision was made in the full knowledge that the man had been placed on the register by police who believed he had accessed paedophile websites.
It astonished campaigners and sparked calls for politicians to be prevented from deciding who should be barred from working in education.
The man was only stopped at the last moment when police, who had already warned he could be a risk, discovered his appointment and alerted the headteacher.
He was given a position within the PE department at Hewett School, in Norwich, last month, but was suspended before taking it up following police protests.
Ms Kelly is understood to stand by the decision made in May to give him the green light to work in schools, which is likely to further alarm experts who say politicians should not decide on who is allowed to work with children.
The NSPCC said lessons had still to be learnt following the murders of Soham children Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in 2002 by Ian Huntley, who slipped through police checks to be appointed a school caretaker.
In this latest case the teacher was placed on the sex-offender register without being convicted, but was not subsequently put on 'List 99' banning him from working with children, after Ms Kelly apparently believed that evidence that he had accessed paedophile websites was inconclusive.
Tom Samain, headteacher at the Hewett, and Marion Wright, its chair of governors, said in a joint statement: “Child protection is our paramount concern at the Hewett School and we take our responsibilities very seriously indeed.
“The person concerned is no longer employed and there will be a full examination of the processes in this case.
“This is the first time we have had such a case and received such a notification from the by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES).
“We are concerned at the policy contradictions it throws up and have raised our concerns with the DfES.”
Simon Morgan, for Norfolk police, said: “Swift action was taken as soon as this matter came to our attention. We convened an urgent meeting with all relevant partner agencies and individuals, including the headteacher, to review the situation and determine the most appropriate course of action.
“The issues which arose from that meeting are now being pursued by children's services and Norfolk County Council and the DfES.”
The DfES wrote to Norfolk saying Ms Kelly had “considered all aspects of the case, including sex offender registration, and decided that the risks of the teacher being allowed to continue teaching were acceptable”.
Lisa Christensen, director of childrens services in Norfolk, said: “This case highlights a serious policy contradiction that we are keen that the DfES addresses as a matter of urgency.
“We have written to the DfES highlighting these concerns, and been informed they are reviewing these matters currently.”
Natalie Cronin, of the NSPCC, said the children's charity had been “concerned for some time” that the decision to blacklist someone rests with the Education Secretary and not experts.
“It is not clear whether civil servants have the degree of knowledge necessary to make such a decision,” she said.
A spokesman for the DfES said it would not comment on individual cases but added: “Stringent measures are put into action where there is evidence of a threat to children.”
Shadow Education Secretary David Willetts said: “It is extraordinary that Ruth Kelly should have approved a registered sex offender becoming a PE teacher.
“It is a serious lapse of judgment and raises wider questions about the role of the Secretary of State in individual cases like this
I think she should resign.
What is even more irritating is that when Channel 4 tried to asked her a question about it, she emerged surrounded by 5 security guards surrounding her and blocking the interviewer's path to prevent them asking her any questions about it. The government department still refuses to comment.
These people are working for US, she obviously seems to forget that and thinks the electorate do not deserve a statement on the matter.
What is even more irritating is that when Channel 4 tried to asked her a question about it, she emerged surrounded by 5 security guards surrounding her and blocking the interviewer's path to prevent them asking her any questions about it. The government department still refuses to comment.
These people are working for US, she obviously seems to forget that and thinks the electorate do not deserve a statement on the matter.
Jaglover said:
It's worth pointing out he was not actually convicted of any crime.
another website said:
The Sex Offenders Act 1997 imposes a requirement on people who have been convicted - or found not guilty by reason of insanity - or cautioned for sex offences to notify the police of their name and address, any change of address and qualifying periods of a stay away from home - Sections 1 and 2 . Although the Act is often regarded as creating a 'paedophiles' register', the definition of sex offences in Schedule 1 to the Act is very wide and is not confined to offences against children or to non-consensual sex offences.
In the case of those who have been cautioned, the notification requirement will apply if they have admitted the offence in question - section 1(1)(c). It will be an offence to fail to comply with the notification requirement, punishable on conviction by indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine or both, or on summary conviction, to a fine or a maximum of six month's imprisonment or both - Section 3 . The notification requirement has been found not to amount to a retrospective penalty in contravention of rights under Article 7(1) of the European Convention. It also arises in respect of sexual offences committed outside the United Kingdom where the offence constituted an offence under the law in force in the country in question, and would have constituted a specified sexual offence if it had been committed in England and Wales.
The notification requirement will remain in place indefinitely if a person has been imprisoned for a term of more than six months but less than thirty months. And it will remain in place for a period of seven years if a person has been imprisoned for six months or less or has been admitted to a hospital without a restriction order, and for five years for other people - section 1(4) . The relevant periods are halved if the person concerned is under 18 on the relevant date as defined in Section 1(8) and Section 4(2) .
Disclosure and use of information contained on this register will be governed by the same principles set out above and, in particular, the right to respect for privacy contained in Article 8 of the Convention as incorporated into our law by the Human Rights Act 1998
Conviction or not, he by his own admisssion a dorty dorty bastid !!!
pesty said:
Guilty without a trial!! A very slippery slope.......
slippery slope or not. I would not be happy with him being my daughters teacher would you?
Given the flimsy evidence I don't believe I would have a problem! There is a difference between proof and suspicion.
Jaglover said:
It's worth pointing out he was not actually convicted of any crime.
It's a judgement call, perhaps she got it wrong, but it is not something she should resign for.
You gone soft? Come on, if it was a Conservative Minister then Labour and the liberal media would be demanding his instant resignation at least.
Stone her!
I think I'd want to know the whole story before I was prepared to judge either way.
Defending Labour Ministers is not something I normally go in for but presumably she knew the whole story nd felt it was the right decision. I don't personally see how we can judge based on press and media reports.
Defending Labour Ministers is not something I normally go in for but presumably she knew the whole story nd felt it was the right decision. I don't personally see how we can judge based on press and media reports.
Like all neu labi she has the inate ability to wind up most, well OK me 
, without saying a single word. That along with the every day contempt for us plebs/the voting public shown in most cases of 'ministerial wrong doing' is justification enough to have her resign. Will it happen, do they have the political and or personal morals to do it 
, of course not 
.
Where else on this planent can an idiot/fool get such generous pay/pension/conditions/perks/junkets without a hint of responsibilty or blame. Fecked if I know, all I know though is there are a lot of them in local and national government. They wouldn't even make good firewood in my line of work
.....and breathe
, without saying a single word. That along with the every day contempt for us plebs/the voting public shown in most cases of 'ministerial wrong doing' is justification enough to have her resign. Will it happen, do they have the political and or personal morals to do it , of course not . Where else on this planent can an idiot/fool get such generous pay/pension/conditions/perks/junkets without a hint of responsibilty or blame
. Fecked if I know, all I know though is there are a lot of them in local and national government. They wouldn't even make good firewood in my line of work .....and breathe
Frik said:
It's worth pointing out he was not actually convicted of any crime.
It's a judgement call, perhaps she got it wrong, but it is not something she should resign for.
Although I would question his motive to become a PE teacher...
quite and beaurocrats covering each others backs
Probably a stupid question, but if someone has been cautioned and has had to placed on the sex offenders register, then surely there is some sort of guilt there? I mean, if you were totally innocent, wouldn't you refuse to accept the caution? (or am I looking at the system all wrong??)
yertis said:
You gone soft? Come on, if it was a Conservative Minister then Labour and the liberal media would be demanding his instant resignation at least.
Stone her!
Not at all I think the entire Labour government should be fired for their malevolence and gross incompetence.
Why single out this one individual on such paltry grounds?
I don't think it would have been so much of a problem if it had been for anyother position, but a PE teacher...not a good idea tbh.
In the end the guy must have done something to arouse suspicion. Yet on the other hand who knows what is possible in this day and age, might just have been mistaken identity.
In the end the guy must have done something to arouse suspicion. Yet on the other hand who knows what is possible in this day and age, might just have been mistaken identity.
speedchick said:
Probably a stupid question, but if someone has been cautioned and has had to placed on the sex offenders register, then surely there is some sort of guilt there? I mean, if you were totally innocent, wouldn't you refuse to accept the caution? (or am I looking at the system all wrong??)
Indeed, People don't point fingers if there is nothing going on. Very suspicious and I for one would be glad that the person was stopped. PE of all subjects too. Does the person in question have qualifications in that subject? Who knows.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff