Sack Ruth Kelly.

Education Secretary, Ruth Kelly, had approved the appointment of a registered sex offender as a PE teacher.

What in HELL does that stupid bloody woman think she was doing ?

police, who believed he had accessed paedophile websites

She let this man work with children ? And she was deliberately allowing him to be in a situation where children would be in a state of undress and vulnerable ?

Secretary of State for Education 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’.

You can bet they weren’t her damn kids can’t you…

There have been suggestions that she believed the evidence against the man was inconclusive.

I don’t give a flying one what she – in her ivory-bloody-tower – thought. Don’t you think she should have listened to the police ? They had

deep reservations that their risk assessment was overruled.

This woman was first elected and then put in charge of the education of the future of the country by Tony “Let’s just forget Iraq” Blair and she then decides it’s perfectly fine to let a convicted sex offender work with children. Is that an action that can be condoned by anyone ? At all ?

Her action is indefensible.
Sack her.

Observer

7 thoughts on “Sack Ruth Kelly.

  1. I would agree, it is an outrage enough when these people do not investigate before hiring a known sex offender, but if the investigating is done, and there is no doubt, then putting a sex offender in a situation with kids is inexcusable. The person who placed this sex offender in this situation is just as guilty as the sex offender themselves. In my opinion…

  2. It’s actualy almost standard practice. Not that I agree with it, but it is. I think her decision is bad, but:

    The man was cautioned, not convicted, therefore isn’t banned from teaching unless she says he is. No matter what the police say. This is true for all other cases involving a caution.

    Cautions don’t automatically get you on List 99 (the banned teachers list) only on the sex offenders list. Now that policy is where this problem is, and I can see the reason for the policy, but she is following it in a wierd way (seemingly ignoring the police advice).

    I guess my point is: It’s not like this is an isolated case, not like that makes it any better.. but spreading the facts, you know?

  3. Charles Kennedy was forced to step down for having a few drinks.
    She put children at risk.

    The Police advised that this guy be kept away. They are privy to more information yet she chose to ignore it.

    Cautioned. We are talking about working with vulnerable children. We are talking about the guy being put in an authoritative position. People in such positions should be blameless in all matters that concern behaviour toward others. They should have a clean sheet. Regardless of legislation Ruth Kelly should be supporting that – she chose not to.

    Isolated Case. Matters not.

    Behaviour. The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. Had this man been accused of any offence against a child, would an investigation have said the warning signs are there and that the man should not have been employed ? Yes. So he should not have been allowed.

    Ruth Kelly should act in the best interests of the children and where there is the slightest doubt, their care and welfare must take precedence. She ignored that and would have pit those children at risk.

    She should be sacked.

  4. Why sacked? Generally she’s been doing a pretty good job.

    This highlights a problem in the policy, and something she should have seen yes. Yes its a mistake on her part, she should learn from it, maybe other measures should be taken, but in the end she’ll emerge better at the job.

    I don’t understand the idea of “There’s this one thing she’s done wrong! Sack her!”

    Then all you get is this stuff not coming to light as a new person comes it, makes more mistakes while trying to get up to speed, and no overall improvement – just a perecption of change.

  5. By what criteria have you come to the conclusion that she is doing a good job? Her main aim seems to be to increase the number of divisive religious schools. Ask those in the teaching profession if she, or her department are doing a good job. Ask why her and her colleague Andrew Adonis have an agenda to give the running of schools to nutty creationists, and give them a £25m kick start.

  6. SACK Ruth Kelly NOW….her conduct and blatant infingement of every parents’ trust is inexcusable, sack her NOW. Having three children in state education, have they been knowingly allowed to be subjected to registered sex offenders? I am not sure if i really want the answer to this question.

    MP’s when will they seriously have their constituents interests in mind?

  7. My understanding of a caution is that you have to admit the offence in order to receive one, or alternatively the police can follow further action.

    I’d like to know what qualifications she has to make this decision and yes, sack her. She is not able to protect our children and has been thoroughly groomed, the most common activity of a schedule one offender!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *