A smug Kelly hangs on …

Apparently – and I’m not entirely sure where the idea for the ground-breaking decision came from – “Anyone convicted or cautioned for a sex offence against a child will be banned from teaching automatically”. Really ?
That just makes SO much sense to me.
Does it you ?

Isn’t it amazing that it has taken newspaper stories, parliamentary questions and political juggling to do something which is blindingly obvious to pretty much everyone else in the UK ? The actual question remember is not that they are not now allowed but who allowed this to happen in the first place ? Who decided that sex offences were not a bar to being in intimate contact with children. Who made that choice ? When ?

…had found 10 cases where registered sex offenders had not been placed on List 99 …………- since 1997.

Remember 1997 ? That was when Tony and his cronies came in to Parliament with the anthem from D:ream of “Things can only get better”. It would seem then that Tony wasn’t thinking of children… his govt, his record, his accountability.

Ms Kelly said there “must be no witchhunts against hard-working teachers”.

WHAT ? Who mentioned a witch-hunt ? No-one. Who is trying to divert our attention ? Ruth Kelly. Who is using language that implies those that seek information are doing wrong ? Ruth Kelly. Who IS wrong ? Ruth Kelly.

She told MPs she “deeply” regretted the concern caused to parents by recent stories of sex offenders in schools.

Has she said that she regrets the risks that were run ? No.
Has she said that she believes she was wrong ? No.
Does that wording imply that she actually regrets the revelation more than the circumstances ? Yes.

Ms Kelly said she was “determined… to lessen their concerns” and “overhaul” the system.

Resign or be sacked.

One thought on “A smug Kelly hangs on …

  1. “Anyone convicted or cautioned for a sex offence against a child will be banned from teaching automatically”.

    The problem is that laws and regulations hastily passed often — and perhaps always — have unintended consequences. Aside from miscarriages of justice — very common when the public is clamoring for retribution against its enemies (“We have met the enemy and he is us” -Pogo (you can Google that)) and we’ve seen it in Scotland and in the “shaken baby syndrome” cases in Britain as well as the McMartin Pre-School Nursery case — are the mis-pleas.

    That’s where an accused is factually innocent, but the risk of a felony conviction is so great that a person who can’t afford a decent defence pleads guilty to a misdemeanor — or accepts a caution — and then has a police record. Forever, now that the police are going to keep their records live for 100 years.

    Or how about the English kid who made an obscene proposal to the girl next to him on the school bus and was convicted … and the conviction only overturned because the Court of Appeal decided it hadn’t been proven that he “knew” she was underage.

    Unfortunately the legal system’s first priority is its own reputation and prestige. “Justice” is not very high on their list. Oliver Wendell Holmes admitted as much: that his job was “to play the game”. Once convicted, “factual innocence” is of importance only if it becomes so obvious that the court as an institution is brought into disrepute.

    That said, who would want to teach anyway, when the average British classroom could well be Bedlam. Like the Priesthood, eliminate those entranced by chldren and you wind up with few candidates for the job.

Leave a Reply

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