Fingers crossed, says Ruth
Sorry to ask this of you, but imagine you’re at work. Maybe you are at work. Now, imagine you’ve just made a cock up. Quite a big one. So big in fact, you go a bit hot and sweaty.
Instead of holding your hands up and coming clean, you sneak about the place.
When you come back from lunch, your line manager tries to collar you for an explanation. You have five burly minders to “insulate” you from the intimidating questions. When you’re called into the department manager’s office to discuss your error, you tell him you’re unavailable.
How long do you think you’d last in the job?
Now, imagine you’re the Education Secretary, Ruth Kelly. You’ve just approved a man for a teaching position who was cautioned for downloading child pornography from the internet and is on the Sex Offenders Register. It was a PE teacher’s position with all the proximity to children in various states of undress that PE lessons entail.
You employ five burly minders so that you don’t have to answer questions from a solitary Channel 4 News reporter and you are “unavailable” when that channel asks you to comment as to why you gave a job to a man with a hard-on for children. You don’t feel the need to explain to your employers how and why you put their children at risk. You have previous form for this kind of cavalier wriggling but you got away with it last time, so why not now?
You can also rest easy as none of your children or those of your metropolitan friends attend the school. A quick check reassures you that although the school in question is in your colleague, Charles Clarke’s constitutuency, thankfully his two sons (being 15 and 18) are no longer of a vulnerable age. As he has a 3,653 vote majority, even if every parent with children at the school takes against you and the risk you took with their prides’ and joys’ safety, not to mention your moral cowardice in not facing up to your mistake in public, you won’t have put Charlie’s career at risk.
All is well.
UPDATE: A few weasel words arrive.
Protecting children is her “first priority” though she doesn’t explain how she was doing that when she gave this man his job.
She also doesn’t “comment on individual cases” but yet again doesn’t explain why not. It’s (increasingly) a phrase you only hear when things have gone wrong and to comment on the individual case would mean admitting culpability, incompetence, carelessness, lazyness, mendacity, lack of human feeling or whatever it is you’re trying to cover up along with the acknowledgement that your actions have had a real impact on real people’s lives. Dehumanise the problem, it’s the only way.
It’s wondered why people aren’t interested in politicians. It seems the opposite is true as well.
UPDATE 12/01: For anybody still reading, I take back my intemperate language directed towards Paul Reeve. On further reading, it’s unclear to me whether he is a sex offender. He was caught under Operation Ore because his credit card number was passed to British Police by their American counterparts who had broken up a child pornography web set-up in the US. No images of child pornography were found on his computer. I’m not saying he isn’t a danger to children but neither can I say for sure that he is.
This story gives some of the facts that I’ll take but a slant that I won’t. It remains to be seen, in an age of credit card fraud, whether Reeve supplied his details. He also may have taken the caution in the hope that this would all go away or for the sake of a quiet life.
My criticism of Ruth Kelly still stands. It remains to be seen whether she’s directly responsible for this mess but, like Geoff Hoon when he was a Defence, certainly seems to have been asleep at the wheel and her performance in the House of Commons today was just awful.
The SOR/List 99/one list debate is one I don’t feel able to enter into and so probably won’t.
Posted on January 9th, 2006 at 10:41 pm
A convicted sex offender, you say?
Oh. You don’t.
I don’t like appearing to agree with Ruth Kelly, but I really don’t like people being blacklisted when they haven’t been found guilty of doing anything at all. (And I can think of plenty of reasons for accepting a police caution - wanting a quiet life, for one.)
Have to agree with Phil here. In your excellent post below you criticise the Daily-Mailisation of politics (preventable 7/7’s and all that), and here you go into a Daily Mail style “hang the paedo, how many more Soham’s must we endure, please won’t anyone think of the children?!” style tirade. How much child abuse takes place within the family? I’d guess it’s similar to the proportion of child murders (i.e. the vast majority), and if it isn’t right to single the Muslim community out for special measures, surely it isn’t right to single out other suspects of crime either?
I’d ordinarily agree with you but we’re dealing with the welfare of children here and we’ve seen many times over the years just what can happen when people are given the benefit of the doubt or systems are overseen by those who couldn’t give a toss.
He was cautioned under Operation Ore which, as far as I can see, has had a good record on this.
What do you suggest, Phil?
I don’t think I said “hang the paedo”, Andrew. I questioned the wisdom of letting a man with a caution for child pornography teach children PE.
I have both children and some (indirect) experience of child abuse. This is a button-pusher for me, I’m sorry to say.
What would you, suggest?
Of course, I’m being typically careless with language to make a point, but advocating blacklisting someone from employment is advocating ruining their livelihood. Now, he may be dangerous and he may not, but I don’t think you can make that judgement based on a caution.
And I don’t think that having kids or experience of child abuse qualifies you any more to make a judgement on the case. I have (indirect) experience of terrorism, being closer to the 7/7 bombs than I would have liked to have been, but I don’t think that uniquely qualifies me to call for the Muslim community to be persecuted.
Also, this:
we’ve seen many times over the years just what can happen when people are given the benefit of the doubt or systems are overseen by those who couldn’t give a toss.
might be right, but it is anecdote, not evidence. What we haven’t seen over the years is how many people have been given the benefit of the doubt and have proven to be totally harmless, because that doesn’t give good headline.
Hang on, Andrew, you’re jumping the gun a bit here, aren’t you? Where did I say my experience qualifies me any more to make a judgement? I said it made this subject more personally emotive - “button pushing” was the phrase I used.
I’m not lobbying the government or rounding up a lynch mob, I’m trying to give a mediocre government minister a kicking on a backwater blog and the thought of children at risk makes me go all wobbly.
Unfortunately, the system doesn’t incorporate a mechanism whereby this man could be asked if he accepted the caution for the sake of a quiet life. I realise his livelihood as a teacher is ruined on the strength of that caution. If we can’t make a judgement based on the caution than what do you suggest? How do we police (wrong word, I know) such people? You wouldn’t deny the element of doubt, would you?
I’m not sure that I agree on your evidence/anecdote point. Endless inquiries into children’s deaths point to apathetic social workers, lazy doctors or whatever. I’m not going to cite chapter and verse because, as you say, I’m starting to sound like the Daily Mail. You’ve appealed to my liberal instincts, you devil - as you can probably tell, I’m wrestling with this now.
At the very least, Ruth Kelly, as a New Labour minister, has failed in her first duty, that to the newspaper headlines. You would have thought that her indoctrination would have told her to err on the side of caution for that reason alone.
I don’t think the teacher should necessarily have been blacklisted simply on the basis of one caution, but as I understand it the police who issued the caution weren’t consulted when the DfE carried out a risk assesment on employing him. That seems to qualify as “incompetence, carelessness, lazyness” etc.
It doesn’t seem to me that Kelly has actually supplied any explanation of her actions, which is, I think, what is causing concern. Part of the problem that arises is that people do a lot of reading between the lines, which may or may not be justified.
Sorry to get all legal on you, but although a caution is not a conviction, you must have admitted the offence of which you are accused in order to get one. A person must accept a caution and if they do not they cannot be given it and would be formally charged with the offence instead That doesn’t make him guilty necessarily - as Justin says, the system does not incorporate the possibility that he accepted a caution for the sake of a quiet life - but on the other hand, surely he’d know as a teacher that a caution for downloading child pornography wouldn’t exactly lead to a quiet life?
I realise his livelihood as a teacher is ruined on the strength of that caution. If we can’t make a judgement based on the caution than what do you suggest?
Back up a bit. The story wasn’t about an individual judgment, or about the caution. It’s about two blacklists: the Sex Offenders’ Register and ‘List 99′, a list of individuals who are barred from working with children. When this guy applied for the job he disclosed the fact that he was on the SO Register; if the school had thought that disqualified him from working with kids, they presumably wouldn’t have appointed him. Ruth Kelly only comes into the picture because her department didn’t think that him being on the Register automatically meant that he should be on List 99. The problem, to my mind, is that the guy was put on the SO Register in the first place (on the basis of that police caution). Ruth Kelly seems to have taken the view that this in itself shouldn’t disqualify him as a teacher - and the school obviously thought the same.
As for accepting the caution signifying an admission of guilt, well, yes, in law. In practice a caution also serves to avoid a police investigation and possible prosecution, which - even if the guy was cleared - would probably be far more damaging to his career.
I know you sort of caveat-ed your way around it, but the first thing I thought of when I read this:
“I have both children and some (indirect) experience of child abuse. This is a button-pusher for me, I’m sorry to say.”
Was that piece you quoted from some comedy show whose name I can’t remember about the bloke being asked to talk about rail safety after his wife had died in a rail accident (or something like that - why can’t I find the sodding link?)
aha. here we go.
I’m not going to cite chapter and verse because, as you say, I’m starting to sound like the Daily Mail. You’ve appealed to my liberal instincts, you devil - as you can probably tell, I’m wrestling with this now.
That was really my point. You can’t come over all Tory just because the kids are involved. Well, you can if you want of course, but it isn’t consistent. Not trying to say anything more profound than that. On this:
If we can’t make a judgement based on the caution than what do you suggest? How do we police (wrong word, I know) such people? You wouldn’t deny the element of doubt, would you?
Not at all, but I’m no liberal. He’d have been up on the gallows as soon as he accepted the caution in my Britain.
And seriously, I don’t know, but I’d be inclined to leave it up to the person who hired him to judge whether he is a threat or not. After all, he did disclose that he was on the Sex Offender’s Register, which at least shows he is honest.
Yep Paul, I see what you mean. Reading back, I should have been clearer but it wasn’t what I meant at all.
I wasn’t claiming special insight or anything like that. I merely tried to say that this post was (partly but not majorly) borne out of the (admittedly, knee-jerk) reaction I have to child protection issues.
To be honest, the more I think about it, I’m now not even sure what my opinion is on this specific story, I’ve backed myself into a corner and I’m starting to second-guess. I’d like to think that referrals to the SOR and attendent cautions (thanks for the distinction, Phil) aren’t handed out like sweets without hard evidence but I’m completely willing to be put straight on that…
The thrust of the post was that Kelly had, in many people’s eyes, dropped a bollock on this and I think her type of reaction to it is prevalent across government not least from her. It was another opportunity to be cross about Kelly and the way public servants treat their employers, which I hate to pass up, and I went too far with the language on the specific case that I used as the dog to chase her.
I admit that I heard “child pornography” and “PE teacher” in the same sentence and went off half-cocked. But the post was a call for more accountable government not to string up nonces convicted, suspected, mistaken or otherwise.
This is starting to sound like a director’s commentary, so I’ll shut up for a bit.
Operation Ore was an exercise whereby the police went through credit card records for those who had voluntarily paid to enter child pornography sites. This action, whether you actively abuse children or not, is illegal, and leads to a criminal record. Entering your credit card details is compulsary to enter the site: if you don’t type the 16 numbers from your card into the form, then no images of kiddies undressed and abused (there is no other way of getting such images). In other words, no possibility of simply clicking on a link and ending up somewhere unsavory by mistake. Intent to view the site had to be shown to enter.
Many people have come up with reasons for why their credit card details were on record. Pete Townsend, for example, cited “research”. Others have successfully used the defense their credit card was not in their possession at the time. The two New Labour ex-ministers on the Operation Ore list, obviously, did not have to come up with any defense, as their cases were D-noticed.
This man, as I understand the case, admitted his guilt, as well as accepting the caution.
He knew what he was doing was illegal and immoral when he entered the site, whatever his reasoning at the time(which we do not know and cannot comment upon).
As a teacher on the sex offenders register, I believe he should not be anywhere near children, not in a state of undress in the school changing rooms, nor within 200 yards of a school. That goes for rapists of grannies as much as those who have a prediliction towards children.
Either we are going to protect our kids, using evidence-based indicators such as previously entering an illegal child abuse website or we are going to ignore a huge problem, leaving it up to the tiny minds of Daily Mail and Sun/News of Screws readers to burn out paediatricians.
Andrew’s comparison with persecuting the Muslim community post 7/7 is bogus.
Nobody believes the Muslim community should be persecuted in retaliation for 7/7, and Justin has more than done his bit to say so.
But as someone who was near to the bombs, do you not wish that the evidence that had been forwarded to the Secret Services on Siddique Khan, flagged up by worried members of his own community, saying he was an Islamist extremist and possible threat, had been followed up?
Khan’s case, and the Operation Ore example, show evidence-based policing not the random fishing exercises, or race/creed/sexuality-profiled stop-and-searches and untargetted arrests we often see from the boys in blue.
The police deserve commending in this case, especially by those of us who often watch their actions with horror.
As for Ruth Kelly, dropping a bollock is what she apparently does best.
Does anyone want this obvious problem/dilema in the child protection system to turn into the kind of mess her collegue Margaret Hodge presided over, when leader of Islington council? The benefit of doubt she (personally, as in this case) gave to those accused of child abuse, while dismissing the evidence of abused children (and other adult witnesses and specialists) in that case was fatal.
As I understand it, and I may be wrong, nowhere in the present decision making system is anyone employed who has worked with child-abusers and/or in child protection, who can make an informed decision aboout the likelyhood of offending. This seriously need addressing and fast.
Excellent. Someone took the bait. I love a good ruck.
Either we are going to protect our kids, using evidence-based indicators such as previously entering an illegal child abuse website or we are going to ignore a huge problem, leaving it up to the tiny minds of Daily Mail and Sun/News of Screws readers to burn out paediatricians.
Either we are going to protect our tube travellers, using evidence-based indicators such as wearing a turban with intent or we are going to ignore a huge problem, leaving it up to the tiny minds of Daily Mail and Sun/News of Screws readers to beat up Sikhs.
But as someone who was near to the bombs, do you not wish that the evidence that had been forwarded to the Secret Services on Siddique Khan, flagged up by worried members of his own community, saying he was an Islamist extremist and possible threat, had been followed up?
Of course, but there is a world of difference between following up evidence by keeping people under surveillance and ruining their livelihoods because we think they might at some point in the future do something illegal that society really disapproves of. Of course Khan should have been under surveillance, but should he have been prevented from working with kids because he was a suspected potential terrorist?
The benefit of doubt she (personally, as in this case) gave to those accused of child abuse, while dismissing the evidence of abused children (and other adult witnesses and specialists) in that case was fatal.
Sure, but this comparison is bogus as well. There is no evidence that this teacher is actively abusing children. We may think he is a greater risk of doing so, but so far at least he hasn’t. Hodge ignored abuse even when evidence was presented that abuse was taking place. Kelly, for all that she is a horrible little Blairite drone, has not.
Apologies for dipping in and out of this debate, but:
“evidence-based indicators such as previously entering an illegal child abuse website”
is a slightly stronger evidence-based indicator than:
“evidence-based indicators such as wearing a turban with intent”
isn’t it? If this comparison had been with:
“evidence-based indicators such as having been previously found with explosives in your bedroom”
then you might be a bit closer to the mark.
Yes, I’m being facetious. How about:
‘evidence-based indicators such as previously entering a website glorifying acts of terrorism’
or
‘evidence-based indicators such as previously entering a website describing how to construct explosives’
which is nearer the mark, and an appropriate comparative, I think.
As a teacher on the sex offenders register, I believe he should not be anywhere near children, not in a state of undress in the school changing rooms, nor within 200 yards of a school. That goes for rapists of grannies as much as those who have a prediliction towards children.
Fair enough. But the SO Register isn’t what all this is about. He actually told the school that he was on the Register, and they appointed him anyway. That may have been insanely irresponsible on their part, but surely it was their call to make.
This government has given more and more power to the police, to the point where Blair is now openly recommending summary justice (with a right of appeal) as an alternative to the courts. For me this case is typical of that development. The guy hasn’t been found guilty of any crime - and presumably the evidence against him was fairly thin in the first place, for him to be offered a caution rather than being prosecuted. But the police have let it be known that he’s a wrong ‘un, so he loses his job - and will probably find it hard to get another.
But the police have let it be known that he’s a wrong ‘un, so he loses his job - and will probably find it hard to get another.
I’m not actually sure how the story leaked, but surely the most disturbing aspect of this affair for any professed liberal is the naming and shaming of this guy across the media? After all, even if Kelly hasn’t blacklisted him, the parents at that school aren’t exactly going to be sympathetic to the point where he’ll be able to keep his job, are they?
I was originally sympathetic to Phil’s position: as far as I can tell, this bloke hasn’t been convicted of anything, so for once Ruth Kelly may have done the right thing. Now, I’m closer to Andrew’s last comment. Ms Kelly’s intervention appears to have harmed this guy’s chances of finding work — whether he is guilty or not, and that doesn’t seem to have been her intention. Now if you perform action X in the hope of achieving outcome Y and instead effect -Y, that action should be considered a failure.
And why was Ms Kelly sticking her nose in? Ministers are supposed to make laws for others to follow: she has enough to do without getting involved in every case. Too many ministers (and this seems a fault of Blairism; I don’t recall it in previous governments) think they can deal with actual cases and right individual wrongs. Look, if the law excludes certain people from getting jobs and you consider that sufficiently bad, that means the law should be changed, which is Ms Kelly’s job, not going round examining every single instance and saying “the law worked here” and “no, I think the law was wrong here, let’s just ignore it.”
Scratch some of that; it may not have been Ms Kelly who the decision personally to clear Mr Reeve. This still seems like a job for a magistrate, not a minister.
But here’s the good news Claims that Education Secretary Ruth Kelly is about to lose her job have been rubbished by Downing Street. Could the ginger nut be ready to spend more time with god?