Sex offenders Register debate on Informed Consent
John Thow, 12 Jan 2006 15:59:24
"Mr Reeve had accepted a police caution for accessing an American
website with images of child pornography. But the Safeguarding Children
Unit of the DfES stated that ?after careful consideration of all the
information before her? Ms Kelly did not consider him unsuitable to teach.
Mr Reeve was given a job as a PE teacher at the Hewett School in Norwich
last month. He had informed the head and governors that he was on the
sex offenders register, but they said that they had been ?strongly
reassured? by the letter from the DfES."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1979955,00.html
I have been following the debates on Informed Consent re this topic with
interest.
It is, I think, as Manniq originally intimated, of considerable interest
here.
Most of the media furore (and indeed HMG spin in reaction) has been to
suggest that this was an unfortunate mistake "slipped through the net".
The quotation above suggests otherwise. It seems to me highly unlikely
that the DfES officials would have taken this decision (and have it OKd
by a Minister) without very good reason. i.e. the evidence against this
man was truly untenable.
It is also very odd that the man himself applied for another teaching
job, unless he had understood that being on the SOR did not
automatically disbar him. Of course, in that respect we was quite
correct and quite properly informed the school of his SOR status, who
then quite properly enquired about his List 99 status.
A few facts about Operation Ore that might be helpful:
1. The Landslide service involved was not a portal to child porn, or
even remotely a payment handler for child porn only. The US police only
identified 16 sites out of 300 which they deemed to be illegal. A UK
police assessment carried out many months after the raids, suggested
that only about half the sites were possibly 'dodgy' and that was made
on very broad assumptions based on the site name e.g. anything with
'Teen' in it. In spite of this, senior police officers and even the
quality press continue to state that all 7,000 Landslide subscribers had
signed up to child porn sites.
2. A number of men have been cautioned or even convicted on the basis of
incitement only charges i.e evidence of their subscription without any
illegal images found at all. In other cases a smattering of banners and
thumbnails were found.
3. Apart from the usual external CC thefts ( which the police were often
very careless in excluding). There is some evidence that Landslide (or
someone associated) was perpetrating insider identity theft scam :
a) Someone signs up for a legal adult site via Landslide supplying a
username, password and CC details
b) Sometime later, someone with access to the Landslide user database
signs them up to other services without their permission, including
illegal ones.
c) This is particularly damaging as the police reckon they have this
person "bang to rights". There is clear evidence of a Landslide
subscription and perhaps a password cookie on the suspects machine.
4. The police have continually stymied the attempts of independent
experts to examine the Landslide database. What are they afraid of?
Why is it of relevance here?
1. In the area of sexual crime, you can expect that the police, CPS and
media will quickly lose all sense of proportion. Society loves a deviant
(to kick around). If the violent porn bill goes through, there will be
many more, similar cases. The frightening thing is the lack of real
balance in any debate - have any public commentators suggested that
perhaps the DFES was quite correct in its assessment? One of the most
virulent posters supporting the police in the IC debate had 'Age play'
listed amongst his sexual interests. If he had subscribed to a legal
porn site and had been the victim of identity theft, would he like that
info to be relayed in open court?
2. People are all to quick to assume that looking at something equates
to a dangerous, uncontrollable desire to do that same thing in
real-life, particularly in the sexual arena. If the VP law goes through,
many people here will find themselves cast in the same mold and a number
will find themselves on the SOR, on occasions for very dubious reasons.
None of this will have advanced child protection one bit and may well
have damaged many families in the process.
Some people are critcising the Minister concerned for taking a
unilateral decision and overriding the decision of the police. Of course
this is complete nonsense. The advice will have come from her department
after looking at the evidence by a group who advise on List 99
applicability. The caution + automatic SOR will have been offered by a
police officer who may have no expertise in child protection, has been
told by his seniors (incorrectly) that everyone on Landslide was an
"internet pervert". There will have been no psychological assessment
whatsoever. Would you trust a police officer to assess your "risk to
children", particularly if he had been fed a heap of nonsense about the
evidence against you by his seniors?
"
Steve Sinnott, general secretary of the National Union of Teachers,
said: "....But to decide not to include someone without good reason who
has been included on the sex offenders register leaves children at risk.
That is unacceptable.""
http://education.independent.co.uk/news/article337906.ece
And that of course should be an issue - is there good reason for this
decision? The DfES unit clearly thought so, someone should be asking why.
All I can see is people frantically trying to keep their posts by
hunting for other 'perverts who got through a loopwhole'.
JT
John Thow, 12 Jan 2006 17:20:01
"Mr Reeve had accepted a police caution for accessing an American website with images of child pornography. But the Safeguarding Children Unit of the DfES stated that “after careful consideration of all the information before her” Ms Kelly did not consider him unsuitable to teach.
Mr Reeve was given a job as a PE teacher at the Hewett School in Norwich last month. He had informed the head and governors that he was on the sex offenders register, but they said that they had been “strongly reassured” by the letter from the DfES."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1979955,00.html
I have been following the debates on Informed Consent re this topic with interest.
It is, I think, as Manniq originally intimated, of considerable interest here.
Most of the media furore (and indeed HMG spin in reaction) has been to suggest that this was an unfortunate mistake "slipped through the net".
The quotation above suggests otherwise. It seems to me highly unlikely that the DfES officials would have taken this decision (and have it OKd by a Minister) without very good reason. i.e. the evidence against this man was truly untenable.
It is also very odd that the man himself applied for another teaching job, unless he had understood that being on the SOR did not automatically disbar him. Of course, in that respect we was quite correct and quite properly informed the school of his SOR status, who then quite properly enquired about his List 99 status.
A few facts about Operation Ore that might be helpful:
1. The Landslide service involved was not a portal to child porn, or even remotely a payment handler for child porn only. The US police only identified 16 sites out of 300 which they deemed to be illegal. A UK police assessment carried out many months after the raids, suggested that only about half the sites were possibly 'dodgy' and that was made on very broad assumptions based on the site name e.g. anything with 'Teen' in it. In spite of this, senior police officers and even the quality press continue to state that all 7,000 Landslide subscribers had signed up to child porn sites.
2. A number of men have been cautioned or even convicted on the basis of incitement only charges i.e evidence of their subscription without any illegal images found at all. In other cases a smattering of banners and thumbnails were found.
3. Apart from the usual external CC thefts ( which the police were often very careless in excluding). There is some evidence that Landslide (or someone associated) was perpetrating insider identity theft scam :
a) Someone signs up for a legal adult site via Landslide supplying a username, password and CC details
b) Sometime later, someone with access to the Landslide user database signs them up to other services without their permission, including illegal ones.
c) This is particularly damaging as the police reckon they have this person "bang to rights". There is clear evidence of a Landslide subscription and perhaps a password cookie on the suspects machine.
4. The police have continually stymied the attempts of independent experts to examine the Landslide database. What are they afraid of?
Why is it of relevance here?
1. In the area of sexual crime, you can expect that the police, CPS and media will quickly lose all sense of proportion. Society loves a deviant (to kick around). If the violent porn bill goes through, there will be many more, similar cases. The frightening thing is the lack of real balance in any debate - have any public commentators suggested that perhaps the DFES was quite correct in its assessment? One of the most virulent posters supporting the police in the IC debate had 'Age play' listed amongst his sexual interests. If he had subscribed to a legal porn site and had been the victim of identity theft, would he like that info to be relayed in open court?
2. People are all to quick to assume that looking at something equates to a dangerous, uncontrollable desire to do that same thing in real-life, particularly in the sexual arena. If the VP law goes through, many people here will find themselves cast in the same mold and a number will find themselves on the SOR, on occasions for very dubious reasons. None of this will have advanced child protection one bit and may well have damaged many families in the process.
Some people are critcising the Minister concerned for taking a unilateral decision and overriding the decision of the police. Of course this is complete nonsense. The advice will have come from her department after looking at the evidence by a group who advise on List 99 applicability. The caution + automatic SOR will have been offered by a police officer who may have no expertise in child protection, has been told by his seniors (incorrectly) that everyone on Landslide was an "internet pervert". There will have been no psychological assessment whatsoever. Would you trust a police officer to assess your "risk to children", particularly if he had been fed a heap of nonsense about the evidence against you by his seniors?
"
Steve Sinnott, general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, said: "....But to decide not to include someone without good reason who has been included on the sex offenders register leaves children at risk. That is unacceptable.""
http://education.independent.co.uk/news/article337906.ece
And that of course should be an issue - is there good reason for this decision? The DfES unit clearly thought so, someone should be asking why.
All I can see is people frantically trying to keep their posts by hunting for other 'perverts who got through a loopwhole'.
JT
demolitionred, 23 Jan 2006 06:19:03
We are currently updating the website and will be adding some discussion on this there.
Ideas for articles ion this and other topics welcomed.