Thursday, January 12, 2006

Ruthless Education is Best

Personally, I believe that Education Minister Ruth Kelly should be sacked or at the very least resign over her decision to allow known and registered sex offenders teach in our schools.

Ms Kelly has been under pressure to resign following the disclosure that Paul Reeve was given a job as a PE teacher at the Hewitt School in Norwich last month despite being cautioned for accessing banned images of children on the internet and being one of thousands of ‘respectable’ people trappedby the police operation, ‘Ore’. Yesterday, it was revealed that a further 10 adults on the sex offenders register were allowed to work with children in schools……..

I’m not going to dwell on the distant past but I have known two teachers during my own early school life, who today, would have, without doubt found themselves on the register, One in particular, led to the scandal and closure of Wellington House, a popular private school in Westgate, whose cricket field is now covered in houses.

That Mr Reeve is a PE teacher is possibly more disturbing. I was one once upon a time and one activity that has to be supervised is the boys showers, which for a paedophile sex offender must be one of the goals of his activities, would reinforce his behaviour and raise the level of risk to the children under his care, as I’m sure you might agree?

For such appalling judgement and disregard of public feelings on this matter and for what appears to be a complete lack of confidence from the teaching community, Ruth Kelly, who I really feel quite sorry for, should best apply her considerable talents and charm elsewhere.

Ed: Further reading: &


James Maskell said...

I believe that Ruth Kelly should resign. She approved Mr Reeve therefore she should show personal responsibility and step down. Her decision put young childrens lives at risk and that cannot be justified.

Anonymous said...

It is clear from the postings, the greatest threat to society is those who are willing to make blind judgements, and worse still, seek to impose them on others.

The person was not accused of accessing illegal imagery. Landslide was simply a bank robbery, and in common with the main Internet scams, the person who has been tucked up is incriminated to mitigate complaint.

Landslide was a payment system, most of the transactions were fraud, most of those that were not were entirely legitimate. It is likely in this case, that the person was charged to an illegal site, that is how the scam works, nothing new or clever there.

So, people in this blog want a minister to resign, a man's life to be ruined, and a school to lose a teacher, because someone's credit card was ripped off?

As for the SOR, I view it as a medal. To be ripped off by fraud, and worse still, convicted without a fair trial by reckless comments such as found here, and survive, is no mean achievement.

DrMoores said...

As I'm a little closer to the National Hi-tech Crime Unit than most and familiar with some of the issues, forensic and otherwise associated with Operation Ore, I suspect that in this case, we have to go with the results of our criminal justice system, which in this example succesfully trapped a great many paedophiles.

Anonymous said...

I am in agreement with the above poster on this topic.

Operation Ore was an extremely fraudulent operation and the public have been fed many lies, although that is another story and I don't think there is a place for it on this blog.

Paul Reeve, was never convicted and his reasons for accepting a caution, were probably as it was a better option than facing a biased, tabloid reading jury.

How can you assume that he is a hands on paedophile? How many people reading this have accidently downloaded an indecent image of a child, or came across one on the net and then deleted it? Does that make you a paedophile? Maybe not to yourself, but if the police came and examined your hardrive you would be straight on the Sex Offenders Register.

Lets not forget that Pete Townshend accepted a caution and was placed on the SOR for five years, even after the police found NO images on his computer.

At the moment, there is a pedo-hysteria in this country, which has widely been caused by the media.

I do not support child abuse in any way, but I think we are heading for the kind of country that Brass Eye expertly predicted a few years ago.

Anonymous said...

In response to comments about being close to HTCU, I would suggest a little too close, and a little too far away from the truth.

Comments made without due knowledge in this territory, has led to a large number of deaths and false convictions.

As for trapping paedophiles, again, a strange comment. The term refers to a state of mind, in terms of SOA 2003, it defines the majority of the population, and it is not a crime.

The law as it stands, is in direct violation of the HRA, as it explicitly declares guilt by accusation. Denying the accused the right to a fair trial by presumption of innocence, is useful for HTCU, however, whilst that law remains in use, the criminal justice system is, by definition, suspended.

I am not so far away from what the HTCUs have been up to, and the truth is not there in the mainstream media, but it is out there for those that actually want it.

Anonymous said...

What an interesting line of debate. Bottom line for Ruth Kelly is she cant have it both ways. Either she backs the criminal process and follows through with all the consequences or she must not support the processes at all. If the reason for these decisions is that the SOR and associated work is flawed then so many convictions and consequences must be undone. No Minister can cherry pick which bit of the law they support and which bit they find administrative ways around.

People fear the consequences of not having clear lines drawn against perverted behaviour; yearn for clear p[rinciples on which they can pin their lives and rest easy about difficulties around them. There can be little doubt that paedophiles do exist, in general their activities, even at a minor level are unwelcome to the rest of us, and we wish for clear lines not to be crossed around our children, percieved as at risk.

Hysteria and witch hunts we can do without. In the small village in Dorset in which I grew up, an elderly gentlemen found to have been touching up the little girls next door was arrested and then sent home to await trial. He got a sort of justice, but it was hardly measured but almost inevitable. No one knew what happened to him after that night. I recount the story without pleasure, just to underline what can happen if the authorities do not seem to act effectively.

I do not know the ins and outs of each of these stories or the alleged failures of the system. I do know personally, as we all do of those quite clearly guilty of anti social behaviour caught by Operation Ore. I also observe without pleasure the media hype, the "fiends" put away to protect our children. It's clearly in places a mess, but the crimes by definition hard to prove and harder to catch. In the week that the children taken from their homes by socal workers falsely identifying satanic abuse report their horror story we appreciate what mass hysteria can do.

In the final analysis if we err on caution to protect the innocent we will be able to live with our collective conscience. Pretending it doesn't exist, as the Catholic Church did for so long, hardly seems to work either.


Anonymous said...

I take your points on board, though they relate primarily to child abuse. On the subject of child abuse, the risk is statistically in favour of abuse at home, not by a teacher.

Operation Ore involved presentation of false information to the public via the media in relation to what were primarily victims of credit card fraud or adult surfers.

I noticed the first message linked to the pcpro article, which exposed pivotal frauds in the evidence that was used to secure pleas and convictions, evidence which is still being used in court.

The article doesn't mention that Landslide did not have a home page accessible, that is was credit card fraudsters do, they hide.

As for cp, the police had evidence that 12 sites were legal out of 5,700, yet conviction rates were at some 25 - 30%. It doesn't take a mathemetician to realise what is really going on, but you do have to ignore the British media, which is in mortal decline or under state / police control.

Anonymous said...

I do not have your seeming knowledge of detail on this issue. I acknowledge child abuse is more statistically likely in the home. However, your position rests on a difficult to understand view that child pornography and child abuse are in some way not limked, a distinction I would reject. It is pretty clear to me that tolerence of the one feeds the other.

When we have difficult criminals to tackle the krays for example, the rules get bent a bit in order to secure the main convictions. Others often walk free when turning evidence. I wonder if what you are concerned about is simply the hi tech 21st century equivalent?


Anonymous said...

Pornography, including illegal by age imagery is reverse linked. There is an abundance of empirical data and acedemic research. In one study for example, and I can quote source if needed, actual sex offenders were interviewed. There was a clear trend, sex offenders were exposed to less pornography, or where they had the same exposure, it tended to come later.

If you have a nation, were you have oppression, as in the UK, you automatically encourage sexual and violent crimes, and you will now start to see an increase in sexual and violent crimes, that is an automatic consequence.

It will be difficult perhaps for people to accept, but it is a simple, and if you really think about it, obvious fact, that those who favour censorship and rigurous control, are feeding child abuse. You just have to look at the patterns round the world, indeed, just watch the UK over next year.

Conversely, if this was a relaxed society, and sex was a comfortable topic, year on year, such crimes should automatically decline.

Anonymous said...

You mentioned the issue of difficult criminals, but you left out the most important word of all, justice.

That is a very dangerous viewpoint, and it is such views that allowed Operation Ore to survive so long. Similarly, why not arrest everyone on this board, if you do not have to obey the law and prove someone is guilty beyond doubt, in an adversarial system, there is not much point in having a trial. That is one of the reasons why so many people charged under Operation Ore pleaded guilty, they were not offered a fair trial.

The Prime Minister shares your view, why have a trial, it is difficult? Justice is difficult, injustice is easy.

If you care about justice, the issue is not whether you nail the bad guy, it is what happens to the good guy. If you cross the line, you are in my view, worse than the bad guy.

Anonymous said...

You have mentioned an emotive term, 'child pornography'. It is a very powerful term, but to use it, you should know what it means. Such imagery is regularly on tv, in the newspapers, any erotic image that is alleged to be under 18.

I sure hope you do not watch the BBC, C4, C5, read the Sun or even the Sunday Times, because if you were right about the link to the imagery and the deed, as by your own words, you are a likely abuser, and if I was a police officer, I should have the right to make the charges stick.

If I watch James Bond, and imagine it is me, do you think I would go out shooting people? Or is it the words, child and sex that confuse?

Welcome to Operation Ore.

Anonymous said...

The following communication was sent to the Service Authority of the National Crime Squad today.

Andrew Mulholland
NCS Service Authority

I am afraid I must press for conformation as to whether you have contacted the education secretary Ruth Kelly. This is an issue where there can be no prevarication and I require an answer within 24 hours.

A man's life is in danger, panic alarms have been placed in his house. You are in a position to do something about this and are therefore personally, and as an organisation, completely liable for what happens, and you do not have much time to act.

You must advise Ruth Kelly immediately, unless you wish a man to be tortured, unless you wish the law to be subverted, by the very criminal activity by Bill Hughes, Trevor Pearce, Jim Gamble and Stuart Hyde that I have submitted crime reports about.

There is no time now for you to engage a lawyer, you have to make a personal judgement, and where it is in my power, you will be held to account for that decision. You know the newspapers are full of lies, but this is not a game, this criminal enterprise is killing people and tearing up the very fabric of this nation. You have to decide personally if that is something you wish to support, and if you do, all you have to do, is do nothing.

A report came in last night, of a concerted attempt by police to pervert the course of justice in relation to an Operation Ore trial. That is what you are sponsoring. The position in law, is not ambiguous. People are dead, people are at risk, the task is now beyond procedure and playing games by misinterpretation of law. No law requires death in this nation, it is unlawful.

If you have any misunderstanding about this email, you can contact me. I think after all the time you have attempted to obstruct these complaints, you know why I am here. We are not talking section 12 of PRA 2002, we are talking about torture, life and death. I now need to know in no uncertain terms what you are doing here. If you wish to respond to this email, I require to know if you have contacted Ruth Kelly and what information you have given.

Anonymous said...

The complaints were first entered on 24/05/2005. Welcome to your country, the SOR and who decides who is dangerous. The following email went to today to the investigating authority appointed to 'process' the complaints, together with the prior email.

DS Peter Suggett

I am copying you on a further email sent to the NCS Service Authority, as this substantially applies to you also.

A man's life is at stake, you are in a position to protect him, you are required to contact Ruth Kelly, and to do nothing would constitute a criminal offence by law. You have already committed a serious criminal offence which I witnessed, in relation to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, this time it is a man's life, rather more important than any pictures.

An issue of such gravity is not one that can be ignored, if anything happens to that man's life, you will be held accountable. You are well aware, and evidentially so, that in substance my criminal allegations are valid. However, time is not a luxury everyone can afford, and I therefore require your answer and the substance of it within 24 hours.

If there is any missunderstanding at all, contact me.

Anonymous said...

I do not expect people to understand or see what is to be seen, but I do invite you to look harder and discuss.

What is really happening, what is looming and when? Who was really hit by Operation Ore, the people that could save this nation from impending peril, or a threat to children?

It is no easy task to head off something that hasn't actually happened, but it is not far away.

Pictures are not important, and if I may quote Pinter's advice; 'smash the mirrors', you don't have much time.