Mr Punch
As I said on the Cameron Leadership today, Cameron’s done an excellent job of increasing the number of Shadow MPs who are consulted and reported about in opposition to the Education Bill lately.
Today, however, Nick Gibb said that the resignation of Ruth Kelly was not important. It was, he said, “not about the Punch and Judy politics of resignations, but about ensuring that children are protected” about the horrendous revelation that a man who admitted downloading paedophilia was actively and positively allowed to take up a job in a school’s physical education department.
Frankly I do not care what his involvement with children in his job is; I do not care what form of offence he was cautioned for; a man who has admitted using material that is only of interest to someone with evil feelings towards children should vehemently never be allowed to work near children.
That Ruth Kelly’s department (for which, she admits, she is ultimately responsible) authorised his employment and then cannot, within four days, confirm specific details suggests a complete lack of ability on her part. There are no excuses for scrimping on the safety of children in schools. Her resignation is of fundamental importance — all the time she remains Education Secretary children remain in danger of her inability to control events within her department and of the unnumbered sex offenders currently working in schools.
Nick Gibb should not say that her resignation is not important — it is imperative.
January 13th, 2006 at 11:24 am
It’s a case of her department giving the ‘benefit of the doubt’ to someone on the sex offenders register, rather than giving it to the children that attend the school. It seems as if this was a policy decision (and who knows how many more sex offenders have been allowed to work with children), and she is responsible for her department’s policy. She must go, although if she does, she’ll be back (just like Blunket).
January 13th, 2006 at 1:26 pm
Is benefit of the doubt not exclusively applied to the accused? It is a premise of our justice system that the benefit of the doubt always goes to the defendant, not to the prosecution. Giving the benefit of the doubt to the children is essentially another way of shifting the burden of proof onto the accused.
In this case he hasn’t admitted to anything. The police did not have enough of a case to bring a prosecution and he accepted a caution. That is not an admission of guilt, there are many reasons why he might choose to take a caution. It seems to me if we are willing to shift the burden of proof here, why not on other offences. Rape, murder, terrorism - all are particularly heinous but do not justify changing the burden of proof.
January 13th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
There is no doubt that this person is on the sex offenders register, so in effect, the defendent has already lost the benefit of doubt, especially when it comes to working as a PE teacher. The doubt lies in whether this person was a risk to the children in his care, in which case it should be the children that receive the benefit.
The principle at stake here is not whether we are changing the burden of proof, but on making a judgement about whether a sex offender is suitable for teaching in schools. It is exactly the same judgement as is made in a plethora of other situations.
January 13th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
“the defendent has already lost the benefit of doubt”
Yet he has never been found guilty of a sexual offence. How can one lose the benefit of the doubt without ever having been given it? He is on the sex offenders register simply because he accepted a caution - which is very different to admitting guilt. What kind of justice system do we have if a person can lose the benefit of the doubt without ever having been tried or convicted?
You say the judgement is about whether a sex offender should be allowed to work in a school. Given that public lewdness can constitute a sexual offence, I think that needs to be decided on a case by case basis. In this case there is no proof that any offence has been committed at all.
January 13th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
Innocence Not Proven…
My first response to the story that Ruth Kelly allowed a sexual offender to work in a school was she should be fired -from some form of cannon. However I started to feel a little less sure about this when…
January 13th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
By accepting the caution, he accepted he was guilty of the offense. If you receive a caution because you get caught carrying canabis, you are still guilty of carrying canabis. If you receive a caution because you get caught downloading child pornography, you are still guilty of downloading child pornography. An innocent man should not (and would not with a profession such as teaching) accept a caution for such an offense if he was innocent. Just because he has not been put on trial does not mean he was innocent. He pleaded guilty and that is that.
January 13th, 2006 at 6:33 pm
I truly (truly) cannot believe there’s even a debate going on….
I shake my head, Mark, sorry. As I said, I don’t care what child-related sex offence he committed (and accepted guilt for) his disgusting acts have no place in a school and especially not in a PE department.
January 14th, 2006 at 12:13 am
There are other reasons for accepting a caution, including not wanting to be tried in public. A reasonable concern given that a paediatrician was once chased down by a mob, because they confused it with being a paedophile. It does not equate to pleading guilty. If he had admitted to the offence (he denies it strenuously and is therefore not accepting guilt) then the police should have taken him to court where he would have recieved a custodial sentence. They didn’t because they did not have the evidence.
Child pornography could mean a 17 year old pretending to be an adult - it would be hard to know. His claim, that he did not intentionally download banned images, is therefore plausible. As is his wanting to avoid a public trial.