Things Are Not Always Quite As They Seem

BrianH

BrianH

At the Start
Joined
May 3, 2003
Messages
6,108
Location
Banstead, Surrey
In all the furore about teachers who are on the sex register there is a case where I can understand why approval was given for the teacher to be employed. The media are not being allowed to give details "for legal reasons" so I'd better not go into detail here but I'm sure that if the decision were mine I'd allow him to teach.

A separate matter is that he served a couple of years in jail for fraud, which would lead to another discussion altogether, but as I understand the facts of his case his addition to the sex register is very different to any other.
 
I've PM'd you - I imagine that the legal restrictions apply to us and wouldn't want to put the site at risk. I'm sure that the facts will come out eventually though.
 
Can't be that much of a secret as I heard it on Radio 2 earlier. One chap is on the register because he had a scrap book of pictures of boys and he's been given permission to work in a girls school because apparently he's not a threat to them. Another was put on the register for having relations with a fifteen year old pupil who I believe he went on to eventually marry.

In my opinion, if what was on the radio is true, neither of the men should be allowed to work in a school. The first chap sees children in an inappropriate way, regardless of if it's boys or girls and I wouldn't want him teaching my children. The second chap behaved inappropriately and again, I wouldn't want him to teach my children. What if he takes a fancy to another under-age child?
 
If you're telling people something that's risky to the site, Brian, how does it being put on the site's PM function protect it? It's still using the site to promote some information which you seem to think it shouldn't be publishing, isn't it?
 
I can't believe the naivete of some people! If the story about 'Scrapbook Man' is correct, hasn't anyone heard of kiddy-fiddlers befriending girls so that they can get close to their brothers (and vice versa), FFS? As for the other case, yes, of course, Griffin - he can do exactly what you suggest, however much some people may think otherwise. He had sex with an under-age girl, who he later married. So, that makes the under-age sex okay, then. What next? It'll be okay, say, for a Turkish Muslim in this country to marry his 11 year-old cousin because that's what they do in Turkish villages? D'oh!
 
"Can't be that much of a secret as I heard it on Radio 2 earlier."
Click to expand...

(1) I am not talking about "scrapbook man", the information on whom is in the public domain, and for the life of me I can't think why anyone should think I am.

(2) krizon - the courts may issue an order to prevent publication of something but, even after nearly ten years of Mr Tony, they do not ban discussion of an issue in one to one conversations.

(3) I hope that this particular case comes out into the open soon as it shows, I believe, that legislators need to take care. Although most laws are passed ro benefit the community - and this is certainly not one of the exceptions - there is always the need for flexibility as it's possible that all encompassing legislation will lead to miscarriages of justice.
 
My point, Brian, which I'm sure hasn't escaped a brilliant mind like yours, is that you're not discussing something. You're typing something down via a website, whether it's out on the open forum or not. My question was not what Tony Blair has or hasn't banned, but what constitutes a risk for this site - something you took into account by raising a subject, and then saying you'd only provide information via a PM. But you're using a site to provide the information, not your personal e-mail address. PMs can be discussed by the recipients of your data, and then the cat could be out of the cyberbag. That's all.

OK, got your PM. Let's wait and see!
 
The press and broadcast media are forbidden, with the Data Protection act being quoted, from reporting the true facts surrounding this particular case. I'm not 100% certain whether I'd be putting Col and his site at risk by writing the case up. What I do know is that I'm not by telling an individual.

It's as simple as that.
 
Originally posted by BrianH@Jan 16 2006, 05:40 PM
A separate matter is that he served a couple of years in jail for fraud, which would lead to another discussion altogether, but as I understand the facts of his case his addition to the sex register is very different to any other.
Click to expand...
It was that that made me think you were referring to the chap mentioned on the radio as he was also convicted of fraud.
 
Not at all - it's not "broadcasting" as the law understands it. A judge can order. say, Jonatham Dimbleby or his producer, not to run an item on his programme because of the DPA but cannot forbid him to talk to his wife about it.

As I said before, things haven't gone that far.
 
Blimey, Brian, are you obfuscating or what?! The point that two of seem to be trying to make is that if anyone PMs on here, they are still using THIS SITE - not a cosy chat at home or a natter over the coffee machine in the office - to say something which is apparently sensitive enough, or libellous enough, not to appear in print form on the main forum. That it appears ON THIS SITE is the issue - not whether it's in PM format, on the Jokes section, or wherever. It's the use of the FORUM SITE that I was questioning. Strewth, it's like pulling teeth at times...
 
Anyway, the news has now been published elsewhere (and mentioned above) and the facts are that 25 years ago when he was 34 he got involved with one of his pupils who was 15. Fair enough, illegal if they had sex, which I'm sure they did. But she is the only minor that he ever had anything to do with, the affair continued after she came of age, they married and have been happily married for nineteen years and have three children. I just think that this is a bit different to the other "kiddy-fiddler" cases and can understand how some in authority thought so too.

Why you might think, Griffin, that after 23 years he should suddenly want to find another 15 year old girl, having apparently been happy with his wife for all that time I can't understand. This was not a man who liked children as such, this was a man who fell in love with someone who was under age at the time and broke the law by so doing. Their feelings fopr each other have remained for over twenty-five years. Whatever you might feel about this case, you have to agree that it is very different to all the others we have been hearing about.
 
Originally posted by BrianH@Jan 17 2006, 01:09 AM
Anyway, the news has now been published elsewhere (and mentioned above) and the facts are that 25 years ago when he was 34 he got involved with one of his pupils who was 15. Fair enough, illegal if they had sex, which I'm sure they did. But she is the only minor that he ever had anything to do with, the affair continued after she came of age, they married and have been happily married for nineteen years and have three children. I just think that this is a bit different to the other "kiddy-fiddler" cases and can understand how some in authority thought so too.

Why you might think, Griffin, that after 23 years he should suddenly want to find another 15 year old girl, having apparently been happy with his wife for all that time I can't understand. This was not a man who liked children as such, this was a man who fell in love with someone who was under age at the time and broke the law by so doing. Their feelings fopr each other have remained for over twenty-five years. Whatever you might feel about this case, you have to agree that it is very different to all the others we have been hearing about.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying you're neccessarily wrong Brian but, if the 15yo had decided after a few months that she preferred her own age group would he then be a 'kiddy fiddler'? I seem to remember you casting some pretty severe aspersions when a 27yo on here responded to a pm from a 15yo.
 
Originally posted by BrianH@Jan 17 2006, 12:09 AM
Why you might think, Griffin, that after 23 years he should suddenly want to find another 15 year old girl, having apparently been happy with his wife for all that time I can't understand. This was not a man who liked children as such, this was a man who fell in love with someone who was under age at the time and broke the law by so doing.
Click to expand...
Unless you know the man personally, how do you know that she was the only underaged girl he'd had an inappropriate relationship with either since then or previously? There can be no justification, what he did was wrong and I stand by my original claim not to want a man like that teaching my children. Just because they're still married now does not make what he did acceptable.
 
Originally posted by Honest Tom+Jan 17 2006, 09:40 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Honest Tom @ Jan 17 2006, 09:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-BrianH@Jan 17 2006, 01:09 AM
Anyway, the news has now been published elsewhere (and mentioned above) and the facts are that 25 years ago when he was 34 he got involved with one of his pupils who was 15. Fair enough, illegal if they had sex, which I'm sure they did. But she is the only minor that he ever had anything to do with, the affair continued after she came of age, they married and have been happily married for nineteen years and have three children. I just think that this is a bit different to the other "kiddy-fiddler" cases and can understand how some in authority thought so too.

Why you might think, Griffin, that after 23 years he should suddenly want to find another 15 year old girl, having apparently been happy with his wife for all that time I can't understand. This was not a man who liked children as such, this was a man who fell in love with someone who was under age at the time and broke the law by so doing. Their feelings fopr each other have remained for over twenty-five years. Whatever you might feel about this case, you have to agree that it is very different to all the others we have been hearing about.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying you're neccessarily wrong Brian but, if the 15yo had decided after a few months that she preferred her own age group would he then be a 'kiddy fiddler'? I seem to remember you casting some pretty severe aspersions when a 27yo on here responded to a pm from a 15yo. [/b][/quote]
HT, it's all if's and but's, but seeing as it didn't happen, it can hardly be asked in my opinion. I agree he did wrong, but seeing as they have been together ever since, I think it is different.
 
Originally posted by Griffin+Jan 17 2006, 09:28 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Griffin @ Jan 17 2006, 09:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-BrianH@Jan 17 2006, 12:09 AM
Why you might think, Griffin, that after 23 years he should suddenly want to find another 15 year old girl, having apparently been happy with his wife for all that time I can't understand. This was not a man who liked children as such, this was a man who fell in love with someone who was under age at the time and broke the law by so doing.
Click to expand...
Unless you know the man personally, how do you know that she was the only underaged girl he'd had an inappropriate relationship with either since then or previously? There can be no justification, what he did was wrong and I stand by my original claim not to want a man like that teaching my children. Just because they're still married now does not make what he did acceptable. [/b][/quote]
We don't have a law based on "how do you know yhey haven't committed a crime?"
 
Originally posted by BrianH+Jan 17 2006, 10:36 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BrianH @ Jan 17 2006, 10:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Griffin@Jan 17 2006, 09:28 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-BrianH
Click to expand...
@Jan 17 2006, 12:09 AM
Why you might think, Griffin, that after 23 years he should suddenly want to find another 15 year old girl, having apparently been happy with his wife for all that time I can't understand.  This was not a man who liked children as such, this was a man who fell in love with someone who was under age at the time and broke the law by so doing.
Click to expand...

Unless you know the man personally, how do you know that she was the only underaged girl he'd had an inappropriate relationship with either since then or previously? There can be no justification, what he did was wrong and I stand by my original claim not to want a man like that teaching my children. Just because they're still married now does not make what he did acceptable.
Click to expand...
We don't have a law based on "how do you know yhey haven't committed a crime?" [/b][/quote]
But he did commit a crime. It is against the law for a teacher to have a relationship with an underaged pupil. No ifs or buts, he did it.
 
I can see where both sides of the arguments are coming from, but the fact remains that as this fella once had a fancy for an under-aged girl, who is to say that he won't do again? People often tend towards a certain 'type' so it isn't entirely unreasonable to suggest that he has a predeliction for under age girls.

Additionally, to suggest that after a partnership of 23 years a man is not likely to stray is not only naïevety in the extreme, it is laughable! Is there a length of time a couple are together after which it is guaranteed that both partners will always be faithful?! People can, and will, stray whenever or wherever a situation may arise - to say that this man clearly won't be interested in any other woman/girl because he has been "happily married" for 23 years is nonsense. As is the assumption that the couple are happily married - the only people who truly know are the couple in question. They may well say their marraige is a happy one, but they are going to say that, aren't they?
 
You are a hard bunch (though from PMs those who think he was hard done by just about outnumber those with the other view).

So let's expand it - what do you think about a 17 year old boy and his 15 year old girlfriend having sex, and the boy being placed on the register? Which is exactly what happens when he is found out.
 
Back
Top