Jump to content
By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans.

Would you want this man teaching your child?


heighway

Recommended Posts

"But yet I would never, and have never, actually touched a child, or taken an indecent picture of a child, and just would not.

"It was just like another side to me. The dark side to me."

Smith says he did not equate the downloaded images with the children in his care.

"I don't see them like that because this was looking at images so withdrawn from real children that in my mind, perhaps, I was saying these were not real children," he said.

"They were not pupils I knew or anyone I knew or anything like that. These were just images."

 

What crap. How can he possibly say they weren't real kids? And downloading these images is basically colluding with the b******s who were raping/molesting the kids in the first place in so far as he was, in all probability, paying for the pics thereby rewarding the people who made them and subsidising their activities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Why does not go into adult education if he enjoys that environment so much? Like you say, there cannot be any second chances for this but fixed rules don't work in every case. What would happen if his work load increased again or he felt under pressure?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is presenting almost word perfect, textbook examples of denial and rationalisation that any reasonably intelligent and self-analytical person in his circumstances would come up with. Even the use of "a dark side" as part of the rationalisation is straight out of first year psychology textbooks. Poor effort on his part - he could at least make an effort to be more convincing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be very surprised if anyone, when given the facts of this mans history, would want him teaching their own children.

 

It is a very emotive and complex issue but the fall out from re-offending is so high for any children involved I just can't see how it is worth taking the risk. There are plenty of other people who can do the job. By viewing and downoading the images he is condoning the abuse that has taken place and cannot have the wellbeing of children in his mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anders Honoré

I think he's a risk to children. He likes looking at pictures of naked kids and you'd say he's safe to work in a school ?

 

I'm not one to get hysterical about the subject in general but there's a clear line to be drawn there.

 

He might be a risc.

 

Frankly, I don't know if he's safe to work with children. I just see a problem with considering him unsafe without direct indication that he does pose a risc.

 

The fact that he is attracted to children and has seen pictures of them is not that.

 

People exercise sexual restraint all the time. It's lazy to think that just because he's a paedophile, he doesn't.

 

the crime is already committed Anders

 

 

do you also not see that for the pictures he has downloaded to be available then kids have already been abused to which he is party

 

I can perfectly see such a crime has already been comitted, for which he has of course already been punished.

 

I just think there is quite a distance from indirectly being part of such a cycle to actively injuring a child.

 

It is a very emotive and complex issue but the fall out from re-offending is so high for any children involved I just can't see how it is worth taking the risk. There are plenty of other people who can do the job.

 

well, as the artcile points out, there are not plenty of people who can do the job actually.

 

By viewing and downoading the images he is condoning the abuse that has taken place and cannot have the wellbeing of children in his mind.

 

that is all well and logical, but it is a lot easier to reject that logic by being an indirect participant than by having to do it yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it maybe a distance Anders but it is one that is shorter than for people who do not find children sexually attractive

 

it is not a risk any parent I know would be prepared to take and while I am not saying that parents should have the automatic right of veto the rules are there for a reason

 

to suggest that he was merely indirectly involved in the abuse of children is to miss the point entirely

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

well, as the artcile points out, there are not plenty of people who can do the job actually.

that is all well and logical, but it is a lot easier to reject that logic by being an indirect participant than by having to do it yourself.

 

I know 3 teachers who are out of work. I would think there are certainly enough qualified teachers in this country to not have to employ convicted paedophiles and people convicted of the same offences as this man to teach.

 

To ask the original question again, would you want him teaching your children?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anders Honoré

I just re-read the article. Am I to understand that the real argument in it, is not whether he should be allowed back to teach hildren, but how long it should take, ie he wants three years as the limit, he is on seven?

 

 

 

To ask the original question again, would you want him teaching your children?

 

It's not that cut and dried, which is the point I am trying to make. That we can't allow the feelings of people in general to dictate the rights of people in society. First of all, I don't think that should be my right to decide if I were a parent, since I most likely won't have the qualifications to decide whether he might be a threat to my children or not.

 

Assuming, I were qualified to make such a psychological evaluation and did not find anything to suggest he would violate children apart from the extremely vague indications from liking children (that would make every guy a potential sex offender to all women) and downloading pictures off the internet (which granted is crossing a moral boundary, but nonetheless a very passive crossing) - then yes, most definitely, I would not ant him stopped from teaching children, including mine if I had them.

Edited by Anders Honoré
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anders, to follow your logic, you have to put an entire classroom of children at risk just to see if he dies actually pose a risk.

How would you feel if you found out, as a parent, that your child had been exposed to what is essentially a social experiment.

Taking it to the next step, how would you feel, as a parent, if that experiment failed and your child paid the price with their innocence?

All that is being suggested is finding alternative employment for a man who has shown himself to find children sexually attractive. Is that such an outrageous claim?

Yes, everyone's got rights - and he has the right to prove he is no longer drawn towards children in a sexual way, but in the same way you wouldn't have a lion prove his newly claimed vegetarian credentials by working on a pig farm, you don't put 30 innocent children at risk just to see if a man still has the urges he's previously demonstrated.

Surely even you must see that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anders Honoré

I know 3 teachers who are out of work. I would think there are certainly enough qualified teachers in this country to not have to employ convicted paedophiles and people convicted of the same offences as this man to teach.

 

It's a minor point, but that is hardly evidence that there are no shortage of teachers.

 

I don't know the british situation, but I do know that in Denmark there are a severe shortage of qualified teachers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming, I were qualified to make such a psychological evaluation and did not find anything to suggest he would violate children apart from the extremely vague indications from liking children (that would make every guy a potential sex offender to all women) and downloading pictures off the internet (which granted is crossing a moral boundary, but nonetheless a very passive crossing) - then yes, most definitely, I would not ant him stopped from teaching children, including mine if I had them.

 

"Liking" children?? We're talking pornographic images

"Passive crossing"?? It's aiding and funding abuse of children. How the feck is that passive?

 

It's a minor point, but that is hardly evidence that there are no shortage of teachers.

 

I don't know the british situation, but I do know that in Denmark there are a severe shortage of qualified teachers.

 

We've got a shed load that are banned over here. If everyone in Denmark takes your liberal approach to child welfare, maybe we could solve both issues at once...

Edited by Kahnee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anders Honoré

Anders, to follow your logic, you have to put an entire classroom of children at risk just to see if he dies actually pose a risk.

How would you feel if you found out, as a parent, that your child had been exposed to what is essentially a social experiment.

Taking it to the next step, how would you feel, as a parent, if that experiment failed and your child paid the price with their innocence?

All that is being suggested is finding alternative employment for a man who has shown himself to find children sexually attractive. Is that such an outrageous claim?

Yes, everyone's got rights - and he has the right to prove he is no longer drawn towards children in a sexual way, but in the same way you wouldn't have a lion prove his newly claimed vegetarian credentials by working on a pig farm, you don't put 30 innocent children at risk just to see if a man still has the urges he's previously demonstrated.

Surely even you must see that?

 

well, a lion has eaten meat all his life. He's never touched a child.

 

I am no psychologist (if there are any here, I'd love to hear their input), so I don't know how thorough a psychological evaluation can be made. That being the case, I don't know if there is any grounds for anyone to say it is an 'experiment'.

 

He's not shown any indication of violating children. Is it an 'experiment' to see if he will continue not doing so? If a psychologist found any indication that he would consider doing so, it would most certainly be an experiment to let him work with children, no doubt. But is that the case?

 

I don't think it is outrageous that he find alternative employment. It is just that the means the state goes to to ensure that has some widereaching implications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anders 'liking children' doesn't equate to 'liking women'. It's a deeply disturbed trait which drives people into nefarious, dangerous and damaging activity. I once met a senior plod who worked on child protection and some of the behaviour is exactly as DanielS described, they make it seem trivial and normal, but taking one step into that world can be difficult to get back from. Of course, I'm not making him sound like Ian Huntley, but this guy has done something very wrong, and it would be another few years of squeaky clean behaviour before I'd really consider him at all for working with children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anders Honoré

that isn't the issue there could be no teachers and that would not be the issue

 

I agree.

 

"Liking" children?? We're talking pornographic images

"Passive crossing"?? It's aiding and funding abuse of children. How the feck is that passive?

 

Do I really have to answer that? It's the very definition of passive involvement.

 

We've got a shed load that are banned over here. If everyone in Denmark takes your liberal approach to child welfare, maybe we could solve both issues at once...

 

I am not suggesting all be let loose.

 

I am more questioning the mentility such as 'would you let him watch over your children', when most people clearly aren't qualified to evaluate if he is, and as such should not be let anywhere near the decisionmaking proccess on his rights. and find myself wondering what kind of evaluation is being made (as most here in this thread I assume, I don't really know the details of this).

 

Given the potential consequences, yes

 

following that kind of logic, we should simply lock up all people who have ever demonstrated violent intent. They might kill someone. It's lazy logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anders Honoré

Anders 'liking children' doesn't equate to 'liking women'. It's a deeply disturbed trait which drives people into nefarious, dangerous and damaging activity. I once met a senior plod who worked on child protection and some of the behaviour is exactly as DanielS described, they make it seem trivial and normal, but taking one step into that world can be difficult to get back from. Of course, I'm not making him sound like Ian Huntley, but this guy has done something very wrong, and it would be another few years of squeaky clean behaviour before I'd really consider him at all for working with children.

 

I am not too familiar with the causes of paedophilia. I assumed it was a both potentially learned trait (from abuse) and innate for some.

 

Is there evidence to suggest that paedophiles neccesarily carry sociopathic or similar tendencies with them as a consequence of this trait?

 

I don't neccesarily see anything wrong with barring him for say seven years (again, I am no psychologist - I wouldn't know whether three or seven years would be required to form a satisfactory evaluation). It is more the mentality 'he likes kids - he should therefore never be near them' that I object to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the very definition of passive involvement.

 

So, its OK to look at sexual pictures of children, just as long as you weren't involved in the taking of them :blink:

 

following that kind of logic, we should simply lock up all people who have ever demonstrated violent intent. They might kill someone. It's lazy logic.

 

As Swan Red said, people who have shown tendencies of extreme violence and are deemed a threat to others tend not to be walking the street

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anders Honoré

Strikes me, you're so busy fighting for an individual's rights that you are totally forgetting the rights of a group not able to fight for themselves

 

fight for themselves? If there is an actual threat, I have no problem with him being barred.

 

I would very much object to the rights of a group 'fighting for themselves' over a perceived, but ultimately imaginary threat.

 

Do you honestly, deep down, think putting someone who finds children sexually attractive into a school is in any way a good idea? Really?

 

I don't think it is optimal.

 

On the other hand, I don't think it is that black and white either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...