On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:47:50 +0100, "The Todal"
wrote:

Again, obsessed with the desire to be alone with children.

So, having exhausted all other possible responses and lost the
argument you now turn to the "he must be a paedo!" claim. How droll.

MM

On Aug 28, 2:11*pm, MM wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:47:50 +0100, "The Todal"
wrote:

Again, obsessed with the desire to be alone with children.

So, having exhausted all other possible responses and lost the
argument you now turn to the "he must be a paedo!" claim. How droll.

MM

Do people actually know what is required to overturn a miscarriage of
justice? Step one is you have to prove your solicitor was incompetent
and then your barrister. Step two you have to apply for permission to
appeal. Step three you have to hire experts. That is assuming you are
entitled to Legal Aid. If not, then no solicitor will even look at
the case until you pay a deposit of £75K.
TC

"MM" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:36:58 +0100, "The Todal"
wrote:

I'm not at all convinced that he's trying hard enough. I think he's
stuck in the rut of what he sees as a grievous miscarriage of justice.

That could be because it IS a grievous miscarriage of justice!

MM


I'm surprised that in a *very* long thread nobody has brought out
the point that:

quote from OP
What makes John's case all the more disturbing is that all three of
his accusers suffer from autism to such a degree that they are unable
to speak.

Their allegations have been extracted using 'Facilitated
Communication' (FC), a controversial method which relies on one
individual resting his or her hand on the arm of a person with
restricted mental or physical capacity, effectively guiding them as
they communicate using a keyboard.

It is a method that is banned in countries such as the U.S., Australia
and New Zealand, after critics warned it is like using a Ouija board -
but not in the UK.

In John's case, the person helping take the statement from each of the
three men in question wasn't properly trained in FC - indeed, on one
occasion he says the 'facilitator' was the mother of an accuser.
/quote

What's this 'FC' all about? As the OP / Mail article says, this
seems to make the matter yet more disturbing.

--
DB.

MM wrote:
snip

How then are you permitted to drive your bus without a co-driver or
similar official being present?

You are about a year too late, if you are talking about County Council
transport of children/vulnerable adults..the "similar officials" are
termed "escorts". Some of the escorts aren't a lot older than the kids,
so an "incident" between a driver and an escort (who do spend a fair bit
of time on the bus alone together) is only a matter of time.

Scheduled bus services are a different matter. I suppose that it would
be possible for a driver to impress some young thing with the ride -
after all, aren't £90,000 vehicles supposed to be babe-magnets? .

The chances of joining the double-decker high club are a bit limited,
though. Waybills, schedules, CCTV, continuous vehicle tracking, big
windows, etc rather make such things difficult. Plus people would
*notice* a big bus parked up in a quiet layby with the windows steamed
up.. Still, I'm sure that the will is there, so someone will find a way.

--
Sue

wrote:
On Aug 28, 1:50 pm, MM wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:42:30 -0700 (PDT), The Real Doctor

wrote:
On 28 Aug, 03:31, wrote:
Todal
are you being intentionally thick, or do you not understand the
term 'unemployable'? I, for example, have committed no crime, but
am considered 'unemployable'. Why? Guilty by association with
someone accused. 20 year career shot to hell because of a
misrepresentation, guilt by association and false allegations.

And a plea of guilty to possessing fifty five (or was it fifty
seven?) indecent images of children, of course.

But not the woman! Since when did we hang wives and girlfriends of
alleged murderers? This "guilt by association", if the woman knew
nothing, is a form of "justice" invented by fascists.

MM

Well, at least you admit Britain is a Fascist state. Because my
occupation at times brings me into managing children on work
experience or modern apprenticeships, I am no longer suitable due to
the 'no smoke without fire' argument. And you obviously are clueless
about society... using your example, of course the extended family are
culpable in some way... not legally, but the mob thinks so 'she
should have known, she was covering for him, she must be involved in
some way' That is REALITY.

Blimey, if this is how you treat your friends...


And Todal.. you have never heard of the BBC or Sky News...or the
Guardian, or the Sunday Times or the Independent?

But I haven't seen you in or on any of those.

So you must face the unpalatable truth. You're not nearly as famous as you
believe yourself to be.

I don't do Jeremy
Kyle.

Who's he?

And you mean to tell me you didn't realise that when enhanced
CRB checks are done, they also inform on the people you live with
using the PNC... gee, I wish I could afford a trip to the LA LA land
you live in.

You're sounding increasingly like a Usenet inhabitant. You rant, you
complain, you blame others for not paying attention to what you've said in
the distant past, and your response to any reasonable request is along the
lines of, "idiot, you obviously know nothing about this topic".

Much though I'd like to be a dedicated supporter, I think I must decline
this opportunity.

"MM" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:55:30 +0100, "The Todal"
wrote:

There are lots of well-qualified people who find themselves, in their
later
years, out of a job. They may claim to be "unemployable" but that isn't an
objective assessment, it's an expression of their own pessimism. If you
are
50 and accustomed to running a team of people, it will probably be very
difficult to find an organisation ready and willing to give you a similar
job. There may be a prejudice in favour of younger people who are
perceived
as energetic and more quick to learn. There is likely to be a prejudice
in
favour of people who have risen through that company, whose skills and
abilities are known.

Blatant attempt to introduce a red herring the size of a dolphin. This
case is about false accusations of child abuse and nothing to do with
any other reason advanced by a employer, e.g. proven pilfering.

And many organisations are downsizing and dumbing down.

Another huge red herring to keep the other one company.

We'll have to disagree. Mr Pinnington is of an age when he is likely to find
it difficult to find a job anyway, but he isn't unemployable. He's saying
"Is it cos I am not CRB compliant" the way others would say "Is it cos I is
black".


The judges have given their decision

...which sucks and goes completely against the grain of "beyond
reasonable doubt". Such courts are little more than kangeroo courts.

What's a kangaroo court?

Sorry to have to say this, but I don't believe you have read the judgment.
If you have read it, you haven't concentrated well enough to understand it.
If you have understood it, but still regard it as a bad decision, then
actually you haven't understood it.

"MM" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 18:04:26 +0100, still a novice
wrote:

The Todal wrote:
Webmanager_CritEst wrote:
Presumed guilty: The loving stepfather devoted to helping autistic
youngsters now fighting to clear his name

By Natasha Courtenay-Smith

Last updated at 12:26 AM on 27th August 2008

Every second Thursday, John Pinnington follows the same, rather bleak
routine.

After breakfast, he heads to his local JobCentre, where he collects
his dole money for the week ahead.

It is a paltry sum, a mere fraction of what he used to earn when he
was the respected deputy headmaster of an Oxfordshire college for
young adults with learning difficulties.

He and his wife Rosie no longer enjoy the comforts of the lifestyle
they once led.

Instead of playing the martyr and appealing for help from Daily Wail
readers, he should behave like a professional. Apply for jobs, submit
his CV
and explain if necessary with a copy of the court judgment that he is in
fact scrupulously honest and has never abused anyone.

But he has probably got himself a reputation now as a whinger and a
troublemaker.


I cant begin to describe what a repulsive comment that is, you complete
and utter ****ing dickhead.

Yes, I tried to be a tad more polite, but answered in the same vein.
But I do totally agree with your comment.

But then again, you're also a whinger and a troublemaker. And usenet is the
last refuge of whingers and troublemakers.

wrote:
On Aug 28, 2:11 pm, MM wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:47:50 +0100, "The Todal"
wrote:

Again, obsessed with the desire to be alone with children.

So, having exhausted all other possible responses and lost the
argument you now turn to the "he must be a paedo!" claim. How droll.

MM

Do people actually know what is required to overturn a miscarriage of
justice? Step one is you have to prove your solicitor was incompetent
and then your barrister

No, it is extremely rare to have to argue that your solicitor or barrister
were "incompetent" - in fact I bet you can't find a single example of a case
that was won on appeal on that basis.


. Step two you have to apply for permission to
appeal.

Okay.

Step three you have to hire experts.

Experts in what? Are we now discussing cases like Barry George? Most
appeals are on issues of law, with no further evidence being called.

That is assuming you are
entitled to Legal Aid. If not, then no solicitor will even look at
the case until you pay a deposit of £75K.

That may have been your experience and perhaps it means that your solicitor
thought you had an utterly hopeless case. Most lawyers would charge very
much less, for the average appeal.

On Aug 28, 10:17 am, "The Todal" wrote:
wrote in message

...

Todal
are you being intentionally thick, or do you not understand the term
'unemployable'? I, for example, have committed no crime, but am
considered 'unemployable'. Why? Guilty by association with someone
accused. 20 year career shot to hell because of a misrepresentation,
guilt by association and false allegations. I'm not whinging and
neither is this guy- he is simply informing people about what the UK
society has become.

The term "unemployable" is a nonsense term, an emotive term.

Comparing yourself to Mr Pinnington is a pointless exercise. If you hope to
build a head of steam that will result in the sweeping away of the child
protection laws, you are not only wasting your time but trying to put the
country back fifty years when children could be abused with impunity.

Mr Pinnington is an ex headmaster who was at one time under suspicion of
sexually abusing mentally handicapped pupils and that fact must remain on
his record. It doesn't seem very fair on him, but he can't be the only
professional person in that position and the solution is probably for
employers to take a more sensible view of the significance of such a CRB
record.

You - since you bring it up - are apparently affected by the fact that your
husband or partner was convicted of possession of indecent images of
children. I don't see why that should make *you* unemployable at all. If it
does, then it is extremely unfair and worthy of a very public campaign. I am
not sure that you are fully committed to such a campaign since there seems
to be no website that sets out clearly what your grievance is. You have
occasionally alluded to websites that refer obliquely to Operation Ore.
That may inadvertently give the impression that you are campaigning for the
legalisation of child pornography, which can only undermine any public
sympathy for your situation. You probably need a Max Clifford to advise you.

it is an official (albeit carefully used) DWP term and affects the
nature of long-term, unemployed processes.

WM

On Aug 28, 10:25 am, "The Todal" wrote:
"Webmanager_CritEst" wrote in message

...



On Aug 27, 11:47 pm, "The Todal" wrote:
"Webmanager_CritEst" wrote in message

...

On Aug 27, 11:36 pm, "The Todal" wrote:
"Steve Walker" wrote in message

...

The Todal wrote:
Webmanager_CritEst wrote:
Presumed guilty: The loving stepfather devoted to helping autistic
youngsters now fighting to clear his name

By Natasha Courtenay-Smith

Last updated at 12:26 AM on 27th August 2008

Every second Thursday, John Pinnington follows the same, rather
bleak
routine.

After breakfast, he heads to his local JobCentre, where he
collects
his dole money for the week ahead.

It is a paltry sum, a mere fraction of what he used to earn when
he
was the respected deputy headmaster of an Oxfordshire college for
young adults with learning difficulties.

He and his wife Rosie no longer enjoy the comforts of the
lifestyle
they once led.

Instead of playing the martyr and appealing for help from Daily
Wail
readers, he should behave like a professional. Apply for jobs,
submit
his CV and explain if necessary with a copy of the court judgment
that he is in fact scrupulously honest and has never abused anyone.

But he has probably got himself a reputation now as a whinger and a
troublemaker.

I think that's rather unfair. Many employers will now avoid taking
on
such applicants, just in case, so he's potentially blacklisted for
life
without any finding of culpability against him.

So he might claim, in his crusade against reality, but the court
judgment
would greatly assist him in applying for jobs and assuring potential
employers that despite his CRB record, he is a good employee.

I'm not at all convinced that he's trying hard enough. I think he's
stuck
in
the rut of what he sees as a grievous miscarriage of justice.

If I was a frontline teacher (especially a man) I'd now be taking
care
to
avoid any complaints, with resulting detriment to the quality of
education
& care offered to pupils.

It needn't be a detriment. There shouldn't be many occasions when a
teacher
needs to be alone with a pupil for significant periods of time. Yes,
it
might be inconvenient that the personal tuition sessions have to go by
the
board, but there are always other ways of accomplishing the same
objective.

Again, totally oblivious to how effective education works.

Again, obsessed with the desire to be alone with children.

Absolutely not, I would not return to the chalkface if you paid me.

You are not implying, that I have ever been described as a threat to
minors, by anyone in authority, are you?

I have no idea - your fame hasn't yet spread far and wide. You are just a
name in a newsgroup, sometimes referred to as Nigel. If you have a
miscarriage of justice claim going on, and it's all on a website, do feel
free to give the URL but I can't guarantee that I can take the time to read
it.



I will ignore your adhom (again) and ask you, do you know what the
responsibilities and activitites of a form tutor are?

Yes, of course. Personal private sessions with each child, in the privacy of
a study with the gas fire turned up so that both tutor and pupil can disrobe
in comfort.



Are you a retired person?

No.

Now we see the mentality which is destroying trust and humanity.

WM