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.
TC

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.

Ian

Peter Parry posted
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 20:49:31 +0100, "The Todal"
wrote:

The answer is to deal with it professionally. If potential employers don't
like him, it's all too easy for him to blame it on his CRB record.

The guidance notes on staff recruitment given to school governors
around here say anyone seeking employment as a teacher with _any_
entry on an enhanced CRB disclosure mentioning allegations of
inappropriate behaviour should not be called to interview.

Extremely interesting remark. Around where? Are these guidelines
published and if so where can we see a copy?

--
Les
"God will save her, fear you not, be you the men you've been.
Get you the sons your fathers got and God will save the Queen."

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.

"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.

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:17:51 +0100, "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.

It seems to be a simple enough term to me. It means that the chance of
your being employed in a position commensurate to your abilities is
zero or near zero. Being unemployable may arouse various emotions, but
the term isn't 'emotive' in the way you mean.

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.

That's what's known as 'black and white reasoning'. There are plenty
of shades of grey in this issue if you are prepared to look for them.

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.

That's naive in the extreme: apart from attempting to persuade people
of the error of their ways (usually impractical in most cases of
serious prejudice), the only ways to prevent the harmful effects of
prejudice are (a) to keep the matter secret and (b) outlaw its
application. If you're black, obviously (a) is not possible and (b)
has to be employed, though it's difficult to be sure that it applies
in a particular case.

In this type of case, I would suggest that keeping people in the dark
is much more likely to work.

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.

Why should only the minority of highly committed people be able to
correct injustices? Isn't this what we have a judicial system for?

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 15:55:01 -0700 (PDT), Webmanager_CritEst
wrote:

On Aug 27, 11:49 pm, "The Todal" wrote:
"Webmanager_CritEst" wrote in message
...
[...]

Do you know what one has to do, every time one 'signs on' for JSA
(i.e. every fortnight, until it's every week)?

No.

No, guessed not.

Are you going to let on, and explain the relevance?

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 01:03:04 GMT, Palindrome wrote:

Alasdair wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 18:50:24 +0100, Michael Swift
wrote:

This system is so open to abuse by nasty individuals that it should be
discontinued at once, there was a phone in from a teacher who
disciplined an unruly pupil who immediately made a totally unfounded
assault complaint against him, this made it impossible for him to get
another job for several months until he found an employer with a bit of
common sense.

I am surprised that they still get people to go into the teaching
profession. It used to be relatively easy to qualify as a teacher.
Five "O" levels would get you into a teacher training college but
nowadays it's as tough as any other profession and tougher than many.
Teachers, these days, need a degree plus a year's teacher training
plus another year's probationary service to become fully qualified.
Yet all this work and dedication could go down the pan following an
unfounded allegation by a disgruntled pupil.

Well they're obviously all paedophiles.

No it does not. The pupil makes the allegation. Compelling evidence is
almost immediately to hand to prove that the allegation is unfounded.
The student gets suspended.

Only in Fairyland.

When someone does a spell in prison following a miscarriage of
justice, he usually comes away with a substantial pay-out but there
doesn't seem to be any system of compensation when a professional
person, be he teacher, policeman, social worker or whoever loses his
career on the basis of unfounded allegations.

And the reason why people are still joining the profession is that this
doesn't happen, at least as far as teaching is concerned. It is drummed
into trainee teachers how to manage students - including how to manage
individual students, when that is needed. A teacher doesn't take a
student into their office, alone, any more. No big deal.

It might be "no big deal" to the solitary wasp.

--
Dissenter

"IanAl" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:17:51 +0100, "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.

It seems to be a simple enough term to me. It means that the chance of
your being employed in a position commensurate to your abilities is
zero or near zero. Being unemployable may arouse various emotions, but
the term isn't 'emotive' in the way you mean.

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.

And many organisations are downsizing and dumbing down. A senior insurance
claims superintendant may find that most insurance companies prefer to
recruit more junior claims staff because they no longer value experience and
expertise.


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.

That's what's known as 'black and white reasoning'. There are plenty
of shades of grey in this issue if you are prepared to look for them.

It really is up to those who want to change the law, to offer their
proposals. It won't work to say that a CRB check should operate like a
driving licence, where the points are expunged automatically after a period
of time. And as for the suggestion that the spouse or partner of a sex
offender is unemployable, it really is necessary for such a person to spell
out precisely how this prejudice works and in what context they are required
to reveal the information about themselves. Is it true that a CRB check
brings up information relating to a close relative or spouse? If so, it is
legitimate to suggest that such a rule should be changed.


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.

That's naive in the extreme: apart from attempting to persuade people
of the error of their ways (usually impractical in most cases of
serious prejudice), the only ways to prevent the harmful effects of
prejudice are (a) to keep the matter secret and (b) outlaw its
application. If you're black, obviously (a) is not possible and (b)
has to be employed, though it's difficult to be sure that it applies
in a particular case.

In this type of case, I would suggest that keeping people in the dark
is much more likely to work.

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.

Why should only the minority of highly committed people be able to
correct injustices? Isn't this what we have a judicial system for?

The judges have given their decision. All that now remains is a political
initiative, if anyone wants to campaign for a change in the law and put
forward some draft legislation.

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:25:49 +0100, "The Todal"
wrote:

"Webmanager_CritEst" wrote in message
...

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.

And why not, if both parties are agreeable?

There are plenty of cases of teachers successfully marrying their
students.

--
Dissenter