Dissenter wrote:
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.

I assume that you are thinking more of a university setting than a
primary school..

However, university results do depend to a very great extent on the
expressed views of the student's tutor. An impassioned plea at an exam
board can make a great deal of difference, for a start. The idea though
is that the passion should be as a result of the student's bent for
academia, not academics.

--
Sue

On Aug 28, 7:42*am, 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.

Ian

Please provide evidence of you accusation. The figure you quote is
highly inaccurate and shows a lack of knowledge. I do not hide that
my husband was forced into a guilty plea for 'making' ten 'images'- of
which only one was ever viewed and the record shows it was for 3
seconds. The other 9 were never viewed. Once the Encase report was
independently checked, it turned out that only one was a 'borderline
indecent image'. I suggest you learn the facts before you attack.
TC

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.

I have made clear that I have a website- I have also made clear that I
do not condone or support child abuse or child pornography. Indeed my
site states specifically 'We are campaigning for REAL child protection
for REAL children'. And I have been in the newspapers and on tv
stating, ' I can not think of a single child better off because of
Ore.'

And yes, I am 'unemployable'- share a home with a RSO-makes me via
association unfit to do my job.
TC

wrote in message
...
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.

I have made clear that I have a website- I have also made clear that I
do not condone or support child abuse or child pornography. Indeed my
site states specifically 'We are campaigning for REAL child protection
for REAL children'. And I have been in the newspapers and on tv
stating, ' I can not think of a single child better off because of
Ore.'

And yes, I am 'unemployable'- share a home with a RSO-makes me via
association unfit to do my job.
TC

It doesn't make you unfit do do *any* job though, does it? Or are
non-CRB-disclosure jobs beneath you?

Having paedophiles and their apologists running "justics for kids" campaigns
is like hearing that Pete Doherty has become the new spokesman for "just say
no".

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:14:53 -0700 (PDT), Webmanager_CritEst
wrote:

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

[snip]

It's cases like this that make me extremely angry. This is not
justice. It is a travesty of justice. Why doesn't the accused take his
case to the ECHR? Or flood the international press, documentary
makers, and any other people with clout with letters. I'm sure there
are many thousands of journalists and others world-wide who would be
appalled to read the details of this and similar cases. The police, of
course, are simply covering their arses and do not care one whit for
either John Pinnington or autistic children.

Another appalling, dreadful example of British "justice". I am simply
gobsmacked that there aren't tens of thousands of UK citizens
protesting in the streets against judgements like these.

MM

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:43:53 +0100, "The Todal"
wrote:

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

Fine. But he is being denied not because of that but because of false
allegations, even found as such by a judge.

MM

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 18:04:48 +0100, "Airmax"
wrote:

"Webmanager_CritEst" wrote in message
...
On Aug 27, 5:43 pm, "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.

Again, you have no idea.

WM


The rules have been introduced at the demand of the red tops, a few are
bound to suffer best he find another job where he dont need a check.

He could effectively be unemployable. I have read that "even" plumbers
and similar craftsmen have been required to be CRB checked. Bus
driver? Nope. Checkout operator? Nope. You could go through a list as
long as your arm and the answer would always be "nope".

MM

wrote:


I have made clear that I have a website- I have also made clear that I
do not condone or support child abuse or child pornography. Indeed my
site states specifically 'We are campaigning for REAL child protection
for REAL children'. And I have been in the newspapers and on tv
stating, ' I can not think of a single child better off because of
Ore.'

I don't know which is your website. I haven't seen you in the newspapers or
on TV. As far as I know, the only information I have ever seen about your
case is contained in various usenet posts which have to be read in
conjunction with each other.

I appreciate of course that there may be confidentiality issues especially
in relation to children, but I don't think you are putting your message
across very effectively. Still, if you think everyone who needs to hear you
must have watched you on TV (daytime TV?) that's up to you.


And yes, I am 'unemployable'- share a home with a RSO-makes me via
association unfit to do my job.

You haven't explained this yet. Are you saying that you have applied for
jobs which require CRB clearance and that the check will inevitably reveal
that you share a home with a registered sex offender?

"MM" wrote in message
...

Another appalling, dreadful example of British "justice". I am
simply
gobsmacked that there aren't tens of thousands of UK citizens
protesting in the streets against judgements like these.

It's probably because most people have little sympathy for people
caught like this. A 'where there's smoke there's fire' mentality.
As you say, an appalling situation when an unproven accusation is
all it takes to ruin someones life.
Mike.

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 20:11:32 +0100, "Airmax"
wrote:

Where would the stacking shelves job be then mothercare ?

Maybe, but shelf stacking in any supermarket and in many other types
of store will inevitably bring people into contact with children. I
know it's ludicrous, but this is what the arse-covering brigade will
immediately claim and nothing will divert them from it.

I know what the police will say if asked: "Well, you shouldn't cause
unfounded allegations to be made against you!"

MM