On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:22:51 +0100, "The Todal"
wrote:

He won't be the only one who has had such
allegations made against him, but he is the loudest complainer and the most
self-righteous.

So people fighting *allegations* should just STFU and accept what's
coming to them? If you believe this, then no wonder that British
"justice" is one giant SNAFU from beginning to end.

MM

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

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.

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

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

. 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.

I thought we had enough laws going back centuries? This "political
initiative" malarkey looks just like a get-out clause so that you can
drop the hot potato.

MM

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:07:22 GMT, Palindrome wrote:

R. Mark Clayton wrote:
"Webmanager_CritEst" wrote in message
...
On Aug 27, 6:16 pm, "R. Mark Clayton"
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
Once is unfortunate, twice careless, but three times...
Point please?

WM

Beyond reasonable doubt (should he go to prison?) it could not be proved -
poor witnesses and no corroboration.

On the balance of probabilities (should he keep his job?) the balance tips
the other way.



A jury would have decided "beyond reasonable doubt".

No one decides "balance of probability" so, if the suspicions are
recorded, even a 0.1% probability of guilt will be as effective as a 50%
(or eve 99%) one in closing off areas of vocation and employment.

In practice, teachers/lecturers practices and office spaces have all
changed to eliminate the possibility of a credible accusation. Students
with difficulties (eg identified to be likely candidates for "bad news",
those with mental problems, etc) are handled especially carefully - as
they are the most likely to make (false) complaints.

No student would ever be allowed to be alone, unobserved, with a member
of staff. Only if that happens can there be even a 0.001% probability of
guilt.

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

MM

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.

And Todal.. you have never heard of the BBC or Sky News...or the
Guardian, or the Sunday Times or the Independent? I don't do Jeremy
Kyle. 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.
TC

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.

MM

"MM" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:22:51 +0100, "The Todal"
wrote:

He won't be the only one who has had such
allegations made against him, but he is the loudest complainer and the
most
self-righteous.

So people fighting *allegations* should just STFU and accept what's
coming to them? If you believe this, then no wonder that British
"justice" is one giant SNAFU from beginning to end.

Not at all.

He put his dispute before the judge. The judge found against him. I don't
know if he is pursuing any further appeal, but such an appeal would probably
be doomed to failure. And seeking publicity from the likes of the Daily Mail
does him no good at all - it won't help to sway any future court, and it
won't impress a putative employer.

What's more, the judge was absolutely right and the judgment is a sound one.

So this is really no different from the typical usenet kook repeatedly
saying "I lost my case fifteen years ago and I want you all to read about it
and be sympathetic".

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


"Michael Swift" wrote in message
...
In article , still a novice
writes
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.

He was interviewed on Radio 2 this lunch time, justice has certainly let
him down big time.

No, it really hasn't.

He has chosen a field of work where he was always likely to face allegations
of abuse. It's not so different from a policeman who might regularly face
accusations of being violent or corrupt.

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. Maybe
he's also a bit of an arrogant ******* who hasn't been that easy to work
with, and this shines through.


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.

Sounds like half a story.

Was the teacher dismissed? Was the dismissal fair or unfair? Was the
"unfounded" complaint actually founded? Did the teacher think it was still
okay to give clips round the ear or taps on the leg?

Redolent of Establishment-speak. I expect you're proud to be
associated with such a ludicrously unfair system of "justice" in
Britain? The way you suddenly introduce the term "arrogant *******" is
just too shocking for words.

MM

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:29:25 +0100, "The Todal"
wrote:


"Peter Parry" wrote in message
.. .
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.

How is the applicant supposed to respond to that professionally?


Instead of whining that the allegations should be expunged from his record,
he should continue to apply for posts, he should insist politely that he
should be interviewed, and he should if necessary pursue legal action
against those who refuse to interview him.

I don't believe that he has tried hard to obtain fresh employment. I haven't
seen him describe, properly, the efforts he has made. All we hear from him
is that he believes the stain on his CRB record must be removed. It seems to
have become an irrational obsession for him. It is as if in his mind, his
rights must trump those of the mentally handicapped.

This is all Todal's "kicking into the long grass" solution! Out of
sight, out of mind, and the Establishment wins... AGAIN!

MM

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