To think it wrong to punish someone for their partner's criminal past

[ReallyTired]

www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/teachers-to-be-barred-for-living-with-criminals-9893209.html

Barring teachers and TAs from living with someone who has a criminal conviction is desperately unfair. If someone has no criminal record then they should not be punished by association. Such extreme rules will undermine rehabitiation of offenders as they will lead to a breakdown in relationships.

For example if a teacher has a teenage son who gets into a fight and a caution for assult then the teacher will have to either kick out her child or lose her job.

Young teachers who live in house shares are not in a position to know whether their housemates have a conviction.

YANBU on the face of it.What is the reasoning behind it?

No I don't. A while ago my Mother was being stalked, threatned and sexually harrassed by a neighbour. He was a complete weirdo and lived with a woman opposite my Mum. She was a teachers' assistant in the local school.

He would turn up to her workplace...wait for her...chat to the DC who knew him by name and sight and it was TERRIBLE to watch.

Here was this awful pervert, getting familiar with small children...and nobody could do a thing. She'd walk home with him...and stop to talk to children along the way.

He had form for sexual assault and all kinds.

By "she" I mean the TA.

I think it should be dependant on the conviction.

Alis Which convictions do you think warrant inclusion then?

Just looked properly at article and it says "for violent or sexual crimes."

Good! If your judgement is that skewed...that you'd live with a sex offender then no, you can't be a teacher.

It seems like really badly framed legislation though. It's essentially saying children over the age of 8 aren't at risk if teachers or careers live with someone with a conviction or caution, whereas 7 yos are. That doesn't make any sense to me.

The article says that this is not new for other early years and child care settings.

When did it come in? And does anyone know (the unions, maybe?) what scale of difficulty it has caused where it has already rolled out?

I imagine I won't be adding much to the debate here but I'm totally on the fence with this one.

On one hand I don't see why you should be responsible if someone else commits a crime who you live with. You can't control other people even if you think they're making stupid choices; you can reason with them but you can't make them do or not do things.

On the other hand, who people associate with reflects on their judgement. Certain positions make it necessary that you have an excellent reputation. If my childminder lived with someone convicted of a non child related crime I would still have concerns about her suitability to keep my child safe and away from crime.

I think it is an interfering and pointless piece of legislation.

well, those ones, MrsT.

Not being caught with a bit of cannabis when you were 20 style convictions.

I suppose the difficulty with this, though I am not against it, is that it is Nanny State-ish and removes a person's autonomy.

As a student teacher I have no objection to this. Especially as it only applies to those who have committed a crime of a violent or sexual nature. I think it is a safeguarding issue having a staff member whose has a connection with a violent or sexually deviant criminal could potentially put pupils at risk, while the possibility or probability or anything coming to pass could be slim to none that risk is still there and pupils need to be protected from this.

Alis exactly. I have no issue with milder crimes...shoplifting or something. But rape, sexual assault etc.

The issue is that sharing a house can be vague and extend to not only partners but siblings, friends, stepchildren and so on.

My husband got a caution for walloping someone aged 19 - he works in a role that requires a full crb and it has never been an issue.

But anyway that isn't the reason I don't like this - I don't think it has anything to do with protecting children or anything to do with teaching.

Between well...if my brother or uncle or whoever happened to live in a house which maybe I shared with my parents also was a convicted violent criminal...and I wanted to be a teacher, I'd move out.

Teachers earn enough to run a household of their own. It has something to do with teaching in that children are sent to schools to be taught by those we trust. If those we trust have bad judgement then how can we trust them?

Between a caution is not the same as being a convicted criminal.

A teacher is indeed to be trusted whilst in school. Since their personal life is just that I am extremely uncomfortable with (another) proposal about what we can/can't do with it.

We have always within reason had the freedom to set up home with and marry who we choose - suddenly that's different for teachers. Not comfortable with that at all.

Between yes...and if their judgement in life is SO skewed that they would associate with violent criminals then I don't want them teaching my children anything. Teachers are there for moral guidance as well as academic.

They are hardly going to stand up in class and announce their choice of housemate which is why I think this proposal is both silly and pointless.

You're already barred from working with children, at least in early years settings, if someone you live with is on the sex offenders register.

I've read the article but I'm not entirely clear on these points. Is it automatic disqualification or will the circumstances be taken into consideration? And what if that employee wasn't aware of the conviction?

"In each case, this would include anyone who has been cautioned for any offence of either nature".

Absurd piece of legislation. So if I had a caution for say, a drunken fight when I was at university nearly 20 years ago, I couldn't live with a teacher, TA or childcare worker?

Do teachers take home sensitive information.

It's the only reason I can think of.

I'd better move out, then!

Not particularly piper